Science self-teaching guides recommended in WTM

[LanaTron]

I've searched for these on the boards, but the main thing I keep coming across is that people don't like the self-teaching guides SWB recommends for high school science.

 

I'm curious what people don't like about them? One person mentioned that the biology doesn't discuss genetics or evolution. Is there anything else that is missing or is poorly handled?

 

BTW, I'm not trying to stir anything up (I've been reading all the rigor threads), I'm just trying to make an informed decision.

 

Thank you!

[Loupelou]

My kids just didn't like the set-up with explanations to questions right underneath. You have to hold a piece of paper over the whole page and slowly slide it down in order to not see the answers. I can see using them as a brush up but not a stand alone text.

[TeaTotaler]

I borrowed a couple of these from the library and agree with the Loupelou's assessment. They would work well for a quick review.

[Joan in GE]

If you would compare them to some of the other texts discussed, you would see that there is a lot missing. It would be useful to take a Campbell Biology Concepts and Connections text and the Biology self-teaching text and compare them side by side... or do it for chemistry and you will quickly see. While some science doesn't need color, certainly it helps for Biology.

 

If they don't have the two in your library, you might be able to get them on interlibrary loan. And some of the not so old texts, eg in Physics, where there is not really that much new information, are quite cheap on Amazon used...sometimes just a few dollars.

 

If you have a student that is not interested in pursuing higher studies in science, there are probably other texts that present the material in a more interesting way. I find these self-study guides to be for a person who wants to quickly educate themselves about the bare bones of the subject who has a lot of self-discipline to sit through dry books. Plus the facts are so minimalist that they would really need another book to help them understand what the book is talking about and reinforce concepts.

 

Joan

[LanaTron]

Thanks, everyone. Anyone else?

[LanaTron]

Dry and minimalist...that's what I thought. Thanks!

[regentrude]

I only looked at the physics one, because that is my area of expertise, and I do not think one can master physics using this book.

Aside from it being dry, the explanations are too sparse - there is simply not enough room devoted to a thorough discussion of concepts, including clearing up of common misconceptions. There are way too few practice problems.

 

Supplementing with living books is nice, but will not teach problem solving.

[Joan in GE]

I bought all the books, since over here there is no inter-library loan for such things :) and to me these books would make students dislike the subject more than they probably already do if they are not going into science. The material is not presented in a way that encourages curiosity or interest.

 

For someone who doesn't want to go into a science field, the books will not help a student appreciate the subject any more.

 

I was a bit tongue-in-cheek before saying that you would need to buy another book to understand the concepts - you might as well just buy the other book instead. (ooops, is this going against the new principles of recommendations discussed in Nan's thread?)

 

Biology is the science that is probably changing the most quickly (including biochem in that) and even when you come to the book with prior university experience, the review in these books is inadequate (speaking from experience here). So if you come with no knowledge of the subject whatsoever, it would be hard for you to understand the concepts discussed in a way that would give any real foundation eg if the student wanted to homeschool their own children in the future.

 

As a parent/teacher, I would have to be constantly searching for other information to supplement these books (because, for example, some of the figures of pathways or cycles are so sophisticated that they are incomprehensible to the layman, or there is such a dearth of information that you lack exposure) - whereas with other Biology books eg, I would have to be figuring out what to leave out there is so much more content. And if you have problem with evolution - you don't have to read those chapters in the other books, though SWB herself discusses in her "teaching science" CD, the need to teach this even if you don't believe it so that your student has a way of interacting with those in society that do believe it, without closing down mentally.

 

And when mentioning previously the lack of color in the biology diagrams - I should have mentioned the lack of detail as well...There is so much being discovered as we speak and good biology diagrams can give so much more understanding.

 

That the 2nd/ie most recent edition is from 2002 is a problem for biology as well.

 

To be less cryptic, I think these books aren't discussed much because their inadequacies are so obvious that they barely merit a discussion and are only being discussed because they are recommended in the TWTM - a book which has such good recommendations for many other subjects, and whose author I credit for our success - between her books and board. Sorry - I think this series if one the worst recommendations in TWTM and the lack of positive comments would lead me to believe that others have similar opinions.

 

HTH,

Joan

[LanaTron]

I'm starting to get a clearer picture now of the problems with the STGs. My ds wants to be a writer, as of now, so I suppose he doesn't need super-rigorous science, but I do want it to be interesting and solid enough to score well on SAT2s. And seeing as we haven't done a whole lot of science, he may just change his mind if it the materials are done well.

