s/o - Why is everyone unsatisfied with science?

[Farrar]

In the what are you perennially unsatisfied with thread, science is definitely the leader and I feel like I've heard that complaint before. I put together our own science program, so I don't have that complaint, but it seems to be so pervasive, that I've wondered about it.

 

Is it the lack of good options? Certainly from a secular perspective, I see it as an issue, but there are certainly options for elementary in particular. Is it that the expectations or understanding of us as parents is off? Do we expect the wrong things? Is it some failing in the classical approach (I've heard people who feel WTM doesn't "get" science)? Is it just that science requires more prep and time than other subjects to do it right, making it a constant frustration?

Edited September 30, 2011 by farrarwilliams

[Daisy]

I think my biggest issue with science is I want more "living" books geared for older ages. We had a great time with science when the kids were younger. It was so easy to find library books on a wide variety of science topics for the lower elementary age. Now it feels like we are stuck in textbook land and I'm always wishfully hunting for a library book that will make it all more interesting.

 

Hands-on projects save our lives but we still miss all of those great books.

[FairProspects]

I think at least part of it is that real science requires so much math, you are often in a holding pattern until the kid gets those math skills. It is pretty difficult to explain why things work the way they do without getting into math even when the kid understands the science concepts. At least, that has been our experience. It is tough to deliver deep conceptual science without abstract/advanced math comprehension, so instead science becomes observation of demonstrations or natural life that is pretty basic and not very interesting or exciting.

[Hypatia.]

For me, it's just lack of preparation on my part. I'll forget to look ahead for the week and see what we need, then it's easy for science to get pushed off because we don't have all the necessary materials. Things always seem busy so if I don't have the materials for Monday, odds are I won't get out to buy them in the next day or so and then Wednesday we don't do science either, thinking "hopefully next week". Add in the supplemental books from the library and it takes me forever to get things ready.

 

DS1 loves science and is so excited when we do it. I've been working on being better at preparation this year, I was very lax about it last year.

[lakerks]

Interesting question. I hope you'll get some candid responses.

 

I personally don't have a lot of complaints about science. I plan my own and am pleased with it. If I had more time, I'd do even more. However, I'm speaking from the perspective of a science teacher, and I don't limit myself to any one curriculum; rather, I use a combination of materials that I find helpful and interesting. If I didn't really enjoy science myself, I don't think I'd want to go to all that trouble. As it is, though, I really enjoy doing science, reading about science, and thinking about science. It's a habit of mind for me. Yeah, I sound really geeky, don't I?

 

I wonder if one reason people have trouble with science might be related to a lack of confidence w/the math or maybe with the whole exercise? Perhaps it can be frustrating if you feel like your "lab" didn't turn out like it was supposed to? Perhaps conflicts arise related to matters of faith? Perhaps the people who say they're dissatisfied have more passion for other academic disciplines?

[Critterfixer]

Just going to insert a book of interest for people who are interested in teaching science to elementary students, well worth a read even if the lessons don't appeal to you.

 

It's over on Google Books, Longman's Object Lessons by David Salmon. It is an 1896 or 1897 text, I believe.

 

I think that overall, people expect to find an all inclusive science program that does everything for everyone, that includes all the text, questions, tests and experiments to feel like a real science class. And I think that's the problem existing at almost every level.

[LittleIzumi]

I am satisfied, but it was hard to find something that was meaty and detailed enough for my science-mad dd, but not boring/dry and that didn't require a large amount of writing. We are flying through BFSU 1 now, then plan to fly through RSO Life and RSO Chem, then BFSU 2. That should last us until 3rd grade :lol:.

[twoforjoy]

I think I want something pretty much unreasonable: I want a secular elementary science program that isn't textbook based but also is really light on experiments. I'm just not up to experiments often (or elaborate experiments ever), and it seems like most of the good secular hs programs are experiment-based. With the two babies I'm just not up to it--although, to be honest, even before the two babies, hands-on stuff was never my thing. The good secular programs I've seen all require more material-gathering, set-up, and clean-up than I'm willing to invest right now. So I put DH in charge of science, but he's been slacking off. Mostly, then, we're just letting DS read science books he gets out of the library and play with science-type toys (like his snap circuits and microscope).

 

Can I count our daily walks as "nature walks"?

Edited September 29, 2011 by twoforjoy

[lakerks]

For those looking for an interesting biology read, try Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters by Matt Ridley.

 

(I know this wouldn't work for your 9 and 12 yr-olds, but it would liven things up a bit for a high school student.)

 

Disclaimer: Depending on your family's views, you might want to read it yourself first and only assign certain chapters.

 

But I loved the way the author wrote. For example, he tells about Watson and Crick and how they met, etc. He describes their relationship as "exothermic."

:-)

[regentrude]

I find that science is relatively easy on elementary level: there are plenty of books about nature, you can go on nature walks, do nature study. You can do lots of hands-on stuff with younger kids. they are usually still excited about science.

Science is also not too bad at high school level because there are many resources available, and lots of really good college textbooks to use (the high school texts tend to be bad).

