Rethinking the WTM 4-yr Science sequence

[Sahamamama]

I used to think that we would follow the WTM four-year cycle for science and history, but my perspective on both has changed. Just as there is more than one way to begin the journey into history, there are multiple roads into the sciences. To me, scientific understanding seems to grow in a spiral-like way, encompassing all the areas of science. The young child plays with ice, which melts into a puddle of water, and the parent puts the kettle on the stove and explains states of matter. See the steam? We can capture it on this spoon, and when it cools, it is water once again. Later, on a nature walk, the child sees minnows in a shallow lake. We slow down and observe them, then both share what we know about these animals that live in water. We find smooth, flat rocks and skip them on the surface of the lake. How do the rocks feel? What colors are they? Which ones make the best skippers? On the way home, we see dark clouds forming in the distance, and wonder if there will be a storm. Will there be rain or snow? A flock of geese race southward in V-formation as we crunch through the brown, rotting leaves. Chemistry, Biology, Geology, Physics, Meteorology, Ornithology, Ecology -- big names for little moments in a day.

 

IMO, the main ingredient for great primary (Pre-K--2nd) science is an intelligent teacher who wonders, explores, and reads. Why should a young student be locked into a full year of Life Science? It sounds nice and neat for the planner/teacher, but do little kids learn best this way? Aren't there some concepts in Chemistry and Physics that have to be learned before they're encountered in Biology?

 

When I first read WTM, lo, these many moons ago (1999) -- I wasn't even married then -- it sounded so... right. So organized. So orderly. I liked that back then. :lol: Now I have real children, and they don't seem to fit into the boxes. I understand that if they want to bring home a pile of rocks from our hike, I don't have to say, "No, girls, leave the rocks there until next year. This year is Life Science, so we'll come back for the rocks in sometime in 2012, please." But sometimes it feels like the yearly focus is more of a ball-and-chain on my thinking than a positive organizational tool.

 

There are questions that come up, rabbit trails, interests, opportunities, and such. There are books we come across and want to read, DVDs to watch, people to talk to (about science), and this. I like The Happy Scientist. He makes me want to get up and do science experiments, for the first time in my life. :D We've done some of them, and now we are getting so off-track in our Life Science schedule. Sheesh.

 

Does anyone know what I'm trying to say here? I don't know what is happening to me lately. :001_huh: I posted not that long ago about "falling away" from the WTM four-year approach to History, now it's happening again with Science.

 

Next year, we're not doing one Science, as in ________ Science. Instead, we're doing Science, whatever we find, whatever we choose. I have a binder, and I'm putting into it all the ideas of things to do, books to read (Let's Read & Find Out), places to visit (the fish hatchery, the science museum, etc.), hands-on science projects we could actually do (like a small garden, a mini-greenhouse, a compost pile, rubber band boats, a rock collection, a butterfly house, a model volcano, etc.), links to websites, mini-book & model pages, and more. We'll keep lists of What We Read and What We Did.

 

In the early years, do/did you give yourself and your kids freedom to take a "mixed" approach to science? Are there disadvantages to not sticking with "one science" for a year? Any advantages? :bigear:

[EKS]

I absolutely think that it is better to mix up the sciences, particularly in the early grades. For example, 1st graders are ready for certain concepts in biology and not others. Then in 2nd they may be ready for a few more, and so on. Also, certain things need to be learned in order to be able to understand other things and those things may cross the (artificial) boundaries of disciplines. For example, you to understand states of matter (chemistry/physics) before you can understand weather (earth science).

[8filltheheart]

Not only do we mix science, the kids pick their own interests and never see a textbook prior to late middle school at the earliest.

 

Does it hurt them? Well, I have a ds that is homeschool graduate that is a chemical engineer and a 10th grader that has already taken physics, chemistry, a college level astronomy course, and is currently taking AP chemistry and his 2nd astronomy course. ;)

[AnnaM]

We use our curriculum as a stepping stone. The kids are free to explore any rabbit trail they desire for as long as they desire. The curriculum more or less just gives us a starting point.

[boscopup]

I think science is one of the first things people change from the WTM way of doing things. There's no reason you need to be married to it! You can use some ideas from WTM and just not use the sequence. Or you can ditch it and just do whatever you want. Seriously, it doesn't matter.

 

This year, most of the time, we haven't done our "science" curriculum at all, yet my son has learned plenty of science via library books, random science questions that he thinks of (discussion ensues), going out in nature, visiting science museums/zoos, watching Mythbusters :tongue_smilie:. There is so much science he does without us doing "curriculum". I tend to follow WTM for a lot of things, but I feel absolutely no guilt in not doing science the "WTM-way".

