Science issues: Hands-on or Narration or both?

[FairProspects]

I'm having science issues with ds. He says science at home is boring (well he was nicer but that was the jist) because all we do is talk about science, and in his science class they have scales and water and experiments (which typically makes him so excited that he has behavior problems controlling himself, but that is beside the point).

 

We actually do experiments at home, generally once a week or so, but it is usually a pretty controlled experiment. Then we also read a book about the topic that week and narrate it. I was planning on doing science the WTM way, which is pretty language focused, so it makes sense that narration & reading would be a part of it. What I'm starting to wonder though, is if this is the best approach for science with an extremely mechanical kid who thinks in math and just wants to get in there and mess around with stuff.

 

How language focused should science be? Should narration/reading be a part of it even early on? Would it be just as effective to get a kit and mess around with it at this age? I think he is trying to tell me something about the way he learns, but what? FWIW, he seems to do narration in history and grammar without nearly the same complaints.

[cmarango]

I asked a similar question recently and I don't really have an answer yet. To me, science is mostly about the process of questioning, exploring, observing, and questioning some more. Are narrations essential for science? I have no idea, but I think that they do take a backseat to the scientific method.

[Dmmetler]

I handle this by having my daughter do a hands-on science class, and then getting books and following up at home. Sometimes it's more reading, sometimes it's hands-on, but since she does the hands-on first, it doesn't seem to bother her as much if the topic is one which doesn't lend itself as much to home experimentation.

[dirty ethel rackham]

My philosophy about science for elementary aged kids is that it should be about wonder and discovery and helping them fall in love with science. So, while we read books, my focus was always on making sure we had lots of hands-on. Narrations were usually more discussions about science, not formal narrations. Since my boys hated writing (and hated narrating because they had so much more to say than their skill to organize it), we saved that for other stuff. I didn't want to ruin their love of science with lots of seat work. My daughter is another story. She loves to write, so she takes notes from her books and makes notebook pages of what she reads.

 

For all of my kids, I have organized science clubs where we get together with other families to do the hands-on. (After the 3rd child was born, I found I didn't always have the energy to put together the science activities.) In junior high, I do make them write more. In high school, we are much more rigorous about documenting our experiments.

[FairProspects]

My philosophy about science for elementary aged kids is that it should be about wonder and discovery and helping them fall in love with science. So, while we read books, my focus was always on making sure we had lots of hands-on. Narrations were usually more discussions about science, not formal narrations. Since my boys hated writing (and hated narrating because they had so much more to say than their skill to organize it), we saved that for other stuff. I didn't want to ruin their love of science with lots of seat work.

 

I think this is how I'm leaning too. I might need to make some science adjustments after the New Year. Any other thoughts on science education?

[Ariston]

I highly recomend "Building Foundations of Scientific Understanding." In addition to being a curriculum and outline of topics to cover, the author also has some great sections about how to go about science education in general. He makes a good argument that neither drilling for facts nor exclusively hands on activities are effective methods of encouraging scientific understanding. It seems like he has really thought through the little steps that kids need to make in their thinking for true understanding to occur. The curriculum promotes inquiry and thinking (rather than learning facts), which I think is very important. (I hope that isn't sacrilegious to say that on this forum :tongue_smilie:!!)

 

He also is very active on the yahoo group devoted to his book, and answers questions that parents have which is a great resource as well. I know the book's a little pricey, but it is well worth it in my opinion. I looked for a long time for something for science since I love science myself. The book I have (which I linked above) is K-2. It has 41 lessons in it which can be done in greater or lesser depth, so I plan on going through them all with my 6 year old, and then going through them again as he gets older but in greater depth. He recently came out with a book for older elementary too, I think 3rd through 5th?

[thowell]

Are there any evolution issues in this?

[Ariston]

Are there any evolution issues in this?

 

If that question was directed toward toward my recommendation of BFSU, then no...there is no mention of evolution in either the K-2 or 3-5 or upcoming 6-8 books. (There is no mention of creation, either.) Someone asked him that question on the yahoo list and I just asked him if I could paste his answer here, too, so hopefully I'll be able to do that after I get his consent. But in the meantime, the short answer is 'no'. There is no conflict with what you teach whether you teach evolution, creation, neither, or both!

HTH, Elena

[Guest]

I agree with the posters who make it a priority to let kids discover and explore.

 

By controlled experiments, do you mean you are already isolating one variable? Scientists and educators at the Lawrence Hall of Science outside Berkeley -- the people who produce the GEMS program -- don't have kids doing isolated variable experiments until around sixth or seventh grade. When I had a science group during dd's 7th grade year, only two of the kids in the group picked up on the idea. The others simply weren't yet ready.

 

There are hands-on GEMS guides for kids as young as kindergarten; they're marvelous, and they allow kids to do some real observation and messing around without having to know how to read or write much. The directions come in two forms: one written out for teachers, one in pictures for kids.

http://www.lawrencehallofscience.org/GEMS

 

A couple of experiment books for young children are quite good: Mudpies to Magnets is fun, as are the "experiment" books put out by the American Chemical Society: we had Apples, Bubbles, and Crystals.

 

Vicki Cobb's books and activities are always good. She has a relatively recent series for elementary aged children that wasn't yet published when dd was young, but I've really appreciated her experiment books for upper elementary and middle-school aged kids.

 

We, along with many other people on the boards, also had a "science box" that was always available, filled with a magnifying glass, tweezers, a plastic bucket scale, magnets, plastic bottles and large kid-friendly test tubes, string and tape, a meter wheel, a collection of rocks, etc. I've read a couple of posts in which moms are putting together "invention boxes" for their kids for Christmas, filled with all kinds of things like popsicle sticks, glue, foil, on and on. It's such a great idea!

[FairProspects]

The science box is a great idea! I may have to steal that for Christmas. KarenAnne, can you just come teach science to my kids? All your ideas sound so fun!

 

By controlled I mean they have 1 expected outcome that is so simple even ds knows before we start what the result will be. We have been using More Mudpies to Magnets as part of the ES intro curriculum and many of the experiments are just too easy for ds to learn anything or even be interested. For example, one was shining a flashlight into the mirror to see where light bounces. Ds easily predicted this and was entertained for about 2 seconds by the dark, but that was it. Another is following the line that a compass makes to learn that it always points North (which he has known for years since we frequently hike with one).

 

We did enjoy the Chemistry unit, but now that we are in Geology, the experiments are losing their luster. Maybe there is just not that much interesting about rocks? We do have the exploding volcano coming up so that should be cool (although we did it last year too, so it will be a repeat for us).

 

Ds is just the oddball really young kid who is not really interested in biology (which most of the younger stuff for kids is) but is a whiz in chemistry & physics and has already done most of the little kid experiments in these areas. I'm not really sure what to do with him. :confused:

 

ETA: I just took the plunge and ordered a couple of the Gems TMs so hopefully we will like the activities!

Edited November 20, 2010 by FairProspects

[Ariston]

Someone asked him that question on the yahoo list and I just asked him if I could paste his answer here, too, so hopefully I'll be able to do that after I get his consent.

HTH, Elena

 

OK, here is Dr. Nebel's answer from the Yahoo group:

 

 

"My aim is to have kids learn through through their own observations and rational thinking. I see the role of the teacher as guiding kids toward making the observations and keeping their thinking on a rational course. In short, this is what learning how to learn and the habits of mind for life-long learning are about.

 

Coming specifically to evolution, I do not mention it in the current volume of BFSU for K-2 nor do I address it in upcoming volumes for 3-5 or 6-8. You might say that this is sidestepping the issue, but I do not feel remiss in this. Evolution is a complex theory based on numerous lines of evidence, i.e., observations. Again, I focus on making the observations and rational thinking, and letting that take one where it will.

 

I hope at the very least, it leads to appreciation, awe, and wonderment as to how much is "out there" to explore, learn, and attempt to understand."

[Mimm]

If you have him doing narration in other places (like for history, literature, etc), is it really necessary to have him doing it for science as well? Personally, I make an effort to make science as hands on as possible because I have a kid who learns that way and she adores science. So we have an ant farm and a butterfly habitat. We spent weeks growing crystals out of various salts. We started learning about soil so we headed outside to look at soil samples.

 

Now granted, I'm not always able to make this happen. Some days we watch the history channel's Universe show on Netflix. My kids will happily sit through a 45 minute episode on the moon or Mars or something.

[Guest]

If you have him doing narration in other places (like for history, literature, etc), is it really necessary to have him doing it for science as well? Personally, I make an effort to make science as hands on as possible because I have a kid who learns that way and she adores science. So we have an ant farm and a butterfly habitat. We spent weeks growing crystals out of various salts. We started learning about soil so we headed outside to look at soil samples.

 

Now granted, I'm not always able to make this happen. Some days we watch the history channel's Universe show on Netflix. My kids will happily sit through a 45 minute episode on the moon or Mars or something.

 

I think what you're doing sounds wonderful. Instead of narration, how about beginning an informal science notbook? I took pictures of things my daughter did, animals she raised or saw at the zoo, field trips we went on, experiments, etc. and pasted them in a notebook. She would dictate captions or a sentence or two to me at first; gradually she began to write her own captions, then little notes or observations. This morphs very, very nicely into a lab notebook at junior high or high school age.

[Guest]

If you have him doing narration in other places (like for history, literature, etc), is it really necessary to have him doing it for science as well? Personally, I make an effort to make science as hands on as possible because I have a kid who learns that way and she adores science. So we have an ant farm and a butterfly habitat. We spent weeks growing crystals out of various salts. We started learning about soil so we headed outside to look at soil samples.

 

Now granted, I'm not always able to make this happen. Some days we watch the history channel's Universe show on Netflix. My kids will happily sit through a 45 minute episode on the moon or Mars or something.

 

I think what you're doing sounds wonderful.

 

Our elementary science was also hands-on throughout the elementary years. Instead of narration, we started an informal science notebook. I took pictures of things my daughter did, animals she raised or saw at the zoo, field trips we went on, experiments, etc. and pasted them in a notebook. She would dictate captions or a sentence or two to me at first; gradually she began to write her own captions, then little notes or observations. This morphs very, very nicely into a lab notebook at junior high or high school age.

[peacefully]

.