 

Science is very difficult in the middle grades. They kids have outgrown the elementary books and activities, yet are often not ready for a truly rigorous approach using real textbooks or for good non-fiction books for an older audience. I found that there were very few living books to use for that age group, and the textbooks intended for middle and Jr high ages are horrible. We solved this problem by DD skipping "middle" stuff and doing Campbell bio in 7th grade, college physics in 8th. But DS is not mature enough for this; we are struggling to cobble together a program that uses manageable portions of the few good high school texts we can find, living books for adults which are readable by a 7th grader (which limits the selection), documentaries. Basically no formal approach, just odds and ends to keep the interest. That is what I find hardest.

[Thia]

To me, the "logical" way to approach science is to read about a topic, then do an experiment. Kind of like SOTW. Do the reading, answer the questions, do a project. That makes complete sense to me. But the science programs I have looked at are just a big book of experiments. So I have to find materials to explain to my kids what we're doing and why and what it means/purpose/etc. As we don't frequent the library, I'm left with the internet. I did buy an Usborne encyclopedia, but it's way over their heads. I just ordered another one and we'll see how it goes next week. I so wish there was something that had it all in a box. (GASP...she said the "b" word!)

[Farrar]

I think my biggest issue with science is I want more "living" books geared for older ages. We had a great time with science when the kids were younger. It was so easy to find library books on a wide variety of science topics for the lower elementary age. Now it feels like we are stuck in textbook land and I'm always wishfully hunting for a library book that will make it all more interesting.

 

Hands-on projects save our lives but we still miss all of those great books.

 

:( Well that's not heartening to hear. Bah. We also really rely on living books for science right now. We also really rely on videos though, and I know there will be ever more good options for those as my kids can sit through a whole NOVA episode by middle school age.

 

I think at least part of it is that real science requires so much math, you are often in a holding pattern until the kid gets those math skills. It is pretty difficult to explain why things work the way they do without getting into math even when the kid understands the science concepts. At least, that has been our experience. It is tough to deliver deep conceptual science without abstract/advanced math comprehension, so instead science becomes observation of demonstrations or natural life that is pretty basic and not very interesting or exciting.

 

Okay, I'm not a scientist, but this attitude, which I've heard before, has always confused me. I don't think of science in the elementary grades as being in a holding pattern because kids don't get the math. I myself enjoy reading about science, learning about science and so forth and *I* never took calculus. Some sciences require a huge amount of math. But others require a lot less. I don't think we need math to understand food webs, animal behavior, what a cell is, how volcanoes work, how simple machines reduce work, and so on and so forth. Math can help give a deeper understanding of those topics - equations about work and power, statistics about the animals and plants in the food web and so forth.

 

I think taking the attitude that you can't have your own personal sense of discovery about science and therefore it must be flat is also false. When you read something like Richard Feynman's reflections on growing up to become a scientist, he writes about asking simple questions about the world - following ants on the ground, seeing if your timing of counting aloud is determined by your heartbeat... I read a lovely piece by a scientist about how she "discovered" centrifugal force while playing with a bucket as a child and the sense for a little while that it was her very own find. I think if we don't structure science in the early grades to encourage that type of thought and exploration, then of course it will be flat. And it's so defeatist to shrug and say that there's no way to make it interesting to help kids get any aspect of it until they can do higher math. By the time they get the math, they may have decided science is too boring to pursue by then.

[ondreeuh]

I think science is best done by DOING it. Observing, predicting, testing, evaluating, etc. Unfortunately, that's hard to get done when you have a full schedule. Programs that are heavy on the "doing" are labor-intensive, require lots of prep, and can be expensive, and they are sometimes not meaty enough (like RSO). Programs that are light on "doing" and use more books are not as interesting or fun (WTM outlining of science, snore).

 

I really liked My Pals are Here 3/4, because I was able to arrange the workbook pages and re-bind them, making it open-and-go. All of the activities were simple and fast. We are now about to start Elemental Science Chemistry and I like how it's a hybrid of reading & doing. My ideal curriculum would have a kit for each chapter/unit so I didn't have to do any prep!

[Mommy to monkeys]

I think my biggest issue with science is I want more "living" books geared for older ages. We had a great time with science when the kids were younger. It was so easy to find library books on a wide variety of science topics for the lower elementary age. Now it feels like we are stuck in textbook land and I'm always wishfully hunting for a library book that will make it all more interesting..

 

:iagree:Yep. What she said.

Also, finding religiously "neutral" living books is not easy.

[FairProspects]

Okay, I'm not a scientist, but this attitude, which I've heard before, has always confused me. I don't think of science in the elementary grades as being in a holding pattern because kids don't get the math. I myself enjoy reading about science, learning about science and so forth and *I* never took calculus. Some sciences require a huge amount of math. But others require a lot less. I don't think we need math to understand food webs, animal behavior, what a cell is, how volcanoes work, how simple machines reduce work, and so on and so forth. Math can help give a deeper understanding of those topics - equations about work and power, statistics about the animals and plants in the food web and so forth.

