what do YOU look for in a science curric...

[Targhee]

...for grammar stage?? I'm curious. I'm a secondary science teacher (biology, earth, and environmental sciences) and I LOVE science. But even I have been turned off by most every curriculum I have browsed so far (either DRY, or disjointed, or authoritative). I diverge from WTM when it comes to science in that I don't believe the "grammar" of science is found in its content (survey of the phyla of the animal kingdom, memorize the rock cycle, etc.). I believe the grammar of science is in science process. But most curricula are content-based, and there is little focus on science as a pursuit. Most have "labs" or "experiments" that are really just demonstrations given in cook-book fashion for the kids to follow. There isn't much in the way of inquiry.

 

I know there are HS parents out there who like their science curricula, so tell me, just what do you look for?? What makes a science curriculum a winner in your homeschool?

 

Does it need to be pick-up and go (easy for the non science type)?

rigorous?

fun (lots of cool "experiments")?

gentle (no textbooks, living books, etc)?

cheap?

a particular world-view (old earth, young earth, creationist, secular)?

integrated into your history/literature cycle?

child-led?

????

[Stacia]

I have been turned off by most every curriculum I have browsed so far (either DRY, or disjointed, or authoritative).

 

Does it need to be pick-up and go (easy for the non science type)?

rigorous?

fun (lots of cool "experiments")?

gentle (no textbooks, living books, etc)?

cheap?

a particular world-view (old earth, young earth, creationist, secular)?

integrated into your history/literature cycle?

child-led?

????

 

Well, I don't think we've found the perfect one yet. I want something that is easy for the non-science type teacher (me) w/ all materials that you need with it. (If I have to hunt down & find a bunch of assorted stuff, it will never get done.) I'd like something rigorous (could be text or hands-on -- whichever is better suited to the study), but explained very well & clearly for the student; I guess I'm really looking for clear semantics, kwim? I want something engaging for my students, so that it helps spark a love of science & inquiry in them (not something that I feel like I'm personally doing as I'm not a 'science' person).

 

I haven't found it yet. I'm floundering with things. I want it to improve. I'm going to try SL science for the upcoming year. We've tried Noeo, Exploration Education, various & assorted things I've pulled together on my own, Evan-Moor workbooks, etc....

 

And, I've decided that if I have to keep dreaming about it, I'm going to dream big: I want a science teacher included in the box too. ;)

[nmoira]

Have you looked at Nebel's Elementary Education? It's not a detailed day to day curriculum (which is the reason we're not using it for elementary; I just don't have that much time), but rather an overview of what should appear in a K-6 course. While it covers all subjects, science is its heart. Dr. Nebel has a Yahoo! group (Nebelselementaryeducation) with a number of files with aids, including a huge book list categorized by topic and reading level. He has recently published a more detailed K-2 curriculum entitled: Building Foundations of Scientific Understanding. Our homeschool is history and language based; Dr. Nebel's materials would be perfect for a science based homeschool.

 

We use Singapore My Pals Are Here Science. I like it because it's pick up and go, secular, and inexpensive. DD is flying through Level 3 (the first level), which is relatively light, but the course gets more rigorous as it progresses. There are not a lot of experiments, but we're trying to keep school days short and something has to give; for grammar stage this is science. However, I do supplement MPH with some experiments from Janice Van Cleave's books and DD eats up the Horrible Science books on her "own" time. In addition, I have a strong enough background in science that it's often worked into everyday conversation.

[Rosie_0801]

He has recently published a more detailed K-2 curriculum entitled: Building Foundations of Scientific Understanding.

 

I'm intending to use this. The reviews I've read have all been very positive and I like the "holistic" approach. I also like the idea that it will be a K to 12 program once he's finished writing. I really wanted something with that kind of continuity so I feel we are progressing towards some sort of goal. I know I could put together a mish mash of different programs, but I'm not science trained so I don't feel like I know what the underlying point is supposed to be. I understand history as a subject and as a discipline, but I don't understand science as a discipline, well series of disciplines, kwim? I could pick what subjects to study and what products to use, but that doesn't mean I'm teaching a scientific method. I really want to feel we have finished a course of study, even if I end up tweaking or adding other funky stuff. Who could pass up a resource called "Geology Rocks?"

:)

Rosie

[angela in ohio]

I'm looking for the opposite of you, LOL. That's why homeschooling is great!

 

I was not content with the type of science done in the public schools. I read some research on the failure of inquiry-based science instruction, and did some more reading, and compared it to what I had learned of both child development and the trivium. From all that, I decided I DO want our elementary science to be about the grammar, the facts, of science. We do most of it through reading living books about science and observation of the natural world, instead of with a text, though we do back it up with texts and guides. I haven't really found a curriculum I like, so I just create it myself.

[nmoira]

 

I'm intending to use this. The reviews I've read have all been very positive and I like the "holistic" approach. I also like the idea that it will be a K to 12 program once he's finished writing.

I wish I'd had this two years ago but am hoping to use this with my youngest.

[Ravin]

When I'm considering what science curriculum to go with, I just think back to when I was ten years old. I don't remember a bloomin' thing ever taught me in school textbooks about science. I vividly remember some of the enrichment classes my mom put me in, including a hand-on dissection/microscopy class in 3rd grade, one on physics where we learned about TANSTAAFL and I got to demonstrate an equal and opposite reaction with roller skates and pillows. I remember quite a bit I read for pleasure, too. I learned a lot of science from science fiction--classic science fiction, written in the 1930's to 1960's mostly. I went rather systematically through the sci fi at the public library, and had a subscription to Analog Science Fiction and Fact, in which I would tackle quite a few of the fact articles, written at an adult level.

 

A kid is going to learn more about physics and chemistry doing model rocketry than reading a book, and more about nature getting out in it than staring at a text on taxonomy.

 

In summary, I think hands-on, exploratory activities are the way to teach science in the grammar stage. These don't necessarily have to be child-directed, but they are unlikely to be of much use if the child isn't interested. As an adult with a pretty solid grasp of science, my goal is to encourage curiosity and wonder in the grammar years, help my child understand the basic theory and logic of scientific inquiry, theory, and method in the logic years, and hit the subjects more formally in high school.

[Plaid Dad]

I would love to find a science curriculum that:

 

(1) does not reflect a young-earth perspective

(2) includes living books

(3) uses a variety of experiments and hands-on activities, most of which can be done with normal household items

(4) doesn't dumb down scientific vocabulary

(5) includes biographies of famous scientists and their best-known findings

(6) while not religious, at least acknowledges both the positive and negative impact of religion on scientific discovery

(7) covers a variety of science topics each year (not just one subject)

[PeterPan]

Well I'm not sure how far you're taking your "process" thinking, but personally I've been turned off by the curricula written by scientists that try too hard in that regard (RS4K for instance). The younger the dc, the less that matters, imho. The process becomes busywork (just my experience) and the only real retention is in the DOING. I think the building of a bank of experiences and observations, the real life understanding of how things work, is what helps them prepare for high school math. Of course I'm someone who went into AP chemistry in high school with minimal science background (was at a school where they would let you jump, totally skipping high school level), and really didn't have a clue what those reactions were, what I was seeing, never having seen them before. So I think building a bank of understanding and observation is key. Next is familiarity with terms, which is what BJU does (hence my using it as a spine) and what WTM seems to be shooting at in their own way. I think if you have a store of observations, familiarity with the terms so you're not overwhelmed with an upper level textbook, and enough math skills, you're good to go. But I don't teach high school science, only took quite a bit of it and have some opinions. :)

 

So as far as how that translates into curriculum, anything that makes it easy for me to get those 3 components is a winner. Christian viewpoint (young earth, God-honoring) isn't optional but a must. If I buy an Usborne book, I expect secular and don't quibble, but for actual curriculum and spine instruction, christian viewpoint is a must, at least for us.

[Carol in Cal.]

I liked Magic School Bus books for that age, coupled with experiments and short write ups.

 

I also think that joining a couple of local children's museums is the way to go for lower to upper grammar. You have to go often enough so that the kids really know the place well at an overview level, and then ask them to find 5 new things to figure out each time you go, so that they delve in deeper. It's like a treasure hunt. If you're there with them, you can draw analogies to all of the other stuff that they read elsewhere, and reinforce their learning that way. Ideally you would want to belong to a natural history/zoo-type place, and additionally to a more hard science place, and go to each one about twice a month for at least 4 hours each time.

[TracyR]

LOL. Plaid Dad it almost sounds like Sonlight science would be a good program for you guys . As it includes ALOT of what your asking for in your list :>)

[Targhee]

Well I'm not sure how far you're taking your "process" thinking

 

I guess I better say what I am looking for. I am looking for something that trains the mind to think scientifically. Science is both a process and a body of knowledge, and we tend to get hung up on the body of knowledge aspect, which is equally important to science but, by large measure, is beyond the understanding of (and relevance to) a young child. Content in the grammar stage is flexible (as long as it is correct) - it does not matter if you learn about butterflies in first grade, volcanoes in second, etc. It is a modicum serving the purposes of teaching scientific process. For me, science curriculum for grammar stage should teach and encourage careful observation, questioning, simple inquiry design, data collection and presentation, and guide students to construct meaning of all of this (extrapolate, predict, transfer knowledge, etc NOT to reconstruct the body of science knowledge on their own). And these things should not be a strict "experiment" to follow from a book, but rather a natural extension of the inquiring mind of the student ("why, Mom?"). The content used must also be scientifically sound, of interest to the student (essential in driving inquiry), and explorable.