 

Don't worry about it. Do science however you'd like to do it. I think as long as your kids are being exposed to basic science from the world around them and library books, they'll do fine in science later on.

[arliemaria]

I completely agree. My son is 2.5 and I too first read WTM in college, before being married or having kids. Anyways, I have a sil in med school and she is very adamant that Robby get a full science curriculum and doesn't think you can limit it to one year per year in elementary years. She says most early science education is observation anyway. Thanks for the link to the Happy Scientist. I'll have to revisit that one someday.

[Mrs Twain]

I use BFSU for science. That program is almost exactly the way you describe,. You may like it.

[Sahamamama]

I think science is one of the first things people change from the WTM way of doing things. There's no reason you need to be married to it! You can use some ideas from WTM and just not use the sequence. Or you can ditch it and just do whatever you want. Seriously, it doesn't matter.

 

This year, most of the time, we haven't done our "science" curriculum at all, yet my son has learned plenty of science via library books, random science questions that he thinks of (discussion ensues), going out in nature, visiting science museums/zoos, watching Mythbusters :tongue_smilie:. There is so much science he does without us doing "curriculum". I tend to follow WTM for a lot of things, but I feel absolutely no guilt in not doing science the "WTM-way".

 

Don't worry about it. Do science however you'd like to do it. I think as long as your kids are being exposed to basic science from the world around them and library books, they'll do fine in science later on.

 

Thanks to everyone who posted, but this post, especially, is reassuring. There was something about the orderliness of WTM way back when I first read it, then read it again, and again. :D But now that I have real flesh-and-blood children, there is something about it that seems "off" (for us). All three girls are extremely curious, love to read and listen to science books, ask great questions, are learning to be more observant, like to draw what they see, enjoy science videos, are so focused when we do hands-on science (e.g., gardening, beach exploration, birding), and have a too large (for our little house) nature collection.

 

I don't know. Something happened to me the other day when I was watching videos on The Happy Scientist website. He had all sorts of COOL STUFF in the background -- a skull, a stuffed owl, a magnifying glass, a huge spider in a frame, a microscope, a stuffed hawk, a large bowl filled with pine cones and deer antlers, a conch shell, feathers, a cactus -- in other words, I wanted to jump into the picture. :D And the thought occurred to me, "THAT is the type of environment in which I would have THRIVED as a child (had it to some extent), and that is what I want to create here."

 

When I was a kid, we always had a garden. We always canned and pickled every summer (in hot August, no A/C). We picked berries and made jam. We picked wild purple grapes and made juice. We picked apples, peaches, and plums for canning. We went camping, built campfires, cooked over the campfire, went hiking, fishing, canoeing, and collecting. My mom could name all the wildflowers, my father could name all the trees. They knew what the weather was going to be without watching the TV, and they could tell you all about how to kill, pluck, and "dress" a chicken. :001_huh: In our house, we had collections -- and I never thought about how much that shaped me -- but there was a bird nest in a brandy sniffer (with three small, blue eggs), a paper wasp nest (without the wasps), cattails, tall and feathery weeds, ferns and spider plants all over the place, shells from the beach. Over the years we had a dog, several cats, many hamsters, a parakeet, and a freshwater fish tank. When I was in 6th grade, my parents purchased a microscope set with prepared slides and slides for preparing. I spent hours on that thing. When I wanted to study mold (on my own), they let me leave an orange, a piece of bread, and other foods out for days (it was disgusting). We brought tadpoles and crayfish home from the creek, to observe them for days. I used to climb out on the garage roof with my star charts to watch the constellations move across the night time sky. My parents never hindered any of this, but I don't think they set out to "create an environment," either. It just was that way.

 

I had such terrible science teachers in junior high and high school, there's no way I learned a thing there. I think that whatever I learned about science must have come to me through my pores by being out in the woods and coming back to this kind of home.

 

Letting go of the WTM idea of Year 1 = Biology, Year 2 = Earth/Space, and so on feels like the world opens up to us. KWIM?

[PhotoGal]

I know what you are saying and agree completely. What we are doing is using the one year / one specialty, but also adding in whatever we want or where life takes us. I don't think you have to do one or the other.

 

So right now we are doing life science / human body in our official Science, but then we add in as interest/opportunity arise. If a book we are reading leads us to learn more about the moon or crystals or something, we will go for it. But I don't feel any pressure to go super in-depth because I know we will have a more thorough discussion / build models / etc. later. We can follow that interest until it starts to wane and then let it go (even if it feels incomplete to me - I don't have to worry). Does that make sense?

