Jump to content

Menu

Recommended Posts

That's what I'm using for my 6 year old. I'm a trained scientist, and so is my mom. I remember learning about most science stuff at home before we got to it in school, because I had my mom there to answer all my questions. I'm 100% positive that it was a *good* thing to learn more earlier.

 

Kids don't know that science is supposed to be hard or weird. ;) The things you tell them will make sense, because they don't know that it is supposed to be hard. Just like math -- people who do living math and math all around the house have kids who are more comfortable with math. Same with science!

 

So yes, I love Nebel's book. I hear he's writing one for 3rd-6th grade (or is it 5th?) but it isn't out yet. I'm not sure what I'll do if we finish the K-2 book and the next one isn't out yet.

 

We also supplement it with a weekly homeschool science class for more hands-on stuff, and lots of lego building, kitchen science, cooking, museums, books, etc..

 

I like that Nebel does not just animals and body parts, but also really fundamental physics stuff. Because it really helps you understand everything else when you understand physics!

 

Thanks for writing this. We used BFSU exclusively, once a week, in K. In First (this year) we're going to be using Handbook of Nature Study for most of the year, fleshed out with living books and projects/experiments, and finish the last 12 weeks with BFSU. This way we will be using BFSU from K-2. 17 in K, 12 in First and 12 in Second. I like to have the best of both worlds -- CM Nature Studies, and BFSU -- which is compatible with CM too I believe. We use the recommended living books in conjunction with BFSU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 262
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Did you find a good resource for teaching the lab write up skills? I'd love to start on this while my kids are younger so they hit high school with the skill already developed.

__________________

 

The Illustrated Guide to Home Chemistry Experiments has a nice breakdown of what should be in a lab report, what each section covers and why you need to do one.

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0596514921?ie=UTF8&tag=homeccom-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0596514921

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's clearly not just you, based on the replies here, but I can't say I share your line of thought. Based on my own schooling, and what I know of current science education in schools, I think most programs used by homeschoolers are up to snuff.

We could say that about any number of programs. Critics do say that about SOTW, for example ~ that it's just a book which can be read in short order. And that's true. But few of us would race through it cover to cover. (Actually, even if we did, our students would still glean some good information.) Likewise, RS4K can be used (if not taught) in a jiffy, but that wouldn't be maximizing the program.

Now, see, when I looked at RS4K I thought it contained plenty of information ~ for 10 lessons, that is. And because it is only 10 lessons aimed at 4th-6th graders, I honestly don't know what else you'd expect.

 

When I mentioned easy, I was referring to easy in a home environment. I know the authors of the homeschool science books take into consideration that most of us don't have a science lab in our homes. I'm assuming Prentice Hall is a public school text, so I'm wondering if the experiments are easy to do in a home setting.

I would love to find a science text that is both parent friendly and challenging for the students. I do like RS4K - I just wish there were a little more to it. Although science is definitely one of my weak areas, it is one of my husband's passions - especially quantum physics. :tongue_smilie: So, maybe I should just let him deal with the science!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:confused: The first quote asks for meatier, the second asks for easy?

 

I'm honestly NOT try to be rude, I'm just trying to figure out what is truly wanted.

 

Based on these two quotes, I'd probably go with Rainbow Science too, as another poster mentioned, though it's hard to find things that are meaty AND easy....

 

 

Sorry - I quoted the wrong person in my above response - this post from Brindee was the one I should have quoted in my post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the REAL Science Odyssey stuff looks good

 

 

I enjoy their stuff, but I can get through a whole year of experiments in 2 months, easily. I love science, and have to pull myself up with a jerk or the whole day could go by....

 

Tonight, after we'd done every subject (including all the air experiments in REAL earth), I pulled out the frozen canning jar I'd filled with water and placed the sealing lid on and asked him why it was now above the end of the glass. After he answered me correctly, we turned it upside down and moved it over dry and then wet surfaces, discussing "meltwater". Then we read Seymore Simon's Icebergs and Glaciers book, and then....it was past bedtime. Next was a discussion on the foaming aspects of toothpaste, why quilts get warm and keep you warm, the human need for sleep (I introduced sleep stages), and why the swallows were flying thick and furious over the valley tonight (the termites are swarming).

 

Why, why, why, how, how, how. I know I'll miss them when they are gone, so I listen happily now.

 

Personally, I think the grammar age focus shouldn't be history, but science. History is very complex. I feel I am dumbing it too far down to be worthwhile, but if I didn't, it would be over his head. We do reading and map work, but for narration I have him do science, not history. You can introduce basic science without bowdlerizing it. And while I can't get him very excited about Charles the Great, I can get him focused on what happens to the balanced yard stick when you pop the balloons on one side.

Edited by kalanamak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With my younger dd (8yo) I'm doing Mr. Q Classic Life Science this year - I may supplement a bit but it's the best thing I've found so far for an elementary science spine (set up to read a chapter a week, there are two labs, worksheets and a test every 4 units). With two middle schoolers, I'm happy not to be having to pull things together this year.
Is this secular by any chance?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I think the grammar age focus shouldn't be history, but science. History is very complex. I feel I am dumbing it too far down to be worthwhile, but if I didn't, it would be over his head. We do reading and map work, but for narration I have him do science, not history. You can introduce basic science without bowdlerizing it. And while I can't get him very excited about Charles the Great, I can get him focused on what happens to the balanced yard stick when you pop the balloons on one side.
Good point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it just me, or do you sometimes wonder if science is "dumbed down" for all of us homeschool parents who have trouble understanding it? I think homeschoolers have a reputation for being really bright in the English/literature area but severely lacking in the sciences. I bought RS4K Chemistry this year thinking it would be a great program. My husband took one look at the book and said, "I could teach this whole book to ds in about a week." Granted, I was only expecting it to last 1/2 a semester, but boy that was an expensive program to be so "meatless"!! Has anyone found a science program for the middle grade that you feel is competitve with what the public schools are using?

 

An expensive program that can be done in one semester or less is a legitimate complaint. I suppose you could recoup some of the cost by reselling it.

 

I don't agree with the broader speculation, that homeschool science curricula is dumbed down. As another poster mentioned, I presumably sat through science in grades 1-7 but can't remember a single thing. Convincing kids that science is boring and just one more hoop to jump through is the real 'dumbing down'.

 

To compare with our local schools, before we began homeschooling, I seem to recall my son's ps science classes were held once a week - barring field trips, special assemblies, pro-d days, stat holidays, rehearsals for the Christmas play and the Appreciation Tea. I'm sure RS4K would have taken them a whole semester. :)

 

 

The homeschooling science curricula we've used so far has met our goals. If parents have a child with a strong interest in science and the family is serious about this field, excellent! Homeschooling is not one-size-fits-all; one of its strongest benefits is that a family can play to their strengths and interests. In that case, more curricula will probably be used, whether purchased or designed, than average.

 

My .02.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are using the new My Pals are Here science from Singapore. I don't see it mentioned much but we find it pretty rigorous and thorough. We have also used RS4K and liked it. Apologia was pretty thorough but way too wordy for us.

 

I agree. I am using Singapore Science MPH 3/4 with my 3rd grader and 5/6 with my 5th grader and I definitely feel like it is challenging and tremendously thorough. We do the textbook, activity books and accompany the chapter work with the appropriate homework pages & higher thinking skills pages workbooks. I have found it very thought-provoking and certainly far from being spoon-fed.

 

Blessings,

Angela

 

Desperate for a more open and go science, I bought these at the homeschool convention in a hurry(the baby was screaming). I haven't even looked through it well, but I'd hoped I wouldn't regret the purchase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Supply and demand. You have to decide what you want and then purchase materials that will meet your needs.

 

Decide how far you want to go at the high school level and then work backwards to choose your jr. high and elementary programs.

 

I have found that a good way to judge a rigorous high school program is to spend time with a SAT II Subject Test Prep book for that discipline. Those tests are the college-accepted "bar" for that subject. The leveler. I have no desire to homeschool college. My choice. My goal is to provide a college-ready math/science education. That is my personal choice. So I try to make sure that we are covering the material that they will need to the very best of my ability. We go beyond the curriculum as much as I can. (In my travels, I have unearthed a healthy amount of philosophy and ethics that begs discussion in mathematics and the sciences; it peppers our lives.) But we do a hefty amount of hard science around here too. I'm trying to teach to those tests; cover that material. Yup! I'll readily admit it without hesitation. I'm teaching to the test. We reach beyond as much as we can. But that's my base line. For example: our chemistry lab has grown quite a bit since last year, and we possessed a hefty amount of equipment last year. It's going to be a grand experience. :001_smile:

 

Back to our personal goals. I have a bar - where are we headed. For us it is a distinct possibilities that all of my kids might seriously be interested in a major in math or the sciences in college. Will our high school chemistry program enable the student to get a 650 on this test? A 700? A perfect 800?