 

Just as we offer tastes of great literature to grammar students (with the promise of a feast later), and use it primarily to 1)exemplify the nuts and bolts of language (proper usage, spelling, structure, literary device, etc.) and 2) fill their heads with beautiful language, in science we should use content to 1) exemplify nuts and bolts of science (how the body of scientific knowledge is created) and 2) fill their minds with meaningful concepts.

 

I've not found this yet.

 

Someone commented she read about the failure of inquiry-based instruction. Three major reasons I see inquiry-based instruction would fail 1) the instructor needs to have a breadth and depth of scientific knowledge to facilitate inquiry-based instruction; 2) inquiry has been slapped on so many things as a selling point (because it is the crux of the National Science Education standards) when really they are the same old recipe-style "experiments" with a few added questions/options, therefore it isn't really inquiry-based and still not producing scientific literacy; and 3) the constraints of a classroom (facilities) full of kids (not conducive to careful guidance, nor to individual inquiry).

 

I liked the request that the curriculum come with a scientist in the box:thumbup:

[Carol in Cal.]

For me, science curriculum for grammar stage should teach and encourage careful observation, questioning, simple inquiry design, data collection and presentation, and guide students to construct meaning of all of this (extrapolate, predict, transfer knowledge, etc NOT to reconstruct the body of science knowledge on their own). And these things should not be a strict "experiment" to follow from a book, but rather a natural extension of the inquiring mind of the student ("why, Mom?"). The content used must also be scientifically sound, of interest to the student (essential in driving inquiry), and explorable.

 

:

 

You might check out GEMS from Lawrence Hall of Science. Very hands on, very discussion/observation oriented, very concerned with data collection and thoughtfulness about it.

[Targhee]

You might check out GEMS from Lawrence Hall of Science. Very hands on, very discussion/observation oriented, very concerned with data collection and thoughtfulness about it.

Wow - I completely forgot about GEMS!!! I was familiar with them when I taught school (and I'm sure that subconsciously has some influence on my criteria now), but I guess I've let too many cobwebs grow in the attic. Thanks!! :hurray:

[Heather in Neverland]

My perfect science curriculum would:

 

1. DEFINITELY have a young earth creationist perspective.

2. not dumbed-down

3. pick up and go including ALL materials necessary for experiments (I am too busy to drive all over town looking for materials and what is a "common" household item varies from one house to another).

4. It does not have to be part of a unit study

5. follows the 4-year WTM cycle

6. Does not have to be cheap, just reasonably priced

[talexand]

I have a degree in physics as well as computer science so I go pretty deep in science. I do a lot of unit studies. I create and teach classes though a local enrichment academy, mostly to advanced students. I pick a topic and go pretty deep and with lots of activities. I teach scientific process and I use math with science as much as possible. I'm likely to go over the student's head a bit but I do it gently. I tell them I am giving them a glimpse of things to come then I bring it back to their level. I encourage fun and exploration but we don't only explore, we chart and read and follow through so there is better understanding of what is really happening. I want to encourage a love of science and I want them to have many connections already made when they are doing science in high school. For homeschool I love RS4K and I love lego simple machines. I also really like Exploration Education. This past year (3rd grade) I switched between these three and using homeschool time to develop my enrichment classes by teaching it to my son first and adjusting as needed. We also do a science fair project each year through the local school which he attends part time.

 

In addition we subscribe to Kids Discover and read books on whatever science topic the kids pick. This is low key.

[Targhee]

For homeschool I love RS4K

 

What exactly do you like about this program? I looked at the online samples, and then thumbed through it at the convention. It seemed pretty, well um... boring. I must admit, I am immediately prejudiced against anything using Comic Sans font (silly, I know, but to me it speaks to a lack of professionalism and sense of aesthetic). The gist I got was "read this text, follow these directions, fill in this lab sheet." I know other people have liked it to, so what about it do you "love"?

[summer]

It has to be pick up and go, not because we are not "sciencey", we are. It is because I am not going to waste a bunch of time prepping when I do not want to or have the time. My children watch and read so much science already, on TV and in books and such, that even when we do have curriculum, they often already know the stuff. I loved Considering God's Creation with my older children. I am not sure we will do anything with my younger children until 7th grade or so. This is just because they already learn so much from their other activities that I am starting to question just how much they retain from learning the parts of a flower or how to ID a tree, when they are taught it at 7 and 8 yrs old.

 

I also do not want a huge teachers guide. I want to be able to sit and look at the same book my children are looking at. I hated Great Science Adventures in that we spent far more time cutting and pasting than we ever did on actual science. It was awful! And then when I tried to give it away, after I made all the little books but did not use the rest at all so it would have been perfect, everyone said they already knew they did not like Great Science Adventures and did not even want it with the books already made. It was that bad.

