BFSU: How is it better at teaching the scientific method.

[Lovedtodeath]

I have used Elemental Science and RS4K and we make a hypothesis, conduct the experiment, fill out lab notes,... aren't we learning the scientific method that way?

 

It seems that the rave reviews are telling me that BFSU is better in this respect. Why?

 

TY TY

[Snowfall]

Honestly, I don't know. I use three programs and BFSU is my favorite, but I don't see how it teaches the scientific method better than the others. I'm not a scientist, though, so maybe that's why. lol I think it's really just better at showing kids how science is part of life. You're supposed to extend the discussion whenever you see an opportunity and find ways to make the lessons part of your everyday life. He makes it a point to explain how this should happen regularly and how you can tie whatever lesson you're on today to whatever relevant lesson(s) (often from another science) you've done before. I think it's better at that more than it's better at teaching the scientific method. :)

[LittleIzumi]

It applies the scientific method to EVERYTHING, and before they can even really understand it conceptually. At 5 dd just barely understands about making predictions and that's only when she knows the answer, lol. But she grasps everything in BFSU & applies it to her life all the time. It's not just reserved for experiments. :)

[Penelope]

I own BFSU, we have been using Elemental Science also, and I don't understand how BFSU would teach this better, either. But I haven't used much of it.

 

I have used Elemental Science and RS4K and we make a hypothesis, conduct the experiment, fill out lab notes,... aren't we learning the scientific method that way?

 

 

But also, the above isn't really the scientific method, either. And in elementary school, I'm not sure it matters either way.

[Targhee]

I haven't used Elemental Science, and only perused RS4K at a convention. But I chose not to use RS4K for the same reason I passed on many others. There was too much emphasis on content, and most content that was too removed from young children's life experiences. I am one of those that thinks that process (learning to think scientifically and apply the scientific method) is more important in the early years than learning the content. Of course you have to have content, but it isn't the crux of what you're learning, and if you keep it simple and within the child's experience (as concrete and directly-observable as possible) you will detract less from the process learning. Most science programs are just the opposite, they revolve around content and make process something you hopefully pick up along the way.

 

I don't think BFSU is the end all. I do like that it emphasizes process.

[2squared]

I have used Elemental Science and RS4K and we make a hypothesis, conduct the experiment, fill out lab notes,... aren't we learning the scientific method that way?

 

It seems that the rave reviews are telling me that BFSU is better in this respect. Why?

 

TY TY

 

Science at our house at these ages isn't about the scientific method or experiments. I don't set up experiments for them, and I haven't formally taught the scientific method or made them fill out lab notes.

 

Science is about learning and experiencing our world through reading, discussion, and observation. It is about filling my dc with scientific information and allowing them to interact with science naturally. I give them information, plant ideas in their heads, stand back, and see what they do with it.

 

For example, after the BFSU lesson on states of matter, I pondered what else would turn to a solid in the freezer and I walked away. I later found some strange things in the freezer.

Edited February 10, 2011 by 2squared

[Pata]

Science at our house at these ages isn't about the scientific method or experiments. I don't set up experiments for them, and I haven't formally taught the scientific method or made them fill out lab notes.

 

Science is about learning and experiencing our world through reading, discussion, and observation. It is about filling my dc with scientific information and allowing them to interact with science naturally. I give them information, plant ideas in their heads, stand back, and see what they do with it.

 

For example, after the BFSU lesson on states of matter, I pondered what else would turn to a solid in the freezer and I walked away. I later found some strange things in the freezer.

 

I know that no one science curriculum fits all and I'm glad that there are options for us as homeschoolers, so I say this with that in mind!

 

How much do you think that the comment in bold above depends on the parent and not the curriculum? We have the same things go on in our house. Dd is always coming up with her own experiments that play off of what we are learning and dh and I help her think through them. We don't use BFSU, in fact I've never seen the samples, but I'm a science major and dh was a research scientist, so science is a part of our life. For me curriculum is just the starting point, I'm the one who imparts the desire to explore and learn more. Does that make sense?