 

What's your goal? What do you want to accomplish? What are you willing to set aside in order to achieve that goal. Everything has an opportunity cost. It is foolish to believe that you can explore every path infinitely. I have to give up something else in order to do everything else that I want to do. Denying that doesn't change it. Even typing this post. I forgo something else.

 

Maybe you don't care about someone else's "bar." Find your goal and then shoot your arrow and hit that bulls-eye.

 

I think we as homeschoolers enter a place of confusion when we say that we are working toward a goal that we haven't explored. Go find out what your target looks like and then put together a plan that will allow you to hit that target. Speaking in generalities about a target that I really know nothing about can be a shaky proposition. Very often I have had lengthy conversations with high school homeschooling parents where they say things like, "______ program is a great science/math/history program." When I ask them why they think it is great, both of us discover that they have just heard that it's great. Who says? Umm.... some friend, some expert... or maybe "I don't know. I've just heard that."

 

Every program has an entry point and an exit point. Find out what the program covers and take the time before you begin to see if the program lines up with your goals for the student. How far do you want to go? How far CAN you go with this child? I have found that it really is better to make an educated guess than to fail to explore the question. Find a program that meets the child's needs; that's the benefit of a personalized education. We fall into the same trap as an institutionalized school when we assume that a certain "good" program will naturally fit just because it is "good." Why? Who says? What criteria have they used to determine its "goodness?" :001_smile:

 

That's the way I have approached it for us. And our plan will certainly not be enough for some and too much for others. Makes no matter. It's a good plan for each of my kids. I have a rough notion as to why it's good for us; that's all I need. :001_smile:

 

Peace,

Janice

 

Enjoy your little people

Enjoy your journey

Edited by Janice in NJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm assuming Prentice Hall is a public school text, so I'm wondering if the experiments are easy to do in a home setting.

 

I'm using Prentice Hall Biology this year with my 10th grader and my 5th grader (who is an accelerated learner).

 

The end-of-chapter labs are NOT easy to do in a homeschool setting!

 

Some of them require items that I've never even heard of.

 

So I'm having to search on the internet for science labs that we can do at home that correspond with the chapter contents. We're also doing some hands-on work at a nature conservatory not far from our home.

 

Prentice Hall does have numerous "quick labs" throughout each chapter and I've found they're fairly easy to do at home. It's the larger experiments, shall we say, that have proven to be more complicated.

 

Another disclaimer that this is for their high school biology text - we're using the "Dragonfly book" - perhaps this wouldn't be the case for the elementary level Prentice Hall texts, which I haven't used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been an informative read; I've been taking notes for future years. Right now I'm using R.E.A.L. Science Odyssey Earth & Space and find it spot-on for my 1st grader, and easy for my 3rd grader. I have added all sorts of 'rabbit-trail' info as we go. I showed them pictures of water molecules, bonds between molecules, and surface tension after learning about water vapor/humidity. I want to expand on that since they were so interested. For my 1st grader, additional science books he reads are really more for practicing reading (easy beginning readers). My 3rd grader gets assigned science reading and is expected to retain and narrate back what he has read. I also read aloud to them together. At the beginning of the R.E.A.L. curriculum is a booklist & website list for each unit. I got all the books for unit 1 from the library - some I schedule in but most sit in book baskets for the boys to read/look at on their own. I plan to utilize the websites at the end of a lesson or the end of a unit. We only officially do science 2 days per week, but the science reading is all week long. It is a natural part of the rest of our lives, as well. Last night we stayed outside late star-gazing and talking about space, the moon, satellites, etc.

 

This topic is largely why I am piecing together many curricula this year - I wouldn't have purchased so many to do it; I just had them from previous years and found some good deals on used ones. Ring of Fire earth science by Myrna Martin takes geology in-depth. I've got an older version of it on loan from a friend and it looks fun & challenging for my boys' ages. She offers higher levels but I don't think she's done high school yet. Myrna is a scientist who writes these for use in any school setting - public, private, or hs. The site is sciencekitsforkids.com.

 

The only things I remember from my elementary science studies are the few hands-on projects we did. I learned more from growing up in the Alaskan forest living a subsistance lifestyle, which says alot for nature-based studies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry I don't have time to read all the replies, but if you think homeschool science is 'dumbed down' you obviously have not looked at BJU. BJU science texts are across the board the most challenging at grade level of anything the public or private schools are doing, and their high school courses are equal to some first year college classes.

 

I find this hard to imagine given that BJU is likely to exclude evolution completely. Am I incorrect? Because a science curriculum which fails to discuss theories of origin besides Genesis isnt a science curriculum.