 

I like the style of Apologia. I like it where there is a CD to go along with the book or a DVD. I like it when the experiments use minimal materials. This is not even just about cost but also about storage space. I do not see a reason for several sizes of flasks. Seriously...if someone really wanted to make an effort, they could keep the supply list at a minimum.

[summer]

What exactly do you like about this program? I looked at the online samples, and then thumbed through it at the convention. It seemed pretty, well um... boring. I must admit, I am immediately prejudiced against anything using Comic Sans font (silly, I know, but to me it speaks to a lack of professionalism and sense of aesthetic). The gist I got was "read this text, follow these directions, fill in this lab sheet." I know other people have liked it to, so what about it do you "love"?

 

Shannon, RS4Kids is geared toward smaller children who are attracted to the bigger nicer font that is used in those books. Those pages are perfect. They are not busy or cluttered. "Professional" is something to be saved for older days. If someone wants to write something toward a child, they need it to look like it is for a child.

[Targhee]

I am not sure we will do anything with my younger children until 7th grade or so. This is just because they already learn so much from their other activities that I am starting to question just how much they retain from learning the parts of a flower or how to ID a tree, when they are taught it at 7 and 8 yrs old.

:iagree: This is what I mean about content being only a sampling that is really used to demonstrate/teach science process. They don't need to know a stamen from a stigma from a style. They need to know how to look closely at things to find greater meaning/understanding. They need to wonder and question and be encouraged to try to answer those questions in a scientific way (and be directed to reliable resources for definitive or complex answers) for similar reasons.

 

I absolutely love science-based shows (everything from NOVA to Bill Nye) because they spark interest, deliver content, and are more accessible to young students who are still developing readers. And I love magazines like National Geographic Kids (I'll have to check out Kids Discover, talexand).

 

We are "sciencey" - I have a degree in Zoology and another in Secondary Science Education and have taught science in various capacities, DH is a doctor, and the kids are real "little scientists." We love taking the opportunities that come serendipitously (like the caterpillar DD found on the driveway, which we ID-ed, built a habitat for, experimented with different leaves for food, and are anxiously awaiting for it to emerge from its chrysalis). But those moments don't come consistently, and I would rather be prepared with something to steadily develop my kids abilities to "do" science (to watch, wonder, think, reason, experiment, explore) so that they can take advantage of those moments when they come.

 

Thanks everyone who is contributing to this conversation. It is helping to put my finger on exactly what I want. It may be that I have to put this together myself from a variety of sources.

[Targhee]

Shannon, RS4Kids is geared toward smaller children who are attracted to the bigger nicer font that is used in those books. Those pages are perfect. They are not busy or cluttered. "Professional" is something to be saved for older days. If someone wants to write something toward a child, they need it to look like it is for a child.

 

Big, nice, san serif are all fine, but something about comic sans makes me gag. No, there were other things about the design, layout, even the printing and paper that bothered me. But that isn't the real reason I didn't like it - it just seemed to be the same old "read, recipe, report" - expecting that children will assimilate scientific process merely by copy-catting.

[kalanamak]

I've been davening on this recently, and frankly chewing my nails as we mooch towards starting 1st grade 1 Aug. While my direction may change for 2nd, I am planning fieldtrips...star gazing, rock hunting, going to the Grand Canyon, etc., but for 1st grade biology, kiddo seems to love the "grammar" of it all, and fairly seizes a book from my hands with a "don't tell me, don't tell me" gesture whenever we come upon a new, e.g., dinosaur for him to discuss (This one eats meat, this one runs fast, this one has big eyes, so maybe it hunted after dark).

We did have a good dry-run with sprouting seeds this spring, have done this trace-your-body and color in the hidden bits, etc. so maybe we are just ready for the "grammar". Kiddo feels like a bigshot when he knows something, and just seems to sponge it up and talk about it over the next few days.

 

I'm just gearing up to look for a comparative physiology/anatomy resource for 6's. E.g.. respiration....how animals and plants differ, how gills work, how lungfish have adapted, etc.

 

Whew, I don't know what I consider "good" curriculum. I'm thinking....practice all your dance steps and then when the music is on you'll be able to improvise.

[trisharog]

I am bumping this because I have no idea what I am doing for science for DS 9 and I find this thread intriguing . Hope there will be more discussions.

[Tami]

BJU elementary science has been nearly perfect for us. The lessons are well-organized and easy to teach. Vocabulary and concepts are taught, experimented with, and then reinforced further with notebooking. The critical thinking questions really pique my dd's interest in the reading. I love that BJU science creates a sense of awe and wonder, while teaching all the scientific vocabulary.

 

BJU is very balanced, it doesn't do experments for experiments sake without context, and yet it doesn't have so much text that the topic gets tiresome.

 

We have rounded out each BJU module with living books from whatever is available that day at my library.