 

I think taking the attitude that you can't have your own personal sense of discovery about science and therefore it must be flat is also false. When you read something like Richard Feynman's reflections on growing up to become a scientist, he writes about asking simple questions about the world - following ants on the ground, seeing if your timing of counting aloud is determined by your heartbeat... I read a lovely piece by a scientist about how she "discovered" centrifugal force while playing with a bucket as a child and the sense for a little while that it was her very own find. I think if we don't structure science in the early grades to encourage that type of thought and exploration, then of course it will be flat. And it's so defeatist to shrug and say that there's no way to make it interesting to help kids get any aspect of it until they can do higher math. By the time they get the math, they may have decided science is too boring to pursue by then.

 

I'm confused. I think we are actually saying the same thing. This is my critique about why I DON'T like a lot of elementary science programs - that they (the curriculums or programs) assume you need math so they don't give the kids anything real to do. It is NOT how I feel science should be by any means. That is why I personally am unsatisfied with many science programs (I am completely satisfied with our current science, by the way). I thought I answered the question you were asking in the original post, but maybe I misunderstood?

 

ETA: Reading my original post I was a lot less clear than I should have been. I do feel stuck with ds sometimes though that many of his questions about science involve answers I can't explain at a level he would understand and most of that is because of the math. I am not a scientist by any means though, so it could certainly be my lack of expertise in knowing how to explain something. (I'm thinking physics and engineering, not things like biology.)

Edited September 30, 2011 by FairProspects

[WeeBeaks]

We are having trouble finding anything meaty enough that progresses in a logical orderly fashion to build the rungs of the ladder for pre-logic-stage (or really he is on the cusp of logic stage) science. Usborne books in general he loves, but it is little snippets all over the place. RS4K was way too easy, and he ripped through the entire book/lab kit for each topic in a week or two. Sonlight science as a whole he would take the entire week's topic sheets and burn through them in an hour (correctly answering any quizzes). We are doing BFSU2 right now, augmented heavily by a dozen or so library books a week from the library, Snap Circuits, TOPS science labs and anything else we can find. In his spare time he spends reading reading a science encyclopedia set we have. At this point we "unschool" science essentially --- I just follow along and obtain whatever materials I can locate for him based on interest. But he is ready for more in a more linear approach (or at least spirals, something that brings things together more for him) and I can't find it.

 

If he worked his hard on writing, we would be all set. :lol:

[Five More Minutes]

In the what are you perennially unsatisfied with thread, science is definitely the leader and I feel like I've heard that complaint before. I put together our own science program, so I don't have that complaint, but it seems to be so pervasive, that I've wondered about it.

 

Is it the lack of good options? Certainly from a secular perspective, I see it as an issue, but there are certainly options for elementary in particular. Is it that the expectations or understanding of us as parents is off? Do we expect the wrong things? Is it some failing in the classical approach (I've heard people who feel WTM doesn't "get" science)? Is it just that science requires more prep and time than other subjects to do it right, making it a constant frustration?

 

I think that there is some disconnect with WTM and science, at least compared to a subject like history. Science doesn't chunk down as neatly into different topics and stages. We can use biology, chemistry, physics, and earth sciences as our main topics, but they don't connect linearly the way that ancient, medieval, renaissance, and modern history do. Also, the WTM science learning goals of each stage (grammar, logic, rhetoric) aren't as deeply developed as they are for WTM history, in my opinion. So that disconnect is one reason why I'm struggling to find and to imagine a science program that will work for us.

 

I also find that, practically, science does take more prep. Finding materials (even the so-called common household ones) for experiments can feel like too much time to be worth the effort. So when I'm low on energy, science gets pushed back.

 

Interesting thread -- thanks for posting.

[In2why]

I think science is best done by DOING it. Observing, predicting, testing, evaluating, etc. Unfortunately, that's hard to get done when you have a full schedule. Programs that are heavy on the "doing" are labor-intensive, require lots of prep, and can be expensive, and they are sometimes not meaty enough (like RSO). Programs that are light on "doing" and use more books are not as interesting or fun (WTM outlining of science, snore).

!

 

 

I agree. I am basically ready to chuck all science curriculums and go to our science museums every other week for the entire day. We have 2 that are about an hour away and have lot of hands on activities and experiments. I figure that if we use our K-W-L papers (know, want to know, and learn) it could lead to some interesting learning adventures. I will also concentrate on one area of the museum at a time and get in depth with the experience instead of just going through the entire museum at a fast pace like we usually do.

[Halcyon]

For my older, this is the first year that science has really worked for us. No, that's not true--I liked K12 science well enough. Anyway, we're using Core Knowledge, which is basically me talking about the topic (using the lesson plan), introducing new words, student reading from living books on the topic at hand, and doing the experiment if there is one that week (and I never prepare for these in advance, and so far it's working fine). There's a LOT of meat, so we easily spend four hours a week on each lesson. For meteorology, we've looked at cyclone videos on youtube, done a humidity experiment using a pencil and newspaper (worked well) and measured temperature at different levels of the house. We've looked at the newspaper's weather map to learn what the legends mean, and then analyzed cold fronts and warm fronts, discussed why and where they occur and what happens when they meet and discussed why high pressure systems occur in colder areas. I've learned a lot, too.