 

I think the main goal of elementary and even jr High science should be generating interest and teaching basics. That isnt very hard to accomplish.

 

My main complaints are, as always, the prices of the curriculums and the creation "science."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't done any high school science yet, but for the elementary/early junior high level ~ I quite like Apologia's Young Explorers series of books. LOTS of information ~ and I know a few people have complained about the 'chatty' style, but my kids like it. It's as if the author is actually talking right to them. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course BJU science mentions evolution. It just doesn't teach it as fact. I don't hard-line the young earth material b/c I don't happen to believe it myself. But I totally disagree with your assumption that "science curriculum which fails to discuss theories of origin besides Genesis isnt a science curriculum." That's like saying that a literature course that doesn't mention Shakespeare isn't really a literature course.

 

Id be ok with the latter with the addition of the word "british" before literature.

 

Genesis isnt science, its myth and should be studied in that context. Anytime ascience text mentions genesis it immediately loses all credibility as a source. While this may pain the excessively conservative homeschool community, the fact is most top universities wouldnt consider a scientific background of "creation science" adequate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Janice's suggestion that we compare our texts to the SAT2 subject tests, I'd like to suggest that even this will not seal the deal. The students who are scoring tops on those tests probably took classes BEYOND that level. No student is going to retain everything from a class or nail concepts and begin applying them his first year through. It's when he goes to the next level and does say an AP class that he'll cement his understanding of the prior year's material and become comfortable enough with it that he'll begin to apply it to new situations. It's the same with a sport (ice skating) or anything else in life. A student going through the class is not ready to teach the class. He has to go a few levels further before he can look back on that material with ease. The top students in high school are taking significant numbers of AP level courses, so presumably the top scorers on the new tests are students who have taken well beyond that introductory level. No stats to back me up here, just common sense and a little personal experience.

 

And like Shari, I find the comment about BJU's science bizarre. Of course they teach evolution. They just don't teach it as fact. They spend quite a bit of time discussing viewpoints, nuances of approaches, etc.

 

I would also observe the teacher element in this. The best textbook will do no good without a teacher who can flesh it out and a student who has the reading comprehension to grapple with it. One thing undiscussed here has been the role of elementary and middle grade science curricula in basic skill acquisition. As with Fay's comments about writing lab reports, I would suggest that reading Huck Finn is not adequate preparation for learning to read and make connections with a strong high school text. Although I appreciate BJU's strong, sequential approach to content, my MAIN reason for using it is to develop those OTHER skills, learning how to learn through a textbook, learning how to study, etc. that she might not get through her more pleasure-driven history reading, her read-aloud Guerber, etc. If you look on the high school boards, one across the board lament in a recent what would you do differently thread was that they had no focused on increasing reading comprehension skills. Our kids all read, but reading a science text is a far cry from pleasure reading. The first time my dd read her BJU assignment and came for discussion, she had to do a double take and go back and read it again! It's definitely a skill. They're also learning simple things like how to SPELL the words. If you do the WTM's approach, you naturally hit these skills (the LA of science, the reading comprehension of science), but if that's not what you're doing, then some of these other approaches, especially ones where we just read books together and talk about it and draw pictures of frogs, could really leave skill holes, to my mind.

 

Well there, I'm sure no one is relying on drawing frogs for their junior high science, lol. That could be really cool though, if you got detailed, studied the species, and wrote paragraphs and reports about them, hmmm! So I say separate skills from content in your mind and make sure you are attaining both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Id be ok with the latter with the addition of the word "british" before literature.

 

Genesis isnt science, its myth and should be studied in that context. Anytime ascience text mentions genesis it immediately loses all credibility as a source. While this may pain the excessively conservative homeschool community, the fact is most top universities wouldnt consider a scientific background of "creation science" adequate.

 

The OP didn't seem to ask for a debate on Evolution vs. Creation or whether creation should be included in a science text. That's been done a dozen times on the board already. We're discussing "dumbing down" or over-simplifying and stripping down content as if students can't learn more. Up to this point I've found the discussion very helpful, and have bookmarked the thread. I'd hate for it to derail.

Edited by Blessedfamily
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone put together a list of science curricula and segregate them into religious viewpoint? So many names have been thrown out on this thread, I'm thinking it would be a handy to have a list!

 

Great conversation everyone! I agree, let's not get derailed on a religion discussion in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The OP didn't seem to ask for a debate on Evolution vs. Creation or whether creation should be included in a science text. That's been done a dozen times on the board already. We're discussing "dumbing down" or over-simplifying and stripping down content as if students can't learn more. Up to this point I've found the discussion very helpful, and have bookmarked the thread. I'd hate for it to derail.