[Farrar]

We're using a curriculum of my own making for science, but I have BFSU and have looked at it and drawn from it. Compared to other curricula, it's so much more open ended. Most curricula I've seen (RS4K, Mr. Q, and what I've seen of Elemental Sci. as well) all present a concept and then a demo experiment that illustrates that concept. The concept is predetermined and the experiment, even if you're gathering data and filling in charts, is almost always to illustrate the concept. I think there's value in that, but what BFSU does is different. The book shows you how to introduce ideas not by telling kids what scientists know, but by having them play with things and work out the concepts themselves. I would say that most curricula are something like 80% just telling you what science is and maybe 20% discovery. With BFSU, that's practically reversed.

[Lovedtodeath]

Science at our house at these ages isn't about the scientific method or experiments. I don't set up experiments for them, and I haven't formally taught the scientific method or made them fill out lab notes.

 

Science is about learning and experiencing our world through reading, discussion, and observation. It is about filling my dc with scientific information and allowing them to interact with science naturally. I give them information, plant ideas in their heads, stand back, and see what they do with it.

 

For example, after the BFSU lesson on states of matter, I pondered what else would turn to a solid in the freezer and I walked away. I later found some strange things in the freezer.

That is so funny, because we did the exact same thing after our Elemental Science lesson on states of matter.

 

How much do you think that the comment in bold above depends on the parent and not the curriculum? We have the same things go on in our house. Dd is always coming up with her own experiments that play off of what we are learning and dh and I help her think through them.

:iagree:Yes, that is how it is around here. I am starting to feel more comfortable with my original plans.

[Lovedtodeath]

Along these lines that is one thing I have not liked about the various programs we have used over the years. That they teach a concept then use an experiment to demonstrate. That seems like it would be a good idea. In practice I often find *I* don't get the connection between the experiment and the concept (and I'm 36 with some education under my belt and I don't think I'm a total dip shi*). AND a big one, many times the experiments don't work!!!! I never know why. There is no guidance to help me figure that out. I always feel like a bumbling idiot when that happens. It's extremely frustrating.

This makes BFSU sound good... I just don't understand how it works better and that is what I am wanting explained.:confused:

[jewel7123]

I'm not sure either. I just got this in the mail a couple of days ago, and to say I'm intimidated by it is an understatement. I think I need to visit the Yahoo group and see if the files and info there helps.

[Farrar]

This makes BFSU sound good... I just don't understand how it works better and that is what I am wanting explained.:confused:

 

I think it's that discovery piece. Real scientists don't know the answer when they start. They know some things, but they're trying to add to the knowledge of the world, not illustrate something or prove something. Other programs tell you what scientists know and then illustrate it. BFSU tries to start with the exploration and guide kids to their own discoveries. That's much, much closer to what scientists actually do. In that sense, it has kids really practicing science.

[brownie]

As a PP stated, it depends partly on the parent. I have discovered that any parent can mess up a curriculum no matter how scripted it is. However, BFSU provides the framework for integrating all disciplines of science in 1 year and providing a foundation of scientific truths across all disciplines. The format is also intended to be delivered in a questioning, conversing, discovering format. However it is not very scripted and you could potentially teach it just like any other science program if you don't make the effort (or come by this style naturally). We use it in conjunction with other programs. I am still working on my approach (despite being a engineer with scientifically inquisitive children), bc some days I am just impatient to deliver the material, not to lead a discussion of discovery.

 

Brownie

[lovinmomma]

I'm not going to say that BFSU is better than other science curricula, and of that same mind if parents (teachers) are not yet comfortable with taking advantage of "teachable moments" BFSU could be quite intimidating. However, I have looked at countless science curriculums online and quite a few in person. I own SL science K. BFSU is a whole different breed in my mind. It's not to say that you couldn't do what Paige is saying and take the curriculum and expound upon it and turn it into BFSU but that is much easier IMVHO when you have a science/teaching background. With BFSU it feels like to me that it gives me the knowledge in bite-sized pieces that I can understand and gives me a direction to go, but it is so more open-ended and based on discovery than I would allow myself to be with other science curriculas.

 

ETA: When we move overseas I am very interested in using Elemental Science.

[lovinmomma]

As a PP stated, it depends partly on the parent. I have discovered that any parent can mess up a curriculum no matter how scripted it is. However, BFSU provides the framework for integrating all disciplines of science in 1 year and providing a foundation of scientific truths across all disciplines. The format is also intended to be delivered in a questioning, conversing, discovering format. However it is not very scripted and you could potentially teach it just like any other science program if you don't make the effort (or come by this style naturally). We use it in conjunction with other programs. I am still working on my approach (despite being a engineer with scientifically inquisitive children), bc some days I am just impatient to deliver the material, not to lead a discussion of discovery.

 

Brownie

 

Eeek! Our responses (that must have been typed at the same time) sound very similar! :D

[Lovedtodeath]

I think it's that discovery piece. Real scientists don't know the answer when they start. They know some things, but they're trying to add to the knowledge of the world, not illustrate something or prove something. Other programs tell you what scientists know and then illustrate it. BFSU tries to start with the exploration and guide kids to their own discoveries. That's much, much closer to what scientists actually do. In that sense, it has kids really practicing science.

Light bulb! Okay, could I start with the third book?

[8filltheheart]

I have used Elemental Science and RS4K and we make a hypothesis, conduct the experiment, fill out lab notes,... aren't we learning the scientific method that way?

 

It seems that the rave reviews are telling me that BFSU is better in this respect. Why?

 

TY TY

 

I haven't read the other thread. I popped in there one day and saw all the BFSU posts and exited thinking, "newest WTM rage." ;)

 

One thing that has always struck me when I read threads on science is that it is talked about as a subject with a list of objectives that need to be learned, memorized, completed. That just isn't the way I view science at all. I know nothing about BFSU (I don't even know what it stands for and I really could careless :D), but I wish parents would feel freedom to embrace science for what it is.....the awe-inspiring way of understanding the natural world that surrounds us.

 

A wise friend said something the other day that I added to my signature. I found it interesting to read the multiple threads on education that cropped up yesterday. She summed up in one sentence what I believe is the reason that education is failing in our society: The desire to learn anything has sadly been destroyed in most PS school students.

 

Modern education has reduced education to content (superficial knowledge). Obviously the kids are aware that that that isn't real education. Education is the inspiration to think, observe, analyze, and seek out answers, not regurgitation of pre-sifted, pre-determined, isolated bits of data. The latter is what I expect of a google search, not my children.

 

Anyway.....sorry for totally derailing the thread. I guess the question I would ask instead of why is curriculum X better than curriculum Y is what is the purpose of the subject. ;)

 

ETA: I have way too much going on to type philosophically......sorry for the ramble and typos. :)

Edited February 10, 2011 by 8FillTheHeart

[Snowfall]

Along these lines that is one thing I have not liked about the various programs we have used over the years. That they teach a concept then use an experiment to demonstrate. That seems like it would be a good idea. In practice I often find *I* don't get the connection between the experiment and the concept (and I'm 36 with some education under my belt and I don't think I'm a total dip shi*). AND a big one, many times the experiments don't work!!!! I never know why. There is no guidance to help me figure that out. I always feel like a bumbling idiot when that happens. It's extremely frustrating.

 

That just happened to us w/an RS4K experiment today. It was the first time we've had that problem and it was very annoying!

