Why is science not emphasized as much as other subjects?

[Halcyon]

As a career scientist (molecular biology and epidemiology) before becoming a homeschooler, I really feel compelled to make the point that science is about DOING, not about READING. Living books will place science in context, but real science requires hands-on, experiential learning and discovery. Scientific thinking requires a level of intellectual discomfort, of not knowing what will happen, and learning to deal with that. Observation is the key, not maths. Maths makes the explanations cleaner, but early science is about experiencing what really happens, not the paper explanation of it. So physics is about water play, simple machines and backyard ballistics, and geology is dirty and requires exploration of your local area and then other, different places. Chemistry is cooking, explosions, volcanos, dying and soap-making. Nature study expands into biology, botany and physiology, all of which combine to study evolution and classification and the environment.

 

At its best, science is unpredictable. And that's why it is so hard to slot into a timetable.

 

For my money, BFSU is probably the best on offer, with Ellen McHenry's stuff to flesh-out specific topics.

D

 

 

:iagree::iagree: In our house, cooking, soap-making, and Mini Weapons of Mass Destruction are all considered science :D

[regentrude]

AMaths makes the explanations cleaner, but early science is about experiencing what really happens, not the paper explanation of it. So physics is about water play, simple machines and backyard ballistics, and geology is dirty and requires exploration of your local area and then other, different places. Chemistry is cooking, explosions, volcanos, dying and soap-making. Nature study expands into biology, botany and physiology, all of which combine to study evolution and classification and the environment.

 

 

As a scientist myself, I would like to point out that not all children who grow up to become scientists are even remotely interested in *doing* this kind of stuff. I positively hated any kind of experiments, and my kids abhor any hands-on activities (they do the required labs, but would not volunteer for these types of activities). Yet I did become a scientist, my DD is firmly planning a scientific career, and DS is interested on one.

I am a theoretical physicist.

[kalanamak]

As a scientist myself, I would like to point out that not all children who grow up to become scientists are even remotely interested in *doing* this kind of stuff. I positively hated any kind of experiments, and my kids abhor any hands-on activities (they do the required labs, but would not volunteer for these types of activities). Yet I did become a scientist, my DD is firmly planning a scientific career, and DS is interested on one.

I am a theoretical physicist.

 

And I recall long hours memorizing facts and concepts. I'm not sure how I could have comprehended (and at one point memorize) the Krebs Cycle by doing.

 

However, for the under 12 crowd, hands on, thus far, has been a hit. The messier and smellier the better. :)

[AimeeM]

The bolded hits home with us. A living books approach was completely infuriating for my 10 year old daughter. She is quite gifted and natural in science - but much prefers to learn from something concrete and laid out; something that guides her across the fields, making those connections.

She is the same about history - although she hates that subject :D

After trying things the living books and WTM way for a while, I have to realize that my daughter is a textbook kind of gal. I fail to see how that hinders her in any way though. My husband is the product of 1970's Catholic schools (talk about textbook centered!) and he is genius in science (Physics specifically); not only is he genius in it, he is passionate about it. Textbooks didn't harm that. Textbooks gave him a very solid foundation.

We are revamping our new year (starting in January) to be textbook centered. I'm not sure you would consider Ellen McHenry "textbook", but her books provide a structure that we need for science; all other subjects will be traditional textbook.

I don't quite agree.

If you want to do a systematic treatment, you have to start with certain things and them move on to others- so it's not that a textbook author decided on "random tidbits", there is a rhyme and reason to the sequence.

You can't talk about cellular respiration and photosynthesis without having an understanding of basic biochemistry. So, that must come first.

You can not talk about general relativity if the student has no idea about Newtonian mechanics.

What bothers me about the "living books" approach is precisely the unsystematic nature: you can read about one specific topic, but may not necessarily have the background to understand what is going on. (For example: I love the book The Double Helix, but I doubt I would have understood what he was talking about had I not had a basic knowledge of crystallography).

For some students, an approach that uses living books only will seem disjointed and unsystematic and will frustrate a very analytical learner.

 

There are many well written non-fiction books on scientific topics - and many poor ones. If a parent is unable to discern this, a bad choice of book can turn a student off the topic. I personally am not happy with the living books available for middle school age students. I have not found science books at that level that held my children's interest - often the material is too simplified and the tone condescending. And the good books for adults are just a tad too hard, even for strong readers. (For example, Bryson's Short history of nearly everything is a good book - but for my 6th grader, the reading was difficult and slow, and spending this much time came at the expense of learning about more topics)

 

I am thoroughly dissatisfied with the science options for the middle grades; we muddle through until we are able to do a systematic approach with college textbooks, which is the approach my children prefer.

 

8, do you have any advice how you dealt with the random nature of topics covered through living books? I am frustrated by our science options.

[happycc]

http://www.apa.org/monitor/jun04/instruct.aspx

 

 

 

article basically says direct instruction is a better method of teaching kids science rather than the exploration method.

[regentrude]

http://www.apa.org/monitor/jun04/instruct.aspx

article basically says direct instruction is a better method of teaching kids science rather than the exploration method.

 

Which, of course, makes sense because of the vast amassed scientific knowledge. A child will have neither the time nor the tools nor the expertise to rediscover the complete scientific body of knowledge themselves - nor would it make any sense to expect this. The scientists who made the greatest discoveries did not rediscover everything their predecessors found either - they studied what the predecessors had written down. Which, for that matter, is also the way scientists work today: you don't repeat every experiment in the literature you base your own research on.

 

Granted, children need to learn how to conduct experiments and do controlled studies. But it is equally, and for many even more, important to acquire the collected knowledge about scientific facts and concepts that is available.

[Critterfixer]

I thought that science was discussed frequently on this board, not as much as reading issues or grammar programs or math problems perhaps, but still.

 

I'm not much into exploration as a way to teach science as much as a way to apply what we've learned. For instance, we are fixing to wrap up Rocks and Minerals by January and move on to weather. My boys have learned the basic types of rocks from Stories of Rocks and Minerals. We enjoy the living feel of this book when we read and do our sample analysis and narrations around the table. But then we go outside and look at where we are. Around here we live in sedimentary city. You'd be hard pressed to find another type of rock unless it was trucked in from somewhere. Consequently we have found a lot of fossils, and appreciate sedimentary rock. (Formerly I felt it was kind of a boring rock, really!) We studied quartz, and how it is formed. Then we went and dug our own.