 

As long as the curriculum is God-honoring, I personally don't care whether it's young or old earth. Scientific studies in our home have brought me closer to God and reinforced how marvelous and wondrous He is! For me, science is the handmaiden of Religion - and they are so interconnected I cannot separate them whether I use secular or religious resources. However, I do prefer a Christian curriculum.

[pixeldog]

The GEMS video and website has me intriqued, but after glancing over the curriculum materials, it looks challenging to pull off in my house with just my 4th grader, his kindergartener brother and myself!

 

I have the Noeo Chemistry 2 kit and books for our science this year. Anyone have any insights on Noeo? How does it compare with the elements of GEMS that you like? I like the idea of two levels of each of three courses (Biology, Chemistry, Physics), the living books/Usborne/internet combo, and the experiments in a box.

 

Finally, are there any books on teaching science that elaborate on how to foster what GEMS is trying to do, yet is realistic for homeschoolers? I noticed that Carolina Biological has a book for parents. Have any of you read it? It would be great to be able to supplement our "boxed" courses with the excitement of the inquiry/prediction/presentation they discuss on the video. I like science, but I'm not as enthused about it as other subjects. I don't necessarily want to pass this lukewarm-ness on to my kids....maybe I didn't have the best science experiences when I was in school. It just seemed really boring until we started dissecting things!

 

I agree with the RS4K comments. Couldn't quite put my finger on it....just seemed dry (text), yet too slick (presentation). Yeah, I know.....weird descriptions, but maybe you know what I mean.

 

Exploration Education doesn't appeal if the reading is via computer. Looks like all they offer is Physical Science. This sounds dumb, but the illustrations look hokey, too. My sons and I are visual learners and the images matter to us. Sometimes they matter more than the hands on activities, as the activities don't always "turn out" as we'd hoped. We love the Usborne-type graphics, cutaways, etc.

 

Thanks for the great topic and info!

 

Nancy in Cedar Mountain, NC

[pixeldog]

I'm really enjoying this thread!

bump

[HollyinNNV]

Finally, are there any books on teaching science that elaborate on how to foster what GEMS is trying to do, yet is realistic for homeschoolers? I noticed that Carolina Biological has a book for parents. Have any of you read it? It would be great to be able to supplement our "boxed" courses with the excitement of the inquiry/prediction/presentation they discuss on the video. I like science, but I'm not as enthused about it as other subjects. I don't necessarily want to pass this lukewarm-ness on to my kids....maybe I didn't have the best science experiences when I was in school. It just seemed really boring until we started dissecting things!

 

 

Nancy in Cedar Mountain, NC

 

Yes, Nancy. I think AIMS is the realistic alternative to GEMS. I love AIMS. Our co-op has used it. Both my kids have enjoyed the activities.

Holly

[pixeldog]

I tried the abbreviation list, but couldn't find AIMS.

 

Thanks, Nancy

[Targhee]

I haven't heard of AIMS, I'll have to look into it.

 

Here are some things I like, but nothing on its own, so I think I am going to patchwork a curriculum for us:

 

The Private Eye - develops observation skills, creative thinking about those observations, and is cross-curricular (we already have this book and loupes, and I like it a lot, easily used k-12).

 

Several Products from Critical Thinking Company - right now I know I want to use Mind Benders as warm-up questions to develop deductive reasoning. I wasn't impressed with Developing Critical Thinking Through Science (I looked through it at the HS convention). I did purchase Hands On Thinking Skills for my wiggly willy to use. Something similar is using attribute blocks to do analogies.

 

I have a bunch of activity and experiment books that I can go to when I need a great way to explain or demonstrate a concept. And of course, there's always the internet.

 

I am using some materials from a science teacher training course I assisted with one summer for middle level (logic) sciences which uses something called the Learning Cycle Model. This is for a classroom setting, but I can think of ways of adapting it.

 

I will use some other things from when I was a science teacher as well, including Benchmarks for Science Literacy and a lot of things from NSTA (national science teachers association). These include books on integrating science, literature, math, and social studies as well as on prompting inquiry-based investigations with great picture books. One NSTA resource I find particularly useful in HSing (here's for all you CMers) is a listing of outstanding trade books (literature not meant as a text) in science.

 

I am also planning on using a lot of games and toys to help develop thinking skills necessary for science. Some that I think are really good are SET, tangrams (any kind), marble runs/ramps (here's one I drool over), LEGOs, and some real traditional things (I want to look at this book)

 

Here are some other links people may find of interest in developing their science curriculum, or even in just developing a style of science instruction and learning.

 

The Exploratorium in San Fransisco has a nice page about what Inquiry-based science is (it isn't just doing lots of "labs" to learn, much more than that). I LOVE the Exploratorium - anyone in Northern California should visit it!!!

 

Here's another decent page about science inquiry.

 

Acron Naturalist is a great store.