[boscopup]

Anyway.....sorry for totally derailing the thread. I guess the question I would ask instead of why is curriculum X better than curriculum Y is what is the purpose of the subject. ;)

 

I would LOVE to see you post a thread (when you have time ;) ) about how exactly you do science at various ages. I've seen bits and pieces and searched the forum to get more info, but I'd love to just see more of exactly what you do. It seems like you get library books on interest-led subjects until about age 10, and then they do their own experiments and such? My first grader has been introduced to typical homeschool type experiment-driven science programs, and he kind of expects experiments to be part of "science". He loves them. I hate doing them, because frankly, most of the time, they don't seem to really be teaching him anything at this point. I think they'd be more worthwhile when he's 10 and able to do them all himself. Or even 8. He's only 6 now. He can read read read on a subject and watch TV on a subject (Mythbusters is a hit here, of course).

 

So I end up trying to work out how to make sure we "do science" and encourage a love of learning for science without overkilling by using a laid out curriculum.

 

I did get BFSU when it was on sale for $13 a couple weeks ago (for that price, I was willing to take a serious look at it). We did two "lessons" this week. It's a LOT of preparation though. And I'm not sure that it's really any better than just doing interest-led science via library books. I can see where it could be a nice jumping off point, and I'm giving it a longer trial during the remainder of this school year. I just am really drawn toward interest-led, and am not sure how to make sure we get science done each week rather than letting it slide.

 

Anyway, 8FillTheHeart, I appreciate all the posts you do on this subject! :)

[momto2Cs]

Light bulb! Okay, could I start with the third book?

 

Dr. Nebel really recommends at least going through the concepts in the first book before anything else, and I'm pretty sure he would recommend the second book's concepts before starting the third book (which should be out this summer). If you want to look through the books and see what you have covered and what you haven't, without spending a bunch of money on the books, Outskirts Press offers downloadable versions for $5 each.

 

The flow charts on the Yahoo! group are really helpful, and assisted me in making my own.

[Lovedtodeath]

Oh I'm with you on that because I just read the pages leading up to actually getting started. I feel like I will just need to trust the process. I haven't found anything else that appeals to me so I'm going with it. KWIM?

 

I've used:

 

RS4K Pre Chem (and now DS is working through Chem 1 with DH) - I like this, but we zoomed through in a matter of a couple of months working slowly.

 

Three levels of Singapore Science (older editions) - Meh, not one of the worst ones, but the next levels are 7th grade and up.

 

NOEO Physics 1 - "I" liked it. I was easy to use (although expensive). My son was bored to tears.

 

R.E.A.L Earth and Space - This one I completely gave up on after the weather section. You can't make a real weather station using paper plates!!! The projects were ridiculous. We all hated it.

 

Supercharged Science - This one was expensive. The experiments were generally very good. The supply list was a zillion miles long!!! The owner/producer of the site and curriculum made it sound like I just need to plop my children in front of the computer and magically everything will fall into place whether I am around or not. That didn't happen. I couldn't justify spending $30 a month on it. I didn't feel like my son was getting out of it what I hoped.

So within the realm of secular, what is left that I haven't used/tried?

Elemental Science... it is based on TWTM recommendations. :D

 

I am looking forward to seeing the logic stage of Elemental Science. It could very well calm all of my anxieties about science... because I feel like science is a perfect subject to apply logic to, and that is what interested me in Nebel.

 

If you really are answering that question... there is also Mr. Qs: eequalsmcq.com

[LittleIzumi]

I did get BFSU when it was on sale for $13 a couple weeks ago (for that price, I was willing to take a serious look at it). We did two "lessons" this week. It's a LOT of preparation though. And I'm not sure that it's really any better than just doing interest-led science via library books. I can see where it could be a nice jumping off point, and I'm giving it a longer trial during the remainder of this school year. I just am really drawn toward interest-led, and am not sure how to make sure we get science done each week rather than letting it slide.

 

Anyway, 8FillTheHeart, I appreciate all the posts you do on this subject! :)

 

Am I the only one who uses BFSU as open-&-go? Most people say it needs lots of prep but we just... do it, plus getting books on the topic. I feel like I must be missing something. What do you prep?

[2squared]

Am I the only one who uses BFSU as open-&-go? Most people say it needs lots of prep but we just... do it, plus getting books on the topic. I feel like I must be missing something. What do you prep?