 

I don't discourage science on other topics, but I don't worry about them either. In that way the kids can follow their own interest and I still feel sure that they will learn about all the subjects in time. It actually helps me feel less overwhelmed to not be thinking about ALL the possible cool science things we could be doing. I know we will get to them in time and are welcome to explore them at our leisure with no pressure right now. :)

 

In any case, I think our kids end up learning more science just from things that come up in life and our discussions about them!

[boscopup]

Letting go of the WTM idea of Year 1 = Biology, Year 2 = Earth/Space, and so on feels like the world opens up to us. KWIM?

 

Yep! I think the reason WTM does it that way is because they don't want the typical elementary science textbook where topics have nothing to do with each other and they are very shallow because there is so much packed into one year. So the WTM way is meant to let you go deeper. That's not the only way to do it though! ;) I think there can be middle ground.

[cmarango]

Well, I do both. I like the organization of TWTM approach to science, but science also happens in everyday living.

 

We are slowly making our way through life science and having TWTM reminds me that I need to work through the animal and plant kingdom systematically. However, we also go out on nature walks and watch lots of nature films that lead us off on different paths.

 

Science is no different than any other subject. For example, math and grammar are both studied systematically as well as applied in everyday situations. We may be studying common nouns and proper nouns, but that will not stop me from gently correcting my dd's verb tense when she is talking to me outside of school time. KWIM?

 

Anyhow, that is my 2.

[Chrysalis Academy]

This is a great thread. TWTM is what brought me into HSing in the first place, but now that I'm here, I'm reminding myself that it's more of a recipe book than a doctor's prescription. I really love the chronological approach to hist & lit, and we're following that, but it's the tight scheduling that I see letting go of, and the idea that we *must* get through 3 repitions of each time period during the 12 years.

 

I firmly believe in stopping and smelling the roses, and do so and plan to continue in both history and science. There are weeks in history where we read the SOTW chapter, and then read a bunch of stories, bios, etc., do a related lit unit, and really go deep. And then there are weeks when we just read the chapter, do the map work, and move on, after an hour. Looking ahead to Vol. 3, I know we will spend more time on the American History stuff, even though I am so happy to be embedding that within the context of world history. This approach wreaks havoc with the "planned" schedule, but I just keep reminding myself that the whole point of HSing is to own the schedule, not let it own you. So, maybe we won't do a 4-year history cycle. Maybe it will take 5 years, or 6, and that's okay, as long as we keep the material developmentally appropriate/challenging.

 

With science, I'm a newly converted BFSU-er. What I like about the framework/spine approach that it offers is that this way I'll be sure to touch on everything. Some, we will just touch on. Some, we will park and stay for a long while, pulling in many other projects, doing experiments, reading, etc. But the discipline of the 4 threads, and the logical progression, means that we will be sure to do something other than biology!! If it was up to me we could easily do that for the next few years, and skip physics altogether :laugh:. I've taken BFSU vol. 2 & 3 (via the $5 e-books), and roughed out a schedule that will cover from now till 8th grade, with plenty of time to "squat" on favorite topics. I'm really excited about it - lots of fun stuff to look forward to, but the confidence of knowing we will cover everything important.

Edited December 12, 2011 by rroberts707

[boscopup]

We may be studying common nouns and proper nouns, but that will not stop me from gently correcting my dd's verb tense when she is talking to me outside of school time. KWIM?

 

 

Excellent analogy! You know, in science right now, we're studying ecosystems, but my son picked up one of the Apologia books and was reading about ants, and then he picked out another nature book we have that had ants in it. So I got a couple books on insects at the library last week to put in the book basket. So while learning about "what is an ecosystem", he's also delving deep into all things ants/insects.

[WeeBeaks]

I use BFSU for science. That program is almost exactly the way you describe,. You may like it.

 

I second BFSU. It is integrated like you are describing.

 

That said, I have one child who loves BFSU, broad interest in all topics, all over the place, interest led. And now I have one child who absolutely falls into TWTM scheme. He has decided that he will happily study animals for the rest of this year and he doesn't want to deviate from it. (I'll be hard pressed just to get him to do the human body book given how much he loves animals.) He likes his predictability. He likes to go in depth. He likes continuity. He *hated* Sonlight science with a passion (different topics each week and sometimes each day). It just didn't fit him. My oldest on the other hand, who now loves BFSU, loved Sonlight too.

[LMD]

I second BFSU. It is integrated like you are describing.

