Annoyed with Singapore Science

[Mom-ninja.]

One of the homework questions in Ch. 2 of Cycles asks what the word is for the male parts of the flower. Now, in the entire chapter it never once mentions stamen. Not once. However, that's the answer they are looking for. It also asks for the female name, and again not anywhere in the book is the word pistil mentioned. Anywhere.

 

The entire chapter discusses the anther, filament, stigma, style, ovary, and ovule. I can't find stamen or pistil.

 

How is the student supposed to know if it is not once mentioned anywhere?

 

That really really irritates me. This is the second time this has happened. There was something in Ch. 1 as well but I can't remember.

 

Ugh. Guess I'll be looking for another science *again*.

 

I do NOT like incomplete texts.

[SorrelZG]

That's not cool when a science curriculum can be outshone by Cat in the Hat's Oh Say Can You Seed? (which does teach these things and is how I knew the answer :D )

[Mom-ninja.]

That is my number one complaint about Singapore Science. It asks a lot of questions that are not answered in the reading.

 

I should have asked you before I bought it.

 

What do you use?

 

I know a lot of people like CPO but the cost scares me.

[Tress]

If that is the only thing, and you like the rest of it, I would just skip those questions or simply look up the answer.

 

We are going to start that chapter next week, so thanks for the heads up :D.

 

BTW, we are looking up loads of things, and not only the exotic Singapore things, for example: cockroaches..never seen them in my life. We definitely needed some internet help with those questions :lol:.

[SorrelZG]

cockroaches..never seen them in my life. We definitely needed some internet help with those questions :lol:.

 

 

It's official.

 

I'm moving to the Netherlands.

[Targhee]

One of the homework questions in Ch. 2 of Cycles asks what the word is for the male parts of the flower. Now, in the entire chapter it never once mentions stamen. Not once. However, that's the answer they are looking for. It also asks for the female name, and again not anywhere in the book is the word pistil mentioned. Anywhere.

 

The entire chapter discusses the anther, filament, stigma, style, ovary, and ovule. I can't find stamen or pistil.

 

 

 

Does it say "stamen" and "pistil" in the answer key or something? Because the anther and the filament together form the stamen, but could they not be listed individually as the male parts of the flower? And the stigma, style, and ovary are collectively called the pistil, but could they not be listed individually and be a correct answer to the question?

 

All the same, clarity is essential in a text!!

[freerange]

Maybe I'm odd, but I've always thought it was a good thing to learn that the answers can't always be found by reading in one book alone.

[stripe]

BTW, we are looking up loads of things, and not only the exotic Singapore things, for example: cockroaches..never seen them in my life. We definitely needed some internet help with those questions :lol:.

 

Oh my God! You're not missing anything. They are sooooo nasty. Ugh.

 

I've never seen the kind that fly, though I did once have one jump on me!

[Mom-ninja.]

BTW, we are looking up loads of things, and not only the exotic Singapore things, for example: cockroaches..never seen them in my life.

 

Visit my house any time. Shudder.

 

 

 

Does it say "stamen" and "pistil" in the answer key or something? Because the anther and the filament together form the stamen, but could they not be listed individually as the male parts of the flower? And the stigma, style, and ovary are collectively called the pistil, but could they not be listed individually and be a correct answer to the question?

 

All the same, clarity is essential in a text!!

 

The answers in the back of the book list stamen and pistil, yet those two words are not once addressed. It irritates me. If I pay for a curriculum I expect it to not have holes like that. It's one thing not to cover everything, but to not cover it and yet ask questions about what is not covered. That's annoying. :glare:

[SorrelZG]

Oh my God! You're not missing anything. They are sooooo nasty. Ugh.

 

I've never seen the kind that fly, though I did once have one jump on me!

 

I grew up in a land of flying cockroaches. For some reason they always flew at me. I'm still not over it.

[Mom-ninja.]

Maybe I'm odd, but I've always thought it was a good thing to learn that the answers can't always be found by reading in one book alone.

 

For an older grades, yes. I don't think that at elementary level it's the time to search for answers outside of the curriculum purchased.