Edited September 30, 2011 by Halcyon

[Farrar]

I'm confused. I think we are actually saying the same thing. This is my critique about why I DON'T like a lot of elementary science programs - that they (the curriculums or programs) assume you need math so they don't give the kids anything real to do. It is NOT how I feel science should be by any means. That is why I personally am unsatisfied with many science programs (I am completely satisfied with our current science, by the way). I thought I answered the question you were asking in the original post, but maybe I misunderstood?

 

ETA: Reading my original post I was a lot less clear than I should have been. I do feel stuck with ds sometimes though that many of his questions about science involve answers I can't explain at a level he would understand and most of that is because of the math. I am not a scientist by any means though, so it could certainly be my lack of expertise in knowing how to explain something. (I'm thinking physics and engineering, not things like biology.)

 

Ah. Thanks for the further explanation. :001_smile: It is tough. I want to introduce my kids to basic concepts and vocabulary so they have that later, but I also want to encourage that sort of real scientific questioning (even if it's questions we've already answered).

 

I think that there is some disconnect with WTM and science, at least compared to a subject like history. Science doesn't chunk down as neatly into different topics and stages. We can use biology, chemistry, physics, and earth sciences as our main topics, but they don't connect linearly the way that ancient, medieval, renaissance, and modern history do. Also, the WTM science learning goals of each stage (grammar, logic, rhetoric) aren't as deeply developed as they are for WTM history, in my opinion. So that disconnect is one reason why I'm struggling to find and to imagine a science program that will work for us.

 

I also find that, practically, science does take more prep. Finding materials (even the so-called common household ones) for experiments can feel like too much time to be worth the effort. So when I'm low on energy, science gets pushed back.

 

Interesting thread -- thanks for posting.

 

Those are the two things I see too. Especially the prep time issue. But then I feel bad, like I'm accusing people who aren't happy with science of just being lazy, when I think it's a lot more than that.

[Five More Minutes]

Interesting question. I hope you'll get some candid responses.

I wonder if one reason people have trouble with science might be related to a lack of confidence w/the math or maybe with the whole exercise? Perhaps the people who say they're dissatisfied have more passion for other academic disciplines?

 

I don't know ... I'm relatively confident in my math and science skills, and was passionate enough about science to complete an undergrad degree in chemistry.

 

In my case, I'm dissatisfied with science right now because my daughters aren't having many "wow" moments. I'm not seeing a love of science growing the way I'm seeing it happen in history, reading, and math, which makes me think that the approach I'm using isn't working for us.

 

On one level I know that I just need to put more effort into setting up experiments. However, I want those experiments to be connected to some solid science reading, which means MORE organizing of library book requests. So part of my dissatisfaction is my own fault: I need to get working at this.

 

That said, I'm not experiencing this same dissatisfaction with history, which I'm doing more or less as outlined in WTM. Same with language arts, art, and math. So there is more than just my lack of effort; there's also something not quite clicking with either the WTM approach or with the curriculum that I chose.

 

ETA:

You've really got me thinking tonight ...

 

Here's something that struck me. With Story of the World, a program that we're loving, I have a really good spine that is (a) written in a tone accessible for children; (b) written in an order that is logical to the nature of the subject; and © written by someone who knows her stuff.

 

To go along with this, I also have the amazing Activity Guide, which gives me connections to encyclopedias; review questions for each chapter; additional reading recommendations (both fiction and non-fiction); projects; plus some worksheet activities that I can photocopy and use right away.

 

I love this. I would love something similar for science. I haven't seen it yet.

Edited September 30, 2011 by Lynnita

[lionfamily1999]

We've just started a new science program for my older two dc (I haven't changed my sig yet). Dd felt her text book was WAY to dry and ds was just not interested in the books he was using. We've switched over to a more Christian science curriculum and so far so good. The kids are happier and more interested in science that includes God.

 

For my dc the science programs we were using just didn't speak to them.

[twoforjoy]

Those are the two things I see too. Especially the prep time issue. But then I feel bad, like I'm accusing people who aren't happy with science of just being lazy, when I think it's a lot more than that.

 

To some extent, my antipathy toward science is laziness. Well, maybe not laziness, but a general dislike I have for making and cleaning up messes, especially when I don't see a particularly big payoff for it.

 

Maybe if I was more impressed with the experiments we've done, I'd feel differently, but as it is, I don't think we've ever done an experiment where the result was worth the effort, either in terms of the learning that happened or the fun we had with it.

 

So I don't think it's necessarily that I don't like prep time, because I have no problem spending the time prepping for other subjects. I just don't think the time spent preparing for science lessons--gathering stuff, setting up, doing the experiment, cleaning up--pays off enough to make it worth it.

[joannqn]

For me, its the experiments/activities...

 

Many of the activities don't yield the expected results. My lack of science knowledge/education means that I can't figure out why it didn't work, or I can't reworked the experiment so that it does work correctly, or I can't answer the questions of why something happened. Many resources don't give complete enough teacher's manuals to be able to explain the things we don't know or understand already.

 

We had one very early on where we were suppose to fill a basket full of crumbled construction paper of one color; we chose red. Then we were suppose to toss in M&M's all of colors. In theory, we were suppose to be able to find more M&M's in all of the non-red colors. It was suppose to show how camouflage works. In reality, we found more red M&M's than another other color. Well, now...