 

3rd. :D

 

But we're taking it nice and relaxed. I love that it is a solid foundation, because my own FSU is shaky! :lol: We take it slow and follow our own rabbit trails and have lots of fun. If I didn't have this as a base, science would just not get done I'm sure... says more about me than anything else!

[Bluegoat]

I think that history and literature make sense in chronological order, because that is when those things actually came to be. But science is not about the discovery of things or ideas - that would be the history of science.

 

To do science chronologically would really mean to start with the beginning of the universe, physics, how all the different elements formed and so on...

 

That would not be a very easy way to teach science!

 

I think the most sensible way with young kids is to start with their experiences and observations, and then go on to combine it with an approach based on the logic of science.

[linguistmama]

We also use BSFU for many of the reasons mentioned. :) I have some of the science books recommended in TWTM, but they are references for us, not the base of our science. My 6yo is really taking off with reading so we'll be getting more science books from the library that she is interested in.

[Halcyon]

We alternate between a more scripted core (Core Knowledge, Nancy Larson) and BFSU. When we find a topic we love, BFSU helps us flesh it out. Our scripted cores keep us moving along at a reasonable pace, but I have no problem lingering in BFSU along the way :)

[Sahamamama]

Thanks for the encouragement to use BFSU. We have it. :blushing: I haven't had the courage to try it yet.

 

Any advice for how to go about implementing it?

[Halcyon]

Thanks for the encouragement to use BFSU. We have it. :blushing: I haven't had the courage to try it yet.

 

Any advice for how to go about implementing it?

 

 

Read it. Do it. Have Fun. Don't Stress.

 

Really :)

 

There's no wrong way.

[WeeBeaks]

Thanks for the encouragement to use BFSU. We have it. :blushing: I haven't had the courage to try it yet.

 

Do you belong to the yahoo group for it? There are some suggested lesson plans in there from members if you want that.

 

I pick a topic and preorder the additional books from the library, or comparable ones if I can't find what the author recommends. I also make sure I have the supplies for the experiment a week or two in advance. Then we read the books and do the experiment. It is not nearly as hard as it first looks. The all-text format of the book IMHO is intimidating. But the actual work of the material is very clear, well laid out.

[Mrs Twain]

Do you belong to the yahoo group for it? There are some suggested lesson plans in there from members if you want that.

 

I pick a topic and preorder the additional books from the library, or comparable ones if I can't find what the author recommends. I also make sure I have the supplies for the experiment a week or two in advance. Then we read the books and do the experiment. It is not nearly as hard as it first looks. The all-text format of the book IMHO is intimidating. But the actual work of the material is very clear, well laid out.

:iagree:

 

Now that I have the hang of it, it takes me about 10-15 minutes to preread the lesson. Then I gather the supplies from around the house to do the experiment.

 

After the lesson, I write out three or four principles that we learned from the lesson. I use the "objectives" section to help me come up with these. On a separate day, I have my kids copy the principles and draw a picture for each one that demonstrates the principle, either from what we discussed or the experiment we did. Then they file the paper in their science notebook so that we can review in the future.

 

I like that you can either work you way through one thread, or work through all four at the same time. It gives a nice framework for science to make sure you are covering the basic subjects, but at the same time gives you endless freedom to elaborate on any lesson that interests you.

 

One of my favorite parts of BFSU, which is also the part that OP's initial post reminded me of, is that science comes up all the time in our daily life now. For example, I was hanging my daughter's sweater to dry, and we started having a discussion about the water particles going into the air, i.e. from the evaporation and condensation lesson we just covered. In most of the lessons, Dr. Nebel gives many ideas about how to continue talking about the science principles as you encounter different situations in your normal day--a lot like the way the OP described learning science in the initial post.

[NASDAQ]

I am not doing any formal science and don't intend to until she's got a lot more math. I do get decent children's books and answer questions and that sort of thing, but we're spending all our formal schooling time on math and reading.

[kristinannie]

I totally agree with OP. I bought RSO Earth and Space and was so excited about it. It was mostly a dud here. Although it has some great experiments, mostly they are just a lot more work than they have to be and there isn't enough meat to the program as far as information goes. I have decided not to do a year long study of anything at least not for the first few years. So far this year (K) we have learned about animals from North America, seasons, the solar system and butterflies. We have also spent a lot of time doing nature study. Over the summer, the kids loved finding bugs and caterpillars to learn about. We also had some tadpoles in our kiddie pool that we watched go through their life cycle. At this age, science should be discovery based IMHO. Kids should love it and it should be varied. I think you are right on track!

