Science Revisited with a different order than classical

[Storm Bay]

Today I went to a very interesting lecture by Rebecca Keller on preparing students for high school and college science. She was an atheist who discovered big holes in her high school science training, homeschools, etc (became a Christian in grad school). Yes, she does Real-Science-4-Kids which we have never used, but this talk wasn't based on her program.

 

The long and the short of it is that she presented quite a convincing argument for doing science in this order: Chemistry, Physics, Biology and then Earth and Space. When asked about math and Physics, she recommended a book called Conceptual Physics (author's name is downstairs) and some lectures by someone named Feynman (I think that's correct, that's also downstairs and I don't have time to stay online long tonight).

 

Has anyone done science in this order? Someone asked if anyone does this, and apparently this is not an unusual order in Asian countries. She also aptly pointed out (at the start) that most scientific fields are a combination of at least 2 of the 4 core disciplines (eg photosynthesis is biology and chemistry.)

 

On a side note, for any mathematicians who may read this post, she also said that for scientists math is a tool, but for mathematics majors math just is. Thought that fit in prettly well with some of the posts we've had on some of our math threads.

[mcconnellboys]

You might google something like "chemistry first". There's been a push from some quarters to change the order of science in the schools to do chemistry first, so that the other disciplines could be better understood. As it is now, high school biology is half comprised of work at the biochem level, so knowing the basics of chemistry before taking it might help things make more sense.

 

Conceptual Physics is by Hewitt, I believe. I do own it, but have not yet used it with a child, as my older son returned to private school before getting to the point of doing it. Because it is conceptual in nature, it can be used with kids who have not had a lot of higher level maths. It might make a good eighth grade text for bright, science interested kids. Or it could be used in high school. There are various versions of the book out, for both high school and college level work.

[Nan in Mass]

Having just finished it up. It was great. My youngest has done natural history and Conceptual Physics so far. My plan is for him to do chemistry next, then natural history (high school level this time), then physics and chem at the CC. There, depending on how much math he has, he may need to do chem first so he can take the calculus based physics. Physics, since it deals with the innards of atoms, makes a good base for chemistry, I think.

-Nan

[Gwen in VA]

Wow -- I've never heard of chemistry - physics - biology. That's a new one!

 

There is a HUGE move in many schools towards doing physics in 9th, then chemistry in 10th and then biology. My niece, in a "stellar" public school system in MA, is doing physics in 9th, much to my brother's consternation! (He was raised in the old-fashioned bio-chem-physics days!)

 

If you google "physics first" you can find a lot of information about this educational movement. We're not going that route, but a number of strong school systems seem to be changing to the phsyics first mode.

 

I guess you can find support for whatever way you want to do science.

 

I will say that my dd read through Conceptual Physics before she took AP physics, and she was very impressed with CP.

[mcconnellboys]

I agree. It seems to me that physics should really come first, then chem, then bio, if we're going from smallest components that make up life to larger systems.

[mcconnellboys]

Nan, who writes natural history, please?

 

Thanks,

[Linda in NM]

My son would like to do Bio/Marine Bio for the first two years...and then Chem and Physics...

[mcconnellboys]

I found it!

[Nan in Mass]

Good. We added in lots of books and other projects, too. MODG made a nice base, though.

[Tina]

It looks like the some of the schools here in MN are doing what they call physical science in 9th grade--a combo physics/chemistry/earth science-astronomy. I picked up Hewitt's Conceptual Physical Science for this. It has just the basics, without the math. Then they move on to the biology, and then the physics or chemistry with the higher math the next few years.

[Chris in VA]

In my own high school in Ohio, we did Physics in 10th, Chem in 11th and Bio in 12th. (The school was only 10th grade thru 12th)

When I moved to FL, their sequence was Bio, Chem, and Physics, in that order.

So I ended up missing Bio completely, moving as I did in 11th grade.

 

I feel like I had a good physics course, with good labs and all, but some of the math was pretty tough. I was in Algebra 2 by the time I took it, but I never was good in math!

 

Anyway, ds will have had bio, chem and physics by the time he graduates. I think we'll just do Conceptual Physics, because he'll never use it in college or in real life.

