Does it matter which area of science comes first?

[thefragile7393]

I've heard it said from several sources that chemistry and physics should come before the other sciences...this way they will understand other sciences more easily. The WTM has science going in a different order. I'm sure there is no one right way to go about this, but is there really an advantage to doing chemistry and physics first in the grammar years?

[Farrar]

I don't think it matters too much. And if it does, then it's not any one science that should come first, but an integrated approach that builds from fundamental ideas up, like the BFSU flow chart.

[ALB]

:bigear: I've hear that before, too. I've also read somewhere that there is a lot of disagreement among scientists about which order would be ideal.

[jar7709]

:bigear: I've hear that before, too. I've also read somewhere that there is a lot of disagreement among scientists about which order would be ideal.

 

 

I think most scientists will tell you to focus or begin on their own area of study. :) I say thisas a geologist that thinks earth sciences often get short shifted, lol. But honestly I thinkan integrated approach is best. No science subject is done in a vacuum.

[thefragile7393]

That makes sense. I wish there was a curriculum that does this besides BFSU....we're using it right now and i love the approach and how much sense it makes, but hate the book and the time it takes to get everything together.

[desertmum]

That makes sense. I wish there was a curriculum that does this besides BFSU....we're using it right now and i love the approach and how much sense it makes, but hate the book and the time it takes to get everything together.

 

:iagree: Also...I started with the human body, first. I'm finding it helps to explain a lot of the other concepts too. I like the integrated approach.

[Tanikit]

Personally I think the scientific method needs to be taught first but it can be taught with whatever area of science you teach first (or in fact with whatever area of life you are looking at) Physics and chemistry are pretty broad areas to cover - what exactly in these areas did they propose teaching first?

 

I have started with the natural sciences because that is the area that I know best and seems to interest my DDs most (even from before they are 1 year old) but then perhaps if I looked hard enough I'd find that physics fascinates them a lot too (they play with toy cars and roll balls around) and chemistry is always interesting (they eat soap and like to bake)

[regentrude]

The fact that physics is necessary for an understanding of chemistry and chemistry necessary for an understanding of biology is important at high school level - when biology involves a lot of biochemistry.

 

At elementary level, biology will mostly focus on botany and zoology, dealing with concrete observable subjects that have a relationship to young kids' lives - you need no chemistry and physics to deal with that.

I would not worry at all about science sequence before high school. But yes, i would begin high school with physics if at all possible, then do chemistry, and then bio, instead of the other way around.

[thefragile7393]

Personally I think the scientific method needs to be taught first but it can be taught with whatever area of science you teach first (or in fact with whatever area of life you are looking at) Physics and chemistry are pretty broad areas to cover - what exactly in these areas did they propose teaching first?

 

I have started with the natural sciences because that is the area that I know best and seems to interest my DDs most (even from before they are 1 year old) but then perhaps if I looked hard enough I'd find that physics fascinates them a lot too (they play with toy cars and roll balls around) and chemistry is always interesting (they eat soap and like to bake)

 

I was told that something like chemistry should come first becsuse its hard to understand some like, say, photosynthesis, without knowing and understanding the chemical reactions behind it. That is just one example....I've heard more but this is the only one I can remember right now.

[thefragile7393]

regentrude that makes a lot of sense now....thank you for mentioning worrying more at the hs level! His interests are so scatttered....he loves animals and insects, amphibians, snakes, scorpions, then he loves tornadoes, carnivorous plants, and mixing things and making concoctions lol. I am glad I don't necessarily need to start him at a specific place at this age.

Edited April 13, 2012 by thefragile7393

[Tanikit]

I think it depends on what level you plan on teaching photosynthesis. I taught my daughter about photosynthesis at age 3 (Co2 or "something in the air that we breathe out" + water from the rain or the water we pour on the plants = (is used by the plant to make) sugars or food for the plant to use + oxygen which is what we breathe in) She didn't need to know at age 3 the chemistry behind this - at that age they do not need proofs and just accept everything you tell them. 6CO2 +6H2O = C6H12O6 + 6O2 will probably mean nothing to her for a very long time, yet she knows plants use "air" and water to make food and "air" that we breathe in.

[slackermom]

As a PP said, I think the early years are mainly about learning the scientific method, using the world you see around you.

 

I usually see the sequence starting in about 7th or 8th grade to be:

Earth Science, Biology, Chemistry, Physics.

 

Calculus is sometimes a prerequisite for Physics, which pushes it to the end of high school for most kids, and Biology and Chemistry are sometimes prerequisites for AP Chemistry.