What do you want in a grammar stage science curriculum?

[Amy loves Bud]

Say, for 3-4th grade.

 

Do you prefer one topic all year? Or a mix of topics throughout the year?

How hands on for the kids? For the teacher?

How much time per week would you like it to take?

How much history of the topic would you like to see woven into it?

Are there topics that you feel are not covered well in the existing curricula for this age group?

Anything else?

 

Thanks for your input!

[Tracy]

Firstly, I do not care for the classical way of doing one topic per year. I think that all subject matters should be regularly scheduled. But at the same time, I prefer that the topics not be too random. The schedule should make some sense. I want something that challenges my child to think for himself rather than simply regurgitate what someone else has told them.

 

I want something that involves that child, but it doesn't have to be particularly hands-on. I personally hate hands-on stuff, so that part has to be very easy on the teacher end of things.

 

I only want to do science 1x per week, unless my child is particularly ambitious about science.

 

I think having some history is a nice touch but not necessary until the logic stage. In the grammar stage, they are more interested in and capable of understanding what is immediately relevant to them--what they can see, hear, touch, taste, smell, experience.

[MrsMe]

Say, for 3-4th grade.

 

Do you prefer one topic all year? Or a mix of topics throughout the year?

How hands on for the kids? For the teacher?

How much time per week would you like it to take?

How much history of the topic would you like to see woven into it?

Are there topics that you feel are not covered well in the existing curricula for this age group?

Anything else?

 

Thanks for your input!

 

At that age, I like a mix of topics. I can't imagine, unless your child is a guru on the subject that a child that young would want to do one topic all year. Me either. I feel like I'm kicking a dead horse. Now having said that, I use Apologia, but sometimes we switch between lessons to something else, then pick it back up again.

 

I don't care personally whether history is woven in. Sometimes you just have to go and have fun and it doesn't need to tie in to everything. And what if you hate the history topic at the time. Then everything is what you dislike! Either way though, I'm somewhat neutral on that.

 

Having said that, I like Apologia, but it's way too technical for the age. I also do HOD Preparing, but I find that science a little too light. We really enjoyed BJU Science 3. DD really wanted to go back to that, but I wanted to try Apologia human body. Apologia can be very cumbersome and time-consuming at times. BJU has a variety and goes by Chapter. I really like that. It's easy to have a living book attached to it, but then I have issues with getting past worksheets.

[Kuovonne]

Say, for 3-4th grade.

 

Are you planning on writing a science curriculum?

 

Do you prefer one topic all year? Or a mix of topics throughout the year?

 

I prefer a mix of topics. Biology, chemistry, physics, earth/space, etc. It's all inter-related. I'd like a recommended path through the topics, but also have the ability to jump from one topic to another. (I'm thinking how the Miquon Math books let you jump from topic to topic, but you can still progress through it sequentially.)

 

How hands on for the kids? For the teacher?

 

I don't like hands on for the grammar stage. Too often the actual point of the activity is lost on the kids. In SWB's science handout, she says "don’t do lots of experiments: at this age, it is frustrating."

 

If there is hands-on, I'd like a clear separation from creating models, doing demonstrations, practice in experimental procedure, and true experiments. While all of these activities can be "hands-on," I don't like it when things like building a diaorama or conducting a demonstration with a known result are called "experiments." It's just a pet peeve of mine.

 

How much time per week would you like it to take?

 

I'd like it to be no more than 30 minutes once or twice a week of reading/seatwork/discussion. Learning to observe carefully would be spread out across the week as part of a science rich lifestyle (rather like what the BraveWriter lifestyle is for language arts).

 

How much history of the topic would you like to see woven into it?

 

I'd like to see a bit of the history woven in. Most especially, I'd like the text to show that our knowledge has evolved and changed over time. (E.g. People once thought heavier things fall faster; Galileo proved that they don't. People once thought there were two kingdoms of living things; then we discovered other organisisms and now there are 5 or 6 kingdoms. People once thought there were only a handful of planets, then they kept discovering more, and then Pluto stopped being a planet.)

 

I'd like the history to illustrate that (a) our knowledge of the world is constantly being refined and we still don't know everything, and (b) we have gotten better and better at measuring and observing the world.

 

Are there topics that you feel are not covered well in the existing curricula for this age group?

 

 

Anything else?

 

I want one book written to the student (a worktext, like Math Mammoth). (By 3rd grade, I'd expect the student to read well enough on his or her own for this to be feasible.) I don't want to have to buy or borrow a bunch of go-along books and flip from book to book.

 

I also want something that stays out of the old earth / young earth debate.

 

While I don't care if there are tests, I would want worksheets or other activities where the student has to demonstrate knowledge of the most important concepts; and not just get to narrate whatever he or she happens to remember.

 

 

Whew. Anyone know of anything close?

Edited October 16, 2010 by Kuovonne

[Pata]

Lot's of interesting ideas already, Amy hope you get lots of feedback :).

 

In SWB's science handout, she says "don’t do lots of experiments: at this age, it is frustrating."

 

Just wanted to address this, if you listen to the lecture she talks about asking for the student to predict what's going to happen (ie. give a hypothesis) to be frustrating part of experimentation. She suggests that you do hands on experiments (a la Janice VanCleave's books), but that you have the student observe what is done and learn from it, instead of doing a full blown scientific method style science experiment. In fact she suggests that chemistry and physics be introduced mainly through experimentation in the grammar stage :). I highly recommend the lecture, very good stuff in there!

Edited October 16, 2010 by Pata

[nova mama]

Do you prefer one topic all year? Or a mix of topics throughout the year?

 

 

I like the WTM approach to science, which actually gives you several topics to study each year. Year 2, for example, includes geology, soil science, oceanography, and meterology.

 

How much history of the topic would you like to see woven into it?

 

 

Personally, I get so excited when subjects collide :D. For example, reading about Galieo during history then studying his discoveries during science.

 

How hands on for the kids? For the teacher?

I think seeing and doing helps children learn, as long as the activities aren't too complicated and don't take too long. I may not do all the activities in the curriculum, but it's nice to have them there to choose from.