 

It's open-and-go for us. But, like I posted before, we "do" science through reading and natural discovery. I don't feel a need to prep. I just lead my dc and watch them run.

[brownie]

I don't need much time. I need to read through it at least the night before...maybe 15 minutes prep for most lessons? I might look up a few internet images and request a couple of books for most lessons.

 

I do find it would be easier if the discussion points and questions weren't co-mingled with extra information so that I could just follow it down the page. I tend to make my own list of points I need to cover so I can glance over at it...5 or 6 bullet points and questions to ask so I don't miss something.

brownie

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Well there are a few personal factors as to why I didn't go with Elemental (which have nothing to do with the author or anything like that). I need something for a kid with the logic stage brain, but not the logic stage writing ability.

That makes perfect sense.

[boscopup]

I don't need much time. I need to read through it at least the night before...maybe 15 minutes prep for most lessons? I might look up a few internet images and request a couple of books for most lessons.

 

I do find it would be easier if the discussion points and questions weren't co-mingled with extra information so that I could just follow it down the page. I tend to make my own list of points I need to cover so I can glance over at it...5 or 6 bullet points and questions to ask so I don't miss something.

brownie

 

This is the prep I was talking about. Though, since I'm a bit of a slow reader, it took me a good 30 minutes to make some notes in a Word document. From those notes, I was able to teach easily, but there is just too much information in the lesson itself for me to open and right away explain it, having never looked at it before.

 

Now I have only used 2 lessons, so maybe this will change as we go along.

[ChandlerMom]

Science is an area I find TWTM very weak. It's clear to me that they just don't "get" what science is, but then history is what they love.

 

To the OPs question: most science curr focus on teaching knowledge. The format is "here is idea X" followed by an experiment and discussion. The scientific method is presented (hypothesis/obs/concl). Those 2 things are a far cry from learning how scientists think or even what science IS.

 

Put another way, I AM a scientist. I could teach my kids all sorts of scientific facts and theories. I can answer those "why is the sky blue" questions with diagrams, and derive the Navier-Stokes equations in my sleep. However none of that enables me to TEACH science. That's what BSFU does well. It helps me teach my child how to observe and think scientifically not just how to work through contrived experiments and lab sheets or fill their heads with "science info". Thinking scientifically -- being open minded, acutely aware, dispassionate, and logical -- will aid them in all areas. Even history. :D

 

ETA: I use BFSU, but not claiming it is the only good science out there. Just my thoughts on things to look for when evaluating science curr -- it should be more about encouraging exploration and thought and less about "topics covered" or "facts learned". Science is about being comfortable wallowing in the unknown, not just getting to the conclusion -- maybe that's what is uncomfortable to some folks?

Edited February 10, 2011 by ChandlerMom

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Thinking scientifically -- being open minded, acutely aware, dispassionate, and logical -- will aid them in all areas. Even history. :D

This sounds fabulous. I am so confused. :tongue_smilie:

[blakereese]

I haven't read the other thread. I popped in there one day and saw all the BFSU posts and exited thinking, "newest WTM rage." ;)

 

One thing that has always struck me when I read threads on science is that it is talked about as a subject with a list of objectives that need to be learned, memorized, completed. That just isn't the way I view science at all. I know nothing about BFSU (I don't even know what it stands for and I really could careless :D), but I wish parents would feel freedom to embrace science for what it is.....the awe-inspiring way of understanding the natural world that surrounds us.

 

A wise friend said something the other day that I added to my signature. I found it interesting to read the multiple threads on education that cropped up yesterday. She summed up in one sentence what I believe is the reason that education is failing in our society: The desire to learn anything has sadly been destroyed in most PS school students.

 

Modern education has reduced education to content (superficial knowledge). Obviously the kids are aware that that that isn't real education. Education is the inspiration to think, observe, analyze, and seek out answers, not regurgitation of pre-sifted, pre-determined, isolated bits of data. The latter is what I expect of a google search, not my children.

 

Anyway.....sorry for totally derailing the thread. I guess the question I would ask instead of why is curriculum X better than curriculum Y is what is the purpose of the subject. ;)

 

ETA: I have way too much going on to type philosophically......sorry for the ramble and typos. :)

 

8FillTheHeart,

Oh do I agree with so much that you said here. Where to begin? :001_smile:

 

The part you bolded, what your friend said to you, ohmygoodness is that true!! Just that one sentence really sums up WHY I pulled my son from public school. He went there so full of excitement, ready to learn all sorts of things, and then became so stressed and well, jaded is the word that comes to mind. And this was at age SIX. :001_huh: I can't imagine what he would have been like at say, nine?

 

I also agree that we should teach children to understand the natural world around us, and simply just breathe it in and live it. Especially at the grammar stage. I do use BFSU, and I like what it has done for me. After reading just the introduction pages, I felt so giddy inside and wished that I was a student again. I do feel like I was robbed a bit of enjoying science as a child, and just memorized facts, wrote lots of lab notes and reports, etc. I always got an A, but what did I really learn? BFSU to me just sort of helps me to bring it to my kids' level, and to think of science in everyday ways, with everyday things, instead of some random experiment that they aren't ready to relate to real life. Does that make sense?

 

For me, I feel like it is mostly open and go, as much as science can be anyway. I read ahead a few lessons to prepare and make sure we have what we need, or to reserve a book or two at the library, but I feel like it is prep I would do with most programs. I need to understand what I am teaching, so with most subjects I read ahead a bit to refresh my very old memory, and make sure I know that I can answer most of my kids' questions. So, I haven't found it too intimidating. I think just the flow of the lessons can be a bit overwhelming at first, but a visit to the yahoo group will help with that.

 

I don't know if BFSU is necessarily any better at teaching the scientific method than another program, I haven't really seen too many others to be honest. But it has helped me to teach in a more effective way, and it isn't anything totally new or different exactly, but just in a way that I wouldn't have thought of on my own. In any case, I do think it is worth a read, there is a lot you could take from it without following all of the lessons.

 

HTH! :001_smile:

[Amy Jo]

I do use BFSU, and I like what it has done for me. After reading just the introduction pages, I felt so giddy inside and wished that I was a student again. I do feel like I was robbed a bit of enjoying science as a child, and just memorized facts, wrote lots of lab notes and reports, etc. I always got an A, but what did I really learn? BFSU to me just sort of helps me to bring it to my kids' level, and to think of science in everyday ways, with everyday things, instead of some random experiment that they aren't ready to relate to real life. Does that make sense?

 

This is me too - I got good grades, yet I don't think I learned much in science. This is why I'm using BFSU - because I can't make it up as a go along - I don't have the skills in this area. But I am going to have the kids read science literature / biographies like 8FilltheHeart does, I'm really excited about science now - I think I can do this.

[Snowfall]

Am I the only one who uses BFSU as open-&-go? Most people say it needs lots of prep but we just... do it, plus getting books on the topic. I feel like I must be missing something. What do you prep?

 

If you live where the library sucks, you need to either plan to get them through ILL or purchase them in advance, so that requires determining ahead of time what books you want. Also, some of us (me, lol) don't like to pick the book up, flip to see what we did last, then decide today what lesson looks like a good follow up. I wanted to be sure we didn't stay out of any strand for too long, but we also didn't break up by several weeks lessons that were very closely related to each other within a strand. I felt some of them really should be done close together. I saved myself the hassle of making all those decisions at the last minute by making them ahead of time. Otherwise, no, it doesn't involve a lot of planning. :)

Edited February 11, 2011 by Snowfall

[SevenDaisies]