 

To my mind neglecting to teach real science is pretty pertinent to the discussion. Sorry you see it as a derailing.

 

As to whether genesis is scientific...um, no. It doesnt depend on the views of the reader. The views of a scientist arent pertinent. The facts are pertinent. Scientists don't try to prove their opinions, they hypothesize and test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To my mind neglecting to teach real science is pretty pertinent to the discussion. Sorry you see it as a derailing.

 

I think that also depends on what one believes is "real science." I, and many others including actual real scientists, don't feel that macro evolution is "real science" but in fact a theory and should be taught as such. BJU teaches it as theory, because, lets face it, is has not been proven. BJU does indeed teach it though. ;)

 

Having said that, I could say so much more, but I agree that we should not derail this thread into a religious one. Because regardless of what one believes, whether it is evolution or creation, both views ARE religious in nature and both have staunch advocates who loooove to debate the topic ad nauseum. :tongue_smilie:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone put together a list of science curricula and segregate them into religious viewpoint? So many names have been thrown out on this thread, I'm thinking it would be a handy to have a list!

 

Great conversation everyone! I agree, let's not get derailed on a religion discussion in this thread.

 

 

 

 

I'm guessing the God's Design, Christian Kids Explore, Considering God's Creation, Apologia, and BJU would be Christian.

 

 

SECULAR

 

Some of the big names in textbooks would be Prentice Hall and Harcourt, and they're secular.

 

RS4K's author says the text is secular, though she supports intelligent design. Some secular hs'ers use her program.

 

Oh...I use Dr. Nebel's Building Foundations Of Scientific Understanding(BFSU), which is secular.

 

The Singapore MPH science is secular.

 

Mr. Q's CLassic Life science has been posted as secular.

 

I don't know about Oak Meadow, and I think R.E.A.L science is secular, but I'm not sure.

Edited by Blessedfamily
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone explain what they mean by the science programs not being "rigorous" or "meaty" enough?

 

Thanks!

 

Tara

 

I bought the third grade text that public schools used for dd. It was more like a third grade science dictionary. The book was divided into earth/physical/life science, and each topic was defined in a paragraph with the key points highlighted. It seemed more like a review of what you need to remember for a test. There was no depth to anything, just definitions. I sincerely hope the teacher used other books along with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry I don't have time to read all the replies, but if you think homeschool science is 'dumbed down' you obviously have not looked at BJU. BJU science texts are across the board the most challenging at grade level of anything the public or private schools are doing, and their high school courses are equal to some first year college classes.

 

You're right- I haven't looked at BJU, but you've definitely made me curious! I'll check it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

SECULAR

 

Some of the big names in textbooks would be Prentice Hall and Harcourt, and they're secular.

 

RS4K's author says the text is secular, though she supports intelligent design. Some secular hs'ers use her program.

 

Oh...I use Dr. Nebel's Building Foundations Of Scientific Understanding(BFSU), which is secular.

 

The Singapore MPH science is secular.

 

Mr. Q's CLassic Life science has been posted as secular.

 

I don't know about Oak Meadow, and I think R.E.A.L science is secular, but I'm not sure.

 

CPO Science is also secular (it is a school text, but I like the way it's laid out better than PH Explorer - much easier to read, less busyness and no random pictures of adolescents for no apparent reason).

 

Here's a link to Mr. Q - he's got Life, Physical, Earth and Chemistry. And he recently changed the font to upper and lower case (yay!) - of course, after I printed the one in all-caps out. :glare:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this secular by any chance?

 

It is secular, the guy who wrote it is a science teacher. He also teaches labs for Kansas City homeschoolers. You can download his life science for *free*. I'm using it for my youngest this year along with using some of the life science kits from Science in a Nutshell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CPO Science is also secular (it is a school text, but I like the way it's laid out better than PH Explorer - much easier to read, less busyness and no random pictures of adolescents for no apparent reason).

 

Here's a link to Mr. Q - he's got Life, Physical, Earth and Chemistry. And he recently changed the font to upper and lower case (yay!) - of course, after I printed the one in all-caps out. :glare:

 

Oh!! I saw this before, but didn't recognize the name when you mentioned it. It looks much more appealing without all the caps. ( Seemed to be shouting at me before.) :001_smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It is secular, the guy who wrote it is a science teacher. He also teaches labs for Kansas City homeschoolers. You can download his life science for *free*. I'm using it for my youngest this year along with using some of the life science kits from Science in a Nutshell.
Thanks. I went searching around the site and didn't learn much. Keep us updated as to how you like it!:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to decide what you want and then purchase materials that will meet your needs.

 

Decide how far you want to go at the high school level and then work backwards to choose your jr. high and elementary programs.

 

What's your goal? What do you want to accomplish? What are you willing to set aside in order to achieve that goal. Everything has an opportunity cost. It is foolish to believe that you can explore every path infinitely. I have to give up something else in order to do everything else that I want to do. Denying that doesn't change it.

 

I think we as homeschoolers enter a place of confusion when we say that we are working toward a goal that we haven't explored. Go find out what your target looks like and then put together a plan that will allow you to hit that target. Speaking in generalities about a target that I really know nothing about can be a shaky proposition.

 

I have found that it really is better to make an educated guess than to fail to explore the question.

 

Janice, thank you. Thank you SO MUCH for all that you contribute here. It does not go unheard. I've learned so much from you over the years. You've boosted me again today with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Janice's suggestion that we compare our texts to the SAT2 subject tests, I'd like to suggest that even this will not seal the deal. The students who are scoring tops on those tests probably took classes BEYOND that level.

 

I would also observe the teacher element in this. The best textbook will do no good without a teacher who can flesh it out and a student who has the reading comprehension to grapple with it.

 

One thing undiscussed here has been the role of elementary and middle grade science curricula in basic skill acquisition.

 

Hi Elizabeth,

 

I am going to disagree, agree, and disagree with your post.

 

But before that, I do want to make one point that I didn't see in the huge number of posts that I skimmed. BJU materials are not homeschool "market" only materials. They are used by huge numbers of private Christian schools across the country. They are "school" textbooks even if not ps textbooks.

 

In regards to SATIIs.....they are meant to be taken after a single high school class. They are not meant to show any proficiency beyond a typical high school exposure. They are meant to demonstrate the ability to take a college level course. They are not the equivalent to APs or CLEPs which are meant to demonstrate that college level course work has already been achieved. So, yes, students should be able to manage a high score without taking extra courses on the same subject and the most students take the test at the end of that single course. (though since there are variations in course materials, using a test prep book is a wise decision)

http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/sat/about/SATII.html

 

I absolutely agree that teachers are vital to student outcomes (I would guess that comes as no surprise!!)

 

I do, however, also disagree with the assumption that students need textbook exposure, vocabulary, etc to science prior to late middle school. All high school level science courses are taught on an introductory level. . Exposure during the elementary yrs might make the transition into high school classes easier, but they are in no way pre-requisites. In reality, using middle school as the transition from delight-driven, enthralling adventures in science to learning from a textbook style approach is more than adequate. Using middle school as an opportunity to hit on the major vocabulary of your typical high school science courses (life science for biology, physical science for chemistry and physics) provides a comfortable basis for transitioning to the high school courses.

 

The reality is that most sciences require math skills. Even high school biology today is not what it was back when I took high school biology.....not even when I took 3 semesters of college biology. It is very much chemistry and cell-based biology. I have actually made the decision to alter my order of teaching sciences to allow for chemistry to be taught prior to biology to accommodate the need for so much chemistry knowledge.

 

So, while a textbook approach and learning science vocabulary are in no way unworthy goals, they are also not necessarily pre-requisites nor more worthy goals than simply understanding science as investigation, study, etc. The earlier yrs offer complete freedom to cover science in whatever fashion meets the needs/desires of the individual.

 

As far as gaps.....the only ones I would worry about are the ones that occur in high school courses.

Edited by 8FillTheHeart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, Mom of 7, you rock!

 

I was trying to figure out last night how to budget $175 for a 1st grade science course by next year and wondering if it would really be worth it since it was the most expensive item on my curriculum list. Now I feel no guilt about passing it by and doing nature study instead. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks. I went searching around the site and didn't learn much. Keep us updated as to how you like it!:)

 

You can download the Life Science for free and check it out pretty easily. They are pdfs, so even if you download the entire book it only takes a few minutes. He also offers supplemental resources, broken down by chapter.

 

The lab notes that you can receive via email are just random science experiments. I have a web link for the lab notes for this month, let's see if it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so comparing BJU and Apologia for high school, are they both equally challenging, meaty, ect.? When I was in HS I always chose the "college prep" courses over the easier "Chemisty in the Community" type classes. The harder Chemistry, ect. I want my children to also. Briefly looking at the course sequence on both sites, it looks like Apologia would be nicer, because you could take your choice of fun the senior year- Marine Bio or Human Body or AP Chem or Physics. But is it HS college-prep on it's own or do you need the Advanced classes to complete it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm guessing the God's Design, Christian Kids Explore, Considering God's Creation, Apologia, and BJU would be Christian.