I don't consider that my emphasis on knowing the composition of granite, being able to tell me where tin ore is mined or being able to give me the names of iron ore has interfered with the enjoyment of this particular area of science. Instead, I think it has enriched it.

 

Science is made fun when you have enough knowledge to be curious for more, and your eyes have learned to pay attention, and your mouth has learned to be quiet so that your ears can hear.

[ChandlerMom]

Another scientist here, and as to method, I agree that there just is too much stuff to discover on your own -- it took many, many generations of brilliant scientists to get to where we are now. Also, some kids are more hands-on and like to tinker with things, while others like to tinker with ideas. To my knowledge, Einstein never did any of the experiments he imagined (though others did, which validated his theories): for some, mind experiments are as valid as experimental work. ;)

 

I am doing BSFU, ancient science, and some unit study work (mainly interest led or tied to history/prehistory) now. Next year I plan to start with Story of Science -- I like the idea of exploring science from its historical context.

 

To the OP's question on WHY science takes a backseat here a lot: IMO that has a lot to do with the SWB/WTM bias towards history and LA. I don't think SWB is especially scientifically knowledgeable to speak on scientific education, but hey, that's not her passion. Also, to some fundamentalists, science isn't particularly popular and is seen as conflicting with religious beliefs, thus there is a preference to not study science too seriously or make too big of a deal of it lest it leads their children astray. In some groups there is a deep distrust and even deeper misunderstanding of what science even IS, let alone how to teach it. For hs publishers, the second they include any rigorous science they lose 70% of their market to cries of being "biased". I don't think it is any surprise that in that same timeframe we've seen scientists go from being an admired profession to nerdy losers or outright demonized and presidential candidates saying, "they don't trust science". So, the US continues to fall farther behind the rest of the developed world...

 

If you want to make science a priority in your own hs, you'll need to do it yourself outside the WTM model. But then, just about everyone here tweaks things, so that isn't a big deal on it's own. ;)

Edited December 19, 2011 by ChandlerMom

[mcconnellboys]

I've been party to lots of science discussions here in past years, so I'm not sure what you're referring to.... The WTM suggests following a four year cycle for science and we not only talk about how to accomplish that for elementary as well as logic stage, but also how some choose not to follow such a cycle, but mix things up a bit more....

 

Do you have specific questions about doing any particular area of science with a certain age group?

[mcconnellboys]

Most I've talked to here on these boards about science also make things simpler for the grammar stage and go more in depth in logic stage.

 

Many schools in my area really don't cover science much at all until the kids get to high school. Most homeschoolers I know do way more science with their children than what they'd get if they were in public school (at least here)....

[mcconnellboys]

I don't personally know anyone who waits until seventh grade to do science at all. As I've mentioned in other posts, I do know that some schools give more attention to science than do others. If they know something is going to be on the test for that year, they teach it. Otherwise, not so much. Science gets skipped when schools fall behind in getting the "basics" done.

 

I have always done science with my children. In first/second grade it was done daily. This involved more reading and hands-on work than written sorts of work, but did include some of that, too.

[AnnaM]

Another scientist here, and as to method, I agree that there just is too much stuff to discover on your own -- it took many, many generations of brilliant scientists to get to where we are now. Also, some kids are more hands-on and like to tinker with things, while others like to tinker with ideas. To my knowledge, Einstein never did any of the experiments he imagined (though others did, which validated his theories): for some, mind experiments are as valid as experimental work. ;)

 

I am doing BSFU, ancient science, and some unit study work (mainly interest led or tied to history/prehistory) now. Next year I plan to start with Story of Science -- I like the idea of exploring science from its historical context.

 

To the OP's question on WHY science takes a backseat here a lot: IMO that has a lot to do with the SWB/WTM bias towards history and LA. I don't think SWB is especially scientifically knowledgeable to speak on scientific education. Also, to a lot of fundamentalists, science isn't particularly popular and is seen as conflicting with religious beliefs, thus there is a preference to not study science too seriously or make too big of a deal of it lest it leads their children astray. In some groups there is a deep distrust and even deeper misunderstanding of what science even IS, let alone how to teach it. For hs publishers, the second they include any rigorous science they lose 70% of their market to cries of being "biased" against teaching religious beliefs as science. I don't think it is any surprise that in that same timeframe we've seen scientists go from being an admired profession to nerdy losers or outright demonized and presidential candidates saying, "they don't trust science". So, the US continues to fall farther behind the rest of the developed world...

 

If you want to make science a priority in your own hs, you'll need to do it yourself outside the WTM model. But then, just about everyone here tweaks things, so that isn't a big deal on it's own. ;)

 

 

I must be part of a weird group of fundamentalists as science is a very big part of all our our curriculum choices.:glare:

[staceyobu]

I've been party to lots of science discussions here in past years, so I'm not sure what you're referring to....

 

I think in general I have felt that when someone asks for history recommendations they get responses like "HOD! MFW! SOTW! Sonlight!" and so on with great critiques of all of those programs. No one says "just follow your child's interests". However, with science you get a lot of comments about just doing interest led studies or not starting anything formal until a certain age. I guess I'm just wondering why the general consensus that history should be studied methodically but some magic schoolhouse books are enough for science.

 

Part of my problem with doing interest led science is we have a generally crappy library system that seems to be especially weak with science books. So, we don't even have an option of checking out lots of great elementary science books.

 

I'm really not trying to criticize anyone with a laid back approach to science. And some people seem to have proof that it works. I'm just interested in why science is a topic that works differently than history or grammar? Or do we brush it aside for other reasons such as no good curriculum to talk about or we don't like science ourselves...

[angela in ohio]

It comes and goes. A few years ago, there was constant chatter and angst about science here. :D

[angela in ohio]

I must be part of a weird group of fundamentalists as science is a very big part of all our our curriculum choices.:glare:

 

Yep. And the only people I know IRL who DO a formal science program (anything more than nature study) are conservative Christians. A secular homeschooler locally once gave me that line about fundies and science, and I showed her BJU jr high science. That was the end of that. :lol:

[thenichols]

My 7 yo seemed to be born interested in science. So we do at least an hour a day. :D

I try to stick with the WTM schedule & we choose a subject for a couple weeks & study it, do crafts, etc.

