Hunter Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Last night I purchased 3 curriculum guides, one each for life, earth and physical sciences. I'm not posting links yet, until I get my books, because I don't want to drive up used book prices until I'm sure I have the entire set. The earth and physical books were 1/2 as long as the life science. And the astronomy was part of the physical book, not the earth book. We tend to want to schedule a year each of life, earth, chem and physics. BUT...is that the best way to schedule the priority topics needing to be covered to become scientifically literate? Is there a much greater volume of critical topics in life science than in physical science? If I followed a 4 year plan with these books. There would be two years of life, a year of earth, and a year of physical/astronomy. That is so extremely different from what I am used to doing. It seems like I would be horribly shortchanging physical. But have I instead been horribly shortchanging life science? These topic divisions are man made, and were never created to divide volume of basic science topics needing to be covered to produce scientific literacy. What does the hive think? :bigear: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regentrude Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 The earth and physical books were 1/2 as long as the life science. And the astronomy was part of the physical book, not the earth book. We tend to want to schedule a year each of life, earth, chem and physics. If I followed a 4 year plan with these books. There would be two years of life, a year of earth, and a year of physical/astronomy. That is so extremely different from what I am used to doing. It seems like I would be horribly shortchanging physical. But have I instead been horribly shortchanging life science? These topic divisions are man made, and were never created to divide volume of basic science topics needing to be covered to produce scientific literacy. I agree; those divisions into "years" are completely arbitrary and to some extent unique to the US. In my home country, students begin taking biology in 5th, physics in 6th, and chemistry in 7th and take all concurrently until graduation (they get to drop one in the last year). I dislike the compartmentalizing. Also, a lot depends on the depth in which a subject is taught. You could easily spend three years on physics and a semester on biology with a different set of books, YKWIM? BUT...is that the best way to schedule the priority topics needing to be covered to become scientifically literate? Is there a much greater volume of critical topics in life science than in physical science? I do not think one can easily answer this question, because "volume of critical topics" is not something that is easily defined, and it is not clear how deep you want to go. Just as an example: I would consider it essential for a scientifically literate person to know how antibiotics work. One can talk about this at a level that uses only life science concepts- or you can delve deeper and try to understand what happens on a microbiological/chemical level. One approach delivers enough knowledge to responsibly take medication completely without physical science - the other requires organic chemistry. I would approach science education by asking about your goals. If it is to understand the world around you so that you feel comfortable in it, I'd start by drawing up a list of things I want to accomplish/know in order to feel scientifically literate. You may have different goals from another person, and you may want to set your focus accordingly and spend your time according to your priorities - just because a curriculum has made a certain choice, this does not have to be YOUR choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssavings Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Does the Life Science text contain a significant amount of "general" science information that applies to all science, rather than to life science specifically? In a lot of texts I've seen, life science texts are where the author puts ideas life classifying and organizing, the scientific method, how scientific theories are developed, etc. That would certainly make that text longer... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Wife Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 It's difficult to really do more than scratch the surface of chemistry and physics at the elementary level because students lack the necessary math skills to get into the "meat" of those subjects. Biology and Earth science are far easier to cover with young students. If you want to do 2 years of life science, 1 year of Earth science, and 1 year of astronomy and physical science, I think your children would be fine. When they are in high school and have the math skills, they can study chemistry and physics in-depth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regentrude Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 If you want to do 2 years of life science, 1 year of Earth science, and 1 year of astronomy and physical science, I think your children would be fine. When they are in high school and have the math skills, they can study chemistry and physics in-depth. The OP is self-educating, her children have already graduated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter Posted February 5, 2012 Author Share Posted February 5, 2012 I'm talking for myself as a self-educator, as a tutor, as a future grandmother of homeschooling children, and as a mentor of new and low income homeschooling moms who frequently e-mail and PM me. This idea of basic scientific literacy has been fascinating me since about...maybe 2001, when I read Science Matters by the author of The Joy of Science videos from the Teaching Company. I found Science Matters to be too focused on the science of being a good voter, and the the videos (and accompanying textbook) to be too focused on abstract topics and topics a teacher MIGHT want to cover rather than being a check list of must covers. ssavings that is a good point, that I was looking at and couldn't definitely tell from the samples, but I think the books were light on those general topics and spread out, and would need to be supplemented I'm guessing. Crimson the curriculum is k-8, and I was wondering if the author was thinking they were too hard for k-8, or not as important, hence my question. Right now I'm not interested in learning or teaching the more abstract science topics, at the expense of skimping on the foundational topics we interact with every day. Regentrude, thank you. I hadn't realized how biased and opinionated I probably am when looking at the lists that others present as being scientifically literate. Robert Hazen devotes a chunk of his book to preparing a citizen to be able to understand the newspaper to be a well read voter. And that is at the expense of topics that lower income people interact with daily at home and on the job. I really like your antibiotics example. That set off more than one lightbulb in my head. Thank you. As I am compiling my own grammar/composition handbook, I guess I'm going to be forced to do the same thing for science, and probably give up on finding a spine that meets my needs. I'm pretty opinionated about these topics. Opinionated, but not always knowing enough to feel confident about my choices. I'm clearer on what I don't want, than what I do. Sigh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regentrude Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Regentrude, thank you. I hadn't realized how biased and opinionated I probably am when looking at the lists that others present as being scientifically literate. Robert Hazen devotes a chunk of his book to preparing a citizen to be able to understand the newspaper to be a well read voter. And that is at the expense of topics that lower income people interact with daily at home and on the job. Then what about starting a list, as you encounter questions in your life, and sort them into categories? I would see as a goal for ANY person (not just scientists), to have a good understanding of the following (I am just quickly jotting down some ideas; I'll probably forget a lot- but you get the idea what I mean): 1. How the human body works. basic anatomy, reproduction, genetics, nutrition, how diseases are caused (virus, bacteria), how medications work This is absolutely necessary IMO so the person can take care of her own and her family's health. 2. How the solar system works Earth around sun. Seasons, Eclipses. Moon phases. Why does the moon not fall down? (Very nice example to delve into how science develops - geocentric to heliocentric) 3. How "stuff" works: car -combustion engine basic household electricity - light bulbs, circuits microwave computer heating/cooling magnets power plants - generators, electromotor airplanes - why they fly basic optics: microscope, telescope, glasses, magnifying glass A very nice book that addresses these things is "How everything works" by Lou Bloomfeld (just bought it) 4. Things you observe in nature: basic geology (types of rock, erosion) plate tectonics weather: hurricanes, tornadoes plants and animals You could start with nature observations, pay attention to your questions as they arise, collect them. 5. A bit of basic chemistry acids and bases why not to mix household cleaners fats, proteins, carbohydrates 6. How matter is structured atoms, particles solids-liquids-gases crystals melting/freezing/evaporating You can take any of these as a jumping off point to dig deeper into formal science and do cell biology, particle physics, hard core chemistry. But ANY of these questions can be answered on a level that does not require formalized, math based science education - so these topics ARE accessible to any person, not just a scientist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter Posted February 5, 2012 Author Share Posted February 5, 2012 Regentrude, this is a good list. You are right about paying attention to what comes up, and documenting it immediately. For better of worse, I think I need to start a binder with dividers and start collecting and organizing information. I'm allowing some friends to have a Superbowl party here tonight. Last night a friend was here cooking and decorating. She was asking me questions and doing odd things, that made it evident to me how lacking her basic scientific literacy is. And this is a woman who has a bachelors degree, and passed calculus 2 and a lab based chem course. She is a constant reminder to me about the importance of mastering the basics before moving forward to the abstract. The abstract is good stuff too, but...does NOT replace the basics. This person is just so vulnerable and illogical, because of her lack of basic content knowledge. She grew up wealthy, and raised by servants, and no one ever expected her to have to do anything but continue to amuse herself. But life happened and now...she...well...is pretty unprepared to cook and decorate. And the A in Calculus 2 isn't helping her. The cast iron baking dish was a world of science topics last night! And why her vegan cake didn't rise, and therefore the denser product was taking longer to cook in the middle. And something about physics came up during decorating. Regentrude, your list including mixing things. Yes, we have had some scary moments about mixing things in my building :-( I wouldn't be surprised if management has a mandatory tenant meeting about that soon :-0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.