If you live where the library sucks, you need to either plan to get them through ILL or purchase them in advance, so that requires determining ahead of time what books you want. Also, some of us (me, lol) don't like to pick the book up, flip to see what we did last, then decide today what lesson looks like a good follow up. I wanted to be sure we didn't stay out of any strand for too long, but we also didn't break up by several weeks lessons that were very closely related to each other within a strand. I felt some of them really should be done close together. I saved myself the hassle of making all those decisions at the last minute by making them ahead of time. Otherwise, no, it doesn't involve a lot of planning. :)

 

:iagree: The thing that requires the most prep for me is requesting the materials from the library. They are not required , but I like to have the additional reading for dd. Now, I did spend a lot of time when I first got the book trying to find a sequence for the lessons considering all the pre-reqs. However, several people have posted such documents on the BFSU Yahoo group. I still don't think it is open and go. There's a lot of information in the lessons, and it does take time to read through it all. It's definitely worth it though. It encourages scientific exploration and dialogue. My kids enjoy every minute of science.

[Lovedtodeath]

It sounds to me like it is a book written to teach me how to teach science... like TWTM is a book written to teach me how to teach history or language arts... not a curriculum that you can open up and use directly with your kids?

[jewel7123]

It sounds to me like it is a book written to teach me how to teach science... like TWTM is a book written to teach me how to teach history or language arts... not a curriculum that you can open up and use directly with your kids?

 

It is definitely not open and go......at least not at first glance. I need to delve in to it more, but I think you're on the right track here.

[SevenDaisies]

It sounds to me like it is a book written to teach me how to teach science... like TWTM is a book written to teach me how to teach history or language arts... not a curriculum that you can open up and use directly with your kids?

 

It is certainly a teacher's manual, but it is also a complete curriculum. It is not, however scripted. It is not broken out day-by-day. Everything you need is in the lesson. I hesitate to say it could be done open & go because there is a lot of information in the lesson. The author goes to great lengths to explain how to demonstrate the principles to kids and how to relate it to their experiences. I like to read it before I start, and think through the concepts and demonstrations.

 

I think you could easily read through the lesson, gather the materials, and then go from there with little other preparation. I myself prefer to include the Books for Correlated Reading (which are definitely not required). This just creates the extra steps of requesting the materials and determining how they best fit into the lesson.

[brownie]

It is not meant to teach you HOW to teach science, though you would learn something about teaching science by reading and following the book. It definitely teaches WHAT to teach about science...in fact he is very particular about that. He will tell you what to avoid because it confuses children at a certain age and what to teach early to avoid misconceptions as they get older.

 

Brownie

[Capt_Uhura]

One thing that has always struck me when I read threads on science is that it is talked about as a subject with a list of objectives that need to be learned, memorized, completed. That just isn't the way I view science at all. I know nothing about BFSU (I don't even know what it stands for and I really could careless :D), but I wish parents would feel freedom to embrace science for what it is.....the awe-inspiring way of understanding the natural world that surrounds us.

The desire to learn anything has sadly been destroyed in most PS school students.

 

Modern education has reduced education to content (superficial knowledge). Obviously the kids are aware that that that isn't real education. Education is the inspiration to think, observe, analyze, and seek out answers, not regurgitation of pre-sifted, pre-determined, isolated bits of data. The latter is what I expect of a google search, not my children.

)

 

:iagree: My friend looked at a middle school science and history textbook and the content was so disjointed, so scattered...no child could make connections out of it. And they likely only cover half the material, if that.

 

What I like about BFSU is Dr. Nebel's encouragement of asking questions. I read an article on creativity that kids stop asking questions about 2nd grade. They stop wondering about things. This is what we need to promote.

 

You can give a child a slide and a microscope and say "Those are called cells." Or you can do as Dr. Nebel suggests and show them lots of slides of different things, ask them to draw what they see, ask what do all these have in common. I recently did that with my kids...even though they already know about cells :lol: and we discussed what Hook and Leeuwenhoek might have felt upon seeing them for the first time.