I think the grammar stage isn't naturally science oriented, but there is so much to learn!

[8filltheheart]

I think in general I have felt that when someone asks for history recommendations they get responses like "HOD! MFW! SOTW! Sonlight!" and so on with great critiques of all of those programs. No one says "just follow your child's interests". However, with science you get a lot of comments about just doing interest led studies or not starting anything formal until a certain age. I guess I'm just wondering why the general consensus that history should be studied methodically but some magic schoolhouse books are enough for science.

 

Part of my problem with doing interest led science is we have a generally crappy library system that seems to be especially weak with science books. So, we don't even have an option of checking out lots of great elementary science books.

 

I'm really not trying to criticize anyone with a laid back approach to science. And some people seem to have proof that it works. I'm just interested in why science is a topic that works differently than history or grammar? Or do we brush it aside for other reasons such as no good curriculum to talk about or we don't like science ourselves...

 

Part of the reason you see it w/history on these forums is based on the underlying acceptance that cyclical history study is the basis of classical education.

 

FWIW, we don't study history cyclically either. We follow our interests in history as well. History may or may not be more organized by a yrly theme. For example, this yr my 7th grader's yr is centered around Where the Brook and River Meet, an Anne of Green Gables study. Her history is loosely organized around the history of Canada, the history of England/Scotland, as well as major cultural issues of the mid-late 19th century/early 20th century. Depending on the week, she may spend hrs researching 16th century Scottish/English relations b/c of a poem we have been reading or she may be researching child labor after delving into Dickens. The history is connected to our major study Anne of Green Gables, not pt A to pt B.

 

FWIW, I personally don't view history as being cyclical but more as a jigsaw puzzle where pieces fit together and are interconnected in many ways. (but, hey, I also don't think cyclical history has anything to do with classical education. ;))

 

ETA: my 4th grader's study was more linear earlier this yr. We are using the Prairie Primer as her basis. We did go through a section of American history fairly consecutively. However, from now to the end of the yr she will be doing more topical studies via Landmark books and American Heritage Jr Library books.

Edited December 19, 2011 by 8FillTheHeart

[Down_the_Rabbit_Hole]

I read several posts that said real science needs math skills so teaching science waits until the math skills are acquired. But there is much science that can be learned before this level. A child does not need algebra to learn about volcanoes or planets. Calculus is not needed to learn the life cycles and water cycle. Classification does not need math skills. Just as history is taught in 3 stages, why not teach science to the 3 stages? Introduce the many areas and subjects of science at the grammar stage. The library is filled with simple books on animals, plants, earth science and so on. Combined with a childs natural curiosity and equipment to "play" science, the grammar years can be filled with science study. The logic stage is where introduction to scientists come in as well as more in depth study of the science topics. Experiments and hands on work play a part in this stage. The last stage is where the "math needed for science" comes in but the child already has an understanding of basic concepts.

 

I do agree there is a lack of good science curricula out there.

[8filltheheart]

I don't quite agree.

If you want to do a systematic treatment, you have to start with certain things and them move on to others- so it's not that a textbook author decided on "random tidbits", there is a rhyme and reason to the sequence.

You can't talk about cellular respiration and photosynthesis without having an understanding of basic biochemistry. So, that must come first.

You can not talk about general relativity if the student has no idea about Newtonian mechanics.

 

I think we are discussing apples and oranges. My comments were directed toward elementary/early middle school level studies. Once you reach subject matter that is to the level you are describing, it does have to be more systematic. I do switch to textbooks at that pt b/c I have no knowledge of how to "build" that level of study. But for elementary level learning, most whole books develop topics thoroughly.

 

What bothers me about the "living books" approach is precisely the unsystematic nature: you can read about one specific topic, but may not necessarily have the background to understand what is going on. (For example: I love the book The Double Helix, but I doubt I would have understood what he was talking about had I not had a basic knowledge of crystallography).

For some students, an approach that uses living books only will seem disjointed and unsystematic and will frustrate a very analytical learner.

 

My kids have never experienced a level of frustration that was more than something that spurred them on to research certain topics more, either during that book or in influencing what they wanted to study next. The most frustration any of my kids have ever had is when my dd read The Disappearing Spoon w/o a chemistry background. She is the one that is now using Plato's physical science's chemistry portion b/c she wanted to delve deeper into the chemistry systematically. She is having a lot of fun w/ah-ha moments. I do not think she views any of it negatively. ;)

 

There are many well written non-fiction books on scientific topics - and many poor ones. If a parent is unable to discern this, a bad choice of book can turn a student off the topic. I personally am not happy with the living books available for middle school age students. I have not found science books at that level that held my children's interest - often the material is too simplified and the tone condescending. And the good books for adults are just a tad too hard, even for strong readers. (For example, Bryson's Short history of nearly everything is a good book - but for my 6th grader, the reading was difficult and slow, and spending this much time came at the expense of learning about more topics)

 

Bryson's book is not really the type of book my kids read. I do agree that it takes effort to find books taht are appropriate, but perhaps we approach topics differently. My kids read books like the Snowflake Man. I'm not sure that it would necessarily satisfy what you are looking for from your physics perspective. But from my exploring topics, understanding the frustration/meticulous nature of developing theories and following through.....I think the book is a great science book.

 

Those are the types of books we love. This website is a springboard of whole books. I used to use it quite a bit and would often follow recommendations that came from Amazon from the books when the one listed didn't fit the abilities of my particular child. http://charlottemason.tripod.com/hisci.html

 

I am thoroughly dissatisfied with the science options for the middle grades; we muddle through until we are able to do a systematic approach with college textbooks, which is the approach my children prefer.

 

8, do you have any advice how you dealt with the random nature of topics covered through living books? I am frustrated by our science options.

Probably b/c I am not a scientist, the randomness of what they read doesn't bother me. They sort it all out in their minds and they have excellent comprehension of what they have studied.

 

As you know, all textbooks at the high school/lower college level are introductory in approach. Perhaps that is all it takes for them to work it out. :confused: :001_smile: They have studied various portions over the yrs and when they start using textbooks, their knowledge of what they have studied cements together. I can't state definitively. ;) However, I am also not a "gap" worrier about elementary level science. I know that the systematic level of study when they are older fills in any gaps they may have.