 

Just last week, we learned that the sun rises in the north and sets in the south. Good think I know the correct answer! The curriculum didn't adequately explain how to measure the azimuth of the sun with a shadow and a compass. We did what it seemed to be saying and realized we did something wrong when we plotted our results. Ooops. I did finally figure it out, I think, and we repeated our observations today. We'll find out if we did it right tomorrow when we plot the numbers.

[Embassy]

In the what are you perennially unsatisfied with thread, science is definitely the leader and I feel like I've heard that complaint before. I put together our own science program, so I don't have that complaint, but it seems to be so pervasive, that I've wondered about it.

 

Is it the lack of good options? Certainly from a secular perspective, I see it as an issue, but there are certainly options for elementary in particular. Is it that the expectations or understanding of us as parents is off? Do we expect the wrong things? Is it some failing in the classical approach (I've heard people who feel WTM doesn't "get" science)? Is it just that science requires more prep and time than other subjects to do it right, making it a constant frustration?

 

I'm unsatisfied with elementary science curriculum. I've found elementary programs to either be too basic or too boring. I've gone the route of making up our own and it suits us very well. I may attempt a textbook with my son next year, but use it more like a spine.

[lionfamily1999]

For me, its the experiments/activities...

 

Many of the activities don't yield the expected results. My lack of science knowledge/education means that I can't figure out why it didn't work, or I can't reworked the experiment so that it does work correctly, or I can't answer the questions of why something happened. Many resources don't give complete enough teacher's manuals to be able to explain the things we don't know or understand already.

 

We had one very early on where we were suppose to fill a basket full of crumbled construction paper of one color; we chose red. Then we were suppose to toss in M&M's all of colors. In theory, we were suppose to be able to find more M&M's in all of the non-red colors. It was suppose to show how camouflage works. In reality, we found more red M&M's than another other color. Well, now...

 

Just last week, we learned that the sun rises in the north and sets in the south. Good think I know the correct answer! The curriculum didn't adequately explain how to measure the azimuth of the sun with a shadow and a compass. We did what it seemed to be saying and realized we did something wrong when we plotted our results. Ooops. I did finally figure it out, I think, and we repeated our observations today. We'll find out if we did it right tomorrow when we plot the numbers.

We've had those problems too. Our heating and a/c are not central (so 90% of the time our windows are open), all I can figure is that half of our experiments bomb because our "room temperature" is very seldom "room temperature" and we live in a very humid area.

 

Also, the science we did just didn't relate to anything else in our lives.

 

:confused: I thought the sun rose in the east and set in west?

[joannqn]

:confused: I thought the sun rose in the east and set in west?

 

They do. That was the point. The experiment failed due to insufficient instruction and lack of instructor (me) knowledge. I've never taken an azimuth reading before this year; heck, I've never heard of azimuth before this year. Second, I've never used a shadow to read a compass. The instructions didn't explain it well enough to do it right. Once we plotted the information in the given graph, we extended the curve and discovered that something was wrong because, according to our data, the sun rose in the north and set in the south.

 

To make me feel better, I was talking to an acquaintance Monday night and his English teacher wife was called to sub in science class. By the third period, she realized that she had taught the first two periods incorrectly.

[Farrar]

ETA:

You've really got me thinking tonight ...

 

Here's something that struck me. With Story of the World, a program that we're loving, I have a really good spine that is (a) written in a tone accessible for children; (b) written in an order that is logical to the nature of the subject; and © written by someone who knows her stuff.

 

To go along with this, I also have the amazing Activity Guide, which gives me connections to encyclopedias; review questions for each chapter; additional reading recommendations (both fiction and non-fiction); projects; plus some worksheet activities that I can photocopy and use right away.

 

I love this. I would love something similar for science. I haven't seen it yet.

 

Me. Too.

 

And I looked for it for a long time. But all the science texts I found for elementary school had issues...

 

- too outdated or with a religious slant I didn't agree with

 

- poorly written and not rich enough

 

- blurby and not with enough narrative voice

 

I have found good individual living books though. But it's not the same thing. Alas.

 

 

Maybe if I was more impressed with the experiments we've done, I'd feel differently, but as it is, I don't think we've ever done an experiment where the result was worth the effort, either in terms of the learning that happened or the fun we had with it.

 

So I don't think it's necessarily that I don't like prep time, because I have no problem spending the time prepping for other subjects. I just don't think the time spent preparing for science lessons--gathering stuff, setting up, doing the experiment, cleaning up--pays off enough to make it worth it.

 

Yes, that's what I meant exactly. Time spent is only worth it if there's some payoff.

[lionfamily1999]

They do. That was the point. The experiment failed due to insufficient instruction and lack of instructor (me) knowledge. I've never taken an azimuth reading before this year; heck, I've never heard of azimuth before this year. Second, I've never used a shadow to read a compass. The instructions didn't explain it well enough to do it right. Once we plotted the information in the given graph, we extended the curve and discovered that something was wrong because, according to our data, the sun rose in the north and set in the south.

 

To make me feel better, I was talking to an acquaintance Monday night and his English teacher wife was called to sub in science class. By the third period, she realized that she had taught the first two periods incorrectly.

