Any scientists on the boards? How do you teach it?

[Jayne J]

Just wondering how a professional would teach science. I keep waffling back and forth between an inquiry-based, BFSU type approach (a little intimidating, but I think it may "hook" my kids on science better) or my current WTM type approach, wherein I teach science by subject and year (biology-1st, earth science 2nd, etc.) which is comfortingly organized and "plannable", but may turn science into "a thing to be learned" instead of a way of learning.

So? How do you do it? How important, in your opinion, is methodical coverage of each area versus a delight and inquiry led process that may not cover all the bases?

Edited March 22, 2010 by urpedonmommy

[Guest]

My husband is a chemical oceanographer, and I've heard his colleagues discuss education endlessly over the years. They all seem to agree that an informal program of close observation and play-based discovery when kids are very young is ideal. As kids get older, they add that they need lots of field or lab experience they aren't getting through the usual school programs. If you read books -- a few have been published recently -- about how scientists got into their field, many will also emphasize the importance of non-structured, non-guided freedom to explore and experiment with everything from Legos to quite scary experiments with chemicals and flame (I personally could not go quite this far). But the main point is that a too closely structured and pre-set curriculum by itself does not do a good job of fostering the main characteristics of a scientist.

 

In the middle elementary years my husband occasionally did casual things like take my daughter to the park, get both of them swinging, and time the period of their swing cycles -- did their weights matter? If they shortened the chains what would happen? Or he would melt an ice cube made from dyed water, one in a glass of cold plain water and one in hot. They observed and drew pictures every ten minutes and talked about what they had seen. He made data charts and graphs for everything, because for him, science is using math to understand and predict phenomena of all kinds.

 

I got my husband to review various science curricula, and he and I both liked GEMS from the Lawrence Hall of Science best; it's discovery and exploratory-based, but includes data collecting, guided questions, discussions and re-enactments of what scientists do, deeply engaging activities, fiction and non-fiction book suggestions, and on occasion, controlled experiments, often of the child's design. It also encourages kids to come up with their own questions about what they see, and figure out how they could plan to find the answers. The downside: long material-gathering stage for many of the units. Otherwise, I am so happy we used them!

 

I can hardly wait to read about what other people do.

[cmarango]

I keep waffling back and forth between an inquiry-based, BFSU type approach (a little intimidating, but I think it may "hook" my kids on science better) or my current WTM type approach, wherein I teach science by subject and year (biology-1st, earth science 2nd, etc.) which is comfortingly organized and "plannable", but may turn science into "a thing to be learned" instead of a way of learning.

 

 

I don't see these methods as being mutually exclusive and I would suggest combining the two. Especially in the early years, dividing the sciences up by Bio, Earth and Space, Chem, and Physics is rather easy to do, but add in the inquiry based approach. In the later years, I think that it is best to understand how the sciences all intermingle.

 

IMHO, doing science is learning how to ask questions, give a logical prediction, test that prediction, analyze results, and then decide where to go from there if you are still interested in that topic.

 

Ex: You are studying birds. Why do birds have the type of beak that they do (looking at adaptations)?

 

This does not mean that you need to do an experiment for each topic - a guided discussion may be the best fit. Anyhow, I just have a little one right now and we shall see how my grand plans play out.

[Colleen in NS]

my current WTM type approach, wherein I teach science by subject and year (biology-1st, earth science 2nd, etc.) which is comfortingly organized and "plannable", but may turn science into "a thing to be learned" instead of a way of learning.

 

My interpretation is that the WTM approach *is* a way of learning. It's just an organized way of learning (one science per year, read and write, observe, experiment). All the years are for exploring and reading, but grammar years are for learning to observe closely, and logic years are for learning to use the scientific method with experiments, and rhetoric years are for using the method and reading/writing in order to form opinions on scientific matters.

 

I'd recommend listening to SWB's science lecture, linked in my signature.

[myfunnybunch]

How important, in your opinion, is methodical coverage of each area versus a delight and inquiry led process that may not cover all the bases?

 

I'm not a scientist, but I play one in school. ;) We do love our science.

 

I firmly believe that methodical coverage and an inquiry/curiousity-led process are not mutually exclusive. (Just as rigorous education and child-led learning are not mutually exclusive.)

 

We spent twice as long as I'd planned studying the animal kingdom because it was so much fun. We intended to finish our study of the human body within 6 weeks, but we're having so much fun fingerprinting ourselves and looking at our skin cells under the microscope, and the boys want to make a full-sized poster of the human body's major systems, so I doubt we'll make it.

 

My point isn't "Hey, we're so great," (Even though we are. ;) Heh.). It's that we have method and madness. I choose the topic: Biology, for example, the animal kingdom. We do a lot of reading and a lot of exploration, some structured/guided and some child-led. And if the kids want to take some time to go off on another tangent, like learning about the moon when we're supposed to be covering bugs, we do both.

 

Cat

[Jayne J]

My interpretation is that the WTM approach *is* a way of learning. It's just an organized way of learning (one science per year, read and write, observe, experiment). All the years are for exploring and reading, but grammar years are for learning to observe closely, and logic years are for learning to use the scientific method with experiments, and rhetoric years are for using the method and reading/writing in order to form opinions on scientific matters.

 

I'd recommend listening to SWB's science lecture, linked in my signature.