 

 

SECULAR

 

Some of the big names in textbooks would be Prentice Hall and Harcourt, and they're secular.

 

RS4K's author says the text is secular, though she supports intelligent design. Some secular hs'ers use her program.

 

Oh...I use Dr. Nebel's Building Foundations Of Scientific Understanding(BFSU), which is secular.

 

The Singapore MPH science is secular.

 

Mr. Q's CLassic Life science has been posted as secular.

 

I don't know about Oak Meadow, and I think R.E.A.L science is secular, but I'm not sure.

 

 

Oak Meadow is most definitely secular. I wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole if it wasn't. Ditto for the level 1 Life and Earth/Space from R.E.A.L. science. We used those a few years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry I don't have time to read all the replies, but if you think homeschool science is 'dumbed down' you obviously have not looked at BJU. BJU science texts are across the board the most challenging at grade level of anything the public or private schools are doing, and their high school courses are equal to some first year college classes.

 

I agree. I once challenged a mom who said she felt that homeschoolers lagged in science because Christians didn't teach real science to their dc to look at my BJU science. That was enough to change her mind. :D

 

We work on memorization and exploration, while following a rigorous math sequence, with no formal science curriculum; then we start junior high science in 6th grade.

 

I do agree with PP that I will not use science or math materials that are created just for the homeschool market.

Edited by angela in ohio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoy their stuff, but I can get through a whole year of experiments in 2 months, easily. I love science, and have to pull myself up with a jerk or the whole day could go by....

 

Tonight, after we'd done every subject (including all the air experiments in REAL earth), I pulled out the frozen canning jar I'd filled with water and placed the sealing lid on and asked him why it was now above the end of the glass. After he answered me correctly, we turned it upside down and moved it over dry and then wet surfaces, discussing "meltwater". Then we read Seymore Simon's Icebergs and Glaciers book, and then....it was past bedtime. Next was a discussion on the foaming aspects of toothpaste, why quilts get warm and keep you warm, the human need for sleep (I introduced sleep stages), and why the swallows were flying thick and furious over the valley tonight (the termites are swarming).

 

Why, why, why, how, how, how.

That's how my dh is! I wish I could've grown up with someone like you teaching me! I love science, I just never learned it well, because until I was in 10th grade, I had teachers that felt girls couldn't learn it as well, it seems. Not rudely, just didn't push girls to learn, and answered boys questions.... KWIM? My 1oth grade Biology teacher was GREAT! I was floored when he answered my questions, took time to explain things to me........and it was then that I realized what I'd missed out on!

 

I wish I lived close to you---I'd send my dd over to you to learn science, and I'd be there right along with her! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you find a good resource for teaching the lab write up skills? I'd love to start on this while my kids are younger so they hit high school with the skill already developed.

 

I do have some templates to start in 5th-6th grade , then they get progressively harder for 7th and 8th. PM me your email and I will send them to you, the file is to big to load:glare:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do, however, also disagree with the assumption that students need textbook exposure, vocabulary, etc to science prior to late middle school. All high school level science courses are taught on an introductory level. Exposure during the elementary yrs might make the transition into high school classes easier, but they are in no way pre-requisites. In reality, using middle school as the transition from delight-driven, enthralling adventures in science to learning from a textbook style approach is more than adequate. Using middle school as an opportunity to hit on the major vocabulary of your typical high school science courses (life science for biology, physical science for chemistry and physics) provides a comfortable basis for transitioning to the high school courses...

 

...So, while a textbook approach and learning science vocabulary are in no way unworthy goals, they are also not necessarily pre-requisites nor more worthy goals than simply understanding science as investigation, study, etc. The earlier yrs offer complete freedom to cover science in whatever fashion meets the needs/desires of the individual.

I wholeheartedly agree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Angela, are you saying you went cold turkey into the BJU Life Science in 6th grade? That's what I've been wondering about, whether doing that would overwhelm kids and whether that foundation of doing the prior years (4,5,6) was really necessary.

 

First dd went into Apologia General in 6th, with no previous formal science, and did very well. During that year, while trying to decide what to do for high school, I realized that BJU was the way to go. So she went into BJU Earth & Space for 7th, and will do Life Science and Physical Science for 8th (we school year-round, so they can usually complete an extra program every few years.)