[8filltheheart]

As a career scientist (molecular biology and epidemiology) before becoming a homeschooler, I really feel compelled to make the point that science is about DOING, not about READING. Living books will place science in context, but real science requires hands-on, experiential learning and discovery. Scientific thinking requires a level of intellectual discomfort, of not knowing what will happen, and learning to deal with that. Observation is the key, not maths. Maths makes the explanations cleaner, but early science is about experiencing what really happens, not the paper explanation of it. So physics is about water play, simple machines and backyard ballistics, and geology is dirty and requires exploration of your local area and then other, different places. Chemistry is cooking, explosions, volcanos, dying and soap-making. Nature study expands into biology, botany and physiology, all of which combine to study evolution and classification and the environment.

 

At its best, science is unpredictable. And that's why it is so hard to slot into a timetable.

 

For my money, BFSU is probably the best on offer, with Ellen McHenry's stuff to flesh-out specific topics.

D

 

Well, our experience is different. I do not do science experiments w/ my kids. I just don't. They spend hrs playing w/stuff on their own and experimenting w/theories w/each other, but it is nothing organized by me until they reach high school. Once they are studying high school level science, they do complete labs to accompany the high school level course. But, other than that, the world is their space to explore on their own.

 

FWIW, it hasn't impacted their understanding of scientific theory at all. (as a matter of fact, my 10th grader wants to be a theoretical physicist, not applied. ;) Well, at least that is where he is right now.)

[Paisley Hedgehog]

nm

[SailorMom]

This is just something I've been pondering. We discuss history programs endlessly on here, but science threads typically go down the path of "just do nature studies and follow interests". I'm not saying that's a bad thing... it's just interesting to me that no one would ever suggest that in terms of studying history. Instead, almost everyone on here advocates some systematic approach to studying history.

 

Another example... my elementary school taught no formal grammar. Their belief was that students intuitively grasp correct grammar in their first language. You don't need to be explicitly taught when to use were/was... one will sound right. I think overall their approach worked. I believe my sentence structure is decently good most of the time. However, most on here advocate lots of grammar starting early with six year olds learning definitions of nouns.

 

I guess I'm just wondering what sets science apart? Why is their not more of an emphasis on a systematic study of science? Is it just that most people on here don't like discussing science as much as math or history? Is it because classical education doesn't emphasize it as much? Is it because interest led approach to science really works the best? Or have we just not figured out another ideal way to teach it?

 

I really love science. I want to pass that on to my kids. I want them to know early on how complex the world is and how to try and understand it. I'd just like to know exactly how to do that!

 

 

Oddly, we're more like what you had in school. We do grammar, but DS and I hate it :) I don't remember ANY formal grammar from school even though I was in AP English classes - but I think I do pretty well (perfect scores on my graduate school history papers....).

 

We have, however, made science a huge priority. Every year (for almost 8 years now) science takes up about an hour of our day. Math, Science, Literature, and History are our core subjects, with Math and Science being done first every day.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

This is just something I've been pondering. We discuss history programs endlessly on here, but science threads typically go down the path of "just do nature studies and follow interests". I'm not saying that's a bad thing... it's just interesting to me that no one would ever suggest that in terms of studying history. Instead, almost everyone on here advocates some systematic approach to studying history.

 

Another example... my elementary school taught no formal grammar. Their belief was that students intuitively grasp correct grammar in their first language. You don't need to be explicitly taught when to use were/was... one will sound right. I think overall their approach worked. I believe my sentence structure is decently good most of the time. However, most on here advocate lots of grammar starting early with six year olds learning definitions of nouns.

 

I guess I'm just wondering what sets science apart? Why is their not more of an emphasis on a systematic study of science? Is it just that most people on here don't like discussing science as much as math or history? Is it because classical education doesn't emphasize it as much? Is it because interest led approach to science really works the best? Or have we just not figured out another ideal way to teach it?

 

I really love science. I want to pass that on to my kids. I want them to know early on how complex the world is and how to try and understand it. I'd just like to know exactly how to do that!

 

When I suggest Nature Study, it's as a doorway into higher math based science at a later date. But I firmly believe that we have lost a lot of understanding of what is actually around us. We (generally) have trouble even naming the plants and trees surrounding our own homes, the birds in our trees, the constellations over our heads, the clouds on the horizon (and if they portend good or bad weather).

 

I love the book Last Child in the Woods by Louv. He speaks of a nature deficit disorder. I think that young kids, elementary and middle school, have a lot of questions about what they see around them. And those questions should be answered, deeply. That can be a tremendous springboard for observation, recording, hypothesizing, etc.

 

Nature study can be very systematic. Or not. Just as chemistry can be systematic or just plopping things together to watch colors change without considering what is happening.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

An example of using nature study for science might be the Great Backyard Bird Count, coming up in January. You do observations of birds appearing in your own backyard, record and report the findings. You can compare with reports from around your area from the current count or previous years.

 

It's easy to move this into math related topics of graphs comparing birds or bird types. Then topics like food chains (we have a Red Shouldered Hawk that likes to hang out near our creek, but only one. On the other hand, we have dozens of Sparrows, Cickadees and Cardinals) or (which trees show damage from woodpeckers? What are they eating?). On to taxonomy or animal form indicating things like main food.

[Dmmetler]

I read several posts that said real science needs math skills so teaching science waits until the math skills are acquired. But there is much science that can be learned before this level. A child does not need algebra to learn about volcanoes or planets. Calculus is not needed to learn the life cycles and water cycle. Classification does not need math skills. Just as history is taught in 3 stages, why not teach science to the 3 stages? Introduce the many areas and subjects of science at the grammar stage. The library is filled with simple books on animals, plants, earth science and so on. Combined with a childs natural curiosity and equipment to "play" science, the grammar years can be filled with science study. The logic stage is where introduction to scientists come in as well as more in depth study of the science topics. Experiments and hands on work play a part in this stage. The last stage is where the "math needed for science" comes in but the child already has an understanding of basic concepts.

 

I do agree there is a lack of good science curricula out there.