[WishboneDawn]

Singapore Science wasn't written for homeschoolers. It was written with classroom use in mind so there's probably the expectation that the teacher would have covered some of that in class. It also DOES expect more of students then most elementary programs.

 

I think it's great, worth a few hiccups and small glitches like that are easily remedied by a look online or in an encyclopedia.

[Dmmetler]

I haven't seen the newest version, but in the older 5th/6th, there was a LOT in the activity books that was needed to do the workbook pages that was not in the textbook, and the teacher's guide highlighted extra terms and the like to be defined and taught. It was very, very clear that this was a program where the textbook was largely used to provide a little background material for the student, but the vast majority of the learning was done in class. My DD enjoyed Singapore Science, but I found it FAR too much work on my part for that reason-it just wasn't efficient, especially since my DD was doing quite a bit of hands-on science outside of home, to have to fill those gaps in the text and to have to filter through multiple books to figure out what of the classroom stuff was necessary and what was in there to provide 5 hours/week (or however many is expected) of lessons with enough repetition for multiple levels of students.

[Mom-ninja.]

 

I think it's great, worth a few hiccups and small glitches like that are easily remedied by a look online or in an encyclopedia.

 

My dh would like your take on it so that I don't spend more money. :D

[Tress]

Oh my God! You're not missing anything. They are sooooo nasty. Ugh.

 

I've never seen the kind that fly, though I did once have one jump on me!

 

Jumping cockroaches? Flying cockroaches? Ieeeew, I'm so bad with critters.

 

I'm staying here in the Netherlands. SCGS, you are welcome :001_smile:. We have no snakes, no killer mosquitos, no scorpions, no....hmmm, can't really remember all the horrible things I read about on here....oh, wait...wasn't there someone in Texas with spiders the size of plates? I'm NEVER going to visit Texas!! Ever! We only have tiny, harmless spiders here...and I'm still afraid of those :lol:.

 

Singapore Science wasn't written for

homeschoolers. It was written with classroom use in mind so there's probably

the expectation that the teacher would have covered some of that in class. It also DOES expect more of students then most elementary programs.

 

I think it's great, worth a few hiccups and small glitches like that are easily remedied by a look online or in an encyclopedia.

 

:iagree: I'm pleased with it, although I'm scaling back with the homework and tests, only doing the more interesting questions, and keeping the HOTS of course. It got a bit too repetitive.

[Dana]

I haven't seen the newest version, but in the older 5th/6th, there was a LOT in the activity books that was needed to do the workbook pages that was not in the textbook, and the teacher's guide highlighted extra terms and the like to be defined and taught. It was very, very clear that this was a program where the textbook was largely used to provide a little background material for the student, but the vast majority of the learning was done in class.

 

:iagree:

We are using the newer version. I think the TG is necessary. There is background information that I have my son read. We also do extra readings and additional videos. I find the real challenge is with the HOTS and tests.

I definitely do a lot of additional prep work, and I did consider switching programs for 5/6 but ended up buying the next levels because I really like the level of thinking requested of the student. But it is definitely very teacher intensive.

[unity]

I think it's great, worth a few hiccups and small glitches like that are easily remedied by a look online or in an encyclopedia.

 

:iagree: Especially because the problematic question was in the homework book and not the test book. The MPH sequence starts in 3rd grade, which I think is a perfectly good time to teach outside research. We use Britannica Kids online all the time, and the pace of MPH allows for outside reading, etc. I don't spend time lecturing on the MPH topics, but if a question like this comes up, she just looks it up, sometimes in the text first but she often likes just looking it up online since she thinks it's faster that way.

[stripe]

Oh no. I bought year 3 but balked at the $75 teacher's manual.

[Dealea86]

Oh my God! You're not missing anything. They are sooooo nasty. Ugh.

 

I've never seen the kind that fly, though I did once have one jump on me!

 

I had one fly at me when I was stepping into the shower one night. I had my glasses off, so I was practically blind. That is still one of the most terrifying moments of my life. :svengo:

 

And to the OP, thank you for the heads up. I have considered using Singapore Science in the past... this is good to know.

[Mom-ninja.]

 

 

:iagree: I'm pleased with it, although I'm scaling back with the homework and tests, only doing the more interesting questions, and keeping the HOTS of course. It got a bit too repetitive.

 

 

Yes, I think I need to cut out the homework book and just do the HOTS. Makes me wish I hadn't purchased the homework book.

 

:iagree:

We are using the newer version. I think the TG is necessary. There is background information that I have my son read. We also do extra readings and additional videos. I find the real challenge is with the HOTS and tests.

I definitely do a lot of additional prep work, and I did consider switching programs for 5/6 but ended up buying the next levels because I really like the level of thinking requested of the student. But it is definitely very teacher intensive.

 

I have the TG and not even in there does it mention pistil. It does mention stamen and then calls the female parts carpel and not pistil.

 

I did not buy the test book.

 

My ds loves hands on so I need to find activities to fill that void.

 

Blah. I think I will do as Wendy and go back to Noeo. I like the spines NOEO uses. I just don't know if NOEO has the depth he needs.

[Crimson Wife]

That is my number one complaint about Singapore Science. It asks a lot of questions that are not answered in the reading.

 

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

MPH obviously assumes the teacher has additional background knowledge and can fill in the gaps. I used MPH with Prentice-Hall Science Explorer and we could usually find the information in there. But sometimes we had to search the Internet for the answer (particularly when it was related to some Singaporean flora or fauna).

[EKS]

I thought MPH science was fabulous in certain ways, but, unfortunately, I didn't have the patience to put lessons together in the way I needed to to get the most out of the program, so we dropped it.

Edited June 15, 2012 by EKS

[stripe]

I can't remember or don't know if this person is a member here (sorry), but the botany plan on her blog might be useful

 

http://eclectic-homeschool.blogspot.com/2011/05/botany-study.html

 

if you want to beef up what you've got already.

[Dana]

One of the homework questions in Ch. 2 of Cycles asks what the word is for the male parts of the flower. Now, in the entire chapter it never once mentions stamen. Not once. However, that's the answer they are looking for. It also asks for the female name, and again not anywhere in the book is the word pistil mentioned. Anywhere.

 

The entire chapter discusses the anther, filament, stigma, style, ovary, and ovule. I can't find stamen or pistil.

 

 

Good for me to know in advance! I see on the TG p66 in background info for teachers, stamen mentioned ("The stamen is the male part of the flower and is made up of the anther and filament.") and on p28 in teacher notes under male part of flower and pistil is mentioned in female part of flower...

 

So they must be expecting in the hw for the teacher to have explained this to the student.

 

Blech.

I do appreciate the heads-up.

[rootsnwings]

I can't remember or don't know if this person is a member here (sorry), but the botany plan on her blog might be useful

 

http://eclectic-homeschool.blogspot.com/2011/05/botany-study.html

 

if you want to beef up what you've got already.

 

We used about the 1st 1/3 of this plan before switching to Apologia Botany. The linked plan is GREAT and I'm still using it in addition to Apologia for videos & other links she has posted. We use the Atlas of Botany that she suggests & also the Botany coloring book. Apologia is just MUCH easier since it's written to the student & my 11 year old can read it easily & it has LOTS of activities & projects suggested. Apologia is NOT very easy to plan out though (in my opinion)... of course there may be a "guide" somewhere online I just have not looked... also, Apologia is VERY creation-oriented (which I believe in God as the creator, but NOT that the earth was created 6,000 years ago) so we skip some of the creation stuff (but I also LOVE that it gives God the credit for all the glory & majesty of nature, so it's a catch22!!! ;))

 

Just throwing that out there for anyone interested in more of a botany course. We started in January & our Botany adventures have worked themselves out PERFECTLY in our homeschool! We are ALL loving it! :D

[sagira]

I like MPH and we've used two books this year, but we both missed BFSU and this I'm planning on using MPH as a reading and writing supplement to the topics covered in BFSU.

[freerange]

For an older grades, yes. I don't think that at elementary level it's the time to search for answers outside of the curriculum purchased.

 

Yep, even at element stage. We've always approached science with a stack of books, youtube, websites, tv documentaries....

 

I can understand the frustration of thinking you were buying a complete curriculum that would be self contained & time saving and finding it wasn't as complete a you'd hoped, but because of the way my dc work, I suspect we wouldn't even notice the omission.