 

My younger dd did the Earth & Space last year and is doing Life Science now as a 7th grader. (I find the 7th and 8th grade BJU pretty comparable in difficulty, so we did Earth & Space first since we were moving to the country and could now see stars regularly for the first time.)

 

When my youngest comes up, he will do Life Science in 6th. I want them to have Physical Science before high school.

 

I think whether it is overwhelming is determined by the child and the parent and their personality. We don't "do" overwhelmed. :D We just admit it's hard, laugh a little, and buckle down. Also, they had a deep love of science because it had always been a joy (nature journals, casual conversations, rock collections, books, and many field trips.) The girls were just really excited to learn more. They were happy to have so much "meat" in the program. A ridiculously expensive (and complicated!) new telescope from grandma helped, too, as does the promise of dissection and a new microscope this year. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, I want to clarify what I thought was clear from context and now see wasn't (from momof7's response to my response, if that makes any sense). I was not implying that ALL students need textbook science beforehand to succeed in high school. I was saying that I could forsee a big jolt for a student to go cold turkey from NO textbook reading into an especially challenging textbook like the BJU Life Science. I've looked at it, and I just don't see how that would be reality. The font is small, the amount of material overwhelming. I think many students who with no textbook experience would get blown away. Add a little maturity, a few years, a more interesting topic (which chem, physics, etc. would be to the interested student), and you might have a different result. But to be clear, I was specifically speaking to my question of how prepared students are to go into some of the more rigorous, very textbooky textbooks of BJU science.

 

But you know, maybe I'm all wet or out in left field. Motivated student, good reading comprehension, maybe no problem? But we've been using the BJU science a grade ahead, which adds to the complexity (younger reader, small print, blah blah).

Edited by OhElizabeth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok Angela, you asked the question I had last night and couldn't find an answer too, lol! I was wondering if a motivated 6th grader could do the Earth & Space science. I've been plotting all this out and sort of hit the same thing you did, that Physical Science should be done before high school. So question, if living in the country were not a factor, what would be the most logical way to approach the junior high BJU sequence? Are some books easier than others or do they flow a certain way logically? I thought about doing Earth Science in 6th, Physical Science in 7th, and Life Science in 8th. That would then parallel a high school sequence of physics (not using BJU's but maybe Conceptual Physics, which is reputed on the high school board to be quite good) in 9th, then Chemistry in 10th and Biology in 11th. That puts the stronger BJU courses, which feedback on the hs boards indicates can go to AP with a bit of a added material to years when the student has a bit more maturity to work that bit harder. It leaves 12th for calc-based physics and/or anatomy. Crazy? Well, that's wasn't really what I was asking. I've just been toying around with all this, liked what I had come up with, and wondered about a tentative junior high sequence to prepare for that.

 

And the WHOLE reason, the ONLY reason I've been thinking through this early is because dd has this persnickity habit of enjoying and then outgrowing the BJU science. I don't know how to put it other than that. It's great, then it's all too slow, too light. But then nothing ever matches her right. The BJU Reading isn't a great fit, but we make it work. But I'll shut up on that whole point. I can beef it up, finish what we're doing, combine lessons, etc. I have Ellen McHenry's The Elements to finish. Really, I just wanted to get a sense of where we're going in the next year or two. So if a student has explored science broadly with a diversity of materials, you think he could COMFORTABLY go into the BJU junior high sequence, no problem? I just don't know, which is why I ask. I was blown away by that Life Science book, with the small print and kicked up content. It's about 4 times more rigorous than the joke, absolute joke of a biology class I took in high school. (ps, not BJU) So I really don't know what preparation is necessary and where a broad realm of memorable exploration will do the same thing.

 

Well anyways, I've rambled enough. Tell me what you think. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Elizabeth,

 

 

The reality is that most sciences require math skills. Even high school biology today is not what it was back when I took high school biology.....not even when I took 3 semesters of college biology. It is very much chemistry and cell-based biology. I have actually made the decision to alter my order of teaching sciences to allow for chemistry to be taught prior to biology to accommodate the need for so much chemistry knowledge.

 

So, while a textbook approach and learning science vocabulary are in no way unworthy goals, they are also not necessarily pre-requisites nor more worthy goals than simply understanding science as investigation, study, etc. The earlier yrs offer complete freedom to cover science in whatever fashion meets the needs/desires of the individual.

 

As far as gaps.....the only ones I would worry about are the ones that occur in high school courses.

:iagree:You have great points, my only caution with chemistry before biology is to make sure your children have adequate math skills. My experience has been that most students who struggle with chemistry, struggle because of inadequate/poor math (algebra) skills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...