true logic stage history and science... which companies: WP, SL, VP?

[Lovedtodeath]

I am concerned that if I get RS4K, Apologia or WP in 6th and 7th grade that they are not integrating logic into the subjects. I don't know if I am wording this right, but IYKWIM any thoughts?

[PeterPan]

Carmen, I'm trying to think of the nicest way to say this without being to harsh... Your littles are only *5* darling!!! Don't SWEAT what's coming in 6th and 7th grade!!! LOL

 

There, I said it. Now that said, I totally understand what you're saying, that it's dreamy to try to get on a track and use one publisher for say science, get some continuity, and then be in a good position when you hit junior high. So I understand that's why you're thinking so far ahead, makes sense to me. Thing is, you're going to change your mind 20 times, try things, have seasons of life come and go, realize something is great for a certain time in your life, etc. I'm saying don't be afraid to just try some things and have fun with your science. It's not going to hurt a thing and you'll come out fine. It's not like math where jumping messes you up, kwim? Just have fun with it and go with what seems best at the moment, or even just what is most PRACTICAL, hehe.

 

Now if you want to ponder logic stage science, that's really interesting. Maybe some others can pop in here. Science is a funny thing because they still have so much learning to do at that age, aren't really ready to do anything crazy sophisticated like a buff could do with history. (history buff might be asking serious questions at that age, but in science the buff still has a LOT of basic learning to do) They're also just beginning to get the math skills to do anything serious. So I just wouldn't sweat it. You're going to look at the options available when you get there, pick one or three and do it.

 

My tentative goal is to put dd into the BJU science in those grades, probably using Homesat in all honesty, because it's something I trust from a christian perspective. Knowing that's my plan, I've been trying to get done a grade each year in prep, so she'll be well-prepared to go into it. It doesn't exclude us from doing other things as well. Like I said, I don't see a problem with jumping around and doing lots of things. Just have an overall sense of where you're going, why you're doing what you're doing, and you'll get there.

[Lovedtodeath]

WOW what a reply! I am mainly just talking about it because its interesting and I had caffeine last night and no sleep. LOL

 

Am I bugging people with the amount of questions I post??

[SnowWhite]

You're not bugging *me*.

 

I love to dream about the future, and I like OhElizabeth's comment that talking about the logic stage is interesting.

 

After posting my projected science sequence on the WP forum lately, I realized that since ds is crazy about the idea of being an astronaut (long shot, but still, I need to go heavy on the science just in case, right?), I most likely need to do something pretty solid for middle school science. The publisher that came to mind was BJU, because we are using them for math and the program seems modern and solid. Modern and solid sort of describes the type of science program I will want in middle school.

 

Since I'm not up on TWTM (I am going to read it in the near future though! It's at my local library), I can't comment about the logic stage concept.

[Sahamamama]

Nope, you are not at all bugging me. In fact, I think this is a good question -- about the integration of science and history in the dialectic/logic stage.

 

Someone else here mentioned that she wishes Peacehill Press would come up with a science line-up that would coordinate with the 4-year cycle AND integrate everything for the logic and rhetoric stages. So, your thinking has been thunked before. ;) I'm not sure what the answers are, though. Any veterans?

[Sahamamama]

I am concerned that if I get RS4K, Apologia or WP in 6th and 7th grade that they are not integrating logic into the subjects. I don't know if I am wording this right, but IYKWIM any thoughts?

 

I agree with OhElizabeth, who said to relax because your children are young. My girls are little, too, but my husband and I do discuss these types of "topics." It may seem so far down the road now, but since we plan to be our children's primary guides, we ourselves need to set the course for our journey, know what resources are available, and work through some of the material now. At least, that's the way we think of our own preparation.

 

If by VP you mean Veritas Press, from what I can tell they don't seem to emphasize much science until around 7th grade (and then they use Apologia). You might just have to choose a science core, a history core, and a logic core -- then do the work with your child to "integrate" these subjects on your own, through discussions, outlines, summaries, reports, timelines, notebooks, etc. In other words, you will pick the main resources, then work through the content, then use the tools of the logic stage to analyze and synthesize. Does this make any sense?

 

FWIW, this is a great topic for a thread. :001_smile:

[Rhondabee]

I am concerned that if I get RS4K, Apologia or WP in 6th and 7th grade that they are not integrating logic into the subjects. I don't know if I am wording this right, but IYKWIM any thoughts?

 

But, I will try to say this well.

 

*Every* curriculum "integrates logic" - it may be well-thought out, or it may not. But, if you truly embrace the core of what SWB spoke of in an earlier post, that classical education is basically.... (wish I could find the quote!).... not needing a teacher, but going out and finding out for yourself, then you will find logic and ethics and religion being discussed in your homeschool ALL the time - in every subject.