 

I haven't ordered from here yet, but is geared to HSers.

 

Discovery Education has a databank of science lessons, I haven't been through them all, but it is nice to have a resource of them to use when teachable moments arise.

 

And of course there is a myriad of educational shows and books I want the kids to have easy access/exposure to. Love the library (and Netflix)! Oh, and the zoos/aquaria, museums, and field trips... this is where I think I may have even more fun than the kids :willy_nilly:

 

My problem is I haven't found any curriculum that does what I want. I have these resources, and I have a rough idea of what I picture a science curriculum for HS should really look like. I even have the background and training (a degree in Zoology and later a degree in Science Teaching, plus teaching experience in many different settings). But I don't know if I have the time to really invest in piecing it all together to become uesful curriculum for a busy HSing day (so that it is more "pick-up-and-go"). So if I can't find the curriculum I want, do I create my ideal science curriculum for grammar stage, or do I settle for something less than what I want (someone else's curriculum)???

[kellycbr]

Have you researched Dr. Nebel's " Building Foundations of Scientific Understanding?" I have a DS(7.5) who did an amazing amount of science in kindergarten, and very little in 1st. We pulled him out and started hs in March. I have yet to figure out a science curriculum that will do it all. I'm curious what you think of Dr. Nebels book. Is that along the lines of what you're looking for?

[Trivium Academy]

I would love to find a science curriculum that:

 

(1) does not reflect a young-earth perspective

(2) includes living books

(3) uses a variety of experiments and hands-on activities, most of which can be done with normal household items

(4) doesn't dumb down scientific vocabulary

(5) includes biographies of famous scientists and their best-known findings

(6) while not religious, at least acknowledges both the positive and negative impact of religion on scientific discovery

(7) covers a variety of science topics each year (not just one subject)

 

Yes I agree with Drew, but I also want it to be accessible:

-clean, clear parent-friendly layout in a teacher's guide

-affordable and easy to obtain materials for experiments

 

Really I want a mix of Prentice Hall Science Explorer with Jean Henri Fabre, throw in experiments and a few worksheets/projects and voila- done. I've just resigned to do it myself. :001_smile:

[CoffeeBean]

I'm with you, memoerization is a real turn off. I have liked the Williamsons kids can series - weather, science conncotions, fixx bubble, flash and the reader's digest how the earth works, how the universe works (awesome demonstrations). The are for mid-older elementary age. I'm not Van Cleave fan - too litle explanation of the why. We just went to the library and took out the books on related topics. TOPS science has fun stuff too - just becareful with the age level. Some of the TOPS really is high school stuff.

 

Coffee Bean

[JFSinIL]

It has to be EASY for me to use. Experiments have to make sense, WORK, and not involve me running around looking for some $$$ item that we might then use only once. And be secular.

[Jumping In Puddles]

My problem is I haven't found any curriculum that does what I want. I have these resources, and I have a rough idea of what I picture a science curriculum for HS should really look like. I even have the background and training (a degree in Zoology and later a degree in Science Teaching, plus teaching experience in many different settings). But I don't know if I have the time to really invest in piecing it all together to become uesful curriculum for a busy HSing day (so that it is more "pick-up-and-go"). So if I can't find the curriculum I want, do I create my ideal science curriculum for grammar stage, or do I settle for something less than what I want (someone else's curriculum)???

 

Thanks for the links and the info - maybe you can put together the ideal grammar science curriculum and sell it. :) I bet there would be a lot of interested people (ahem... like me!)

[Targhee]

I have yet to figure out a science curriculum that will do it all. I'm curious what you think of Dr. Nebels book. Is that along the lines of what you're looking for?

 

I haven't been able to see it, really. I saw the samples on his online, which interest me, but I would like to see more of it. I have seen online a couple of reviews on HSers blogs, plus the few on Amazon, and I wish there were more (I guess it really hasn't been around long enough for substantial reviews - 8 months). It's been in my Amazon shopping basket for weeks now. I should probably purchase it, seeing as it claims to be very much like what I am looking for. I think it is good science (accurate) because he also teaches at the college level and writes textbooks. I am particularly interested in his chapter about teaching according to how students learn - there are many models, and the widely-accepted Piaget model is generally refuted in science education professionals. I promise when (if) I get the book I will post a review.:thumbup1:

 

Anyone out there used Nebel's book for a while? Can you give us a review?

[SheilaZ]

I look for a very rigorous book with detailed infromation with a non-young earth, non-creationist bent.

And I would love a book that went into the history of science. (The stories behind the discoveries and the inpact on civilization.)

 

I want clear pictures and accurate drawings. Not too much busy stuff on each page.

I want experiments and model activites that are instructive and relevant...not just busiwork.

I also want to push integration of the material and not just memorization of facts. But I want a lot of information too. I

think most science program limit the material too much. We are just not learning enough science these days.

[Targhee]

I think most science program limit the material too much. We are just not learning enough science these days.

 

I agree that we are not learning enough science - but I think the reason is rather complex. One issue is the sheer volume of scientific knowledge (which is ever growing). One issue is pseudo-science and incorrect information that is disseminated in the media and even in classrooms. There is also a deficiency in teacher training (even at the college level). Another issue (and this is my big concern) is a lack of ability to understand science, the body knowledge, (and contribute to it) because we aren't fluent in science, the pursuit.

[kellycbr]

I haven't been able to see it, really. I saw the samples on his online, which interest me, but I would like to see more of it. I have seen online a couple of reviews on HSers blogs, plus the few on Amazon, and I wish there were more (I guess it really hasn't been around long enough for substantial reviews - 8 months). It's been in my Amazon shopping basket for weeks now. I should probably purchase it, seeing as it claims to be very much like what I am looking for. I think it is good science (accurate) because he also teaches at the college level and writes textbooks. I am particularly interested in his chapter about teaching according to how students learn - there are many models, and the widely-accepted Piaget model is generally refuted in science education professionals. I promise when (if) I get the book I will post a review.:thumbup1:

 

Anyone out there used Nebel's book for a while? Can you give us a review?

 

I'd love to read your review. I have Dr. Nebel's book, but I have nothing to compare it with - I've never taught science before, and it wasn't my major at college. There is a part of me that believes I need something a little easier. And at the same time, if its easier, I'm afraid it will probably be boring. I like the idea of kids thinking, and learning to question, observe, draw conclusions, etc., and this book claims to do teach that method. It would be nice if he sold a box of all the supplies so I didn't have to look for everything myself.:tongue_smilie:

[pixeldog]

Wonderful discussion, thanks!! Am going to buy Dr. Nebel's book and try it with my kindegartener. Will also look at the materials you plan to use, Targhee. Sure do appreciate your perspective and insights!

 

Nancy in NC :)

[Jen500]

I tried the abbreviation list, but couldn't find AIMS.

 

Thanks, Nancy

Here's the website for AIMS.

http://www.aimsedu.org/

[SheilaZ]

I agree that we are not learning enough science - but I think the reason is rather complex. One issue is the sheer volume of scientific knowledge (which is ever growing). One issue is pseudo-science and incorrect information that is disseminated in the media and even in classrooms. There is also a deficiency in teacher training (even at the college level). Another issue (and this is my big concern) is a lack of ability to understand science, the body knowledge, (and contribute to it) because we aren't fluent in science, the pursuit.

I think one of the biggest contributors to this problem are teachers and programs that try to turn science into a Magic Show.

 

Look, put a potato into salt water and it shrivels up. Nothing to explain why or how it related to all living things. No scientific method. No variable. No controls. No hypothesis. No systhesis of material. All they learn is that a potato in salt water will shrivel up.

 

It all show and no real material. The "experiments," which are actually demostrations and not true experiements, mean absolutely nothing on their own. And a string of unrelated demonstrations does not make a science program. Not for any age.

[Targhee]

It all show and no real material. The "experiments," which are actually demostrations and not true experiements, mean absolutely nothing on their own. And a string of unrelated demonstrations does not make a science program. Not for any age.

:iagree: Good point! There is definitely a place for demonstration, but the "wow" factor isn't an end in and of itself. When you want to teach a particular concept, especially in a classroom where you aren't always discussing phenomena that you see with your kids, there is something very useful about demonstrating something interesting. It sparks questions: Why does the potato shrivel? Will other things shrivel? Will sugar work the same way salt does? That reminds me of when my feet get "prune-y" in the bathtub - I wonder if it's for the same reason? If the natural scientists in the students have been cultivated then they are able to make observations, ask questions, possibly hypothesize, and hopefully experiment on their hypothesis (test it out).

 

But unless the students are confident in science as a process (they've been taught, guided, and had a chance to develop these skills) then all they see is the shriveled potato. Osmosis is only a hard word to spell, that they had to memorize a definition for, but has no connection to the potato, the prune-y feet, or (later) cellular function, chemical reactions, medical technology, or anything else.

[Rosie_0801]

It's all show and no real material. The "experiments," which are actually demostrations and not true experiements, mean absolutely nothing on their own. And a string of unrelated demonstrations does not make a science program. Not for any age.

 

Hear, hear! Most of what I can remember from high school was just the same. I always wondered what the point of making a mess was when we already knew what was going to happen. Maybe it was so we could practise writing up the lab reports? I remember wondering if it was possible to actually get the experiments wrong and what would happen if we did.

Rosie

[trisharog]

Is this legal? I am bumping a second time because I want to hear more. So many wise minds to let it end now.

[angela in ohio]

I think one of the biggest contributors to this problem are teachers and programs that try to turn science into a Magic Show.