 

I am also looking at the Miller/Levine book, which I really like, and a newer product that's out there, Science Shepherd.

[flyingiguana]

I got the impression these books might appeal to people who think that science is just memorization?

 

Or maybe the fact that they were shorter than most decent science textbooks was appealing? They were not quite so daunting? (But I suspect they're mostly shorter because they're "just the facts" without much explanation.)

 

The thing is, there are plenty of decent science books out there, so I'm not quite sure why these were recommended in particular (other than that there had to be something recommended).

 

I've also never been sure why things like Hippocrates were included under science. They're history of science, which is kind of a different beast. They should probably be under history. I suspect this may be another reason why the recommendation is to use the self teaching guides. Once one starts using up a lot of science time on doing history of science, it becomes a bit difficult to fit in all the science reading in what looks like a reasonable amount of time. As the self teaching guides are shorter, it almost looks like you could fit them in and still do the "source readings". But then the student wouldn't really learn science. They'd just learn some history of science and a smattering of science facts.

 

While it might make sense to go back to original writings when one is doing history, it kind of doesn't for science. Science is working towards understanding the natural world, while history is working toward understanding what happened back then. So while reading what someone wrote about historical events back then might be enlightening in figuring out what happened back then, reading what someone thought about the natural world back in ancient Greek times isn't all that relevant to current scientific thought. It doesn't really provide any information.

[Colleen in NS]

I've got some questions for all of you, and I'm just going to ask them point-blank, simply so I can get a better understanding (also, I'm in a rush right now). I have no science background, so my questions are not meant to be a debate challenge to you, even if they come across that way.

 

I can see using them as a brush up but not a stand alone text.

 

Is this because of the answers below the text, or is there another reason?

 

I find these self-study guides to be for a person who wants to quickly educate themselves about the bare bones of the subject ...

 

Helpful to know now.

 

I only looked at the physics one, because that is my area of expertise, and I do not think one can master physics using this book.

 

Is a high schooler supposed to master physics in high school? If so, what does that mean?

 

Aside from it being dry, the explanations are too sparse - there is simply not enough room devoted to a thorough discussion of concepts, including clearing up of common misconceptions.

 

Could supplemental library books geared towards young adults or adults expand on these concepts adequately for high schoolers? If so, what types of books would one look for? If not, then why not?

 

There are way too few practice problems.

 

As in, math? If so, that makes sense to me. I hadn't thought about that (I've wondered lots why people don't talk much about these STG here). So, if one wanted a math-oriented physics text as opposed to conceptual, STG wouldn't fit the bill - am I understanding this as you intended?

 

I bought all the books, since over here there is no inter-library loan for such things :) and to me these books would make students dislike the subject more than they probably already do if they are not going into science. The material is not presented in a way that encourages curiosity or interest.

 

Yeah, I can see that (I have the books). I guess I was just assuming that library supplements would be a way to work around this. But I am completely open to arguments that could sway me otherwise.

 

For someone who doesn't want to go into a science field, the books will not help a student appreciate the subject any more.

 

I was a bit tongue-in-cheek before saying that you would need to buy another book to understand the concepts - you might as well just buy the other book instead. (ooops, is this going against the new principles of recommendations discussed in Nan's thread?)

 

:lol::lol:Shame on you! Just kidding, lol! And no, no, NO - this is the stuff that's helpful!!!!!! I'm just hoping people can see that I think that, even though I'm typing questions briefly and quickly.

 

Biology is the science that is probably changing the most quickly (including biochem in that) and even when you come to the book with prior university experience, the review in these books is inadequate (speaking from experience here). So if you come with no knowledge of the subject whatsoever, it would be hard for you to understand the concepts discussed in a way that would give any real foundation eg if the student wanted to homeschool their own children in the future.

 

Aha, OK, now THAT is helpful to me-with-no-background!

 

As a parent/teacher, I would have to be constantly searching for other information to supplement these books (because, for example, some of the figures of pathways or cycles are so sophisticated that they are incomprehensible to the layman, or there is such a dearth of information that you lack exposure)

 

Here is where my growing-by-the-year insecurity about science teaching shows up - OK, now I know you are overseas and don't have library access (right?), but what do you see as the general problem with supplementing the STG with library books that would serve the purpose you said above? (I'm guessing you see it as a general problem)

 

- whereas with other Biology books eg, I would have to be figuring out what to leave out there is so much more content.