 

I'm one of the people who says that real, formal science waits-and what you describe is exactly what we do. Lots of books (Basher books, DK, Usborne and the like. My DD also likes the Singapore Science textbooks and the HOTS activities), lots of tools, lots of playing with science. My 7 yr old got a toy catapult as part of a present at a gift exchange. This morning, she had a tape measure spread down the hall, the catapult at one end, and an assortment of things to shoot and to see which flew farther. That followed by getting out the balance scale and discovering that the lightest objects flew the farthest, and her plan next is to make objects that are the same weight but different shapes out of model magic and see which fly the farthest. Motivated by a toy, history studies, and punkin chunkin.

 

Eventually, she'll be ready to learn the WHY. But right now, she's doing a good job of learning the HOW. And I'm fine with that at age 7.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I don't quite agree.

If you want to do a systematic treatment, you have to start with certain things and them move on to others- so it's not that a textbook author decided on "random tidbits", there is a rhyme and reason to the sequence.

You can't talk about cellular respiration and photosynthesis without having an understanding of basic biochemistry. So, that must come first.

You can not talk about general relativity if the student has no idea about Newtonian mechanics.

What bothers me about the "living books" approach is precisely the unsystematic nature: you can read about one specific topic, but may not necessarily have the background to understand what is going on. (For example: I love the book The Double Helix, but I doubt I would have understood what he was talking about had I not had a basic knowledge of crystallography).

For some students, an approach that uses living books only will seem disjointed and unsystematic and will frustrate a very analytical learner.

 

There are many well written non-fiction books on scientific topics - and many poor ones. If a parent is unable to discern this, a bad choice of book can turn a student off the topic. I personally am not happy with the living books available for middle school age students. I have not found science books at that level that held my children's interest - often the material is too simplified and the tone condescending. And the good books for adults are just a tad too hard, even for strong readers. (For example, Bryson's Short history of nearly everything is a good book - but for my 6th grader, the reading was difficult and slow, and spending this much time came at the expense of learning about more topics)

 

I am thoroughly dissatisfied with the science options for the middle grades; we muddle through until we are able to do a systematic approach with college textbooks, which is the approach my children prefer.

 

8, do you have any advice how you dealt with the random nature of topics covered through living books? I am frustrated by our science options.

 

Doesn't the WTM approach of picking topics to study and reading books, chapters and articles specifically about the topic of the month or week help to fill this gap? For example, I agree that it's difficult to find a good kids' biology overview that satisfies me. But there are tons of pretty good kids' books about specific animals. Similarly with other science topics.

 

And if you are piecing together from lots of different books, then one book doesn't have to be the perfect text.

 

Some series I like include:

Let's Read and Find Out by Branley Level 1, Level 2

science photo essays by Seymore Simon (who also has a website)

Scientists in the Field series from Smithsonian an Amazon search will pop up a lot more books than this list.

 

Cub Scout beltloop and pin requirements link There are requirements for different topics like weather, wildlife conservation, science that anyone could use as a basis for a unit study. I like the MeritBadge.org site because there are links at the bottom of the requirements page to outside sites for further study.

 

Boy Scout merit badge requirements Similar to Cub Scout program, but more specific topics (chemistry, astronomy, oceanography, nuclear science, etc) with more detailed and demanding requirments. Again, only registered boy scouts can earn the actual awards, but anyone can use this as a basis for study. In fact, anyone can walk into a Boy Scout Shop and buy the merit badge booklets that have not only the requirements, but also age appropriate info on the subject.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I think in general I have felt that when someone asks for history recommendations they get responses like "HOD! MFW! SOTW! Sonlight!" and so on with great critiques of all of those programs. No one says "just follow your child's interests". However, with science you get a lot of comments about just doing interest led studies or not starting anything formal until a certain age. I guess I'm just wondering why the general consensus that history should be studied methodically but some magic schoolhouse books are enough for science.

 

Part of my problem with doing interest led science is we have a generally crappy library system that seems to be especially weak with science books. So, we don't even have an option of checking out lots of great elementary science books.

 

I'm really not trying to criticize anyone with a laid back approach to science. And some people seem to have proof that it works. I'm just interested in why science is a topic that works differently than history or grammar? Or do we brush it aside for other reasons such as no good curriculum to talk about or we don't like science ourselves...

 

Well, in the workshop that SWB does on the topic of science, she starts out by saying that she is describing something that doesn't to her knowledge exist as a packaged curriculum. In fact, she pretty much says that if someone writes it, PHP will consider publishing it.

 

I don't see that as diminishing the role of science in the classical curriculum as much as saying that there are a whole lot of options that are rather soulless out there.

 

I think one reason why science seems to "work differently" is that there isn't a logical progression the way there is with going through history chronologically (and even that is hotly debated, of course). Do you do chronological order, order of complexity, one stovepiped topic at a time or something totally different.

 

And science does seem to bring out the fight in some groups of homeschoolers. The topic of reading books in history and literature has been well hashed for over 15 years now. Yet it is still a debatable topic in many circles (from using older "evil" history books, to mythology to romance to use of missionary biographies and on and on). Science is even more debated (imho). I decided not to use Apologia after going through the general science and physical science books at convention. But not using them, means that we weren't particularly welcome at our coop's science class. And I'm not even going to bother with asking if anyone wants to study geology with us for the winter and spring.

 

And judging from what I've seen of public schooled science texts, it's not just a question of picking a good one for use at home. There are some good texts, like Prentice Hall's Science Explorer, but even these are (IMHO) cluttered and filled with a lot of sidebars and glitz that can be too distracting. Not to mention that they aren't really priced for the home market.

 

Maybe what would be helpful would be something similar to the SOTW AGs that had a scheme of topics, followed by book recommendations, activities and websites. Maybe as a Wiki? [but I'm also not 100% convinced that homeschoolers are always willing to pay the piper when it comes to homeschool curriculum. I don't know if it's worth producing something like that.]

[Ritsumei]

When I suggest Nature Study, it's as a doorway into higher math based science at a later date. But I firmly believe that we have lost a lot of understanding of what is actually around us. We (generally) have trouble even naming the plants and trees surrounding our own homes, the birds in our trees, the constellations over our heads, the clouds on the horizon (and if they portend good or bad weather).

 

...

 

Nature study can be very systematic. Or not. Just as chemistry can be systematic or just plopping things together to watch colors change without considering what is happening.

 

:iagree: Early in the fall, we commented that the clouds were lower - they looked a little like "snow clouds." (I don't know the real name of snow clouds, but I can tell you which ones look like it!) We had someone over at the time, and they thought talking about the height of the clouds was the strangest thing. They seemed convinced that clouds sit at a uniform height all the time! It was such an odd conversation, and somewhat disturbing. I have learned more bio-type stuff from our Nature Studies than I ever did in school - even though I've studied some of the same things. In HS science one year we had to learn to ID about 60 birds and their songs. I *hated* it. Managed to get an acceptable grade on the test, but I hated the process. It was so arbitrary, and who cares about stupid birds anyway?? Fast forward a couple years, and we're living by a nature preserve. It's full of red-wing blackbirds, the one and only bird that I retained from all that "learning" I did. Then, we also had some beautiful mystery birds (turned out to be cedar waxwings) coming & sitting outside our window while they ate berries from the apartment complex's trees. That was all it took for me to be hooked on bird-watching.

 

To me, Nature Study is a gateway to not only the relatively obvious life science/astronomy/etc, it's also a place to develop scientific skills: observation and predicting come to mind. I have this great book about the scientific method that uses what I would consider nature study to introduce the scientific method and really get the child into making discoveries for himself. No, they're not going to be new discoveries to a lot of people, but it's going to be new to my child, and they'll get to experience that for themselves.

 

Right now, our Nature Study is very random: whatever we find when we walk out the door. But it's only one aspect of our science study. We're just starting the 1st grade body stuff. We've got some great books, and some fun experiments lined up. I'm excited. Some are WTM recs, some are not... same as for history. We're following the general outline from WTM this year, and I'd been thinking that so far it seems much more rigorous & systematic than PS: we'll actually be able to go outside & look at stars when we do astronomy next year. I didn't really study astronomy until college. Our plant study will be in out garden, so he'll see the whole process, seed back to seed, rather than just sad little sprouts in styrofoam cups. I've got a book called "How Baking Works" that I'm very excited about for when we're doing Chem in a few years.

 

I actually think that it's less that the course outlined in WTM isn't rigorous, and more that the quality of the suggested resources is extremely uneven, at least that's my impression thus far, and the pace suggested is too slow. I'm not at all impressed with the Kingfisher Animal Encyclopedia - we hardly used it because it's too basic, and I'll be looking for some other spine next time around. I thought that the pacing was a little slow: we did 2 animals, rather than 1 a week, unless we had the materials to go more in depth on an animal. But I love the Human Body Encyclopedia. It seems much more informative. We're adding what is basically another spine, and I have a horrible science book we'll get a bunch of hands-on stuff from. At our house, I'm finding that both science and history have the potential to crowd out everything else if I let them. We tend to have a sort of natural waxing/waning thing going: more history for a while, then more science. And math may take over the world at any time. Phonics is our "git er done" subject. ;]

 

Though I must say... Mythbusters as science makes me cringe. We stopped watching them a while back because they drive my scientist-husband crazy. They're science in much the same way that reality TV shows are reality: only by the loosest of definitions.

[gracyomalley]

I am a scientist, my parents (who help homeschool) are both chemists (and theologists...which makes a fasinating combination). The kids love science. We loved the R.E.A.L. science for kids for the older ones in early elementary, and honestly I'd do it again with little man if I had the time. Great combo of experimental stuff with real knowledge, structured but not overly textbooky...

 

We have always done lots of Nature Study and gardening, farming...we have done lots of museum science, and Science videos (the ones made for grownups like Planet Earth, etc...)

 

 

We are lucky to have a local University Program for kids with weekly science classes in a real lab with real equipment - very much like the "enrichment" classes I got in CA as a gifted kid, before budget crunching in the 70s...you know , dissecting fish, using real bunson burners, studying mechanics, etc....

 

This year my 4th and 5th graders have used PLATO on line science - for more formal sturture. Overall a big improvement over no structure, but I am still looking for solid middle school textbook stuff...I like the thoroughness of Apologia, and the multi-media approach, as my oldest is 2E with dyslexia, but I don't think I can justify the worldview. I want them to have something that will take them into high school and college without me having to read it and correct/re-interpret tons for them.

 

I do think that just like kids love history when its presented well, even as kindergarteners, they also love science...and the fact that the public schools don't do any yet is one more reason to homeschool.

 

It is true that hands on work is not the key to a solid science education, BUT what is important is that science is about asking questions, diving deeper, wondering about possibilities, discovering secrets...so just learning facts will always make it stale and dry, and really miss the point entirely. "Delight driven" science, or interest led, etc...in elementary is probably better if those are the choices...but I do think it shouldn't be left until you are "getting ready for high school and needed to prepare for AP classes, etc...so you need to memorize the Kreb's cycle now!"

 

I do wish someone would write the Perfect program....

Erin

[Karen in CO]

Looking at the ages of your kids.....

A big part of the science education in the younger years for my kids is using science books for reading. I have a large shelf full of Magic School Bus and Let's Read and Find Out science books plus science encyclopedias. I use these as readers for the the girls. Later they move on to meatier books like Scientists in the Field. Then I turn them loose on meatier science books. Recently my older dd read Dr. Jenner and the Speckled Monster, Every Bone Tells a Story, How Sugar Changed the World, In the Company of Crows and Ravens, and What Einstein Told his Cook. I don't plan to start formal science until 7th or 8th grade, but that doesn't mean we don't give it a lot of emphasis. The girls design and conduct their own experiments, and carefully observe the world around them. I keep tons of science supplies around so that of one is inspired to try out something, we probably have the equipment to do it. Right now, my older dd plans to be a microbiologist with hopes of going to Mars or a professional artists, and the younger wants to be a wildlife veterinarian or a princess. We're keeping a strong emphasis on science and math just in case.

[Mrs Twain]

My husband and I both have doctorates in the science field, and we use BFSU. We think BFSU is an excellent science program. It is a systematic program that startsteaching the various branches of science well. My kids are getting a solid foundation for advanced science studies, with no math required at the K-2 level.

 

A big reason science is not emphasized with homeschoolers is that math, reading, and writing need to take first place in elementary years. If there is no time for science, then it needs to get dropped.

 

A reason that history is done more than science is that history is a lot easier to do than science. It is so much easier to sit on the couch and read an entertaining history book or historical fiction book than to spend a lot of time organizing the science lesson. I think people are either not motivated enough to work hard to pull off the science lessons, or they just run out of time for science because they need to focus on their core subjects.

[Halcyon]

FWIW, we just had an excellent and fun morning doing the Center of Gravity lesson from BFSU. There's a super

showing different center of gravity demonstrations. We did the coke can one and the dollar bill one, and they were so amazing!

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Written in the Bone is another good book that manages to merge science and history.

[Karen in CO]

Written in the Bone is another good book that manages to merge science and history.

Thanks - that looks good.

[mcconnellboys]

I see what you're saying. There was a time period here when there really weren't a lot of ready made "curriculums" for science out there for young children, but in the past several years there are probably at least 6 that I can think of that have been vetted on these boards at one time or another. There are also some online things that have gotten some attention here.

 

I think lots of people use a mix of these things, as have I. It doesn't mean that we don't really "do" science, or give it proper attention. I agree that I do hear some folks saying that they don't ever get to science, but I also hear quite a few saying that they aren't getting history done, etc., too....

 

I did a formal, regular science of some sort with my children every week (sometimes every day) from the time we began homeschooling. It has never really been a full, all-inclusive, boxed sort of "curriculum" of any sort, but a mixture of things that I find and pull together for use. But I have always done exactly the same thing with history. There may be more widely known history curriculums out there, but like any ready-made curriculum it is most likely not going to include all I want to cover and may include some things I don't want to cover, so even if I use it, I'd have to tweak it....

 

I do agree that there may be slightly more people not doing science regularly than those not doing something else, like history, regularly. I do tend to think that this is primarily due to folks not understanding how to pull things together themselves (or feeling they don't want to or don't have the time to, or all three). But there are a lot more ready made curriculums out there now for elementary age kids than there were when I started hsing, back in '99.... Because a lot of these are newer, I think they haven't gotten a lot of air time yet and so haven't gotten popular enough for large numbers of people to hear about them via word of mouth.

 

I expect that as we go forward, at least a couple or three of them will emerge as something that a lot of folks use (just as quite a few now use the Apologia books written for younger kids and a group of Creation in Genesis users - whatever that curriculum is called - are now emerging). If a big company that already has a lot of customers suddenly begins to market an elementary curriculum, it has more of a ready made audience than all the many small time publishers of independent works. Many of the newer science curriculums out there are by small, independent publishers, so I think they simply are not that widely known yet....

[happycc]

would hire a group of science type people to write a science curriculum just for homeschoolers.

 

I suppose it would have to follow the trivium. I would be nice if it would touch on all the science subjects ie bio, chem, earth, physics etc at that level. So rather than just all bio for one year...bio, chem,earth and physic would be covered for that level. The writing would be more like Story of the World. It would include manipulatives to demonstrate the properties being taught as well.

Scripted perhaps?

Kinds of activities/experiments/discovery--a variety from crossword puzzles to making a diorama maybe kind of like the activities in story of the world. Ideas could be gotten from other sources but it needs to be stated but the ideas would have to be completely printed out in the activities books so people dont have to go searching around for all the components.

Materials-kit having everything in it-bagged and sorted out for each day perhaps.

 

It could include further information like links and additional reading but one should not need these to do the main study.

[happycc]

I am having a blast with them.

[mcconnellboys]

I believe something like Classiquest, which was talked about on these boards for a while when it first came out, does provide a list of books to use, topics, labs, etc. I think some of the other newer curricula go even further in providing lists of books for reading, but I can't think which ones those are now....

 

I think one problem, at least for me, with new texts by unknown publishers (no matter what they say their credentials are), is that I don't know how rife with error they might be. Even something as well used nationwide as the Prentice Hall books include a lot of error in them. While I'm more comfortable in being able to pick that up with a biology or geology text, I'm not so sure that I would catch everything in a physical science text, which is one reason I'm only using a teacher's text or two of that series this year with our physical science studies. I go through it and pull out reinforcement things I want to do, mathwise, to beef up the experiments we're doing with Nutshell kits and to add to the topics I'm talking to them about, etc.

 

I really, really don't want to teach my child wrong things with regard to science, then have them end up having a need to unlearn things in high school or college, be confused by conflicting info, etc. That's particularly true for me when we get into an area of science that involves math work. I always hated being taught any math subject incorrectly.

 

We just had a nightmare scenario (for me) at a local science center. I scheduled a couple of physics related labs for a group of kids from our area. The morning instructor was great, fine. The afternoon instructor - OY!

 

She was running them through an extremely simple lab using LEGO robots to run a straight line course in a set amount of time. They were switching out gear trains and (supposed to be) looking at how the ratios affected the distance traveled within a set time period. The entire point (I'm guessing, LOL, because it was never actually made) was to demonstrate to them what mechanical advantage is and how it works. I think they were supposed to be able to see from their tables that they could figure the mechanical advantage of each gear train and see that the greater the mechanical advantage, the more output of energy from the system, the more work that got done.

 

Instead, the woman spent 45 minutes of the 90 minute lab garbeling instructions so badly that even those of us who have been involved with LEGO League for years couldn't understand quite *what* she was getting at, including saying over and OVER again, for a good 2-3 minutes at the very beginning that the ratio of the first two gears, with 20 and 12 teeth, respectively, was "5:3; I mean, 3:5; I'm sorry! I got that mixed up. It's 5:3. It's 3:5. No, it's...." I'll spare you. I'm sure you get the point. By the time she was finished, I'm not sure anyone knew any more (or cared) what a ratio was, how you figure ratio, etc.

 

I simply despise math and science instruction that does nothing but confuse....

[Rivka]

Also, to some fundamentalists, science isn't particularly popular and is seen as conflicting with religious beliefs, thus there is a preference to not study science too seriously or make too big of a deal of it lest it leads their children astray. In some groups there is a deep distrust and even deeper misunderstanding of what science even IS, let alone how to teach it. For hs publishers, the second they include any rigorous science they lose 70% of their market to cries of being "biased".