 

 

Thanks for the link! I agree, that the WTM approach is a way of learning--I phrased it badly. I am afraid that I tend to get rigid about things, and I have found that this year, while following the WTM structure, I would worry about getting through the material instead of letting my dc follow their interests. I found myself worrying that we would get off schedule and rushing through material, just to get it done. I wonder if that way of doing science is problematic, and more apt to produce adults who think of science as a list of things that must be memorized and learned, instead of a process. I wonder if turning to a more process/inquiry/discovery based mind set, both for me and the children might foster more creative scientific thinkers.

[Guest]

Believe me, I am proof that it's possible to have the same rigid mindset and frantic urge to rush to the finish with inquiry-based science! It took me some time to loosen up and realize that the process was the whole point, the sidetracking was just as valuable as the main project, and that kids often need to repeat something they did perfectly well over and over before it sinks in and is available in their minds to be hooked up to other things. It was easier for me, however, to eventually come to that realization with inquiry-based science vs. a more structured, reading and writing-based plan.

[Jayne J]

Believe me, I am proof that it's possible to have the same rigid mindset and frantic urge to rush to the finish with inquiry-based science! It took me some time to loosen up and realize that the process was the whole point, the sidetracking was just as valuable as the main project, and that kids often need to repeat something they did perfectly well over and over before it sinks in and is available in their minds to be hooked up to other things. It was easier for me, however, to eventually come to that realization with inquiry-based science vs. a more structured, reading and writing-based plan.

 

 

LOL! I hear you on that! I have more than twice as many science resources as any other subject for next year, and I find myself frantically trying to synch everything up, scheduling topics and stressing over picking the *very best* experiments from the 6 experiment books I have. I find I am already making myself crazy over next year's lessons. I wonder what would happen if I just set all the books out and said, "Gee kids, what looks good?"

[myfunnybunch]

I wonder what would happen if I just set all the books out and said, "Gee kids, what looks good?"

 

Yes! Do this.

 

(And maybe choose a few experiments/explorations of your own to make sure you hit the highlights you want to cover.)

 

Depth of resources is such a double-edged sword. So many great choices :001_smile: and...so many great choices! :svengo:

 

Of course, if you try this, you run the risk of all of your carefully laid plans getting blown to smithereens. We may have to finish our formal science study during the summer because we're supposed to be studying plants by now, and we've only just started the human body. I expected at some point we'd run into something the boys weren't interested in exploring in depth, but it hasn't happened. (What a problem to have, right?)

 

Cat

[Perry]

My dh and I are so science oriented that inquiry has just always been incorporated into everything we do. We question everything. We talk about how we know what we know, and how would we would figure something out if we wanted to know it. We discuss how we we would design an experiment, and what the results would, and would not, tell us.

 

Have you ever listened to John Tesh on the radio? He's constantly talking about "studies" that have shown one thing or another. His conclusions are often erroneous, and we study those (and other media science "reporting") as examples.

 

As far as content, we just read tons of science-y books when they were little, and did lots of nature studies.

 

They're all pretty good scientific thinkers.

Edited March 23, 2010 by Perry

[cmarango]

Have you ever listened to John Tesh on the radio? He's constantly talking about "studies" that have shown one thing or another. His conclusions are often erroneous, and we study those (and other media science "reporting") as examples.

 

 

 

What gets me laughing is when some scientific study is quoted where the results were considered significant when there was only a 10% difference (or some other small amount). In my field of study, if you did not see greater than 2X change, then that is considered to be biological heterogeneity and therefore insignificant.

[Rosie_0801]

Besides, any cool kits or books left over from school can be put in their Christmas stockings as toys, right?

 

;)

Rosie

[Colleen in NS]

I am afraid that I tend to get rigid about things, and I have found that this year, while following the WTM structure, I would worry about getting through the material instead of letting my dc follow their interests. I found myself worrying that we would get off schedule and rushing through material, just to get it done.

 

I know, I've BTDT. :D

 

I wonder if that way of doing science is problematic, and more apt to produce adults who think of science as a list of things that must be memorized and learned, instead of a process. I wonder if turning to a more process/inquiry/discovery based mind set, both for me and the children might foster more creative scientific thinkers.

 

I agree with you on both points. Nothing wrong with memorizing some framework-type things (like types of stars, or types of galaxies...), but memorizing specific info. on a myriad of subjects - yuck! Too much for right now.

 

LOL! I hear you on that! I have more than twice as many science resources as any other subject for next year, and I find myself frantically trying to synch everything up, scheduling topics and stressing over picking the *very best* experiments from the 6 experiment books I have. I find I am already making myself crazy over next year's lessons. I wonder what would happen if I just set all the books out and said, "Gee kids, what looks good?"

 

BTDT on the synching thing, too. I think you should just set out the books and let them go crazy. :D I'm doing that - still doing one science per year, and have *one* basic spine for this, but let my kids choose experiments, as they read through the spine and any supplemental books they like that I find at the library. I also let them write about whatever topics they choose. They are learning to think. And I occasionally show my older one how to compare science writings - some authors write as if something is proven fact even if it's not, other authors will write "Some believe that...." It's interesting.

[Jayne J]

Done and done. You all have resolved my science issues for next year--lay it out and let them at it.

 

 

 

Breathe in. Breathe out. When the panic attacks hit, I'll just breathe...:D

[lea1]

This is an excellent question and I am :bigear: for responses.

 

When I was growing up, I lived in a very small town (approx. 900 people) and attended a very small school (around 43ish in our graduating class). Sports were important but science was a joke. Every science course I took in high school was just book study, boring, dry discussions and fill-in-the-blank type homework and tests....and they were taught by coaches.

 

I am looking forward to retaking science with my sons and making it fun and interesting...and scientific. :001_smile: