... does BFSU annoy anybody else? (just a tiny bit?)

[serendipitous journey]

I'm so appreciative of the work & labor of love that's obviously gone into BFSU, so I've avoided asking this, but BFSU comes up so often as an ideal science for bright children that here I go.

 

BFSU (volume 1) pushed some of my buttons, and I'm wondering if it pushed anybody else's? and especially, if so, how you maybe worked around it?

 

Two examples come to mind: the section on energy said, I believe (am actually in the hospital room with my FIL right now and don't have my copy handy) that gravity was not a source of energy because it was one-way, essentially -- balls roll down and then stop. This bugged me b/c I think it contributes to a fundamentally flawed understanding of energy sources. First, gravity is a source of usable energy via dams, water wheels, etc: that's gravity doing all that. But more fundamentally, ALL energy flows down an energy/entropy gradient. I think it is very central to an understanding of energy to have a good concept of its flow and its tendency to decrease -- gravity is no more one-directional than electricity stored in a battery, it's just not so easily cycled on a small scale (one case of gravity energy that keeps on going is the Jovian moon Io's frictional volcanism).

 

The other was a discussion of "evidence", and what constitutes evidence. An example was given in which someone making a verbal claim was not considered evidence, but someone presenting a physical object was considered to be presenting evidence; I believe the example was "evidence" for a creature of an unknown sort (say, a dragon). My knee-jerk reaction was that he should explain this to the Hague. More thoughtfully, an extraordinary amount of knowledge is accepted information received people (who are not always correct or honest, granted): think about, say, books. And from the other end, people have been known to present physical evidence of unicorns, fairies, departed spirits, &c. I agree with BFSU that considering what constitutes evidence is important, but I find this presentation fundamentally flawed.

 

The point of this is not to be contentious or snarky. Or to criticize BFSU, really. And I will not be argumentative or long-winded in response to any comment :D. I'm curious if anybody else had similar sore points? and particularly if they were able to Just Get Over Them. (also, to be honest, am distracting myself a bit with one of my favorite hobbies, homeschool-thinking :)).

 

:bigear:

 

ETA: another proximal cause for this post is that Button wants to amp up the science, and Apologia and BFSU are my hands-down favorites, aside from Montessori materials -- those are marvelous for teaching categories, nomenclature, &c. but are not -- well, they are not whatever BFSU is :) We're not creationist, however, and I've been literally rewriting Apologia's Astronomy as I go (have found errors/misleading inferences other than just the creationism sentences, so blacking out doesn't seem optimal), and am looking for a more straightforward way.

 

ETA #2: also have until Thurs. to spend out charter-school $$$ so am Thinking Hard about Science Purchases.

Edited March 13, 2012 by serendipitous journey

[nmoira]

Gravitational potential energy can exist because gravity exists, but this energy doesn't come from the gravitational force. An object possesses this energy because of work or some other force applied to it: If I pick up a ball from the floor and place it on shelf, its potential energy comes from me.

 

I don't have the book, so perhaps "energy" was being discussed in a different context.

Edited March 13, 2012 by nmoira
typo

[Bluegoat]

 

The other was a discussion of "evidence", and what constitutes evidence. An example was given in which someone making a verbal claim was not considered evidence, but someone presenting a physical object was considered to be presenting evidence; I believe the example was "evidence" for a creature of an unknown sort (say, a dragon). My knee-jerk reaction was that he should explain this to the Hague. More thoughtfully, an extraordinary amount of knowledge is accepted information received people (who are not always correct or honest, granted): think about, say, books. And from the other end, people have been known to present physical evidence of unicorns, fairies, departed spirits, &c. I agree with BFSU that considering what constitutes evidence is important, but I find this presentation fundamentally flawed.

 

 

 

Well, I guess one thing is that you aren't obliged to believe what he says about it unless he can give you some concrete evidence!

 

I did find some of the things said about evidence to bea bit off. I come from a philosophy background, and I found it seemed a little reductionist. Of course I wouldn't expect it to get into epistemology, but there was something about the way it presented itself that seemed slightly annoying to me.

[serendipitous journey]

Gravitational potential energy can exist because gravity exists, but this energy doesn't come from the gravitational force. An object possesses this energy because of work or some other force applied to it: If I pick up a ball from the floor and place it on shelf, its potential energy homes from me.

 

I don't have the book, so perhaps "energy" was being discussed in a different context.

 

Thanks. That's prob. the root of the disagreement, and the clarity RE potential energy is very useful, and would help me present it clearly to Button (who likes things precise); I'll go over that section carefully at home.

 

Well, I guess one thing is that you aren't obliged to believe what he says about it unless he can give you some concrete evidence!

 

I did find some of the things said about evidence to bea bit off. I come from a philosophy background, and I found it seemed a little reductionist. Of course I wouldn't expect it to get into epistemology, but there was something about the way it presented itself that seemed slightly annoying to me.

 

... that makes me feel less ornery and more reasonable :). thanks!

[Wheres Toto]

I wanted to love BFSU but I just couldn't do it. I don't have specific examples (although if I remember correctly I thought one of the gravity experiments had more to do with density than gravity) but there were a few things that I didn't really like the way he explained them or the examples he used or his experiment ideas. There were also a lot of cases of "look for chances to point out....." which doesn't really work when I'm planning to cover a specific topic only for a day or two and doesn't really work with the chaos that is my life right now. I do like the mixed disciplines approach so I decided to get REAL Science Odyssey - all three Level 1 books - and use them in a way more like the threads of BFSU. RSO is much more straight forward to implement but allows lots of opportunity for expansion. RSO is going well but I'm using BFSU even less than I thought we would.

[serendipitous journey]

I do like the mixed disciplines approach so I decided to get REAL Science Odyssey - all three Level 1 books - and use them in a way more like the threads of BFSU. RSO is much more straight forward to implement but allows lots of opportunity for expansion. RSO is going well but I'm using BFSU even less than I thought we would.

 

... do you supplement much (and if so, how? :)) with books, videos &c? Any caveats or warnings?

[Wheres Toto]

... do you supplement much (and if so, how? :)) with books, videos &c? Any caveats or warnings?

 

Oh yeah - all of the above. With anything I can find. I have Teacher's File Box and find lots of stuff there, Discovery Streaming and Brain Pop Jr. I have about 1/2 dozen science and/or nature encyclopedias, many Magic School Bus picture books, chapter books, activity books and experiment guides, a bunch of the Let's Read and Find Out books, multiple experiment books, Cat In the Hat Learning Library books, an old Project Wild book from my docent days and numerous other resources. I constantly record shows from Discovery or Nature or Science or any other station that has similar shows. I find games on the internet to play for various topics since my son loves computer games.

 

I do tend to over-plan and then not get to everything I want to do. I also get books from the library and never use them before they are due back.

 

I have a Biology degree and DH has a Chemistry degree so we really love science around here.

 

And then there are the topics - like prehistory - that aren't even mentioned in RSO or BFSU but I really wanted to cover anyway. I have a prehistory lesson plan page on my blog.

[brownie]

We're using BFSU2 now intermittently. I think it's the best thing I've found for establishing...well...fundamentals of scientific understanding :) which is what I want more than anything for my boys. I didn't see or don't recall the examples you mentioned, but we haven't done every lesson. There was one time I desperately needed more understanding before I taught it so I had to delve back into my college physics text. It had something to do with momentum vs kinetic energy. So my only 2 irritations are:

 

1) Nebel couldn't answer my question either :) but I figured it out

 

2) I find the lessons kind of tedious to read through and prep to teach

 

However, if you're looking for a good explanation of scientific proof and you're a scientist, DON'T look at Apologia gen science. It really got me agitated!

 

Brownie

[Penelope]

There have been a number of things in BFSU that bugged me. I'm going through volume 2 now and having the same reaction. I can't even think right now what those things are, but I guess I don't get the hype.

 

I haven't used but a few of the lessons; just read through it.

 

I think that wherever you have just one author with one area of expertise writing about a very broad spectrum of knowledge, there are going to be areas that are covered and explained better than others.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Penelope

[jennynd]

he is actually correct.

gravity is potential energy

gravity itself do not create energy

 

Also an answer here..

http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=16518

Edited March 14, 2012 by jennynd

[Chrysalis Academy]

Well, when I compare it to what else I've seen out there (secular) for the 4th-6th grade set, I guess the only thing that truly annoys me is that it is a pain in the butt to use. ;) I think it could be arranged better, streamlined and organized better, etc. I feel like I put an inordinate amount of work into getting the concepts into a form that I can easily present to dd. I love the content, but it is not user friendly. That is annoying.

[regentrude]

that gravity was not a source of energy because it was one-way, essentially -- balls roll down and then stop. This bugged me b/c I think it contributes to a fundamentally flawed understanding of energy sources. First, gravity is a source of usable energy via dams, water wheels, etc: that's gravity doing all that. But more fundamentally, ALL energy flows down an energy/entropy gradient. I think it is very central to an understanding of energy to have a good concept of its flow and its tendency to decrease -- gravity is no more one-directional than electricity stored in a battery, it's just not so easily cycled on a small scale (one case of gravity energy that keeps on going is the Jovian moon Io's frictional volcanism).

 

 

Gravity is not really a source of energy.

Gravitational potential energy can be transformed into other forms of energy, such as energy of motion (kinetic energy) when an object falls from a higher elevation to a lower, and this can be transformed into electrical energy of the water drives a turbine. I find the term "source" confusing and inaccurate. The only reason something acquires a higher potential energy of gravity is because something lifted it up - either I pump the water upwards into a reservoir by doing work, or the water had evaporated courtesy of heat energy from the sun and then fallen back to earth as rain. The term "source" implies that gravity creates energy, and that is simply not correct.

 

"Electricity stored in a battery" makes me cringe. The battery contains chemicals, and the energy released in the chemical reaction can be used to separate positive and negative charges and to establish an electric potential (voltage) between the terminals. In some batteries, the process is reversible (recharging), in others it is not. The term "electricity" is not clearly defined, and "storing electricity" is not a meaningful phrase. The battery stores chemical energy which can be converted into electrical energy.

 

 

ALL energy flows down an energy/entropy gradient.

:confused::confused::confused:

I do not understand this statement. In any spontaneously occurring process, the entropy actually increases.

 

The picture of energy flowing down an energy gradient is very problematic. Imagine a ball falling from a building. The potential energy gradient points vertically downwards, in the direction of the force of gravity. During this process, NO potential energy of gravity flows anywhere: the potential energy of gravity decreases because it is converted into kinetic energy, and the kinetic energy increases, keeping the total constant.

It would be correct to say that objects under the influence of forces tend to move in the direction in which the potential energy decreases.

Edited March 14, 2012 by regentrude

[serendipitous journey]

Gravity is not really a source of energy.

Gravitational potential energy can be transformed into other forms of energy, such as energy of motion (kinetic energy) when an object falls from a higher elevation to a lower, and this can be transformed into electrical energy of the water drives a turbine. I find the term "source" confusing and inaccurate. The only reason something acquires a higher potential energy of gravity is because something lifted it up - either I pump the water upwards into a reservoir by doing work, or the water had evaporated courtesy of heat energy from the sun and then fallen back to earth as rain. The term "source" implies that gravity creates energy, and that is simply not correct.

 

...The picture of energy flowing down an energy gradient is very problematic. Imagine a ball falling from a building. The potential energy gradient points vertically downwards, in the direction of the force of gravity. During this process, NO potential energy of gravity flows anywhere: the potential energy of gravity decreases because it is converted into kinetic energy, and the kinetic energy increases, keeping the total constant.

It would be correct to say that objects under the influence of forces tend to move in the direction in which the potential energy decreases.

 

You are right, my language was very sloppy.

 

In a closed system, entropy is usually conceived of as steady or as increasing, where entropy is roughly the amount of energy not available for work (I think -- I myself usually conceive of it as disorder, though). I myself imagine the total energy in a system as being transferred among elements or dissipated as waste [heat], and in that sense flowing "down" an energy-available gradient; entropy of course increases, as you point out, but I always imagine entropy-increase as being "downward" in a state-space.

 

The intuition I disagreed with in BFSU was in a description of energy vs. forces, and particularly RE magnetic and light force/energy. A distinction is drawn btw. magnetism which is not energy b/c "it will only move things so far." (Likewise, gravity isn't energy b/c "things invariably reach the bottom and stop".) Light, on the other hand, is "one form of radiant energy". The distinction btw. light and magnetism is artificial to my mind, b/c they are both forms of electromagnetic radiation; and gravity is, I think, well understood as a form of "gravity radiation," and all this is in a section meant to be as accurate for those with a physics background as possible. I know this is all arcane and fussy, which is why I'm not at all criticizing the author, but was wondering if others had the same -- forgot the phrase, you know, idiosyncratic and arbitrary little sensitivity -- that sort of thing :).

 

any more and I'll break my word not to go on and on!

 

ETA: am making no claim that I could do better than BFSU. have written no textbooks myself, and understand that criticizing is much easier than doing, and not nearly so noble.

Edited March 14, 2012 by serendipitous journey

[LittleIzumi]

Nope. It doesn't annoy me.

 

Is it perfect? No. However, there is nothing else even remotely close to it for serious science for youngers. I'm not going to let one line that bothered me or a couple of explanations that I added to myself because I thought it needed the extra information deter me from a program that is so much more meaty than anything else out there for the age. If you ever find a completely perfect program, pleeeeeease let me know. :D

 

We have almost completed BFSU I, just a few lessons on molecules/solutions and rocks left, and are switching to RSO Life (flying through it and supplementing) for the spring/summer. When it gets chilly again we'll finish BFSU I, try RSO Chem, and then hit BFSU II.

[regentrude]

A distinction is drawn btw. magnetism which is not energy b/c "it will only move things so far."

 

They really say that in the book? Complete and utter nonsense!

 

(Likewise, gravity isn't energy b/c "things invariably reach the bottom and stop".)

 

:confused: And what does one have to do with the other?

And it is not even true. Satellites orbit the Earth because of gravity, they do not reach the bottom and stop, but move in nice stable orbits.

 

 

Light, on the other hand, is "one form of radiant energy". The distinction btw. light and magnetism is artificial to my mind, b/c they are both forms of electromagnetic radiation;

 

I agree. Electric fields store energy, magnetic fields store energy, and light is an electromagnetic wave that transports energy.

 

I know this is all arcane and fussy, which is why I'm not at all criticizing the author,

Actually, I would criticize the author if he writes these kinds of things! It is very difficult to explain science on an elementary/middle school level without introducing mistakes, and I would expect any author who claims to write a science text to be very careful.

The stuff about magnetism only making things go "so far" is mindboggling nonsense.

This reminds me of the public school science texts my kids brought home when they were still in ps. Magnetism seems to be one subject that many textbook authors not really understand.

 

ETA: The sorry state of science materials for younger kids is the reason we do not use any textbooks and formal programs until high school, at which time the kids are ready for a well written, correct introductory college text.

Edited March 14, 2012 by regentrude

[Tracy]

The intuition I disagreed with in BFSU was in a description of energy vs. forces, and particularly RE magnetic and light force/energy. A distinction is drawn btw. magnetism which is not energy b/c "it will only move things so far." (Likewise, gravity isn't energy b/c "things invariably reach the bottom and stop".) Light, on the other hand, is "one form of radiant energy". The distinction btw. light and magnetism is artificial to my mind, b/c they are both forms of electromagnetic radiation; and gravity is, I think, well understood as a form of "gravity radiation," and all this is in a section meant to be as accurate for those with a physics background as possible.

 

Can you please provide the page numbers from which you are quoting?

[Halcyon]

Can you please provide the page numbers from which you are quoting?

 

:bigear:

[Wheres Toto]

 

The intuition I disagreed with in BFSU was in a description of energy vs. forces, and particularly RE magnetic and light force/energy. A distinction is drawn btw. magnetism which is not energy b/c "it will only move things so far." pg 252

 

(Likewise, gravity isn't energy b/c "things invariably reach the bottom and stop".) pg 252

 

 

 

Looks like it's all on pg 252 of the K-2 volume.

[serendipitous journey]

Can you please provide the page numbers from which you are quoting?

 

:bigear:

 

Looks like it's all on pg 252 of the K-2 volume.

 

Yes, these quotes come from pg 252. I think they are representative of the gist of the argument. -- just to reiterate, my goal was most distinctly not to trash this text, which is used by many (including many with science backgrounds) to good effect, and whose author is clearly dedicated to science education. For instance, I haven't tried to contact Nebel with my problems. This is a necessary first step to a public criticism of inaccuracy, I think, particularly because Nebel has a reputation for being very engaged with his readers and trying to answer & address questions/concerns. I think I ought to write him but haven't made the time to put together something coherent and organized.

 

I am mainly interested in how anybody with similar reservations, "pet peeves" maybe, to mine might have gone about their science education esp. if they used this book.

 

LittleIzumi makes an excellent point about using resources, and I agree completely with using good texts and twiddling/tweaking them to fit one's own perspective. I myself have a particularly hard time with the things I've hit in BFSU, I think b/c I have just enough background for some things to seem discrepant (the implied distinction btw. light radiation and magnetic force, the apparent dismissal of eyewitness testimony as "evidence") but not enough background to fill in the gaps I notice (I do not have the foggiest idea how to deal with gravity vs electromagnetism vs chemical sources of energy vs what Nebel is describing as "mechanical energy"). Fixing up Apologia is simple in comparison. Also I think in a particular way which certainly has its limitations. I've noticed that many other people put information together differently than I do, and are able to pull the gist out of situations that leave me befuddled.

 

 

Regentrude -- what's been your happiest science???? your perspective is one that feels intuitive to me ...

Edited March 14, 2012 by serendipitous journey
clarity?

[Tracy]

Have you posed this question on the Yahoo Group? Dr. Nebel is very good about answering these types of questions and quite willing to admit if there is something not quite right in the text.

 

My dh is a physics teacher, and I can have him take a look at it. But I won't see him until tomorrow.

[serendipitous journey]

Have you posed this question on the Yahoo Group? Dr. Nebel is very good about answering these types of questions and quite willing to admit if there is something not quite right in the text.

 

My dh is a physics teacher, and I can have him take a look at it. But I won't see him until tomorrow.

 

No, I haven't posted, mainly because there seems to be a more fundamental difference btw. how I am thinking & how BFSU presents things than is represented by this particular example; I had similar difficulties with other sections, mainly the intro parts I think where the perspective for teaching is being set up. Also haven't taken the time to carefully frame my questions ...

 

(being toddlerized .... :) )

 

ETA: Thank you for offering to check on it ... I'd be curious what your dh thinks, if you have the opportunity to ask him ...

Edited March 15, 2012 by serendipitous journey

[Greenmama2]

Is it perfect? No. However, there is nothing else even remotely close to it for serious science for youngers. I'm not going to let one line that bothered me or a couple of explanations that I added to myself because I thought it needed the extra information deter me from a program that is so much more meaty than anything else out there for the age. If you ever find a completely perfect program, pleeeeeease let me know. :D

II.

 

:iagree:

I suppose it depends what you mean by teeny. Yes, a couple of things have bothered me. Not to any great extent though.

[NittanyJen]

I got annoyed when he said not to introduce the periodic table as it is too confusing for kids :confused: I found that to be pretty condescending. I was actually looking for something more... not less. My kids were asking for stoichiometry and quantitative chem to do.

[Wheres Toto]

I got annoyed when he said not to introduce the periodic table as it is too confusing for kids :confused: I found that to be pretty condescending. I was actually looking for something more... not less. My kids were asking for stoichiometry and quantitative chem to do.

 

Interesting. I don't remember seeing this, was it in the K-2 level or one of the higher ones.

 

RSO Chemistry introduces the periodic table and the elements in a way that seems fairly easy to understand to me.

[NittanyJen]

Interesting. I don't remember seeing this, was it in the K-2 level or one of the higher ones.

 

RSO Chemistry introduces the periodic table and the elements in a way that seems fairly easy to understand to me.

 

I believe it was in the second book; I'd have to go back and double check to be sure. I didn't read it too much for chem after that.

[Tracy]

 

ETA: Thank you for offering to check on it ... I'd be curious what your dh thinks, if you have the opportunity to ask him ...

 

Physics teacher dh looked at the thread and the references in the K-2 book. The quotes come from a particular section that begins, "If you have some physics background, it will be conspicuous that we are taking some liberties and shortcuts with definitions . . . . Let us be clear about the shortcuts we are taking. . . ." He then lists six "liberties and shortcuts."

 

According to dh, all of these items are reasonable simplifications for the K-2 age group. Remember that the BFSU philosophy is that children learn best (1) what is relevant to them, and (2) what they can actually observe. Let's remember that we are talking about teaching magnetism, electricity, and gravity to children as young as 5yo. These are concepts that are not traditionally taught until high school, and some of the concepts mentioned in this thread are college level. I see it as similar to how my two kids are learning math concepts. Dd7 knows about negative numbers, but ds4 thinks that numbers begin at 0. I don't think I am wrong to let him think that there are no numbers before 0, nor do I think it is wrong not to teach him the concept. It is simply not something that he is ready to understand.

 

I think that it is amazing that Dr. Nebel has endeavored to teach these concepts to young children in way that is meaningful to them. Not everyone will agree with Dr. Nebel's simplifications, and certainly there will be some children for whom those simplifications are unnecessary. I nevertheless think that BFSU is still a good jumping off point, even if you choose to tweak the program and present more advanced concepts or present the existing lessons in a more advanced way. (As for me, I will leave the advanced concepts to dh.:tongue_smilie:)

 

At any rate, I suppose that this has not been terribly helpful in allaying your concerns, and I am sorry that I have not been able to help very much. I would still encourage you to share your concerns on the Yahoo Group, as Dr. Nebel is very understanding about these sorts of things.

[Guest]

nm

Edited February 14, 2013 by Guest

[Guest]

.

[serendipitous journey]

Physics teacher dh looked at the thread and the references in the K-2 book. The quotes come from a particular section that begins, "If you have some physics background, it will be conspicuous that we are taking some liberties and shortcuts with definitions . . . . Let us be clear about the shortcuts we are taking. . . ." He then lists six "liberties and shortcuts."

 

According to dh, all of these items are reasonable simplifications for the K-2 age group. ...

 

Quite so. The shortcuts descriptions are not for the children -- "This is not to be part of the lesson" -- they are for people with "some physics background" -- "to show that we are on the same page with more technical descriptions of physics." That is, the points I've quoted are meant to be accurate descriptions to help readers with a physics background align the children's teaching with rigorous physics.

 

 

At any rate, I suppose that this has not been terribly helpful in allaying your concerns, and I am sorry that I have not been able to help very much. I would still encourage you to share your concerns on the Yahoo Group, as Dr. Nebel is very understanding about these sorts of things.

 

I ought to, and plan to do so, but am frankly overwhelmed by various domestic responsibilities and challenges right now, and have found that correspondence with authors really warrants my full attention and care. I deeply respect and appreciate Dr. Nebel's work & esp. his ongoing dialogue with, and support of, the educating community. The purpose of this thread (well, my purpose; threads do accumulate a variety of purposes as they go along!) was to ping the board & see if anyone else had this curriculum bring up pet peeves/mental blocks, or if the only reason secular-science folks mightn't use it was the challenge of planning/implementing the program.

 

I will read through your reply again carefully later, and look at the text in that light. Thanks! and to your dh, too!