 

Look, put a potato into salt water and it shrivels up. Nothing to explain why or how it related to all living things. No scientific method. No variable. No controls. No hypothesis. No systhesis of material. All they learn is that a potato in salt water will shrivel up.

 

It all show and no real material. The "experiments," which are actually demostrations and not true experiements, mean absolutely nothing on their own. And a string of unrelated demonstrations does not make a science program. Not for any age.

 

LOL! You just described half the "homeschool" science curricula I have seen. :)

[Targhee]

I ordered Dr. Nebel's book, but I don't expect it until the end of the week. Right now I am knee deep in literature reviews about science teaching and developmental psychology. I am one of those nerdy people who never seems to gather enough information to help in my decision making process :D

 

I am glad you guys bumped the thread back up because it has been most insightful (and therapeutic) in helping me make some decisions about science curriculum, and about my educational philosophy in general. :grouphug:

 

I am glad that Plaid Dad mentioned he was looking for something that covered a variety of science topics each year (as opposed to focusing on Biology, or Chemistry, etc.). The problem with a single discipline approach covered over a year for the grammar stage is that it either a) contains content too removed from the child's experiences or too abstract in nature, or b) it is terribly redundant or (at best) simplistic. For example, in RS4K pre-level 1 biology the first chapter introduces concepts like taxonomy and the kingdoms Monera and Protista. Apologia Exploring Creation with Astronomy is covering things like sun spots and light as a wave (including refratction of light when it hits the atmosphere). What 7 year old (those who were like me as a 7-year old excluded :cool:) will feel a conection to Monera or sun spots? Some of the things I have read recently (these are professional journals) suggest that when you mismatch content with cognitive capacity (and most grammar stage students are able to realistically abstract ideas like light as a wave) the students are left a) not able to extend, apply, or interpret deeper meanings of the content, and b) with diminishing interest/positive attitude. Their inability to do "a" (above) can even result in learning the material incorrectly.

 

Now, take these same concepts and introduce them later, after they are developmentally ready to learn, questions, abstract, and organize this information into a contextual framework and you will have students who "know" the content just as well as those who were "taught" it once before (possibly better because there isn't misinformation to correct). Not only that, they may even still like science!

 

So, back to Plaid Dad's requirement. When you spread content over several science disciplines you are able to choose what is developmentally appropriate, as well as experientially relevant to the students. (I'm getting more anxious now to read Building Foundations for Scientific Understanding). And you use this content not only to "fill the mind" with science, the body of knowledge, but to train the mind to do science, the process.

 

On the topic of religious vs. secular, I am wondering how many of you who would choose secular (or at least old-earth, with an objective presentation of various religious cosmologies) curriculum are also those who believe and teach your children in creation? Why do you choose the approach you do? (this isn't meant to be confrontational at all - I am just curious). I appreciate science as a means of understanding and utilizing the world around us and I also believe in God (the creator). At the same time I don't need scientific evidence to buttress my faith - my faith stands independent or in spite of whatever science says (really, to me using science - not just things we observe - to try and prove God is antithetical to the faith He asks us to show). I also don't believe in scientific absolutism (and I think most professional scientists don't either - they realize nothing in science is truly known for certain). So I am quite comfortable presenting science from a secular standpoint, and not having it conflict with my faith.

[Rosie_0801]

On the topic of religious vs. secular, I am wondering how many of you who would choose secular (or at least old-earth, with an objective presentation of various religious cosmologies) curriculum are also those who believe and teach your children in creation? Why do you choose the approach you do?

 

I'm most definately secular, but will teach both. In my opinion evolution belongs in the science category, and creationism belongs in religion. So that's where we put them.

:)

Rosie

[materursa]

I look for a very rigorous book with detailed infromation with a non-young earth, non-creationist bent.

And I would love a book that went into the history of science. (The stories behind the discoveries and the inpact on civilization.)

 

I want clear pictures and accurate drawings. Not too much busy stuff on each page.

I want experiments and model activites that are instructive and relevant...not just busiwork.

I also want to push integration of the material and not just memorization of facts. But I want a lot of information too. I

think most science program limit the material too much. We are just not learning enough science these days.

:iagree: ...has anyone found anything that's even remotely like this?

[Catherine]

Although I prefer to stick with one content area per year: biology, chemistry, geology\earth science\astronomy.

[SheilaZ]

Materursa,

No.

Not even when I was teaching science. I just took what I had and cobbled it together.

 

I don't know of any homeschool program that I would use. The ones I have seen either water the material down to patronizing levels or they are young earth. (I'm in the camp of "Science is science and requires proof. Faith is religion and requiring proof is anti-faith.")

 

As a spine I use Harcourt Science for elementary and Science Explorer for middle school. But I supplement these with the same books that I used in the classroom. Good thing I hoarded them all away for the future.:D