[Deece in MN]

Today I went to a very interesting lecture by Rebecca Keller on preparing students for high school and college science. She was an atheist who discovered big holes in her high school science training, homeschools, etc (became a Christian in grad school). Yes, she does Real-Science-4-Kids which we have never used, but this talk wasn't based on her program.

 

Karin, would you recommend listening to this lecture? She was at our state conference last weekend and gave the same lecture (I am pretty sure it is the same based on what you said). I didn't go to it, but you have piqued my interest.

 

Was it a worthwhile lecture? My ds is 13 (14 in a month) and I have a dd who is 11. I had planned on the traditional science sequence, but would be interested in hearing the rational behind this.

 

The cd of the lecture would be $7.50 plus $5 shipping. Do you think it is worth $12.50 to hear the lecture or would I be better off just doing some web searching into this topic?

 

Thanks!

[mcconnellboys]

You don't happen to have a list of those extras, by chance, do you, pretty please?

[Murphy101]

this is all very interesting to me....

 

the math issue is a large part of the equation I think?

 

Kolbe recommends prentice hall physical science in 8th that is a kind of introduction to chem and physics. It looks like a very thorough introduction to prepare them for biology, chemistry, then either hewitt's conceptual physics or saxon physics

 

BUT the math in the physical science needs them to at least be taking algebra 1 at the same time.

 

So, I have the question that the "old" order of the subjects was more to accomodate math readiness?

 

If so, that would explain asian countries doing it different - they are far ahead of most american schools in their presentation of mathematics so they could rearranged the science subjects without a math difficulty hampering the success?

[Caroline]

I took calculus as a sophomore in high school. I took it at the same time I took chemistry and before I took physics. I must say that I had a much easier time in physics than people who were just then taking calculus. And I cannot imagine takng physics before a full course of trig. All the force prblems with directional dependence would be hard to understand if you didn't fully comprehend sine, cosine, and tangent.

 

Since I took biology as a freshman, and not since, I don't remember what math was involved. Does biology require math beyond Algebra II?

[Gwen in VA]

Biology requires essentially NO math.

 

Most kids taking bio have had algebra 1 or are taking conccurrently algebra 1, but I don't think it's necessary.

[Caroline]

Biology requires essentially NO math.

 

Most kids taking bio have had algebra 1 or are taking concurrently algebra 1, but I don't think it's necessary.

 

That is what I thought. Since I took physics and chemistry in both undergrad and grad school, I remember them more than I remember biology.

[In The Great White North]

I tried to do Campbell's Biology with my oldest and had to quit. It had a ton of chemistry, right from the first chapter, which he had never seen. However, so far he hasn't hit anything in chemistry that needed biology first.

 

For my next, I will definitely be looking at doing chemistry before biology.

 

I'm not sure where to fit physics into this. I don't remember a whole lot of math in my physics (30 years ago!). OTOH, I haven't seen a need for it in bio or chem either. Does it really matter where it goes? If you do Conceptual Physics in 9th, do you then do AP Physics (calc based) in 12th? Does Giancoli's require trig?

 

Or do you do something else for the 4th year?

[Michelle in MO]

The long and the short of it is that she presented quite a convincing argument for doing science in this order: Chemistry, Physics, Biology and then Earth and Space. When asked about math and Physics, she recommended a book called Conceptual Physics (author's name is downstairs) and some lectures by someone named Feynman (I think that's correct, that's also downstairs and I don't have time to stay online long tonight).

 

Has anyone done science in this order? Someone asked if anyone does this, and apparently this is not an unusual order in Asian countries. She also aptly pointed out (at the start) that most scientific fields are a combination of at least 2 of the 4 core disciplines (eg photosynthesis is biology and chemistry.)

 

I believe they do physics first, then chemistry, and then biology.

 

Do you happen to know of any links where we might hear this lecture by Rebecca Keller? It sounds like it would be fascinating.As far as Feynman is concerned, yes, I've definitely heard of him. I read the book Genius, which is a biography of Feynman.

 

You can view it here:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Genius-Life-Science-Richard-Feynman/dp/0679747044/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209253258&sr=8-2Feynman was a brilliant physicist whose specialty was, I believe, quantum mechanics.