 

I have often thought about this. Someone recently linked to a new science curriculum she was very excited about, and when I looked at the samples they appeared to be mostly focused on apologetics. In another thread, several people argued that science publishers should avoid referencing the age of the earth, because the topic was both controversial and unimportant. Even PBS nature videos have been criticized in this forum for mentioning global climate change and/or evolution. And that's this forum, let alone the opinions of Ken Ham's devotees. I do think there's a pervasive concern among many homeschoolers that science education needs to be constrained into the family's preexisting religious and political beliefs.

 

It all seems like part of a general movement in the U.S. towards a postrationalist society, where the truth is what you believe it to be, and any evidence that fails to conform to your beliefs can be dismissed out of hand.

[Critterfixer]

I really, really don't want to teach my child wrong things with regard to science, then have them end up having a need to unlearn things in high school or college, be confused by conflicting info, etc. That's particularly true for me when we get into an area of science that involves math work. I always hated being taught any math subject incorrectly.

 

I agree on the math, to a point, as I remember reading a few months ago an article on how pi might not be the correct number to be using in formulas. Then there is the interesting work being done to show that Einstein's speed limit may not really be the speed limit of the universe.

As for science, if it is anything like medicine I can say with certainty that what I was taught in classes and clinics was always given with the caveat: subject to change! It was truth or standard of care then. Now some of the things I was taught to do are not only wrong--at least one thing I was taught is now the absolute wrong thing to do!

 

You can't avoid teaching untruth when it comes to science. It is unavoidable. That's one of the most interesting things about science. It gives children the impulse to let their inner explorers loose because there is always more to discover.

 

I do think there's a pervasive concern among many homeschoolers that science education needs to be constrained into the family's preexisting religious and political beliefs.

 

It all seems like part of a general movement in the U.S. towards a postrationalist society, where the truth is what you believe it to be, and any evidence that fails to conform to your beliefs can be dismissed out of hand.

 

Which is a pretty dangerous point of view overall. It baffles me. I'm quite comfortable presenting the facts as they stand and communicating the same thing I was told as a student: be aware that things can change. Science is based on an accumulating body of evidence using the best tools of the time, analyzed by the best minds of the time. That's three variables right there.

[Ester Maria]

Within the model of classical liberal arts education, science is not emphasized for a simple reason that other things are emphasized. It does not mean it is non-existent, it does not mean that many classically educated children do not go on to further their educations in STEM fields, but it does mean that science is not used as an organizing principle of that type of education (unlike history, philosophy and philological education), around which everything else is to be coordinated - which, perhaps, automatically turns it into a kind of a "second rate" subject for many people. Note that there is nothing inherently wrong with privileging some subjects over others, and that any school model will necessarily discriminate and privilege something over something else, since you cannot teach all and you cannot teach all to an equally high level.

 

That being said, we personally, as a family, aim at a long term balance between humanities, philological education, and scientific education - but whenever long term goals are discussed, kids' personalities and interests enter the game as well.

 

The lack of systematic education exists in other fields too - science is no exception. Likewise, one can opt for a systematic approach in all of those fields, or one can opt to do a more interest-led, mishmashy route.

[Paisley Hedgehog]

nm

[Haiku]

:lurk5:

[Bluegoat]

I find myself wondering if there is any source of objective evidence that systematic and textbook style approaches are really more effective in elementary age children as far as final outcomes go?

 

We've been using BFSU this year, and enjoying it, but it also hasn't been uncommon for the things done to pretty much replicate the kinds of things my kids get into on their own, and for them to have made the connections already.

 

When I look at the elements of what we are learning now in a CM based approach - to have real mathematical understanding, to have an ability to put things together in a logical way, the ability to memorize material, strengthening visual memory through art study and nature study and dictation, and musical sense and kinesthetic sense in play and dance, I tend to think that those things, along with engagement with and love for nature which is the object of science, will put my kids in a very good position to begin a systematic study of science in jr high and high school.

 

Though we've been having a lot of fun with BFSU, I don't think losing it would make much difference at all in their long term interest in and aptitude for science.

[kalanamak]

Also, to some fundamentalists, science isn't particularly popular and is seen as conflicting with religious beliefs, thus there is a preference to not study science too seriously or make too big of a deal of it lest it leads their children astray.

 

Most of the homeschoolers I meet are "at the park", and have been literally scolded over the science I am teaching (it is "dangerous"). I believe they have assumed if I homeschooled I was YE. I remember feeling very sorry for a 9 year old whose mother did NO science, but on the way I home I realized she probably felt sorry for my boy, who isn't saved. :lol:

[Halcyon]

I find myself wondering if there is any source of objective evidence that systematic and textbook style approaches are really more effective in elementary age children as far as final outcomes go?

 

We've been using BFSU this year, and enjoying it, but it also hasn't been uncommon for the things done to pretty much replicate the kinds of things my kids get into on their own, and for them to have made the connections already.

 

When I look at the elements of what we are learning now in a CM based approach - to have real mathematical understanding, to have an ability to put things together in a logical way, the ability to memorize material, strengthening visual memory through art study and nature study and dictation, and musical sense and kinesthetic sense in play and dance, I tend to think that those things, along with engagement with and love for nature which is the object of science, will put my kids in a very good position to begin a systematic study of science in jr high and high school.

 

Though we've been having a lot of fun with BFSU, I don't think losing it would make much difference at all in their long term interest in and aptitude for science.

 

I found this to be true of BFSU Volume 1. But Volume 2 is proving to be quite enlightening for all of us--stuff my son more than likely wouldn't have figured out on his own.

[Beth in SW WA]

FWIW, we just had an excellent and fun morning doing the Center of Gravity lesson from BFSU. There's a super

showing different center of gravity demonstrations. We did the coke can one and the dollar bill one, and they were so amazing!

 

Love this! Thanks!

 

:lurk5:

[siloam]

I think because there isn't that much to talk about.

 

Most of the science resources stink.

 

 

 

 

Yep. I have found a few that work for us, but there is a lot of dry boring books and the best science experiments books aren't feathered into a program. I find we end up doing one or the other.

 

History is our least important group topic here, science is second to the last. But I find it much easier to find history resources that I get excited about using. Math is our biggest focus, followed by LA. After history comes independent topics: Latin, Critical Thinking, Music, Art. I have very little involvement in those topics and wait to cover them till they can do so independently.

 

Heather