Ah, well now you know how great a scientific mind I have :lol: I have no idea what an azimuth is ;)

[Farrar]

If I don't want to be a sailor, do I need to know how to take an azimuth reading?:tongue_smilie:

[Moniksca]

I have a degree in bio and I've usually made up our science curriculum since we use lapbooks. We read a ton of books and just pick an experiment to do at the end of the week out of an experiment book. This is the first year we're going with a curriculum - elemental science (chemistry) since I'm pregnant and didn't want to have to pull things together. There are weeks where I don't have the materials on hand but I switch it out for another week's experiment that I do have the materials for. As long as there's an experiment completed at the end of the week that we can discuss, I'm happy. I'm not super picky about having everything line up perfectly, but more with actually completing an experiment, that demonstrates a specific concept. And if things don't go as planned, which has happened, we either try again and/or discuss why it didn't.

I love science so I wanted my ds to as well, we started with biology (3rd), and then he chose rocks & minerals, space, and then extreme weather (4th), he was interested in the different elements found in the rocks so I chose chem for this year (5th). I'm happy to go with the topics he chooses because I figure we'll eventually cover everything at some point.

[joannqn]

Ah, well now you know how great a scientific mind I have :lol: I have no idea what an azimuth is ;)

 

Take a compass, line up the needle so it is properly pointing north, then figure out which degree points to the object you are taking a reading for.

 

If I don't want to be a sailor, do I need to know how to take an azimuth reading?:tongue_smilie:

 

We are using it to determine the path of the sun and moon at our location.

Edited September 30, 2011 by joannqn

[Mimm]

I didn't even read the other thread, but when I saw the title, I thought "Science." :) Part of it is my own science education was so weak that I very much feel at a disadvantage when it comes to teaching it. It truly is appalling how little I know. Another aspect is the leg work involved in doing experiments. I feel like I'm running all over the place gathering materials for a demonstration that takes ten minutes and only sort of works. It's annoying.

 

I spent a lot of time this year buying a bunch of chemistry books and scheduling out a bunch of readings with our RS4K chemistry curriculum and my kids are bored. I'm sitting there wishing I had just bought some chemistry science kits and let them do experiments each week with what's in the kit. Last year we grew butterflies, we had an ant farm, we bought a rock collection, we drew leaves. They played with snap circuits and watched hours and hours of Discovery Channel documentaries about space. My science curriculum sat on the shelf untouched. It wasn't at all cohesive and I felt like we didn't do nearly enough but I'm wondering if that wasn't the way to go in the end. They loved science last year.

[5knights3maidens]

I didn't read the other posts yet and, well, I just said to my dh at dinner, "SOTW" is a hit and science is a bomb. both dd's (6 and 8) said, "yep." Now what? I have a Magic School Bus science kit the book and a lapbook. They don't like the lapbook....I think it is to hard for them. (BTW, they love all the lapbooking and notebooking for SOTW 1) They took out the one experiment; making a lightbulb with wires, battery, etc. and they love that. The balloon experiments were a bomb because it is too humid. Maybe after tonight it will be better because the weather is changing. Blah....I am not a science person.

 

Now dd, 8, loved doing a shark lapbook. Maybe we should just stick with doing different types of experiments (not associated with the lapbooks) and doing science lapbooks of their choice.

 

Hmmm.....

 

Now I went back and read the post before mine. We watched "many" Jeff Corwin animal dvd's last year and they loved them. Maybe we should keep doing that. And, they love watching the Magic School Bus movies and another show on Qubo that is science minded.

Edited September 30, 2011 by 5knights3maidens

[mcconnellboys]

This is what I want more of, too. And for logic stage, I also find myself wanting more experiments that support the reading and more written work to help reinforce it. I've ended up cobbling together my own stuff toward that end....

[jewellsmommy]

I would also guess the prep time involved. But, I've got to say, I have really enjoyed RSO Chemistry for 2-5th grade.

[WIS0320]

For my older, this is the first year that science has really worked for us. No, that's not true--I liked K12 science well enough. Anyway, we're using Core Knowledge, which is basically me talking about the topic (using the lesson plan), introducing new words, student reading from living books on the topic at hand, and doing the experiment if there is one that week (and I never prepare for these in advance, and so far it's working fine).

 

I looked and looked for something I could like that was a complete planned science curriculum and I just couldn't find anything. I really think the majority of homeschooling science materials are YE based (or at least sympathetic and "open" to the possibility) and I am decidedly not YE and I don't care to introduce the idea to my first grader. There is plenty of time for her to explore the "debate" in later years. Right now I just want to get the basics introduced - matter, energy, dinosaurs, habitats, natural resources, life cycles, basic geology and so on.

 

I love a lot about the WTM but I thought the science recommendations were rather meh for early elementary. I've been putting my own science together as well based on the Core Knowledge Sequence for first grade and combining those unit topics with some of the topics that are covered in public schools in our state. It has given us a nice variety of topics to explore in 3 or 4 week segments which is really just about as much time as either of us want to really stay in any one topic (so far). We use plenty of books, add in experiments or small projects where applicable and complete a couple narrations per week on what we've learned. So far we're both happy but then again we're only in week 10 of the school year.

Edited September 30, 2011 by drexel
spelling

[Farrar]

I know a lot of classical education doesn't even bother with science in the early grades and I have the sense from the way it was written that SWB and JW felt they were being quite generous to include so much of it. However, clearly a lot of people don't find it to be meaty enough or inspiring enough. I wonder if because science is always changing and evolving (even the sort of stuff that is elementary level is different - the dinosaurs have even all changed from when I was a kid!) it's just fundamentally at odds with some of the basic tenets of classical education.

[jakesask]

In trying to plan ahead for my daughter's grade 1, I have found science the most difficult topic to get a handle on. I think some of the problem in my case is that I have NO recollection of doing science in grades 1-4, so I really don't know where to start from--i.e., what's good enough, what's not enough, and what's ideal or rigorous. I'm all over the CM-style nature study, but I think we should do science beyond that as well. I agree with farrarwilliams that it seems like classical education doesn't focus much on science--I expect it is because what we know and understand of the world has changed a great deal since classical education was in its hey-day.

 

I look at the government curriculum used in the schools in my province now ( http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/docs/elemsci/elemsci.html ) and feel pretty sure that we didn't talk about any of this stuff when I was in elementary school 20+ years ago!

[Tigger]

One of the things I love about the classical model of education is that it recognizes and exploits that in the elementary years it's about exposure and content, absorbing information and facts; then in the logic stage, through a natural progression and maturity, comes the analytical thinking - the cause and effect and the connecting the dots to why the facts fit together, or why they don't.

 

So my main issue with many of the elementary science programs (secular) for K-4 is that they lack meaningful depth and fail to, for the most part, bring together the interconnectedness of the science disciplines (there are likely some good ones out there, but from those I've seen, the only one that nails the interconnectedness and has decent depth is BSFU).

 

In general they're heavy on cookie-cutter experiments, which when well designed can be great, but IMO they're often very basic, predictable before the start, and don't really add much to the material information. While sometimes reinforcement of the material is meaningful (on a difficult concept), too often it's just fluff and not really adding much.

 

I also think in an attempt to make students better at science, programs jump to the analytical and water down the focus on content, information and facts, leaving the latter less than it can be; add to that, experiments that are scant on depth and are often time-consuming for resulting outcome, I think many just miss the mark of what I hope to accomplish in the grammar stage.

 

I've yet to find the one program I love or DS loves that meets what I'd love to see - true open-ended exploration of the content and connectedness between the disciplines early, so later in the analytical stage, connecting the dots leads to lots of "a-ha's!" and deeper curiosity about the why's.

 

I think that with the idea we'd like kids to be more interested in science, the science programs set up the experiments for them - that's the problem IMO - true scientific curiosity is driven internally, not externally from pre-planned recipe experiments (although such can be and are very useful in later years when tight control over variables comes into play, and learning how rigor must be part of design matters).

 

Over the last year I have looked at and discarded dozens of programs. I use BSFU as an outline to maintain connectedness, but don't follow it as our program.

 

These days I just cobble together our science from a lot of sources that are "great" in one area, but might suck in another, and hope it's coming together into a nice solid program for DS. It helps that DH and I are both heavy in science ourselves. At this point we don't follow cookie-cutter experiments anymore - DS, in his observations and learning asks questions and we take it from there, we experiment based on his questions, not the pre-planned questions that have already been answered and he understands.

 

It's leading to some great labs and experiments, some of which, admittedly, are from within the programs, some which I just have to get creative and figure out how to set it up so DS gets his question answered....it is more time-consuming for me to figure out how to design his experiment, but I think it is adding more to his science this way than it is just following the cookie-cutter experiments most programs rely on.

 

It also leads us to more living books and resources to look up answers and get more information, ask more questions, go into more depth - basically I look at it that I'm starting the process for DS, giving him the base to start from, and then its his questions that are leading us elsewhere for a while until we need to get to the next piece of information, and so on.

Edited September 30, 2011 by Tigger

[cmarango]

I am not understanding the whole experiments that don't work comments, particularly for grammar age students. However, I have never used a science curriculum before since I make up my own.

 

I believe that in the grammar years children need to focus on observational skills. I don't see much of a point in doing experiments until the logic stage. I have introduced a few simple experiments to my dd so that she knows the parts of the scientific method, but I do not expect her to be filling out lab reports any time soon.

 

So, bring insects into your house and watch them, draw them, read about what type of habitat they need, etc. We have also started doing dissections with my dd and I have seen how much more she remembers after counting the number of squid tentacles, for example. Dissections in the early years are more about handling the specimens than anything.

For earth science, we can look at soil samples, rocks, play with magnets, etc. Physics has all sorts of things to play with. And tons of videos about all sorts of topics.

 

I think that once we get to the logic stage then it might be more difficult, but we shall see. :tongue_smilie:

[Farrar]

We usually have pretty good luck with experiments, but we've had our fair share "go wrong" - crystals that didn't grow, tooth bacteria that didn't grow (I swear, I refuse to believe our teeth are that clean), an electrical generator that didn't light the 1.5 v. bulb, and my personal favorite... a demonstration where you're supposed to have two groups - one to pop and balloon and the other to stand like a city block away and watch the balloon be popped (you put flour inside to make sure they can see it). Because light goes faster than sound, they *should* see the balloon pop then hear it just a second later. Not for us. In fact, the kids became convinced sound travels faster than light. Ugh.

 

Then there are the experiments that work, but are a lot of set up for very little pay off, like one where we mixed citric acid and something and the chemical rxn was supposed to cool down the water... Eh. A little. But not enough to be impressive enough to make the point memorable. Plus there was the purchasing of the citric acid, the set up to do it... Bah. Not worth it by far.

 

To me, the best demo experiments are when you have something simple with things you've already got that took just a minute to get together. We had one the other day about how water molecules cling to each other. Wet a string, tie it to a liquid measuring cup, pour the water very slowly down and pull the string taut at a steep sideways angle - the water will "flow sideways" into a cup. Amazed the kids. They got to try it and experiment with how to get it right. They also immediately understood why it wouldn't work with a dry string (no water molecules to cling to!) so they got the point of it. Perfect, simple, easy, fun. But not every topic has something like that.

[HejKatt]

I'll give you an example that happened to me recently. I am currently using NOEO Bio 1. It came with a weather kit

..

 

 

It's been my experience too that all-in-one kits, unless they came with a $$ price tag, were usually underwhelming.

 

I think I mentioned in another thread - we now avoid the kits that are sold in the books section. To remain lightweight, they have to make substitutions such as reflective paper instead of mirrors, and then we'd have to assemble a model using several cut-outs of cardboard and a zillion pieces of tape. :ack2: And the kids would promptly squash it in their excitement. I admire families who can get these to work.

[tammyw]

It's been my experience too that all-in-one kits, unless they came with a $$ price tag, were usually underwhelming.

 

I think I mentioned in another thread - we now avoid the kits that are sold in the books section. To remain lightweight, they have to make substitutions such as reflective paper instead of mirrors, and then we'd have to assemble a model using several cut-outs of cardboard and a zillion pieces of tape. :ack2: And the kids would promptly squash it in their excitement. I admire families who can get these to work.

 

Have you ever used Science in a Nutshell kits (by Delta)? Those are the kits I'm considering, but haven't used myself.

[HejKatt]

Have you ever used Science in a Nutshell kits (by Delta)? Those are the kits I'm considering, but haven't used myself.

 

We haven't.. looking forward to hear from others who have. :bigear:

 

I checked the website, the photos of the kits' components look promising.

http://www.delta-education.com/siansplash.aspx?subID=5&menuID=17

[MissKNG]

I'm not unsatsified! We really enjoyed Sonlight and are enjoying Noeo Chemistry. I do have to supplement heavily because my big girl is such a science nut but I have no problem with that. We haven't had any problems with Noeo materials and I like that everything is included and planned out for me.

[Mrs Twain]

The experiments in BFSU 1 are difficult to mess up. There was one experiment with rubber bands of different sizes and diameters. We plucked them and observed various qualities of the sound (recording the observations in our science notebooks), and learned principles including that sound comes from vibrations. One of the reasons I love BFSU is because the experiments are so simple and elegant, using the things we actually do have around the house.

[Michele B]

One reason I am intimidated by science is the pre-planning aspect- not my strong suit! ;) And yes, after actually gathering all the materials for many experiments, I have had some real stinkers! I think I followed the directions and part-way through I realize it is not going to work. I suppose I should work out the experiments on my own to make sure, but that doesn't happen. I want to say I have had experiments bomb from various curricula, not just one or two. Was it I at fault or the writer of the experiment or both?:001_huh:

 

Another problem for me is the sequence. Grammar and math have definite sequence that builds year after year. The four-year history rotation makes perfect sense and works well. But the various fields of science are so inter-related that I constantly second guess what should precede what.

 

It shouldn't be this hard. I guess it is a personal block with me.:tongue_smilie:

[lionfamily1999]

Take a compass, line up the needle so it is properly pointing north, then figure out which degree points to the object you are taking a reading for.

 

 

 

We are using it to determine the path of the sun and moon at our location.

Ah, we did something like that in Cub Scouts, then.

 

It's been my experience too that all-in-one kits, unless they came with a $$ price tag, were usually underwhelming.

 

I think I mentioned in another thread - we now avoid the kits that are sold in the books section. To remain lightweight, they have to make substitutions such as reflective paper instead of mirrors, and then we'd have to assemble a model using several cut-outs of cardboard and a zillion pieces of tape. :ack2: And the kids would promptly squash it in their excitement. I admire families who can get these to work.

:iagree: We've done experiments that it didn't seem possible to mess up and yet... So, we've backed off from experiments. I'm starting to think I may have an anti-science thumb (to go along with my black thumb when it comes to plants).

[joysworld]

I want something that flows and doesn't take a lot of prep time on my part, and that's not a lot of money:) This year I've tried to do my own thing, just by reading real books and some experiments here and there. But I'm not liking it because it doesn't really flow and it is a lot of prep time for me. I just purchased BFSU on pdf so I'll see how that will work.