 

He was a key figure in the Manhatten Project---the development of the atomic bomb. You can read about him here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman

 

He also delivered his famous series of lectures on physics at Caltech:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Feynman-Lectures-Physics-Volumes-1-2/dp/0738209244/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209253815&sr=8-12

 

 

This is just one of many volumes on the subject. I bought my dad one of the series for Christmas one year; I would like to buy him another soon. I would think the lectures would be an excellent supplement to a regular curriculum.

 

HTH!

[Storm Bay]

Karin, would you recommend listening to this lecture? She was at our state conference last weekend and gave the same lecture (I am pretty sure it is the same based on what you said). I didn't go to it, but you have piqued my interest.

 

Was it a worthwhile lecture? My ds is 13 (14 in a month) and I have a dd who is 11. I had planned on the traditional science sequence, but would be interested in hearing the rational behind this.

 

The cd of the lecture would be $7.50 plus $5 shipping. Do you think it is worth $12.50 to hear the lecture or would I be better off just doing some web searching into this topic?

 

Thanks!

 

I thought it was a good lecture, and she does admit her bias as being a chemist first (she ended up in molecular biologly). She is a very good speaker, and I don't say that lightly. She did have visual aids which helped, but you can see those on her website Gravitas Publications (I think that's the name, but can check tomorrow when I'm rested), but I don't know if it's the entire lecture. I thought her lecture today on Creation, Evolution and Intelligent Design (that may not be the exact title) was EXCELLENT. Of course, it helps that she has similar opinions to me, but she has a lot more knowledge on the subject.

 

I didn't really answer your question. I definitely thought it was helpful because she speaks from the background of someone who took every science course she could in high school but still had holes in her knowledge she had to work hard to overcome in university. I ended up buying her Chemistry II course and probably wouldn't have without hearing her and meeting her.

[Storm Bay]

this is all very interesting to me....

 

 

 

BUT the math in the physical science needs them to at least be taking algebra 1 at the same time.

 

So, I have the question that the "old" order of the subjects was more to accomodate math readiness?

 

 

My question to her, too. Which is why she recommended the Conceptual Physics. It also depends on your Algebra program, because to do this text you do need a basic understanding of sines & cosines. Some Algebra texts include this at the end as a precursor to trig. I do plan to run this by my brother, who has a Ph.D. in Physics. Not that he'll necessarily know the answer as he teaches post-secondary Physics, but he might.

[mcconnellboys]

Yes, I think the idea is that more and more kids are doing Algebra I in seventh or eighth grade, and if they do something like Conceptual Physics, I think they can handle that after only Alg I, or even concurrently (tell me if I'm wrong, others who know from experience).

 

So I guess they'd then do chem as sophomores. It's done here concurrently with Alg II, so I don't think you need that before doing it.

 

Then, when they do bio as juniors, I guess they could get much more in-depth into biochem than they do now if they already have more math as well as phys/chem in their backgrounds. My son's biology this year covered biochem and cellular stuff for half the year; then evolution for almost two months before they moved into larger organisms and systems, so I think they're moving toward this, anyway.

 

Then what would they do as seniors? A more rigorous, math-oriented physics? A more in-depth chem, like an honors or AP level? A similar bio (honors or AP) or anatomy course? I don't think they've even done any dissection in my son's bio this year at all. I think in his school that's all consigned to anatomy class.....

 

I didn't realize that Asian countries did their science in a different order - are they doing physics first already?

[Cathy]

Both Dr. Jay Wile and Dr. Arthur Robinson say that math "drives" the science. While Wile :)organizes his program for traditional bio, chem, physics, it presumes a student has completed only algebra II ideas.

 

Dr. Robinson, however, believes kids should do all math, through calculus (while their brains are prime), then do physics, chemistry, and biology. He's a strong proponent of science and Feinman, is a research chemist with his two sons (PhDs) and includes Cal Tech books and keys in his curriculum:

 

http://www.robinsoncurriculum.com/view/rc/s31p655.htm

 

Cathy

[Michelle in MO]

Both Dr. Jay Wile and Dr. Arthur Robinson say that math "drives" the science. While Wile :)organizes his program for traditional bio, chem, physics, it presumes a student has completed only algebra II ideas.