 

And how do you do that? That's why the thrift store WTM-popular physics book sitting on my shelf scares me - I would not have a clue how to use it - there is SO much, and don't know what I could leave out (whereas with history, I would have more confidence with chopping info. now).

 

And when mentioning previously the lack of color in the biology diagrams - I should have mentioned the lack of detail as well...There is so much being discovered as we speak and good biology diagrams can give so much more understanding.

 

Could library supplements to STG help? Or newer bought books that specialize in a topic the kid is interested in? Or is it mostly that most people here prefer to have all that in one giant text, that is preferably up-to-the-minute with info.?

 

That the 2nd/ie most recent edition is from 2002 is a problem for biology as well.

 

Because of your previous mention that biology is changing so much?

 

To be less cryptic, I think these books aren't discussed much because their inadequacies are so obvious that they barely merit a discussion

 

I'm glad you're helping me out here, because NONE of this was obvious to me! (Please, people, speak up when you see posts about the STG books)

 

and are only being discussed because they are recommended in the TWTM - a book which has such good recommendations for many other subjects, and whose author I credit for our success - between her books and board.

 

TWTM is my homeschooling Bible, esp. as I keep getting into unfamiliar areas. That's why I've been so confused as to why no one talks about the STG books. But I think I'm getting a better picture now.

 

Sorry - I think this series if one the worst recommendations in TWTM and the lack of positive comments would lead me to believe that others have similar opinions.

 

HTH,

Joan

 

It DOES help, thank you very much! (You must have see my desperate plea on that dumbing-down thread) No need at all to say "sorry" - your opinions are very helpful to me.

 

I got the impression these books might appeal to people who think that science is just memorization?

 

Will you expand your thoughts on this? I'm not quite sure what you mean.

 

Or maybe the fact that they were shorter than most decent science textbooks was appealing? They were not quite so daunting?

 

That would be me. But I'm willing to learn and research for something different, as long as I know what I'm looking for and why.

 

(But I suspect they're mostly shorter because they're "just the facts" without much explanation.)

 

You're saying pretty much the same thing Joan said. So, hmmm....I wonder if others who have BTDT think the same thing.

 

The thing is, there are plenty of decent science books out there, so I'm not quite sure why these were recommended in particular (other than that there had to be something recommended).

 

I'm going to guess that SWB and JW were looking for something that was inexpensive that could be done at home easily as an introduction. I say that because in the same science chapter, there is also a recommendation for "families with financial resources," and that was the Teaching Company lectures. So, options for varying income levels, maybe?

 

I've also never been sure why things like Hippocrates were included under science. They're history of science, which is kind of a different beast. They should probably be under history. I suspect this may be another reason why the recommendation is to use the self teaching guides. Once one starts using up a lot of science time on doing history of science, it becomes a bit difficult to fit in all the science reading in what looks like a reasonable amount of time. As the self teaching guides are shorter, it almost looks like you could fit them in and still do the "source readings". But then the student wouldn't really learn science. They'd just learn some history of science and a smattering of science facts.

 

Ah, OK, this makes sense to me, too. Something more for me to think about.

 

While it might make sense to go back to original writings when one is doing history, it kind of doesn't for science. Science is working towards understanding the natural world, while history is working toward understanding what happened back then. So while reading what someone wrote about historical events back then might be enlightening in figuring out what happened back then, reading what someone thought about the natural world back in ancient Greek times isn't all that relevant to current scientific thought. It doesn't really provide any information.

 

Well, but doesn't it help science study to see how scientific thought developed from then til now? Of course, I think I do understand that you are separating actual science study (current understanding/discoveries about the natural world) from a study of the history of science. I knew about this separation from my read of WTM, but I didn't really "get" some other things about actual science study. I think I'm "getting" it a little more each time I ask questions here.

 

I'll bet the recs are in WTM as part of SWB's original vision of the perfect classical education that she also knew no one could ever really follow.

 

OK, I think I have a better understanding now (oh, but please can you all still answer my questions?) of why many people don't use the STG books.

 

Thank you all so much for elaborating!

[regentrude]

Colleen,

I'll try to answer the questions you addressed to me.

 

Is a high schooler supposed to master physics in high school? If so, what does that mean?

 

Mastery is always relative - it refers to a certain level. Of course the level of mastery required of a high schooler is not the same as that of a university student majoring in physics. This said, I think anything worth studying is worth studying thoroughly at whatever level one has chosen.

So, when I talk about mastery, I would like the student to have a fundamental understanding of the physical concepts and the ability to apply these concepts to certain specific situations - simpler situations involving one or two concepts for a high schooler, more complex situations mixing many different concepts for a physics major.

 

There are way too few practice problems. As in, math?

Practice problems - yes, similar to math. Physics is a quantitative science - it is not just about concepts, but also about quantitative predictions. In the STG, the equations are just given, with too few explanation and not enough derivation where they come from and what they mean. The student has to use the equations to solve problems, and in order to learn to do this, he needs many practice problems with different scenarios. This is where my critique comes in - not sufficient practice.

 

So, if one wanted a math-oriented physics text as opposed to conceptual, STG wouldn't fit the bill - am I understanding this as you intended?

It would not work as a conceptual approach either. A conceptual approach is a valid way of teaching physics (although I personally find it insufficient on a high school level). The STG does NOT do a good job in explaining the concepts, discussing scenarios and misconceptions. Hewitt's Conceptual Physics is a good choice if you are interested in a conceptual text.

 

I would say that the expectations I have about a book that claims to be a "Self teaching guide" would be much higher than the ones I have about a textbook which is intended for use with a qualified teacher whom the student can ask questions. STG falls very short of that goal - it can not teach physics adequately. I would not even consider it a real textbook - it is more a summary study guide for people reviewing material they have already understood.

 

Could supplemental library books geared towards young adults or adults expand on these concepts adequately for high schoolers? If so, what types of books would one look for? If not, then why not?

 

I have not seen any books that I find useful for that purpose at high school level. Maybe I just don't know them.

You would want a thorough systematic discussion of mechanics and electromagnetics principles, NOT on an elementary level. I don't even know any such books for adult readers; there are popular science books for astronomy and particle physics, but I am not familiar with anything for mechanics, e&m and thermodynamics. Maybe they exist - I don't know.

 

To be honest, I am not sure why one would be trying to reinvent the wheel - there are many excellent choices of physics textbooks available, so I don't see a reason to use a book that is inadequate and jump through hoops to make it fit. I'd rather use a good textbook from the very beginning.

[regentrude]

Well, but doesn't it help science study to see how scientific thought developed from then til now? !

 

Yes, history of science does help with a more thorough understanding. What i found, however, is that a study of the history of science is much more beneficial if one has studied the science itself first.

I can spend a lot of time reading about the history of physics - but will gain a much better appreciation of the thought processes and developments when I can appreciate where they were wrong, what they got right etc.

Reading about ancient astronomy gets put into a completely different perspective with the background of today's knowledge.

So, if I use original historic sources for science studies, I usually use them as a supplement after we have studied the topic. (For instance, I would prefer my student to read Darwin after she has studied evolution in biology, not before.)

 

I'm going to guess that SWB and JW were looking for something that was inexpensive that could be done at home easily as an introduction. I say that because in the same science chapter, there is also a recommendation for "families with financial resources," and that was the Teaching Company lectures. So, options for varying income levels, maybe?

 

Let me preface this by saying that I greatly value SWB and love her book, so I am not meaning to attack her. I think, this is a typical case of people putting together curriculum who have very strong expertise in ONE specific area - for her, humanities, literature and history - while, at the same time, naturally not being an expert in other fields.

I find the best materials are designed and selected by people who actually USE a specific skill set. This means, for instance, people who actually use math in daily life make better math books than people who are sitting in a school of education and are just thinking about teaching math, but have never actually used mathematics. So, when it comes to recommendations about science, people who use science every day know what skills are needed and how to acquire them. A historian can not have that expertise and needs to rely on recommendations.

 

Edited June 17, 2011 by regentrude

[Colleen in NS]

regentrude,

 

Thank you SO much for your detailed replies - they were EXTREMELY helpful to me!!!!!!!!! You've given me lots to think about, and I have no more questions for you. At least not right now. :D This thread will be filed in my "science" file.

[Moira in MA]

I have to agree with Regentrude. Dd used this the chemistry book for a preliminary chemistry semester at our local co-op. She loathed it -- as Regentrude said about the physics version, it is *dry*.

 

I'd say it is definitely *not* as substitute for a decent course in the subject. But...as a substitute for a lousy course....who knows.

 

~Moira

[LanaTron]

And thank you, Colleen, for asking the detailed questions.

[cathmom]

Yes, thanks for this thread. My dd read through some of the Astronomy one last summer but it seemed like a poor fit for a very visual learner.

[Joan in GE]

Well, but doesn't it help science study to see how scientific thought developed from then til now?

 

I agree with Regentrude about the need for studying the subject first and that studying the history of a subject is not the same as studying the subject.

 

I'll just add that from SWB's CD about science study, I think part of her point in this study is for scientists to have humility in their statements. She discusses how much concepts change over time and yet how dogmatic many "scientists" have been in the past - many times to the detriment of better ideas that were not "in vogue". But at this point, my dc do not have the amount of time free in their lives to do that history of science study so they get a condensed version of this analysis. They need the hard core science concepts more to understand the material world at this point in time, with its limits...

 

I highly recommend her CD/MP3 much more than this STG series.

 

Here is where my growing-by-the-year insecurity about science teaching shows up - OK, now I know you are overseas and don't have library access (right?), but what do you see as the general problem with supplementing the STG with library books that would serve the purpose you said above? (I'm guessing you see it as a general problem)

 

- whereas with other Biology books eg, I would have to be figuring out what to leave out there is so much more content.

 

And how do you do that? That's why the thrift store WTM-popular physics book sitting on my shelf scares me - I would not have a clue how to use it - there is SO much, and don't know what I could leave out (whereas with history, I would have more confidence with chopping info. now).

 

Well Colleen, you actually have a worse problem than you realize if you use the STG. If you don't know what to chop out of the other big texts, how would you know what to add to these texts, besides adding what your children don't understand? That's where the internet/WTM board is your friend.

 

Other people have been talking about chopping/focusing in relation to biology and other texts lately (if my memory is accurate). Eg you could search for a syllabi for the text you have. You'll hopefully find some that are fuller than others. You download both - a full and a scanty one and try working on the fuller one. If you can keep up, do that. If you can't, use the scantier one.

 

For us, I chopped part of biology based on what my ds might be seeing next year in French (since then basically it will be vocabulary development as the EAD course we were using was just too antiquated - from 1986). I found that syllabus, (they actually use a translation of the BIG Biology by Campbell), then made sure he covered those concepts first, first in Concepts and Connections to have a basic understanding, then in the BIG Campbell. Then he went on to do the labs in the Online labs which also had required reading in the BIG Campbell. Mixed in there, he did the chapters in the Concepts and Connections book that he was personally interested in.

 

For you, another approach would be to see which exams you might want your dc to take eg SAT II? I don't know your plans....If so, or it could work for another exam, take one of the study guides for that exam, and use the TC as your guide for what chapters you should cover in the Biology book.

 

I was in contact with a math teacher in ps who had to change her syllabi midyear because the students just weren't able to keep up. Maybe you would go from honors chem to reg chem for example, so that your transcript reflects the truth of the situation.

 

While I don't have access to a great library, I have bought lots of other used books over the years from the local international school bookroom, texts and interest books like. So while I don't have interlibrary loan, I do have other materials from which I can supplement. And I've spent days/ probably months total working out plans of supplements or my own plans in the wee hours of the morning. When my husband started insisting that I go to bed earlier, which helped me have much more patience during the day (its amazing how a little more sleep gives a different perspective on life's problems), I no longer had time to do this. But it seems that things are actually better now. With so much time planning, I didn't have enough time to implement or was too mentally tired to implement!

 

To me it comes down to that...with all the coordination necessary for WTM history/literature study, I don't have time left to do that for science as well. And then like I said earlier, why not just use a better book to begin with?

 

If you are really strapped for cash, you could do the supplementing you are talking about but you would need time and the knowledge of what to supplement. But it also takes time to go to the library each week/month and what if the books you want are gone? Taking gas into account with the rising prices, it might actually be cheaper to get a used text that isn't as old as the STG.

 

So I guess that covers the main points but don't have time to check minutely, so ask if in doubt. And others have many ideas as well.

 

Joan

[flyingiguana]

 

Well, but doesn't it help science study to see how scientific thought developed from then til now? Of course, I think I do understand that you are separating actual science study (current understanding/discoveries about the natural world) from a study of the history of science. I knew about this separation from my read of WTM, but I didn't really "get" some other things about actual science study. I think I'm "getting" it a little more each time I ask questions here.

 

Regentrude did a very nice job answering a lot of the questions that were directed at me, so I won't repeat what she already said.

 

However, in response to this particular question, about whether science understanding is helped by seeing how it developed, the answer is yes. It does help with understanding the concepts. More importantly, it teaches students how science works. But there are some caveats.

 

First, students do learn this sort of material in regular science courses, but they generally don't go back to the original sources to read it. The original sources tend to be very long and hard to read. It would be way too time consuming to read even one. So many textbooks (and/or teachers) incorporate the info into the book or the lecture in a compact way and move on. Much more history is covered this way, so the whole sweep of how we got to our current ideas is seen, rather than just one little teensy slice. It's not only more efficient, I think it accomplishes the goal of seeing where humans have been with this topic MUCH better than reading a couple books from centuries past.

 

Second, a lot of science writing when it first comes out is just impossible to understand. A few experts in the field might figure out what it means. The concept gets incorporated into a few other papers, then, after a number of years, a convenient way of explaining the concept (along with more readable notation) gets developed. It takes a long time before it's really ready to have non-experts even understand it.

 

As an example, apparently Mendel's paper on genetics (which is about a very simple topic, really) was completely incomprehensible. It took a "rediscovery" decades later, and a total rewriting of the notation before the experts even noticed the paper. And then it was another generation or so before it made it into textbooks and college students started to learn it in freshman biology. It probably took even longer to make it into high school books. (At least, this is the story I heard in college genetics. I haven't read Mendel's paper myself. Maybe if I did, I'd find that this story was all wrong, which might be an argument for reading the original papers. But on the other hand, maybe not. For historians of science, this timeline might be interesting, but for understanding genetics it is somewhat irrelevant. It is true that our popular *understanding* of how Mendel went about discovering what was going on with his pea plants is useful for teaching the basics of genetics, but if it's apocryphal, well, that doesn't really change the science of genetics.)

 

 

As another example, I think it is helpful to see the chain of discoveries that led to the current description of the physical structure of DNA. But reading the original papers would take all year and I doubt most students would get much of anything out of them. Besides, most of this work was done in the 20th century. It wouldn't accomplish the goal of delving back into ancient and medieval times to see what people back then thought (if they thought much of anything about DNA). (One could read The Double Helix and call that a primary source in this situation, but I wouldn't recommend it. It doesn't really cover the science in any depth, and what is covered is pretty incomprehensible. A biology text would do the history more justice, as well as the science.)

 

Also, I'm not entirely sure that our current science is really based on philosophical writings from the ancient Greeks. Although, the popular conception is that we got everything from the Greeks, I'm not sure this is really true. In fact, a lot of what we've "got" from peoples in the past may never have been written down. The accumulation of technological changes that have occurred over the centuries may be more important than anything that was written, so that the historical documents of science are not so much documents as devices. What the Greeks wrote down (I'm picking on them because they're so far back) may only be a side eddy in the real scientific developments that continued on with no one bothering to write them down.

[flyingiguana]

But for your immediate concerns on what to teach your kids and how to teach it:

 

I wouldn't sweat it so much. If you just get in SOME science that the kids actually learn (rather than pounding their brains against a book that doesn't make sense without a teacher), they'll be fine.

 

If they are interested in going into a science field, I would be MUCH more concerned about making sure they have a really good grasp of math, that they can interpret data (graphs, etc), and that they understand the concept of hypothesis testing.

 

Many, many students enter college every year with crummy science backgrounds from high school. Out of this bunch, the ones who make it easily in science are the ones with strong math backgrounds. (And even students with weak math, if they go to a college that is committed to working with this deficit, can make it in science. It just takes longer.)

 

My advice is to find good science resources for high school (as already pointed out, this board is your friend in this regard!), but don't run yourself ragged thinking you've failed your kids. The truth is, most kids don't get that much out of the usual high school science sequence. AP and IB courses may do more, but even then, I'm a bit skeptical, from the kids I've seen.

 

Is physics necessary in high school? Ideally, yes, but in reality, probably not. I dropped out of it in high school, took it in college, and did fine. My oldest never did physics in high school. When she took it as a college class, she was scoring above those kids who'd had it as an AP class. (We've both gone on to further physics. It was never noticeable that we'd skipped it in high school.)

 

For kids who won't go into science, a basic course in physical science might be more pertinent to their lives, although physics is a nice course in teaching how to think through a problem.

[flyingiguana]

 

 

Other people have been talking about chopping/focusing in relation to biology and other texts lately (if my memory is accurate). Eg you could search for a syllabi for the text you have. You'll hopefully find some that are fuller than others. You download both - a full and a scanty one and try working on the fuller one. If you can keep up, do that. If you can't, use the scantier one.

 

 

Counterintuitively, though, I might start with the scanty one, on the assumption that it was covering the real basics. Then I'd work up from there if we had time. That way I'd be more assured of doing the really important stuff in depth.

 

However, I've found this doesn't work so well with some biology syllabi. Sometimes a course is only billed as covering a bit of biology -- like biology of cells, or whatever. Now that is an approach that could work in biology (covering a bit and assuming it relates to the whole -- there's so darn much, maybe this sort of trimming is necessary?), but it wouldn't be "comprehensive".

 

Something to think about, though, is that intro majors courses in physics and biology in college sometimes span 3 semesters. If you get a syllabus for only 2 semesters from one of those, you might have left out a big chunk.

 

The physics sequence tends to be

1 - mechanics

2 - electromagnetics and waves

3 - modern physics (everything after about 1880 or so, I forget the exact date)

 

Now maybe all you want to cover is the first two, but you should be aware of it.

 

And I've seen biology get split up into 3 semesters in all kinds of ways.

 

On the other hand, seeing as this is high science, maybe leaving out big pieces and making sure the things that are covered are covered WELL, is the better goal.

[elegantlion]

I've got some questions for all of you, and I'm just going to ask them point-blank, simply so I can get a better understanding (also, I'm in a rush right now). I have no science background, so my questions are not meant to be a debate challenge to you, even if they come across that way.

 

 

Colleen, I believe you and I have some similar background. I know the thought of teaching high school science has intimidated me. Right now I have an entire shelf dedicated to science textbooks/books I've picked up cheaply over the years.

 

Here's a few of the things I have done/am doing to feel adequate to facilitate my son:

 

Highly recommend this book, Science Matters. It's designed to help adults achieve scientific literacy. Ds and I have read some of it together as well.

 

Khan Academy videos

 

HHMI Lots of freebies to order.

 

Look for sources with adequate teaching materials. I want to do high school in a secular manner. So that itself eliminates a good of put together sources.

 

I'm trying to order some cheap texts to see if they are doable for me and ds. Are TE available? If not is there online support either for the textbook or a syllabus developed by another teacher? In other words how am I going to grade ds's work?

 

Affording online/CC classes are not an option for us right now either, so I don't even look at those.

 

What level do I want to pursue in this area of science? My ds MAY be interested in going into a STEM area, but he prefers physics and chem over anything biology related. So I want a deeper chem and physics course and biology may be a basic box-checking type course.

 

Keeping my math skills fresh.

 

Don't know if that helps. I also keep reading here. I'm planning on filling in my own gaps in the next year before we start at the high school level.

[Joan in GE]

Counter-intuitively, though, I might start with the scanty one, on the assumption that it was covering the real basics. Then I'd work up from there if we had time. That way I'd be more assured of doing the really important stuff in depth.

 

However, I've found this doesn't work so well with some biology syllabi. Sometimes a course is only billed as covering a bit of biology -- like biology of cells, or whatever. Now that is an approach that could work in biology (covering a bit and assuming it relates to the whole -- there's so darn much, maybe this sort of trimming is necessary?), but it wouldn't be "comprehensive".

 

Something to think about, though, is that intro majors courses in physics and biology in college sometimes span 3 semesters. If you get a syllabus for only 2 semesters from one of those, you might have left out a big chunk.

 

...

Now maybe all you want to cover is the first two, but you should be aware of it.

 

And I've seen biology get split up into 3 semesters in all kinds of ways.

 

On the other hand, seeing as this is high science, maybe leaving out big pieces and making sure the things that are covered are covered WELL, is the better goal.

 

It would be interesting to have threads for biology, chem, and physics about the most important topics.

 

My experience is very limited. Your ideas are interesting and I can see the logic...it is so helpful to have these kinds of discussions to get other perspectives.

 

I should have noted that the French biology syllabus we ended up using was not a full-fledged uni course, but a very basic one meant as a sideline for math and physics focus. There were huge sections of the Biology Campbell completely untouched so we had time for other topics.

 

I would think it better to use a high school level one to start esp if the mom has limited science experience unless the student is massively self-energized by the subject and if there are no other compelling reasons to follow another direction. Already the high school level texts cover so much more than they used to and even Jr. Hi level texts now cover some topics previously reserved for college, though they were covered more thoroughly in college.

 

Biology is a subject that has drastically changed in the last 30+ years.

 

Joan

Edited June 18, 2011 by Joan in Geneva
typo

[emubird]

There were huge sections of the Biology Campbell completely untouched so we had time for other topics.