 

The other day I remarked to my 2nd grader...."Gee I wonder why that patch of grass has no snow on it." He said, "The sun melted that patch." "HHmm but would the sun only shine on such a small area?" "Probably not. Perhaps the wind blew it away." "Yes, that's definitely a possibility. Any other possibilities?" "Something melted the snow there?" "Ah perhaps. What's underneath the ground right there? You don't know? The septic tank." We then went on to discuss how there was literally inches of dirt above the tank, all the hot water flowing into the tank etc keeping the ground warmer. Then in the summer when the grass is burnt b/c of the heat from the tank, we'll revisit and see if he makes the connection.

 

I ask my 4yr old...I wonder why the car only has ice on one side? Then we discuss her various answers. If she doesn't get there on her own, I might ask "Where do you first see the sun in the AM?" Usually then the light bulb goes off.

 

I recall a conversation with my then 4yr old DS when he wondered why there were holes in the snow. He postulated animal prints (only in one area, didn't continue on", someone w/ a stick (no footprints present) and others I can't remember. Then I just casually looked up. He looked up. AH HA! The sun is melting the ice on the tree, and the drips are melting the holes in the snow. So we patiently watched a bit of ice and sure enough, a bit of water formed on the end of the branch, and drip/drop, right into a hole. :001_smile:

 

I think this is the type of thinking Dr. Nebel hopes to promote. In science we have joke that seminal discoveries are made by graduate students and postdocs b/c their minds are free, open to all the possibilities...by the time you are a senior researcher, your mind is shackled by the current paradigm. There were several topics that were heresy when I was a grad student and those scientists laughed at openly, well, those ideas are now fully accepted by the scientific community only 20yrs later.

 

But in order to come up w/ questions, ideas, and possible answers, there is knowledge and I think that is where reading widely in science comes into play in the grammar stage. There are so many wonderful books out there about any scientific topic. When my oldest was 3,4,5yrs old before going to PS for 3yrs prior to being HS'd, we read science books for hours each day. Whatever struck his fancy....

Edited February 12, 2011 by Capt_Uhura

[LittleIzumi]

:iagree: The thing that requires the most prep for me is requesting the materials from the library. They are not required , but I like to have the additional reading for dd. Now, I did spend a lot of time when I first got the book trying to find a sequence for the lessons considering all the pre-reqs. However, several people have posted such documents on the BFSU Yahoo group. I still don't think it is open and go. There's a lot of information in the lessons, and it does take time to read through it all. It's definitely worth it though. It encourages scientific exploration and dialogue. My kids enjoy every minute of science.

 

True. Someone already had most of my gravity books checked out last week :glare::lol:.

 

It sounds to me like it is a book written to teach me how to teach science... like TWTM is a book written to teach me how to teach history or language arts... not a curriculum that you can open up and use directly with your kids?

 

It is both. There are several very extensive chapters on how to teach science. Then the curriculum begins. Each lesson has an objective, discussion questions with common responses and suggestions for how to guide the students to discover the correct answers, not what you as the teacher should immediately answer. There is further discussion that guides the student to think about that topic as it relates to something else, like from gravity/what makes things fall to weight & whether people on the "bottom" of the earth fall off. Then there is a simple activity for the kids to do to illustrate the topic--drop many different items together & see if they land at the same time, make a plumb line with a string & something heavyish to show the direction gravity pulls (which was part of the segue from gravity to horizontal & vertucal, along with identifying lines in the room & imagining what would happen if the walls were NOT vertical, if the table was NOT horizontal, a suggestion about water that had us pouring water on a flat dish & then tilting it beyond horizontal, & having dd stand upright & then holding her hands & pulling her to not-vertical angles back & forth, feeling gravity suddenly pulling on her). Only that very, very last activity with dd was not something I read in the lesson, and it might be there as I haven't finished reading the last bit (this is a 3-part lesson so we'll be finishing later). There are also lists of recommended reading, the state standards this lesson meets, sometimes notes for parents, etc.

Edited February 12, 2011 by LittleIzumi

[Scuff]

I found a sample chapter, if that help anyone.

 

http://www.pressforlearning.com/