 

Dr. Robinson, however, believes kids should do all math, through calculus (while their brains are prime), then do physics, chemistry, and biology. He's a strong proponent of science and Feinman, is a research chemist with his two sons (PhDs) and includes Cal Tech books and keys in his curriculum:

 

http://www.robinsoncurriculum.com/view/rc/s31p655.htm

 

Cathy

 

prior to starting Biology, Chemistry, and Physics. The Advanced Chemistry and Physics require Algebra II before beginning those courses.

 

Here's Apologia's scope and sequence:

 

http://www.apologia.com/store/?PHPSESSID=6579443b49951dcd5a5fe41258e04003

 

Dr. Robinson is a great scientist, isn't he? He's done an amazing job, homeschooling his children. :)

[Storm Bay]

I believe they do physics first, then chemistry, and then biology.

 

Do you happen to know of any links where we might hear this lecture by Rebecca Keller? It sounds like it would be fascinating.As far as Feynman is concerned, yes, I've definitely heard of him. I read the book Genius, which is a biography of Feynman.

 

You can view it here:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Genius-Life-Science-Richard-Feynman/dp/0679747044/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209253258&sr=8-2Feynman was a brilliant physicist whose specialty was, I believe, quantum mechanics.

 

He was a key figure in the Manhatten Project---the development of the atomic bomb. You can read about him here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman

 

He also delivered his famous series of lectures on physics at Caltech:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Feynman-Lectures-Physics-Volumes-1-2/dp/0738209244/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209253815&sr=8-12

 

 

This is just one of many volumes on the subject. I bought my dad one of the series for Christmas one year; I would like to buy him another soon. I would think the lectures would be an excellent supplement to a regular curriculum.

 

HTH!

 

I'm not sure if her lecture is on a link, but you can look at her website at Gravitas Publications. She doesn't have a high school curricula at this point, but will be writing one.

 

As for all the math, I took Chemistry in Grade 11 in San Francisco and we didn't do that much math. I am going to do Chemistry in Grade 9, but my dd will be doing Algebra 2 then. And, as I said in another post, I will be checking with my brother-the-physics-Geek who teaches post-secondary physics (and did a fancy post-doc with the guy who is tops in his field--although my brother gave up research for a family life.)

[Storm Bay]

prior to starting Biology, Chemistry, and Physics. The Advanced Chemistry and Physics require Algebra II before beginning those courses.

 

Here's Apologia's scope and sequence:

 

http://www.apologia.com/store/?PHPSESSID=6579443b49951dcd5a5fe41258e04003

 

Dr. Robinson is a great scientist, isn't he? He's done an amazing job, homeschooling his children. :)

 

One more post! Dr. Keller drew a diagram with math at the centre, and believes that math should be studied along with science. She is biased, being a chemist, of course. I got that! So I may do Chemistry, Biology, Physics or something. She recommended Apologia for Biology.

 

For the record, there is a newer field where mathematics and biology are somehow combined. Also mathematics and biochemistry. After my uncle finished his second post as a dean of science, he spent his last couple of years before retirement working on a project with mathematicians. He was a biochemist (Ph.D.) I think he called it mathematical biology or biological mathematics, but it's been a couple of years since we saw each other.

[Deece in MN]

 

 

I thought it was a good lecture, and she does admit her bias as being a chemist first (she ended up in molecular biologly). She is a very good speaker, and I don't say that lightly. She did have visual aids which helped, but you can see those on her website Gravitas Publications (I think that's the name, but can check tomorrow when I'm rested), but I don't know if it's the entire lecture. I thought her lecture today on Creation, Evolution and Intelligent Design (that may not be the exact title) was EXCELLENT. Of course, it helps that she has similar opinions to me, but she has a lot more knowledge on the subject.

 

I didn't really answer your question. I definitely thought it was helpful because she speaks from the background of someone who took every science course she could in high school but still had holes in her knowledge she had to work hard to overcome in university. I ended up buying her Chemistry II course and probably wouldn't have without hearing her and meeting her.

 

 

Thank you, this does help. I will check out her web-site. I wish I would have gone to her talk at our conference. She had another one titled Reclaiming Science for God, is this different than the ones you heard?

I have to do a bit more research now. :)

[Deece in MN]

Sorry about my quotes not working right. This just started happening and I am not sure what I am doing wrong. I know it makes the posts harder to read.

Sorry about that.

[Storm Bay]

 

 

Thank you, this does help. I will check out her web-site. I wish I would have gone to her talk at our conference. She had another one titled Reclaiming Science for God, is this different than the ones you heard?

I have to do a bit more research now. :)

 

It's different than her Reclaiming Science lecture. I went to that, too. She was such a dynamic, intelligent speaker I went to 3 out of 4 (would have gone to all of them if I'd been able to and had known that--I was just looking for high school stuff at first.) That one is also good. The most packed one, audience-wise, was the one about Creation, Evolution and Intelligent Design.

 

As for your quotes, I've had that problem. It happens if you try to delete part of the message. If you delete part of the brackets, it will change how the quotes work. I make sure not to delete the last period before the last quote (should look like

and to avoid deleting the end of the first coded part.

[Starr]

I was recently given a Conceptual Science book from a friend in New York City. Her dd's private prep school uses the physics, chemistry, biology sequence.

[Michelle in MO]

Gravitas Publications:

 

http://www.gravitaspublications.com/

 

which does appear to be the publisher of Real Science 4 Kids.

 

This also appears to be an article by Rebecca Keller on ID:

 

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/rebecca-keller-op-ed/

 

Just in case anyone's interested!

[Deece in MN]

I just went to Dr. Keller's web-site (Gravitas Publications) and found that they are going to post her talks from the different conferences she is speaking at!

They should be available in the next few weeks.

Now I don't have to purchase the one and can listen to the other ones mentioned that sound interesting, too.

Just thought I would mention this.

[Michelle in MO]

listened to her lecture or read her work---is that, to my mind, it does seem like it would be easiest for younger children to move from the concrete to the abstract. I think this is why TWTM moves from biology to physics. At least, this makes sense to me----younger children can hunt for insects, hatch chicken eggs, watch a caterpillar turn into a chrysalis and then again into a butterfly, etc.

 

Nevertheless, you've brought up a fascinating topic, Karin, and I'm going to try to search through Dr. Keller's webpage and find out if she writes on this topic on her website.

[Laura K (NC)]

If a student has any math or science ability at all the strongest, most thorough science has to be chosen. If it's not, college math will be almost impossible without remedial work.

 

My son will be doing both geometry and algebra 2 in his sophomore year because he's come to the limit of what he can do science-wise. He has chosen an easy physics in 7th, bio. in 8th, and chem. in 9th, and now there's nowhere else to go.

 

The prerequisites for the science program you use should be the determining factor in the order, based on the math. This is one area where it would be handy if science could happen naturally and neatly in the classical order, but it really doesn't.

[Michelle in MO]

and one's ability with math drives the science.

 

I'm just wondering about the science sequence for younger grades---is the traditional "TWTM" way of biology, earth science & astronomy, chemistry and physics better for younger kids?

 

For older kids---definitely the math must be solid. My oldest is doing Apologia Chemistry this year, and she actually is doing very well, but the math sometimes gives her a huge headache. I'm thinking of having her do Advanced Biology next year instead of Physics, giving her another year to solidify her math skills.

[Jane in NC]

We used Conceptual Physics successfully after Algebra I. Students are only required to solve linear equations and literal equations, as I recall. Trig is certainly a prerequisite in most physics programs--not this one. I think Hewett does a great job of explaining the whys of physics and offers good examples.

 

Regarding the chemistry in Campbell's big Bio book: It is biochemistry. I am not sure if many students see the equivalent in a basic chemistry course, although they may be more comfortable with the material having been introduced to chemistry. From following the AP Bio listserv, I see that some schools have chemistry as a pre- or co-requisite, but not all.

 

It seems that the science sequence of biology-chemistry-physics may have made more sense when biology was taught as a course in systematics and taxonomy. Today's biology (cellular process motivated by evolution) includes a great deal of chemistry. Altering the traditional sequence makes sense to me.

 

Jane

[Nan in Mass]

As we did Conceptual Physics, I was extremely grateful that my children, especially my math-struggling older one (doing NEM3 concurrently with CP) had had Singapore math, with its huge emphasis on ratios. CP required no trig, only the simplest of algebra manipulations, scientific notation, and ability to do measurement conversions. It DID talk a lot about the relationships between the various elements of a formula, whether things increased or decreased exponentially or were directly or inversely proportional. I was glad my children were used to multi-step word problems. You can start CP after PM6; you just have to be patient about whether the child can algebraically show their work at first. They'll get the answers fine, but will have trouble showing how. About halfway through NEM my son suddenly was able to show his work nicely for me. Before that, I just didn't fuss, since he obviously understood the material fine.

 

I don't know how math works in other parts of Asia, but I think it is pretty common in lots of the world to do a sort of mixed math until high school and then take bio, chem, and physics in no particular order, sometimes all at once, or sometimes skipping one or more. A German girl I talked to said she took them all at once, and my older son just had an NEM3 math problem where there was a class of boys yeah big, yeah many of whom were taking bio, yeah many of whom were taking chem, yeah many of whom were taking physics, yeah many of whom were taking various combinations of those, how many were taking all three. And I vaguely remember this being true of a curriculum sold on the Singapore board - that the bio, chem, and physics were meant to be taken together all at once.

 

-Nan

[Gwen in VA]

I would have one concern about scrambling up the sciences -- does the child have the math ability to deal with the science?

 

Honors-level high school chemistry (non-AP) really does require some familiarity (concurrent is fine) with algebra 2. Some of the equations in chem get nasty.

 

Honors-level physics really does use vectors and basic trig. I would say algebra 2 is a pre-req and cannot be taken concurrently; pre-calculus is a nice concurrent math.

 

I think to some extent the old-fashioned bio-chem-physics approach came about because it makes the most sense from a math-ability point-of-view. Any kid who is seriously interested in science would have to retake physics before college if he did a non-math-based physics in 9th grade. Ditto a non-math-based chemistry.

 

Now, if your kid isn't trying to do "honors-level" science work and isn't planning on going into science or engineering or a "elite" college, all of these concerns don't apply!

[HollyinNNV]

 

I don't know how math works in other parts of Asia, but I think it is pretty common in lots of the world to do a sort of mixed math until high school and then take bio, chem, and physics in no particular order, sometimes all at once, or sometimes skipping one or more.

 

-Nan

 

I took international comparative education in 1993 (so this may be dated). At that time we read about school systems in Europe (and I think Germany may have been one of them) where students were separated into various learning opportunities early in high school. So, you might already be in a "collegiate" situation studying many sciences (or humanities or music studies etc.). You also might already be tracked for vocational opportunities early like auto mechanics, fire science etc.

 

So, while it seems like these students are receiving better opportunities-only SOME of them really are.

 

Like I said, dated info, but interesting anyway.:001_smile:

Holly

[Storm Bay]

listened to her lecture or read her work---is that, to my mind, it does seem like it would be easiest for younger children to move from the concrete to the abstract. I think this is why TWTM moves from biology to physics. At least, this makes sense to me----younger children can hunt for insects, hatch chicken eggs, watch a caterpillar turn into a chrysalis and then again into a butterfly, etc.

 

Nevertheless, you've brought up a fascinating topic, Karin, and I'm going to try to search through Dr. Keller's webpage and find out if she writes on this topic on her website.

 

It's true that she didn't model her science after the classical mode even of one science per year for younger children. I don't have her early books, but I think she starts chemistry with things children can understand and see. Matter, states of matter, etc. She thinks that most children get bored with only one science per year, but not all. Honestly, none of my kids can stick with just one science all year without getting bored, even my eldest who loves it and wants to do research with DNA when she grows up (she's still 12, so that goal could go the way of her previous goals of manufacturing only pink and purple cars at age 4, running for president at 8, and being the first woman to set foot on Mars at various ages.) As for physics, I think kids can see things like motion, matter, etc, and she has interesting ways of explaining this, at least in person.

 

So, while the WTM model has served us well in history, it hasn't in science, although I've been reluctant to change it for my younger kids. She also has some new books coming out next months "KOGS" where she ties science (and math) to other areas such as history, etc, which I think looks interesting. She keeps her books neutral (ie no Christian slant).

 

Naturally, her passion is science. And since we each rejected evolution, etc, based on what we perceived as weaknesses in the science before turning to the Bible, (I minored in Biology, she was in Grad School) I probably am probably more gung ho on her approach than others might be. I am very, very concerned about math--not just math as a tool, as she called it for scientists, but the theory and history of math, which is why I seriously consider and often go with the advice of Jane, Myrtle & Charon. I'm very serious about Logic, which is why I read posts from people such as Charon and Tina in Ouray (plus some others) very seriously. My dd is serious about studying science, and science has been a big interest of hers for years, so I'm switching into serious science mode now. I plan to ask both my brother-the-physics Ph.D. and one of my favourite (non-Christian, evolutionist) biology professors I had in university what they think about how kids should prepare and wouldn't be at all surprised if their answers vary. I have no idea if this professor I have will answer me or not, but he's still at the same university.

[Nan in Mass]

It is still this way.

[Michelle in MO]

It's true that she didn't model her science after the classical mode even of one science per year for younger children. I don't have her early books, but I think she starts chemistry with things children can understand and see. Matter, states of matter, etc. She thinks that most children get bored with only one science per year, but not all. Honestly, none of my kids can stick with just one science all year without getting bored, even my eldest who loves it and wants to do research with DNA when she grows up (she's still 12, so that goal could go the way of her previous goals of manufacturing only pink and purple cars at age 4, running for president at 8, and being the first woman to set foot on Mars at various ages.) As for physics, I think kids can see things like motion, matter, etc, and she has interesting ways of explaining this, at least in person.

 

So, while the WTM model has served us well in history, it hasn't in science, although I've been reluctant to change it for my younger kids. She also has some new books coming out next months "KOGS" where she ties science (and math) to other areas such as history, etc, which I think looks interesting. She keeps her books neutral (ie no Christian slant).

 

My youngest, especially, has gotten bored with one science per year, so we've continued to move through the books as fast as she's able. I also agree with SWB that many of the elementary-aged science books seem to be geared towards 6-week increments, and I think that's jumping around too much.

 

What's worked for us is moving science forward for my youngest, in whichever direction things tend to move (i.e., we've done all the Apologia elementary science books, and now we're using BJU), and we generally complete a book in a semester. We also did a semester of chemistry, and the curriculum was lined up in such a way that it was broken down into simple units that a younger child could understand (I think she was in 2nd grade at the time).

 

Like Gail in VA, it may be that the traditional bio/chem/phys. sequence for the upper levels may be good for many students until their math skills get really solid. I mentioned previously that I'm thinking about having my oldest do advanced biology next year (11th grade) before tackling physics. Next year she'll also do Algebra II, so that should help strengthen her tottering math skills.

[Michelle in MO]

Regarding the chemistry in Campbell's big Bio book: It is biochemistry. I am not sure if many students see the equivalent in a basic chemistry course, although they may be more comfortable with the material having been introduced to chemistry. From following the AP Bio listserv, I see that some schools have chemistry as a pre- or co-requisite, but not all.

 

It seems that the science sequence of biology-chemistry-physics may have made more sense when biology was taught as a course in systematics and taxonomy. Today's biology (cellular process motivated by evolution) includes a great deal of chemistry. Altering the traditional sequence makes sense to me.

 

Jane

 

math instruction. Solid math instruction all along (something we've struggled with in our household) is necessary in order to follow this sequence of physics/chemistry/biology, or chemistry/physics/biology.

 

I'm going to look at Rebecca Keller's website and read more re: her reasoning on the subject.

[Storm Bay]

math instruction. Solid math instruction all along (something we've struggled with in our household) is necessary in order to follow this sequence of physics/chemistry/biology, or chemistry/physics/biology.

 

I'm going to look at Rebecca Keller's website and read more re: her reasoning on the subject.

 

Good idea! Also, when someone asked her what math she recommended, it was Singapore, which ties in with some of the other posts on this thread. This lecture was geared toward high school and preparing for college. I'm not sure if her elementary courses go in that order or if they're chem/bio/physics (the order in the catalogue). But I'm really interested in the KOGS which tie science into 6 other subjects.

[Murphy101]

hey I just ordered Kolbe's PH physical science for 8th grade and it's described as an introduction to Chemistry and Physics.

 

Not exactly a reversal, but something of note.

 

It comes with labs and math assistance. (rec. to be taken in conjunction with alg I)

 

Then next year, if this works well for us, Bio w/ lab would be next.:)