[Sahamamama]

Read it. Do it. Have Fun. Don't Stress.

 

Really :)

 

There's no wrong way.

 

Do you belong to the yahoo group for it? There are some suggested lesson plans in there from members if you want that.

 

I pick a topic and preorder the additional books from the library, or comparable ones if I can't find what the author recommends. I also make sure I have the supplies for the experiment a week or two in advance. Then we read the books and do the experiment. It is not nearly as hard as it first looks. The all-text format of the book IMHO is intimidating. But the actual work of the material is very clear, well laid out.

 

:iagree:

 

Now that I have the hang of it, it takes me about 10-15 minutes to preread the lesson. Then I gather the supplies from around the house to do the experiment.

 

After the lesson, I write out three or four principles that we learned from the lesson. I use the "objectives" section to help me come up with these. On a separate day, I have my kids copy the principles and draw a picture for each one that demonstrates the principle, either from what we discussed or the experiment we did. Then they file the paper in their science notebook so that we can review in the future.

 

I like that you can either work you way through one thread, or work through all four at the same time. It gives a nice framework for science to make sure you are covering the basic subjects, but at the same time gives you endless freedom to elaborate on any lesson that interests you.

 

One of my favorite parts of BFSU, which is also the part that OP's initial post reminded me of, is that science comes up all the time in our daily life now. For example, I was hanging my daughter's sweater to dry, and we started having a discussion about the water particles going into the air, i.e. from the evaporation and condensation lesson we just covered. In most of the lessons, Dr. Nebel gives many ideas about how to continue talking about the science principles as you encounter different situations in your normal day--a lot like the way the OP described learning science in the initial post.

 

:party: Ooooooooooh, I love these ideas! Thank you! We're getting started. :001_smile:

[Down_the_Rabbit_Hole]

Well, I do both. I like the organization of TWTM approach to science, but science also happens in everyday living.

 

We are slowly making our way through life science and having TWTM reminds me that I need to work through the animal and plant kingdom systematically. However, we also go out on nature walks and watch lots of nature films that lead us off on different paths.

 

Science is no different than any other subject. For example, math and grammar are both studied systematically as well as applied in everyday situations. We may be studying common nouns and proper nouns, but that will not stop me from gently correcting my dd's verb tense when she is talking to me outside of school time. KWIM?

 

Anyhow, that is my 2.

:iagree:

We do both also.

Right now we are doing R.E.A.L Life science but use it 3 days a week. Along with this we do weekly nature walks and library visits where dd gets a science book. Aside from the lessons in our curriculum we have studied dinosaurs, fossils, sharks, volcano, rocks, seeds, air, snow...these are what I remember, probably more. There has never been a time when I told my dc they could not study a subject in science or on anything because that was not what we were covering in school.

[Mrs Twain]

:party: Ooooooooooh, I love these ideas! Thank you! We're getting started. :001_smile:

 

 

One more idea if you are interested--

 

BFSU lesson B-4A is a life science lesson about identification of living things. The assignment is to make an ongoing study of different plants and animals of your local region. I added three extra tabs to our science notebooks for leaf collection (local tree identification), local animals, and local flowers. We have been gradually working on learning one tree at a time, collecting leaves, pressing them, taping them onto a page of our notebooks, and drawing a picture of the tree and any seeds or nuts that it has. Then we look online to figure out the name of the tree.

 

I just mention this because you talked about how your parents knew all of the local trees, etc. where you live. You might like to start this lesson sooner rather than later and work on it throughout the year.

 

Hope it goes well!

[daughterofsarah77]

Haven't read all the replies so I am sure it has come up already...but you NEED BFSU! It is exactly what you describe your ideal being...

[linguistmama]

The yahoo group also has possible lesson sequences in the files section. That really helped me to get started. I bought any supplies for this year that I didn't already have. This helps it be easier for me to implement. :)

[Sahamamama]

One more idea if you are interested--

 

BFSU lesson B-4A is a life science lesson about identification of living things. The assignment is to make an ongoing study of different plants and animals of your local region. I added three extra tabs to our science notebooks for leaf collection (local tree identification), local animals, and local flowers. We have been gradually working on learning one tree at a time, collecting leaves, pressing them, taping them onto a page of our notebooks, and drawing a picture of the tree and any seeds or nuts that it has. Then we look online to figure out the name of the tree.

 

I just mention this because you talked about how your parents knew all of the local trees, etc. where you live. You might like to start this lesson sooner rather than later and work on it throughout the year.

 

Hope it goes well!

 

:001_wub: I love you. :001_smile: