Jump to content

Menu

How science is taught in high-performing countries


Penelope
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

Which makes me ask ... how do you all feel about the push for national standards? They are trying hard to take the standards development away from the states and districts. Read on that. Quite a basket of varying opinions there.

 

My knee-jerk reaction used to be that the states should keep the standards. Who's to say that federal standards would be any better?

 

However, I see what the states have done with that, and I'm not very impressed.

 

I think the availability of a "best" model might spur improvement. However, there are states that already do pretty well. Those standards are already there for other states to look at. I think rather than requiring national standards, I am for the development of excellent, high standards by private groups composed of scientist, mathmaticians, and teachers. Perhaps states could receive grants toward adopting and implementing something like that. It's possible something like this already exists and I'm not aware of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

ETA: on the topics of textbooks: the ps school science textbooks in the US IMO are quite terrible. Not because they are boring, but because, even at the high school level, they only use sound bites and snippets. There is hardly any continuous text, which would be necessary to develop a complex thought or concept - instead, there are many sidebars, pictures (with little content), colored boxes, inserts, activities that render the book extremely distracting. Whenever I show a high school public school text to somebody from home, they comment that it looks like something intended for elementary school.

 

In high school (or earlier for our mature DD), we begin a rigorous textbook based education using introductory college texts.

The main advantage of using college texts is their quality. One reason they are so much better than high school texts is probably the adoption procedure. School books are selected by school board members who lack the expertise to discern which books are good and which are not. College texts are adopted by experts in the field who are able to judge which texts are good; a bad college text will not be used by fellow professionals and "die out".

 

Thanks. I have had the same thoughts and am taking your experience to heart, especially this part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found this article which confirms what some of you have said.

 

http://www.uncoverage.net/2010/12/spending-more-and-getting-less-education/

 

Curricula In middle school, most countries shift curricula from basic arithmetic and elementary science in the direction of chemistry, physics, algebra and geometry. Even poor countries generally teach a half-year of algebra and a half-year of geometry to every eighth-grader.In U.S. middle schools, however, most students continue to review arithmetic. And they are more likely to study earth science and life science than physics or chemistry.

 

 

Teachers Among teachers of high school biology and life sciences classes, approximately 31 percent of them do not have at least a minor in biology. Among high school physical science teachers, over half, 55 percent, do not have at least a minor in any of the physical sciences.......

Textbooks U.S. textbooks treat topics with a Ă¢â‚¬Å“mile-wide, inch-deepĂ¢â‚¬ approach, Schmidt said. A typical U.S. eighth-grade math textbook deals with about 35 topics. By comparison, a Japanese or German math textbook for that age would have only five or six topics. Comparisons done elsewhere between French and American math books show more innovative approaches to finding, for instance, the volume of a pyramid. Fractions donĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t lend themselves to computerization, so theyĂ¢â‚¬â„¢re relegated to an importance slightly above Roman numerals. Calculators are here to stay, so kids breeze through long division. They concentrate on how to use math rather than how to do math

 

 

Hmmm. On further investigation, it's a blog. I'm going to link it anyway as I found it interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't read all the replies, so perhaps someone has already pointed this out, but do keep in mind that many (if not all) "high performance countries" do not even *teach* science to students they have designated for non-science/engineering pathways at younger ages.

 

Here in the US, we teach science to everyone.

 

So a lot of those countries that are performing higher are only assessing themselves based on a self-selected group of students that is designated as academically/scientifically inclined.

 

Do you have any data to back this up?

Which other countries do not teach science to all students?

Which countries specialize in non-science branches at a young age?

 

Even if a nation does differentiate at a young age (Germany begins tracking in 5th grade) that does not automatically mean that no science is taught in some branches. In Germany, even the kids who are not on track to attend a 4 year university are taught science.

So, tracking does not have to equal sorting into science/non-science fields.

Edited by regentrude
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some nations absolutely differentiate as early as that.

 

Also, I'd take elementary and middle school science testing with a grain of salt anyways. At that age, it is mathematics proficiency that indicates real future success in science.

 

Right -- but the U.S. performs pretty poorly in mathematics, as well, at those ages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In high school, along with a mastery of the principles and general knowledge of the different fields, the student can address the fundamental questions of knowing. Is anything truly knowable by scientific means? What makes a scientific statement true? What makes it false? What propositions fall outside the realm of science, and why? Hippocrates is not necessary reading (though I love Hippocrates' work, and esp. how little changed in medicine btw. ancient Greece and the England of Jane Austen) but Darwin should be: he was a terrific writer, the work is readable in the original language, and no matter which side of the fence you are on you almost certainly don't understand quite what he was saying until you read it yourself. He should be read when biology is studied. Similarly, you should have a child read Hawking, or Asimov, or Feinman, or Einstein -- he wrote a popular book on relativity that can be read a few times for a great step forward in understanding -- when those topics come up and not at the correct historical time or they will miss too much.

 

... and now Bot-Bot needs a walk!

 

:001_smile::001_smile::001_smile::001_smile:

 

I'm only now reading TWTM and although I love most of it my one great shock and disapointment was that Behe's Darwin's Black Box was recommended as source reading for 12th grade science. Seriously? Not The Origin of the Species?

 

It was absolutely bizarre, and incongruous considering the nature of the reading lists for science.

 

It's one the the great reads and most important works of science and, as you said, should be read regardless of where you stand on the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Penelope - Mass has lots of STEM jobs - MIT, hospitals, high tech jobs, scientific research, medical industries, etc.. That means lots of parents who know what they are talking about and are interested in science, talk about it at the dinner table, bring home science toys and math puzzles, can afford lots of science enrichment activities, insist that their children do AP science and calc in high school, and tend to raise students who are headed for STEM fields. The public schools vary. Some, however, are very good, and at least in my area, students are strongly encouraged to go to college.

Nan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm only now reading TWTM and although I love most of it my one great shock and disapointment was that Behe's Darwin's Black Box was recommended as source reading for 12th grade science. Seriously? Not The Origin of the Species?

 

 

 

Darwin's Origin of Species is on the 12th grade WTM reading lists. It is counted as a Great Book.

 

 

That said: I am not at all impressed by the TWTM science recommendation for the rhetoric stage. The living books make a nice supplement, but are insufficient. The self teaching guide to physics is too basic and not suitable to learning physics; there are far superior resources out there. I would guess the same woudl be true for the self teaching guides in the other sciences. I can not recommend following WTM unmodified for science in the upper grades.

Edited by regentrude
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darwin's Origin of Species is on the 12th grade WTM reading lists. It is counted as a Great Book.

 

Not done the book yet. :D Thanks for pointing that out.

 

It still seems completely bizarre to me to put Behe in the Grade 12 science source book list rather than Darwin considering the other books in that year and the other years.

 

That said: I am not at all impressed by the TWTM science recommendation for the rhetoric stage. The living books make a nice supplement, but are insufficient. The self teaching guide to physics is too basic and not suitable to learning physics; there are far superior resources out there. I would guess the same woudl be true for the self teaching guides in the other sciences. I can not recommend following WTM unmodified for science in the upper grades.

 

That's sort of how I've been feeling. We're into the rhetoric stage next year and the science recs haven't helped me much at all in deciding how to tackle it. I've used the Singapore materials and I've got a few texts, Hewitt's Conceptual Physical Science for one and I'm on the lookout for Campbell's Biology as well (though the other Campbell text mentioned here might be a better fit) but haven't managed to fit it together.

 

I'm half playing with the idea of having Catherine do the Cornell bird biology course one year. It's obviously much more deep then wide but she has an interest in birds and I think there would be things to draw from that course that we could expand on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It still seems completely bizarre to me to put Behe in the Grade 12 science source book list rather than Darwin considering the other books in that year and the other years.

.

 

Looking at the Source Readings for science, it is obvious that WTM has tried very hard to make the science "fit" with the time period covered. You notice that all biology related sources are from Ancients because they do bio in 9th, and all physics sources are modern because physics is in 12th. So, if they try to "stay in the proper era", Darwin can not be read as a biology text and Newton can not be read as a physics text.

 

I have other issues with this sequence and do not find it suitable. As much as I like many aspects of WTM, I consider the science approach lacking. Which is also apparent by the suggested time of only four hours per week to spend on science in high school. Not enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at the Source Readings for science, it is obvious that WTM has tried very hard to make the science "fit" with the time period covered. You notice that all biology related sources are from Ancients because they do bio in 9th, and all physics sources are modern because physics is in 12th. So, if they try to "stay in the proper era", Darwin can not be read as a biology text and Newton can not be read as a physics text.

 

Ah. Got it. don't like the approach but I've got it.

 

I have other issues with this sequence and do not find it suitable. As much as I like many aspects of WTM, I consider the science approach lacking. Which is also apparent by the suggested time of only four hours per week to spend on science in high school. Not enough.

 

I agree on all counts. I think I'll leave TWTM alone on rhetoric stage science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some nations absolutely differentiate as early as that.

 

Also, I'd take elementary and middle school science testing with a grain of salt anyways. At that age, it is mathematics proficiency that indicates real future success in science.

 

Actually, the article Leonana linked in reply 9, School is not Where Most Americans Learn their Science, calls this into question. In talking about who goes on to acquire a degree science in college, they say (1st column, page 490):

 

"Interestingly, achievement in school mathematics, considered a critical filter and a major focus of today's high-stakes testing, was not as important a factor as was interest in the topic."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have any data to back this up?

Which other countries do not teach science to all students?

Which countries specialize in non-science branches at a young age?

 

Even if a nation does differentiate at a young age (Germany begins tracking in 5th grade) that does not automatically mean that no science is taught in some branches. In Germany, even the kids who are not on track to attend a 4 year university are taught science.

So, tracking does not have to equal sorting into science/non-science fields.

 

Yes, the Finnish system doesn't differentiate either until kids are 16 - before that they are all together, often even those with learning difficulties. So even if some do this kind of thing it isn't universal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Granted that I'm a long way yet from rhetoric stage science work, I always assumed that the great books recs for rhetoric stage work were not intended to be the sole curriculum for that age, but should be read along with the coursework. Am I misreading that?

 

Currently I opted to build my own curriculum for earth science from library books, good DVD's, some books I purchased for their good quality pictures and systems of classification, plenty of field work, and a heavy emphasis on knowing the facts about things: whether it is the composition of granite, the types of rocks formed by volcanoes, how to classify clouds, how to identify constellations, distances, names of oceans, currents, those sorts of things.

I would see logic building on those foundations by taking the facts and applying them, learning about how we go about drilling for natural gas, mining, predicting storms, understanding how weather and climate have accounted for some astounding times in history, the space race, space travel, etc.

I'm not quite sure how I will create a rhetoric stage level with this, but I'm having a vision of arguments on exploiting natural resources, particularly ones that are not renewable, options for improving old methods of mining and drilling, whether man can try to alter climate and the ethics involved, new ideas in space travel, etc. The rhetoric stage would also include the great books to see how other thinkers have thought through some of the same ideas before.

 

As you can see, this is all very rough. I'm curious how other people have planned for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Granted that I'm a long way yet from rhetoric stage science work, I always assumed that the great books recs for rhetoric stage work were not intended to be the sole curriculum for that age, but should be read along with the coursework. Am I misreading that?

 

 

She does recommend the Wiley self-teaching guides, TTC courses and CC courses if they're available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Granted that I'm a long way yet from rhetoric stage science work, I always assumed that the great books recs for rhetoric stage work were not intended to be the sole curriculum for that age, but should be read along with the coursework. Am I misreading that?

 

No, you are reading this correctly. Only I do not consider the Self Teaching guides she recommends a good resource.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So many things that are labeled "self-teaching" are pretty limited in scope.

For biology I was considering a comparative anatomy, field botany, some plant and animal genetics, and some basic physiology and biochemistry.

Hard to see how I could get all that in a self-teaching course. I planned to use many of my books from graduate school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Currently I opted to build my own curriculum for earth science from library books, good DVD's, some books I purchased for their good quality pictures and systems of classification, plenty of field work, and a heavy emphasis on knowing the facts about things: whether it is the composition of granite, the types of rocks formed by volcanoes, how to classify clouds, how to identify constellations, distances, names of oceans, currents, those sorts of things.

I would see logic building on those foundations by taking the facts and applying them, learning about how we go about drilling for natural gas, mining, predicting storms, understanding how weather and climate have accounted for some astounding times in history, the space race, space travel, etc.

I'm not quite sure how I will create a rhetoric stage level with this, but I'm having a vision of arguments on exploiting natural resources, particularly ones that are not renewable, options for improving old methods of mining and drilling, whether man can try to alter climate and the ethics involved, new ideas in space travel, etc. The rhetoric stage would also include the great books to see how other thinkers have thought through some of the same ideas before.

 

As you can see, this is all very rough. I'm curious how other people have planned for it.

 

I'm curious to know what others think here, but I'm thinking that the simplification of science into stages of grammar/logic/rhetoric at the ages detailed in TWTM just doesn't work as well as it does for LA or math or history.

 

Memorizing terms and basic concepts is grammar stage, sure. But it just doesn't work that way sometimes. Take chemistry as an example. Memorizing the periodic table is not really the grammar stage of chemistry. It seems that much of the grammar of chemistry can't truly be approached until older ages because the math needed to understand basic chemistry is not in place until then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about the chemistry, but I can say that my guys are enjoying learning the minerals and how rocks are made up of them. They seem to enjoy rattling off the components of granite and the various kinds of volcanic rocks.

 

I'm not sure about chemistry, but I was looking at a vintage resource called The Chemistry of Common Things by Stevenson MacAdam. I don't know if I'd be satisfied with teaching completely out of it (I'm just doing research on how I want to teach Primary Grade Chemistry at this point!) but I like the ideas and the format. There's a story book feel to the language, but it covers a lot of ground and simple things would be asked of the child for memory work. I don't think anyone's memorizing of the periodic table would be particularly useful, but perhaps memorizing the components of the atmosphere would be.

He also talks about elements such as Oxygen, Nitrogen, etc in the context of what they do, so I would probably require something from my students along that line.

The text was a free resource from Google Books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, the results show that even Caucasian and Asian students (the higher performing ethnic groups) in the US do not do nearly as well as the higher performing countries.

 

... American caucasians are much more ethnically diverse than the Finnish variety; and American asians much more culturally diverse the Japanese, Chinese or South Korean (I edited to add "culturally" there in place of "ethnically" b/c there is an enormous ethnic diversity across the breadth of China; but the government's done its best to homogenize the culture in a way not conceivable in the States). Not saying that accounts for the difference, but just saying.

Edited by serendipitous journey
precision, and my Chinese friend 'fong :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been reading through the thread ... thank you to the OP and all the PPs for an engaging, thought-provoking conversation. (I'm psyched RE the vintage Chemistry book!)

 

Regarding the OP, there's a disjunct btw. America's standardized scores and the performance of American scientists that is, I think, telling. The scientists produced by America are second to none, and have advantages over many -- and I don't mean just the scientists coming out of grad school, but the scientist-students too. The American culture and system, when it is working at its best, inculcates an independence of thinking and a proactive approach that is extremely valuable. I'm too sleepy and don't have time to flesh this out fully right now, so I'll quote from something: the instructions for an innovative-science grant application hubby's working on.

 

"... qualities common to many highly innovative people include an interest in, and the ability to integrate, diverse sources of information; an inclination to challenge paradigms and take intellectual risks; persistence in the face of failure; an ability to attract the right collaborators; and the energy and concentration necessary to plan and execute effective strategies for accomplishing goals."

 

America is pretty good at developing that.

 

Two anecdotal but telling stories I personally know of: A truly excellent neurosci. grad student and native of Sweden, returning from a visit to relatives there, commented that he would never want to live in Sweden because he loves pushing the envelope and being excellent, and in Sweden there was a strong cultural sense that one shouldn't want to be "better" than everybody else; that excelling was narcissistic, more or less. A Nobel laureate native of Japan said he could never have gotten his Nobel if he had stayed in Japan to practice science, instead of coming to the States, because the scientific system was so hierarchical and constrained that he could have never done his original, groundbreaking work there.

 

Obviously the US system is heartbreakingly neglectful of many, maybe even most students, and should learn from nations that serve their children better; but we need to appreciate what we do exceedingly well if we are to design the educational system we want.

 

RE Penelope's comment that the grammar/rhetoric/logic division doesn't work well for science: :iagree:!!! And, starting with an expression of my profound gratitude for what SWB and Jessie Bauer have designed and shared, in SWBs case while raising and educating her own children, managing her career and supporting her husband -- despite my deep appreciation, I think the grammar/logic/rhetoric division doesn't apply at all. It makes almost no sense from the child development perspective, except insofar as it assigns simpler tasks to younger children and harder tasks to older ones. As others have pointed out, it is not really classical but I gather has taken significant guidance from Dorothy Sayers, who may have written some good books but was no expert on children (read one of the books!) or on education. And the WTM idea that, for example, early elementary children are good at memorizing but that categorizing is better saved for the middle school years is counter to my understanding of the child development literature and my experience teaching young children. And for my own child, I cannot imagine teaching him much without tracking through the logic.

 

However, it seems to me that the method works pretty darn well anyhow, and probably because what was effective for SWB and others in real life has merged with a theoretical framework that provides useful structure and an organized conceptual strategy. ... I'm curious what those of you think who have been using it for more than a year [imagine a "sheepish" icon here :blushing:]...

 

just my 2 cents. and thank you again to everybody in this thread ...

Edited by serendipitous journey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread was awesome.

 

Most of my science education in California public schools prior to starting AP Biology in 10th grade was complete and totally inane. We did "earth science" over and over again, which appeared to be one of those inane educational constructs like "language arts" or "social studies." I can't tell you how many years in a row I relearned the differences between igneous, sedimentary and volcanic rocks, or anticline vs. syncline rock folds. I think my preschool had more authentic science study than my public school K-9.

 

It's too bad, because to this day I have an abiding love of nature and life sciences and I wish I'd been able to integrate that into my education!

 

Did I mention this thread was awesome and inspiring?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't responded to this thread b/c I figure most regular readers on the forum already know what I will suggest. ;):tongue_smilie:

 

I personally detest textbooks b/c they skim the surface, give a zillion definitions with a few details, but they don't really teach meaningful science. My kids simply read whole books on topics starting in 3rd grade and keep on that route until anywhere from 7th-8th grade (their preference). I do switch to textbooks for standard high school level courses.

 

As far as experiments, well, all I can share is our experience. We simply don't spend any time on them in school until high school. My kids have never written a lab report prior to high school science. They do, however, spend lots of time on their own messing w/science and building/constructing/drawing, observing whatever they want.

 

Regardless of whether or not it should or shouldn't work in producing incredibly strong science students, in our experience it does. ;) Our oldest followed this route and is a chemical engineer and our 10th grader wants to major in astrophysics (and as a 10th grader already has high school credit for physics, chemistry, and astronomy and is currently taking AP chem and a 2nd college level astronomy course.)

 

My favorite site to send people to that are fearful of taking the whole book approach is http://charlottemason.tripod.com/elemsci.html in order to develop a sense of how this approach works.

 

Once they reach the high school level science interests, I also recommend looking into Teaching Co lectures.....my 10th grader loves them.

 

HTH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally detest textbooks b/c they skim the surface, give a zillion definitions with a few details, but they don't really teach meaningful science. My kids simply read whole books on topics starting in 3rd grade and keep on that route until anywhere from 7th-8th grade (their preference). I do switch to textbooks for standard high school level courses.

 

As far as experiments, well, all I can share is our experience. We simply don't spend any time on them in school until high school. My kids have never written a lab report prior to high school science. They do, however, spend lots of time on their own messing w/science and building/constructing/drawing, observing whatever they want.

 

Regardless of whether or not it should or shouldn't work in producing incredibly strong science students, in our experience it does. ;)

 

For 1st-5th science, my kids didn't do a single science worksheet, quiz or test. They had no written work, other than the occasional nature journaling. Their time was spent reading science topics of interest (DK and Usborne-type books; plus for ds, that included an A Beka 5th or 6th grade science textbook; for dd, that included some Apologia elementary science texts), making observations (esp. with nature activities & birds), and a very limited number of hands-on experiments with kits, etc.

 

It seems to me that their retention is much better with this delight-directed approach than it'd be with the traditional textbook approach. Plus, they have more time to develop skills such as making observations (which often requires patience), making connections, coming up with questions, all while keeping their curiosity alive.

 

Starting in 6th, we switch to the standard science textbook and tests.

 

Ds is enjoying and has been doing well in his science courses at school, and would like to go into engineering. If I could do 1st-5th science over again, I'd do the same.

 

HTH!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know my European friends were surprised to find that American schools only teach one period of science. Apparently, the standard there is one period of physics, one of chemistry, one of biology. Each is treated as its own subject and is covered all year long. So they learn a lot more of each.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know my European friends were surprised to find that American schools only teach one period of science. Apparently, the standard there is one period of physics, one of chemistry, one of biology. Each is treated as its own subject and is covered all year long. So they learn a lot more of each.

Now, I like this idea.

 

As far as experiments, well, all I can share is our experience. We simply don't spend any time on them in school until high school. My kids have never written a lab report prior to high school science. They do, however, spend lots of time on their own messing w/science and building/constructing/drawing, observing whatever they want.

I also think that this is a good approach for grammar age students. For instance, I would not require the construction of a working model of a volcano, but I encourage the drawing of them. Our "experiments" this year for rocks and minerals are digging for our own rocks, collecting our rocks, visiting our geothermal regions and taking the temperature of the hot springs there, and going to various rock shows and camping at the Crater of the Diamonds State Park. Aside from the planning of the camping trip, there's not a lot to that.

Edited by Critterfixer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From 8filltheheart

I personally detest textbooks b/c they skim the surface, give a zillion definitions with a few details, but they don't really teach meaningful science. My kids simply read whole books on topics starting in 3rd grade and keep on that route until anywhere from 7th-8th grade (their preference). I do switch to textbooks for standard high school level courses.

 

From Karensk

It seems to me that their retention is much better with this delight-directed approach than it'd be with the traditional textbook approach. Plus, they have more time to develop skills such as making observations (which often requires patience), making connections, coming up with questions, all while keeping their curiosity alive.

 

I think textbooks can do both of those things but I also think there are some great textbooks out there that do go deeper and do inspire delight. Granted, not many textbooks can go as deep as some science non-fiction but shucks, that can be a great advantage. They be be a spine that gives structure to a subject, and also teases kids into finding out more about a subject beyond the text.

 

I used to be a radical unschooler and fundamentally opposed to textbooks but over the year I've read a few that were just wonderful. Campbell and Hewitt have already been cited, I've found most things from Oxford University Press to be fantastic, Singapore math textbooks have been a love affair for me and on and on.

 

Look for a good publisher and textbooks with only one or very few authors. Look for uncluttered text without countless sidebars. Check review sites.

 

Not that you HAVE to use textbooks but there are some fantastic ones out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think textbooks can do both of those things but I also think there are some great textbooks out there that do go deeper and do inspire delight. Granted, not many textbooks can go as deep as some science non-fiction but shucks, that can be a great advantage. They be be a spine that gives structure to a subject, and also teases kids into finding out more about a subject beyond the text.

 

I used to be a radical unschooler and fundamentally opposed to textbooks but over the year I've read a few that were just wonderful. Campbell and Hewitt have already been cited, I've found most things from Oxford University Press to be fantastic, Singapore math textbooks have been a love affair for me and on and on.

 

Karen was talking about kids prior to 6th grade. The texts you mentioned are definitely not geared towards that age group, not even for gifted students.

 

Look for a good publisher and textbooks with only one or very few authors. Look for uncluttered text without countless sidebars. Check review sites.

 

Not that you HAVE to use textbooks but there are some fantastic ones out there

I have not yet come across a science textbook for the younger audience that I liked. Never mind a fantastic one. Care to give recommendations?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think textbooks can do both of those things but I also think there are some great textbooks out there that do go deeper and do inspire delight. Granted, not many textbooks can go as deep as some science non-fiction but shucks, that can be a great advantage. They be be a spine that gives structure to a subject, and also teases kids into finding out more about a subject beyond the text.

 

I used to be a radical unschooler and fundamentally opposed to textbooks but over the year I've read a few that were just wonderful. Campbell and Hewitt have already been cited, I've found most things from Oxford University Press to be fantastic, Singapore math textbooks have been a love affair for me and on and on.

 

Look for a good publisher and textbooks with only one or very few authors. Look for uncluttered text without countless sidebars. Check review sites.

 

Not that you HAVE to use textbooks but there are some fantastic ones out there.

 

First, our homeschool does not resemble unschooling in any way, shape, or form. Our homeschool is incredibly directed and structured. Not using textbooks does not negate my involvement. They chose the topics and select the books, but I do give ultimate approval (not that I can ever remember saying no ;) ). They do have to read a minimum of 30-45 mins/day (or more.....it all depends on the child, age, and reading ability).

 

I own 2 Campbell texts.....both the "baby" and the "grand-daddy." I would not give either one to anyone under 8th grade (and the "grand-daddy" not to anyone who hasn't already taken high school chemistry.)

 

I don't use Hewitt b/c I would rather have my kids take science w/math vs. mostly conceptual (but I have all strong math students; if not, I might have a different pov.)

 

FWIW, I have absolutely zero desire to find a textbook that I like for younger kids. Whole books on quarks, sound, light, insects, clouds, and even snowflakes are what inspire my kids to love science. They have all really loved science and none of my kids has ever had a notion that science should be overwhelming or intimidating or boring or entertaining. It is simply a subject that enjoy and it leads to pursuit of more info during their free time......and that says it all. :001_smile:

 

My dh, a chemical engineer, looks at our 15 yos in amazement b/c ds is passionate about particle physics as well as astrophysics. But, when he talks to dh about chemistry, dh's response is that it is like talking to someone who actually understands physical chemistry. While ds doesn't have all the math and definitely hasn't connected all the dots between the 2, simply in reading and researching what he enjoys has developed immense depth of knowledge......something that would not have been inspired in your avg textbook kid.

Edited by 8FillTheHeart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not yet come across a science textbook for the younger audience that I liked. Never mind a fantastic one. Care to give recommendations?

 

Neither have I, at least not yet. I just about went nuts trying to come up with something I liked to direct the Geology part of my second grade Earth Science. I couldn't find anything out that that worked well, although there were some really fun activities in Geology Rocks, for instance. It was a fantastic coincidence that I came across Story of Rocks and Minerals by Harold Fairbanks. I was actually looking for something else. It would class as more of a living book than a text, as there are no questions for review.

Here's a quote that expresses the author intent, which I think is very much in line with what 8Fillthe Heart is saying about living books.

 

"It is not the intention of the author to offer this little book as a systemic treatise upon minerals and rocks. Only the common ones are discussed, and in the treatment of these the effort has not been so much to impart information, as to arouse the interest of the pupil; to lead him to see in rocks and minerals and the changes which they undergo, illustrations of the great processes which have shaped the earth and fitted it for habitation."

 

It turns out to make a pretty good text in that if fulfills what I ask for in a text: Direction of study, a guide for the teacher where depth of knowledge is lacking, interesting to the student (even someone who has no love for rocks whatsoever can find something interesting in it) and amenable to comprehension exercises so that I can ask questions, and I can test from it. And it's just plain fun to read.

 

Ironically it seems to me that so far, I've found some better resources for the teaching of sciences from the early 1900's, even if they require monitoring for accuracy based on later information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, our homeschool does not resemble unschooling in any way, shape, or form. Our homeschool is incredibly directed and structured. Not using textbooks does not negate my involvement. They chose the topics and select the books, but I do give ultimate approval (not that I can ever remember saying no ;) ). They do have to read a minimum of 30-45 mins/day (or more.....it all depends on the child, age, and reading ability).

 

I own 2 Campbell texts.....both the "baby" and the "grand-daddy." I would not give either one to anyone under 8th grade (and the "grand-daddy" not to anyone who hasn't already taken high school chemistry.)

 

I don't use Hewitt b/c I would rather have my kids take science w/math vs. mostly conceptual (but I have all strong math students; if not, I might have a different pov.)

 

FWIW, I have absolutely zero desire to find a textbook that I like for younger kids. Whole books on quarks, sound, light, insects, clouds, and even snowflakes are what inspire my kids to love science. They have all really loved science and none of my kids has ever had a notion that science should be overwhelming or intimidating or boring or entertaining. It is simply a subject that enjoy and it leads to pursuit of more info during their free time......and that says it all. :001_smile:

 

My dh, a chemical engineer, looks at our 15 yos in amazement b/c ds is passionate about particle physics as well as astrophysics. But, when he talks to dh about chemistry, dh's response is that it is like talking to someone who actually understands physical chemistry. While ds doesn't have all the math and definitely hasn't connected all the dots between the 2, simply in reading and researching what he enjoys has developed immense depth of knowledge......something that would not have been inspired in your avg textbook kid.

 

Thanks for sharing what you do with your children. I've been borrowing a lot of science books, mostly written by Seymour Simon, and we love them here. DD is 6 and I think the writing, font size, and depth of each topic are appropriate for her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Karen was talking about kids prior to 6th grade. The texts you mentioned are definitely not geared towards that age group, not even for gifted students.

 

I have not yet come across a science textbook for the younger audience that I liked. Never mind a fantastic one. Care to give recommendations?

 

Nope. I missed the before 6th grade thing. :)

 

Now that I've realized that, I completely agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, our homeschool does not resemble unschooling in any way, shape, or form. Our homeschool is incredibly directed and structured. Not using textbooks does not negate my involvement. They chose the topics and select the books, but I do give ultimate approval (not that I can ever remember saying no ;) ). They do have to read a minimum of 30-45 mins/day (or more.....it all depends on the child, age, and reading ability).

 

I own 2 Campbell texts.....both the "baby" and the "grand-daddy." I would not give either one to anyone under 8th grade (and the "grand-daddy" not to anyone who hasn't already taken high school chemistry.)

 

I don't use Hewitt b/c I would rather have my kids take science w/math vs. mostly conceptual (but I have all strong math students; if not, I might have a different pov.)

 

FWIW, I have absolutely zero desire to find a textbook that I like for younger kids. Whole books on quarks, sound, light, insects, clouds, and even snowflakes are what inspire my kids to love science. They have all really loved science and none of my kids has ever had a notion that science should be overwhelming or intimidating or boring or entertaining. It is simply a subject that enjoy and it leads to pursuit of more info during their free time......and that says it all. :001_smile:

 

My dh, a chemical engineer, looks at our 15 yos in amazement b/c ds is passionate about particle physics as well as astrophysics. But, when he talks to dh about chemistry, dh's response is that it is like talking to someone who actually understands physical chemistry. While ds doesn't have all the math and definitely hasn't connected all the dots between the 2, simply in reading and researching what he enjoys has developed immense depth of knowledge......something that would not have been inspired in your avg textbook kid.

 

Yup, sorry. I missed the whole angle of textbooks for younger kids.

 

My unschooling comment was only meant to give some info about where I came from, not to imply anything about you. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have really enjoyed reading this post.

 

 

I wanted to add or comment on - re: adults picking up their science knowledge outside of the school environment.

 

To use a term I read in our early homeschooling days, we "community school," as in - we take advantage of the activities our community has to offer. I am always amazed at how many wonderful (free!) events and lectures are available in our community - yet how poorly attended many of them are! :tongue_smilie:

We have a local astronomy club that offers sky watching parties. The weather center offers a full-day workshop on weather watching. Hobby clubs often have specialized science-related talks. (Just this morning, we attended a fabulous program on dragonflies put on by a biologist.) The library often brings in guest speakers, from birding experts to dairy farmers.

It has been my experience that speakers love having well-behaved, inquisitive children in the audience.

Yes, these programs are generally geared for adults, but I have yet to attend one that a curious and attentive child couldn't have appreciated.

 

On a related note, so many of the science programs we have attended for children have been awful - dumbed down to the point of being worthless. This past year, we attended "engineering week" at two different children's museums. The activities at both were bad -- a bead stringing activity to show pi, for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious to know what others think here, but I'm thinking that the simplification of science into stages of grammar/logic/rhetoric at the ages detailed in TWTM just doesn't work as well as it does for LA or math or history.

 

Memorizing terms and basic concepts is grammar stage, sure. But it just doesn't work that way sometimes. Take chemistry as an example. Memorizing the periodic table is not really the grammar stage of chemistry. It seems that much of the grammar of chemistry can't truly be approached until older ages because the math needed to understand basic chemistry is not in place until then.

 

I have been thinking about this for most of the day now. (And I shouldn't be -- my children are 6 and 4 and I don't need to sort this all out right now, but here I am anyway ...)

 

This thread has popped up at a time when I happened to be reading Willingham's Why Don't Students Like School, which has fed into my thinking on this. In Chapter 3, he explains the cognitive principle that "factual knowledge precedes skill" and the implication that "It is not possible to think well on a topic in the absence of factual knowledge about the topic." I was particularly struck by what he pointed out about acquiring knowledge: having factual knowledge in long-term memory makes it easier to acquire still more factual knowledge. That made me think that there is some value in seeing the younger years as "grammar" years, where students concentrate on exposure to a topic and acquisition of facts Ă¢â‚¬Â¦ so that they can then learn more later on.

 

His notes on how experts think fundamentally differently from even exceptional students was interesting, too. He contends that experts were usually the product of about 10 years of work in a field: in other words, after lots and lots of practice, they simply approach their field in a fundamentally different way. Students cannot think like experts because they just haven't put in the time yet. That makes me think that experiments as demonstrations are okay: we actually can't expect students to come up with good science experiments because they just aren't there yet.

 

I do think, as many of you have pointed out, that the connections between the different science areas just aren't happening for students because of the way that we divide science and insist on only one science area per year. Only when students are taking sciences concurrently or are using curriculum that deliberately has them connect new learning back to former areas of study, will they be able to make those crucial connections. So now how to do that Ă¢â‚¬Â¦ so many of you have offered great ideas, and I'll doubtless spend many more hours thinking about that. :-)

 

Loving this thread ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or rather, I have a born engineer (a familiar breed in my family) and I have been trying somehow to take advantage of the flexibility of homeschooling to give him a good start in science and engineering. I don't yet know whether it will be successful, but it is beginning to look like it might. My goal was to raise him to be creative and inventive and give him a broader outlook than many engineers (hence the great books and the French). The path we took has been scary. Very scary.

 

Conventional wisdom said I should push things like math team and science fairs, and accelerate math so he could accelerate and double up textbook science in order to do AP sciences in high school. There were various scary stories about people who had unschooled and then had children turned out to be engineers or scientists but were hampered by the lack of math and the huge weight of science facts and vocabulary that had to be memorized from the very beginning, things like the visible light spectrum and the boiling point of water, things which most children were made to memorize in elementary school. But there were also lots of stories floating around about how badly science is taught in school, including from my husband, who has to train young engineers and is amazed at the lack of understanding about science experiments and the lack of innovation and the lack of persistence. Between that and TWTM, we decided to try something different. To begin with, I didn't do a formal math program with him until he was 7. By then, he could add, multiply, divide, deal with simple percentages and fractions, figure out what 5% of his allowence was even when it was an odd number, round, estimate, and deal with numbers into the thousands. He used me as a chalkboard to help remember the in-between numbers in multistep problems. These things just came up in his life. I didn't teach them to him unless he asked what something was or how to do something. He used to ask for word problems in the car as entertainment, so he had quite a bit of practice. In elementary school, we did TWTM suggestions, which I thought were fantastic. He kept a nature journal and learned to use his nature guides. He learned his constellations and plants and animals. He tried no end of things. We also got stacks of library books and he read them while I was working with his brother. He did the logic stage bio and earth/space suggestions along with his older brother (How blank Works) and some of Fun with Atoms and Molecules, which I liked. Then we hit 6th grade. At that point, I decided we should try a textbook, since he had already done the logic stage suggestions earlier with his brother. He did Singapore's Interactive Science, which I liked. He struggled to answer the textbook questions because he wasn't used to answer textbook questions. Oops. In 7th, he did Hewitt's Conceptual Physics along with his brother. The math was a bit of a stretch and his written answers left much to be desired, but it made a great base. In 8th, we tried to do Conceptual Chemistry and managed to get through the first few chapters, but the big push that year was writing and science got skipped a lot, other than his own messing about. Somewhere in there he got his ham license. In 9th, I took a deep breath and decided that we were going to do natural history instead of bio. This was a return to elementary school style science, with lots of observing, experimenting, a nature journal, and reading regular books. He tracked hurricanes and various other things. In 10th, we did the same thing, but this time the push was to get him to design a proper experiment, keep a lab notebook instead of a nature journal, and learn to do technical projects on his own. To get him going on the technical projects, I bought a soldering iron and various little electrical kits from the Make magazine site. He read Make magazine and some other hack-your-electronics books. That, I can say, was extremely successful. I tried to get him going various ways and failed(books, learn-about-electronics kits, ...). Finally, I thought about how my father had learned. He bought kits and made them. I still can't figure out how kits are better than the other things I tried but somehow they are. There has to be a clue in there somewhere to how to teach science successfully, but I'm not sure what it is. We also showed him how to order things online and created a monster. This week a 5 foot roll of wire mesh (to make costume chain mail), 100 1 ohm resisters, more memory for his computer, and a heat sink showed up on our doorstep. He also discovered various expert forums. Did you know there is a whole forum devoted to making your own laser? The design your own experiment year worked out ok. I think. He designed an experiment and my husband checked it and then he carried it out. None of them worked very well. He tried to figure out if some of the microscopic swimmy things in the lake could hear, using the refridgerator as a soundproof box, forgot to turn the thermostat back up, and we had a month of milk spoiling before we discovered it. He spent the summer trying various things with acids and bases, all on his own. But continuing... this year, 11th grade, I decided we had put off textbook science absolutely as long as we possibly could and he is taking chemistry at the community college. If he survives that, in the spring we will add a semester of intro biology and in 12th, he'll take calculus and physics. If he survives textbook science this year. It is too early to tell. Without the years of practice answering textbook questions in elementary and middle school, he may run into trouble. We'll see. I'll let you know about Christmas time. I can tell you that there is nothing wrong with his basic science knowledge. He had no trouble learning how valence shells fill because last year he researched and wrote a report on quantum physics. That report was a good example of what happens when you leave room for curiosity. It was his own idea to learn about that and he spent about 6 weeks of spare time trying to figure it all out.

 

Tons of legos, building things, trying things, experimenting, and reading has all led to the innovative person I was trying to create. He isn't a genius inventing a new form of clean energy or finding a cure for cancer or publishing scientific research, but he is definately inventive and persistent and creative. If it turns out that we have done him a disservice by not doing regular textbook science for 9th and 10th (I have no worries about not doing it sooner - I liked TWTM suggestions and thought they worked out well), I am going to feel like killing myself. He is trusting me to get him into engineering school. As I said, it is very scary not taking the normal path.

 

-Nan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think, as many of you have pointed out, that the connections between the different science areas just aren't happening for students because of the way that we divide science and insist on only one science area per year. Only when students are taking sciences concurrently or are using curriculum that deliberately has them connect new learning back to former areas of study, will they be able to make those crucial connections. So now how to do that Ă¢â‚¬Â¦ so many of you have offered great ideas, and I'll doubtless spend many more hours thinking about that. :-)

 

One thing is certain in this household. If it isn't in the morning's line-up, it might as well not get done.:glare: I can put science in the afternoon, but by that time everyone is mentally fatigued, and ready for drawing, playing, climbing trees, chasing the dogs, etc. It's a challenge with the very young students to be able to work in one science a day, when so much of the day must be given to, well, learning how to read, write and figure.

That said, reading a section of a well written story format science could fit into a scheme of reading.

I'm thinking about the first chapter's of TWTM where Susan's mother Jesse had a rule for the books that were to be checked out of the library. If the books selected included a book of science (or magazine) that was about -animals/plants (Week1), earth science topic (Week2-with rotation between geology, weather, astronomy, space), chemistry (Week 3-inorganic/organic) and physics (Week 4-light, electricity, motion, atomic, mechanical, engineering) that would be about a months work on four disciplines. And of course, if the child showed a great deal of interest in one of the sciences, he could pick out a book on what he likes AS well as the new topic for the week.

 

Could that work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing is certain in this household. If it isn't in the morning's line-up, it might as well not get done.:glare: I can put science in the afternoon, but by that time everyone is mentally fatigued, and ready for drawing, playing, climbing trees, chasing the dogs, etc.

 

Just a thought if you're not already doing it...What helped me get afternoons on track was taking the break Jesse and Susan mention in the book. Two hours every day, in our house that's from 12 to 2pm. I need it for sleep with the pregnancy and the kids need it to recharge. Then we get back to work. It made a huge difference once I recognized that we needed some time alone and that it was okay to do that and come back to work after.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing is certain in this household. If it isn't in the morning's line-up, it might as well not get done.:glare:

 

I know EXACTLY what you mean! If it isn't done before noon, it won't happen (except for art or playing).

 

That said, reading a section of a well written story format science could fit into a scheme of reading.

I'm thinking about the first chapter's of TWTM where Susan's mother Jesse had a rule for the books that were to be checked out of the library. If the books selected included a book of science (or magazine) that was about -animals/plants (Week1), earth science topic (Week2-with rotation between geology, weather, astronomy, space), chemistry (Week 3-inorganic/organic) and physics (Week 4-light, electricity, motion, atomic, mechanical, engineering) that would be about a months work on four disciplines. And of course, if the child showed a great deal of interest in one of the sciences, he could pick out a book on what he likes AS well as the new topic for the week.

 

Could that work?

 

I was wondering something along the same lines, although I hadn't arrived at anything as nicely laid-out as you had. I like the idea of regularly exposing them to different disciplines through reading. I think I may just give this a try over the upcoming weeks.

 

I became a little bit afraid today when my 6 yo shared that she doesn't like science as much anymore. The WTM animal study has been good (and easy), but it's starting to feel stale: read about an animal; write down interesting facts (if you can find any in the encyclopedia); draw a picture. I'm thinking that if I were doing some chem-based topics (with little experiments) at the same time, it might liven things up a bit.

 

Great. More to think about. :001_smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two hours every day, in our house that's from 12 to 2pm.
Don't think I haven't tried!:glare:(grr.) It turns out that a very sedentary, curl up with a book Mom got two fuel-injected, turbo-charged mechanical monkeys, and they came as a set, not a single. Our breaks in the mornings (and afternoons) are largely to allow for a swarming session to the top of the maple tree in the front yard, or for excavation taking place under the cedar tree in the back yard, or for general galloping. If they lay down to take a rest, the bed bounces. At least they sleep good at night!

Between energy expenditure sessions they are actually pretty good students, and sit well, focus well, etc, until after lunch. Then their little minds get to wandering out the window. But it's not so difficult for us to move science to the morning, because MEP math has been such a good fit that it opened up more time. I'll move the read-aloud sessions to the afternoon. Then I can curl up with the book and they can get up and move around as they need too. So it's all good.

 

I think that when it comes to science, TWTM grammar stage concepts are good, but trying to tie it up with history just doesn't work. For one thing, there are huge gaps in scientific exploration in history, and then things move ahead very quickly at other times. However, the whole idea of chronology in history was to help the child get the idea of the linear progression of it.

But science doesn't proceed in a linear fashion. It has more of a tendency to grow out in different directions, expanding here, branching out there, more like a tree. Staring at one branch of it for a whole year won't give you a real idea of what the whole tree is like. And it would get very boring after a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...