 

IOW, it's not what you use, but the fact that you are all learning and growing and discussing together. And, it's you sharing your adult viewpoint on things with your kids - we've discussed *so many* things we would have *never* talked about it we weren't homeschooling. And, once you *do* study some logic with your dc, then your conversions will naturally include that knowledge *all* the time. And, you'll think, "Oh, too cool! I'm such a good mom!" (which, of course, you *are*!)

 

As far as science:

I am currently using Apologia after using Prentice Hall Science Explorer for a year. (Actually, next year, I am integrating the two *if* we have time - trying to balance the logic of learning from more than one source with the logic of - hey, somebody has to cook and clean around here!)

 

BUT - getting back on track, I promise! - I went with Sci Exp first because someone whom I still greatly respect posted repeatedly about how it contains "Critical Thinking" exercises. And, it does have questions labeled specifically "Critical Thinking" that did require more than just copying the answer out of the book. But, we found several times that the text misled us, and so we questioned their "logic".

 

So, anyway, I was worried about Apologia - will we get "Critical Thinking"???? And after using it last year, I think, yes, it does have plenty of "you're gonna have to reason this out, because the answer isn't given to you in the text" kind of questions.

 

Sorry this is ending rather abruptly - 3yo dd just woke up from her nap! (perfectly logical to be napping at 8:53pm, no?)

 

Rhonda

[Carol in Cal.]

But it is limited. It only covers each subject for 10 lessons. It covers the material in those lessons really, really well, but it is not comprehensive. So, I think it is ideal for introducing the hard sciences (chemistry and physics and biology) at about the 5th or maybe the 6th grade level. I think that Exploration Education is a good introduction to physical science and electronics, but doesn't cover the scientific terms like RS4K does. I might, if I had it to do over, use Exploration Education in 5th grade, and RS4K level 1intact all in one year in 6th, with some additional 'fill in' from Tiner's books.

 

I have noticed that there are a lot of good middle school science programs--Rainbow, Science Explorer, Apologia, Abeka. From what I have seen in conferences, it looks to me like Apologia General Science and beyond are quite different from the Apologia elementary science curricula. I have the same impression of Abeka, although I am less sure of that. Anyway, those make me feel really good about picking more or less year by year what to do for science rather than trying to find a ONE TRUE CURRICULUM for the entire homeschooling experience. I think that Apologia middle school science leads in very well to their high school science, and their style is different enough from the rest that if I planned to use Apologia for high school I would start now at the middle school level. But having seen the disconnect between elementary and middle school science from the same publishers, I have absolutely no regrets about not choosing a single publisher at the outset to stick with all along.

 

Also, generally, I hate elementary science books. They are so boring and minimal. I think that joining and visiting regularly a couple of good children's science and/or natural history museums as well as using the Magic School Bus books will give a much better science background than any elementary science curricula I have seen.

[PeterPan]

Hey Rhonda, your post got me to thinking... I'm just starting to read the logic stage chapters in WTM, but I had noticed there seemed to be a disconnect philosophically between their goals and mine. I thought it was just one subject, but now I'm starting to wonder if it's an entirely bigger thing. See my dh is of the opinion that a dc does not have an opinion truly wise yet and that they should learn and listen, not have tons of time spent extracting their opinions. Now obviously I don't HAVE a 6th or 7th grader, where this seems to come to a head, but I do think there are different ways to handle this. I've viewed the logic stage as a time to make connections, which isn't necessarily the same as encouraging them to form over-opinionated viewpoints. (Can't tell you how obnoxious an experience I had with a homeschooled guy who thought he was the essence of wisdom because he had read some books!!) In philosophy of ed I distinctly remember the professor, at a christian college, looking to the grad students and saying, "NOW you may have a viewpoint. Now you know enough to have your viewpoint be worthwhile." Sort of stuck with me, and I think that's what my dh is saying. Not that they don't have opinions, but that it should be handled very carefully. The lit recommendations in WTM were a place where I saw this coming up, where they were saying to elicit the opinion and criticism of the student (what did you like, what did you dislike, etc.). There was no basis for comparison, no standards for the student's assessment, just what he "thought."

 

Well anyways, that's my ramble. People have been saying the board isn't philosophical enough, so there's a bone. :)

[Lovedtodeath]

OhElizabeth, I can see where you are going with this. I think the problem lies in the difference between our time period and that which Classical Ed was at its peek. People used to mature faster IMO. Now it seems to me that the logic stage belongs in High School, and the rhetoric stage in college. It also depends how much knowledge your child has before the logic stage. I see a lot of homeschoolers whose children are not reading near as early as SWB and many who do not study as much history and science in the grammar stage.

 

I did not really notice in TWTM that an opinion is solicited so early. The difference that I saw was simply thinking more deeply about a subject. In the grammar stage one learns that birds have feathers. In the logic stage one experiments to find out for oneself why feathers produce flight. In the grammar stage one learns that America had a civil war. In the logic stage one gets information as to the events that led up to the civil war and decides who has the best view as to why it was.

 

I am enjoying the philosophical discussion, and that is really where I was going with this question. It seems to me that much of the curriculum out there is not requiring the child to work things out for themselves, which is what I think separates the logic stage from the grammar stage. It just gives more detailed information at a higher reading level but is still about remembering facts.... which to me denotes grammar stage.

[PeterPan]

Interestingly, VP is trying to accelerate that progression, wanting to get into "college" level study in high school, blah blah. The question then is whether you can accelerate maturity and wisdom, which I doubt. But like you say, if they don't try at all, they won't get there either. I definitely agree with you that when you look at some of the common/popular history options, they're still stuck in a grammar stage approach, even in high school. On the other hand, there's a LOT left to learn. That's where my comment on the science came from, because I think of all the disciplines, it seems to me the one most requiring further study before you can really start making connections. I think what happens with some of the curricula like BJU is this transition to logic stage thought isn't obvious in the student text (where they're still cramming in info) but comes out through the discussions and assignments in the tm's. If you look at the online samples of the BJU7 history text, it is totally info. But the tm has the student outlining and has prompts for the instructor asking them to discuss certain points and connections between various events. So it's there, but it's not obvious on the surface.

 

It's a funny line to walk. Where I went to school, especially the last two years of high school, they obsessed a little too much over your opinion and thought and not quite enough over whether you actually KNEW anything on which to base that opinion. I got into college and found myself wishing they had focused a little more on the facts, lol.

[Rhondabee]

I distinctly remember listening to SWB on her CD's (can't remember if it's the writing one or the Great Books one -which unfortunately wasn't available the last time I checked) - (I'm sorry, I'm just a spaz when it comes to interrupting my own tho'ts - esp this time of the month :lol:) - ANYWAY....she *doesn't* encourage papers or essays on a thesis (an opinion which can be supported by fact) until high school.

 

I agree with you that logic stage is still very much a fact-finding stage. But, grammar stage facts are presented on a silver platter to the student. Ideally, logic stage facts are student-researched. (Whoops! Didn't happen much here - but nobody's perfect. :D)

 

My overall impression has been that the logic stage isn't so much about opinions as it is about "Why's". Why is it effective for the author of Witch of Blackbird Pond to give us absolutely no idea what Kit's fiancee looks like, but every time we "see" Nat's blue eyes, blonde hair, and tanned muscles? Why is it helpful that Treasure Island is written in first person, and why does the narrator *have* to change in certain chapters - and how does that effect the book? Why did Longfellow choose the use Trochaic Pentameter in Song of Hiawatha? (Why choose specific words - is there a connotation that a specific word draws out, or is it an alliterative choice?)

 

Why does one science book state emphatically that the fossil record is evidence of evolution, while another states just as emphatically that the fossil formations were clearly the result of a catastrophic occurrence? What are the holes, and what are the proofs, of each underlying philosophy? (BTW: to OP, I realize that Apologia does come down on the side of creationism pretty heavy-handedly at times, but it does also address the problems that catastrophists have with their current theories.)

 

Perhaps the most difficult, or the most fuzzy area, is in history. Why do people do the things they do? I have to admit, I'm pretty clueless in trying to figure out *anybody* IRL, much less someone in a book. But, we still ask and learn - tho', admittedly, our answers are probably skewed by our own experiences. Last year my 7th grader could write a fairly decent "Why did this happen?" paper, but every time I pushed my 4th grader towards a "Why" paper, it always devolved into a "What happened" paper. It just takes time. But, we haven't gotten to the "I think it was right/wrong that this happened" paper. (We may discuss it, but we don't dwell on it or write about it.)

 

Really, the only questions I remember (in WTM) which elicit dc's opinion in the Logic stage are in the literature section. But, the basic guideline for writing about literature in logic stage is "a no more than one page summary of the main events, followed by a sentence (or two) stating if dc liked or didn't like the book and why." So, that's not really much.

 

The reason behind the "opinion" questions is to prime the pump of what is coming in high school (I think I remember this from the Great Books cd). WTM does state that in 7th or 8th grade you *can* begin writing papers which answer one of the questions in the discussion. But, I can tell you my ds is still firmly entrenched in the summary/quick analysis paper. (it may be different for the girls who were born with pencils in their hands)

 

an aside: One resource I have loved using this past year was Well-Educated Mind, which divides the literature questions into Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric questions. The Grammar are just the basic plot, and finding the climax. But, the Logic really delve into the details of how the theme is developed - the setting, descriptions, metaphors, POV, etc. I answer all the questions for myself, and then I loosely use those questions during our discussions. And we have some really good discussions, but we are really just building a foundation for high school - when "literature analysis" will begin.

 

You know, I can relate to your dh - I never remember doing real "analysis" until AP English. As a matter of fact, I never wrote a 5-paragraph essay - or had any inkling such a thing existed - until then. And even in college, papers weren't about "I think this author is right/wrong", but remained "This is how the author presents his viewpoint." At any rate, I'm in no hurry to push my ds into rhetoric - I plan to use a full four years at home for high school.

 

I can also understand wanting to "analyze literature in light of the Bible"- but if you are a Christian, shouldn't that happen naturally? Too often I think we fall for an idea that sounds good, but is really a concept that doesn't require us spending any money.

 

Thanks for the "chat"!

Rhonda

[Lovedtodeath]

Carmen, I'm trying to think of the nicest way to say this without being to harsh... Your littles are only *5* darling!!! Don't SWEAT what's coming in 6th and 7th grade!!! LOL

 

learning to do) They're also just beginning to get the math skills to do anything serious. So I just wouldn't sweat it. You're going to look at the options available when you get there, pick one or three and do it.

 

of where you're going, why you're doing what you're doing, and you'll get there.

 

Well, I probably do need to read over the grammar stage in TWTM before worrying so much about logic. :D I picked out my whole lineup for history and a couple of years of science from the WP catalog and then I started worrying that it would not really suit the logic stage.

 

But it is limited. It only covers each subject for 10 lessons. It covers the material in those lessons really, really well, but it is not comprehensive. So, I think it is ideal for introducing the hard sciences (chemistry and physics and biology) at about the 5th or maybe the 6th grade level. I think that Exploration Education is a good introduction to physical science and electronics, but doesn't cover the scientific terms like RS4K does. I might, if I had it to do over, use Exploration Education in 5th grade, and RS4K level 1intact all in one year in 6th, with some additional 'fill in' from Tiner's books.

 

I think that Apologia middle school science leads in very well to their high school science, and their style is different enough from the rest that if I planned to use Apologia for high school I would start now at the middle school level. But having seen the disconnect between elementary and middle school science from the same publishers, I have absolutely no regrets about not choosing a single publisher at the outset to stick with all along.

 

 

Thank you for the science info. I was impressed with RS4K and will probably use it as one of my books each subject and then fill out the year with the books listed in TWTM. I am still looking at Apologia, but I know some of the young earth teachings will bother me.

 

I distinctly remember listening to SWB on her CD's (can't remember if it's the writing one or the Great Books one -which unfortunately wasn't available the last time I checked) - (I'm sorry, I'm just a spaz when it comes to interrupting my own tho'ts - esp this time of the month :lol:) - ANYWAY....she *doesn't* encourage papers or essays on a thesis (an opinion which can be supported by fact) until high school.

 

I agree with you that logic stage is still very much a fact-finding stage. But, grammar stage facts are presented on a silver platter to the student. Ideally, logic stage facts are student-researched. (Whoops! Didn't happen much here - but nobody's perfect. :D)

 

My overall impression has been that the logic stage isn't so much about opinions as it is about "Why's".

 

(BTW: to OP, I realize that Apologia does come down on the side of creationism pretty heavy-handedly at times, but it does also address the problems that catastrophists have with their current theories.)

 

Really, the only questions I remember (in WTM) which elicit dc's opinion in the Logic stage are in the literature section. But, the basic guideline for writing about literature in logic stage is "a no more than one page summary of the main events, followed by a sentence (or two) stating if dc liked or didn't like the book and why." So, that's not really much.

 

an aside: One resource I have loved using this past year was Well-Educated Mind, which divides the literature questions into Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric questions.

 

I can also understand wanting to "analyze literature in light of the Bible"- but if you are a Christian, shouldn't that happen naturally? Too often I think we fall for an idea that sounds good, but is really a concept that doesn't require us spending any money.

 

Thanks for the "chat"!

Rhonda

 

Really appreciate the reminders from TWTM and your insights from hearing SWB.

 

I am glad to know that about Apologia and it makes me want to check them out more thoroughly.

 

I also want to check out TWEM now. It sounds like a really great resource.

 

I enjoyed "chatting" with you!