 

 

I would think that would be the only way to do Campbell (at least the big one), unless prepping for the AP test.

 

And if it's a FIRST high school bio course, then definitely one would want to leave out great swaths.

 

Most of those texts are daunting. If colleges are using those and taking 3 semesters to finish intro bio, then I would expect they should take at least three years of high school to do even remotely well. (And it would be interesting to see how many colleges actually teach every chapter of Campbell.)

[Colleen in NS]

Oh WOW. I only have a minute right now, but I am SO thankful for all these very helpful responses (LanaTron, hope this has been OK, me asking so many things!). You are all helping my thinking, and you had me browsing through that scary big WTM-board popular thrift store physics book this afternoon. It didn't look so scary today.

 

I will be back tomorrow night or Monday to comb through the posts more thoroughly to see if I have any more questions.

 

I really appreciate you all for taking the time to explain some things to me!

[mllehmann]

I looked at these a while back when I was trying to decide what to use with my oldest. I remember that I felt that they were missing something. Couldn't put my finger on it. So I looked elsewhere. Of course, what I found for my oldest probably won't work for the next one coming up who is not as science/math oriented. So the search continues for that balance between basic factual information and rigorous study of a subject.

[LanaTron]

Absolutely OK! Ask away, as I'm learning a lot, too.

[Colleen in NS]

Joan in Geneva, flyingiguana, and elegantlion:

 

Normally I like to quote specifics when people have answered my questions, and make comments or ask further questions, but I just don't have the time at the moment, and might not for the next few days. But I just wanted to say esp. to you three, that your long posts and detailed explanations of various points were TREMENDOUSLY helpful to me. This thread is going into my science "file" here on the forums, to look at during the next year when I will be making high school science plans. You've all made me think about things I didn't realize (so never assume something is obvious to everyone here! :D), and so now I know more about what I need to consider for planning science courses. It's not as easy as I thought it would be, and yet it's better in my mind, because I feel slightly more equipped with some knowledge than I did last week.

 

Paula, yes, I believe we do have similar backgrounds, so thank you for piping up. I read a lot of your posts about what you are learning, because we are so similar.

 

THANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOU all so much!!!

 

Oh, and LanaTron, thanks for not minding the bombardment of questions. :D Glad they were helpful to you, too.

[MarkT]

Colleen,

I'll try to answer the questions you addressed to me.

 

 

 

Mastery is always relative - it refers to a certain level. Of course the level of mastery required of a high schooler is not the same as that of a university student majoring in physics. This said, I think anything worth studying is worth studying thoroughly at whatever level one has chosen.

So, when I talk about mastery, I would like the student to have a fundamental understanding of the physical concepts and the ability to apply these concepts to certain specific situations - simpler situations involving one or two concepts for a high schooler, more complex situations mixing many different concepts for a physics major.

 

Practice problems - yes, similar to math. Physics is a quantitative science - it is not just about concepts, but also about quantitative predictions. In the STG, the equations are just given, with too few explanation and not enough derivation where they come from and what they mean. The student has to use the equations to solve problems, and in order to learn to do this, he needs many practice problems with different scenarios. This is where my critique comes in - not sufficient practice.

 

It would not work as a conceptual approach either. A conceptual approach is a valid way of teaching physics (although I personally find it insufficient on a high school level). The STG does NOT do a good job in explaining the concepts, discussing scenarios and misconceptions. Hewitt's Conceptual Physics is a good choice if you are interested in a conceptual text.

 

I would say that the expectations I have about a book that claims to be a "Self teaching guide" would be much higher than the ones I have about a textbook which is intended for use with a qualified teacher whom the student can ask questions. STG falls very short of that goal - it can not teach physics adequately. I would not even consider it a real textbook - it is more a summary study guide for people reviewing material they have already understood.

 

 

 

I have not seen any books that I find useful for that purpose at high school level. Maybe I just don't know them.

You would want a thorough systematic discussion of mechanics and electromagnetics principles, NOT on an elementary level. I don't even know any such books for adult readers; there are popular science books for astronomy and particle physics, but I am not familiar with anything for mechanics, e&m and thermodynamics. Maybe they exist - I don't know.

 

To be honest, I am not sure why one would be trying to reinvent the wheel - there are many excellent choices of physics textbooks available, so I don't see a reason to use a book that is inadequate and jump through hoops to make it fit. I'd rather use a good textbook from the very beginning.

 

 the author is Karl Kuhn for future searches