Science..am I wasting money?

[mystika1]

Hi,

I have been reading so many threads about science curriculum that I think my eyes will pop out of my head. :) One thing that I have noticed is that a lot of threads state that most curricula designed for home schooled children do not teach real science. I know that the favorite choice is BFSU and while I like it, I have come to the conclusion that I just don't have the time for planning. We have completed BFSU 1 and from what I understand, BFSU 2 involves more work/planning than vol 1. I don't think I can do it. So...if everything else is "not real science" then why bother? Most of these comments come from science majors so these opinions stand out. I look at RSO, The Elements, and so on and wonder what is so bad?(they look fun and engaging but...)

 

My dd tells me all of the time that she would like to do more science and I would like something good and "real.":D I am just trying to decide what/if I should purchase? I would appreciate any insight.

 

Thanks,

 

Penny

[TriciaS]

I am using RSO Life this coming year with my 7 year old, but I haven't started yet, so take this with a grain of salt. I bought it because it has a lot of hands-on stuff planned, and I feel it will help me keep on track and focused.

 

That said, I don't think it gets really deep with things. It seems to be more of an exposure type of science program. I plan of supplementing with a lot of books, documentaries, museum trips, etc. We happen to be a very scientific family though, (everyone has a medical career.....literally, everyone!). Every family is different, that's what is so nice about homeschooling.

 

I think you can make science whatever you want, or need, it to be. If you feel you need to dig really deep, I think you could use a science program as a spine and add to it wherever you want. Or, you could just pick a topic every week or two (or month!), and get tons of library books and dig in.

[beth83]

I, personally, do not see what all the hype is with science, and I was a biology major. I love science and it is still my passion, but I don't think we are doing our kids a disservice if we don't offer them amazing science curriculums with lots of experiments at a young age.

 

A lot of homeschoolers, subconsciously, seem to have this pressure to prove their choice to homeschool and their curriculum all the while feeling like they are leaving something out, when I guarantee they are already offering a better education than public and private schools. Take out test days, take out review days, take out science movie days, take out busywork, and take out time lost due administrative duties in the classroom and you end up less instruction than you would think. I am just confused as to how homeschoolers don't do "real science."

 

In K-12, all we did was read a textbook, have some instruction, and do experiments. I feel it is important to understand the scientific method, but that can be applied to any experiment. I, in no way, felt my K-12 education left any gaps that became obstacles in college. I always succeeded in my classes in college and had high grades.

 

Definitely expose them to the different topics, but do not feel you are letting them down in some way by not providing more hands-on, time consuming lessons. Not that it is wrong to give them the absolute best science program out there, it just isn't needed and it won't hinder them later.

 

If there was anything I could change about my K-12 education it would be a stronger emphasis on writing. THAT could have helped my in my later science studies. I truly believe that the 3 R's are paramount to any other subject in education!

[kalanamak]

I, personally, do not see what all the hype is with science, and I was a biology major. I love science and it is still my passion, but I don't think we are doing our kids a disservice if we don't offer them amazing science curriculums with lots of experiments at a young age.

 

If there was anything I could change about my K-12 education it would be a stronger emphasis on writing. THAT could have helped my in my later science studies. I truly believe that the 3 R's are paramount to any other subject in education!

 

While I agree with the second paragraph, I'm not sure what you mean by "amazing". If you mean the 80 dollar model for the atom that goes with CPO, I see what you mean. If you mean making pH paper from cabbage juice and checking the pH of dog saliva, I disagree. You can do lots of short fun hands on things for not a lot of money. I see three benefits to this: hands on (I think children in the past were forced to work with hands more to create things ... if only a weeded garden. Perhaps it my rural childhood, but I remember an automechanic teacher saying the farm kids understood just what baling wire would and would not do. I want kiddo to have a grasp on grasping things and making them do his bidding. Science does that for us) and a chance to use the vocabulary (vocab used in conversation, for me, sticks better than definitions written down in a workbook) and lastly, it tells the child how important science is, how beautiful the world is about us, how many secrets it holds, about the ancient brotherhood of those of us who observe the world closely for recurring and predictable phenomenon, etc. etc.

 

And kiddo loves it. :D

[mathnmusic]

 

If there was anything I could change about my K-12 education it would be a stronger emphasis on writing. THAT could have helped my in my later science studies. I truly believe that the 3 R's are paramount to any other subject in education!

 

Thanks for the reminder of what's really important!

[Ecclecticmum]

We originally started off with Elemental Science, and Real Science Odyssey.

 

Whilst I love those programs, they just didn't fit our learning style, some of the stuff went over the kids heads in RSO, and Elemental Science used an experiment book that was too much for DD.

 

What I figured out in the end was I needed to have a program that the Middle Child (Chaos) could understand, that could be built upon if we have time, and since we're talking about early elementary (for us) something that would give them a love for science.

 

So we've dropped the curriculums and are just doing experiments, lots and lots of messy experiments. When Science Play arrives, I will loosely do an overview year of the different threads with it. Next year we'll use WP Animals and their Worlds. I figured out that WP more fits our learning style without me having to make everything up from scratch.

 

Now, if I was a science major, and understood all the "realms" :tongue_smilie: of science, then I would of definitely started with BFSU and followed both volumes through. BFSU would give me the framework I need, and I would be able to explain it to the children on my own terms. BUT, my knowledge of science is lacking, thanks to the schools I went to (they consisted of videos, the teacher would whack on a video, nobody would pay attention, said teacher would disappear or fall asleep and we would all play hookie). In TAFE I was nicknamed "Bunsen" for my ability on the 2nd day in the science lab to blow/destroy the table to bits (yes, children exaggerate.....there was lots of smoke, but I didn't "blow the table to bits" I merely made a crater size hole/burn through it :lol: thanks to the use of a bunsen burner when trying to heat something up) and the whole building was evacuated (personally I think they over-reacted a tad). After that, I wasn't allowed to touch anything. :tongue_smilie:

 

BFSU is very "meaty" and gives a very good baseline for building upon. So, personally, if I understood it, I would be grabbing it with both hands. Perhaps thats why the "science majors" select it? Its good for someone who knows there way around science, but for those of us whom aren't science-savvy, we can get lost easily.

 

Elemental Science is inspired/follows the Well Trained Mind form.

Real Science Odyssey has rather "fun" labs for something that gives a good base.

 

I do understand in a kind of round about way what you mean. The BFSU threads do give me a little guilt each time I see them, that I am not providing the sort of foundation it does, but each family to their own. You have to decide the best thing for your child/ren.

 

For me, if the children have a love of science, and want to explore their options further, there are many study paths they can follow, and many meaty programs once you get upto 7th/8th grade, so until then, I am learning the basics alongside them :001_smile: which also shows them learning is a life long thing.

[beth83]

While I agree with the second paragraph, I'm not sure what you mean by "amazing". If you mean the 80 dollar model for the atom that goes with CPO, I see what you mean. If you mean making pH paper from cabbage juice and checking the pH of dog saliva, I disagree. You can do lots of short fun hands on things for not a lot of money. I see three benefits to this: hands on (I think children in the past were forced to work with hands more to create things ... if only a weeded garden. Perhaps it my rural childhood, but I remember an automechanic teacher saying the farm kids understood just what baling wire would and would not do. I want kiddo to have a grasp on grasping things and making them do his bidding. Science does that for us) and a chance to use the vocabulary (vocab used in conversation, for me, sticks better than definitions written down in a workbook) and lastly, it tells the child how important science is, how beautiful the world is about us, how many secrets it holds, about the ancient brotherhood of those of us who observe the world closely for recurring and predictable phenomenon, etc. etc.

 

And kiddo loves it. :D

 

I was not necessarily talking about money as much as I was talking about time. BFSU is an amazing curriculum and I would love to provide that to my children, but in this season of my life with a toddler and an infant (and God-willing, more to come), it is not going to happen.

 

I grew up in a very urban area, so unfortunately, I did not get a lot of similar experiences outside of school. I definitely loved science books and topical science films. Relying on only these things didn't hamper my love of science and how beautiful it is. That is one reason why I am so drawn to the field -- it truly is all around us! I am sure that the farm kids did know more about baling wires, but I was just trying to say that for someone who studied science all of college, I did not feel I was lacking any science background that hindered my college-level coursework.

 

As much as my kids would love BFSU and I would love BFSU, it just isn't realistic for us right now. If I would try to implement it, not a lot would get accomplished. Isn't the saying the right curriculum is one that gets done? I have no qualms about my children not receiving this experience and I know they will still be able to grasp the importance of the field of science.

 

I'm just basing all my comments of the the OP mentioning planning time as being the issue for her.

[EmmaNadine]

I originally posted this in the other thread you started that lead to this one.

 

You're not going to find a curriculum that teaches "real science" instead of demonstrations, because to do science means you don't already know the answers. Dissections and demonstrations and most labs aren't experimental science, they are the answers that we have figured out from doing science. I'm not sure why this is so problematic, because we don't tell our sixth graders they aren't doing literature because they aren't writing their own novels, but just reading something someone else wrote. I wouldn't really worry about "just doing demonstrations" with logic age students. They have to learn what we already know before they can pose a question that is original. Isn't that sort of the point of the logic stage anyway? Giving the students the pegs to hang things on later?

 

You have to remember that science is both a way of knowing something, and the things that we know as a result of that method. That said, the best science curriculum is the one that gets done. And as someone who has spent the last several years teaching the scientific method to college students, you would be better serving your child by making sure they can write intelligibly and thoughtfully than by flogging yourself with guilt over not exposing them to all the minutiae of science.

[kalanamak]

I was not necessarily talking about money as much as I was talking about time.

 

Ah. Since science is the sugar and whipped cream on our homeschool diet (we both love it), I slip it in whenever I can, and by having a big box of supplies, I don't have to do a huge amount of planning. Someone gave me a boa skin this week, and I had my big stand-magnifier, the microscope, the book, and the notebook for sketching out that afternoon. This weekend we are doing to cut it up and soak the parts in various solutions to see if anything will dissolve it.

 

But I forget, in my enthusiasm, that science challenges some people. I want that "fear and loathing" to not happen for my son, but I'm in the biological sciences, and think kiddo will be, too. Not sure how I'd apportion it if we weren't.

[kalanamak]

you would be better serving your child by making sure they can write intelligibly and thoughtfully than by flogging yourself with guilt over not exposing them to all the minutiae of science.

 

Yes, but exposing them to the joy and wonder is worthy. I work with plenty of people with a college degree who become suddenly deaf and goofy if a topic wanders into science. ("Oh, gosh, I was never any good at THAT!")

[Down_the_Rabbit_Hole]

We are a science family and have tried a number of science curriculums over many years I have been homeschooling and have found most science curricula either offer too much and the child cannot absorb or are too dumbed down the child is bored. For my family I also found if the info being taught is not something they can relate to and unless they are extremely interested in the topic it will be a loss. The best science topics taught are those they can use all their senses on and do as much exploring on their own as possible. And of course a science curricula that will be done is best. Another thing I found is if you want the child to "think" science you need to have science equipment. Yes, using a cup to mix things in will work but it will feel more sciency if you use a beaker and stirring rod. Silly yes but it is true. Beakers, test tubes, safety glasses, a ring stand all tells the mind "we are doing science". The equipment is not a true necessity but has impact...it really does.You can make small purchases over time and before you know it you will have a huge science lab by high school. Make these things available for exploring. We have a place set up that is for science exploration. Each has a lab notebook they are encouraged to write down what they did. Self exploration goes along way in science.

 

Over the years I have found Nature Study to be the most easy to use as well as have the most impact for a science curriculum.

Nature Study- true nature study is not running will-nilly along a trail and then drawing a picture. It is a study of nature. Reading, observing, making notes, wondering, discussing, and repeating. It encompasses all studies of science, from Biology to geology, Astronomy to chemistry. It is great for a preschooler as well as a High School student. Supply list is free and the materials are endless. There are books on all topics you wish to explore more into and there are books in all these topics for all ages.

 

If you are looking for an actual bought curriculum I found Apologia for the older grammar or logic stage child to be excellent. Elemental combined with RSO is another great curriculum...easy to use and high impact.

[boscopup]

I've gone back to more of an 8FillTheHeart-inspired method of science recently. :D My son is to read science books daily or do nature study. Just this week, he studied a blue jay feather that he found, and we also found a scary looking ant/wasp thing that we looked up and discovered was a "velvet ant" (aka "cow killer ant"), which is really a type of wasp. It was a female one, and they are wingless. Apparently, their sting is the most painful in the US, so you really don't want to be stung by that female. The males don't sting. We learned a lot from watching this critter from our dining room (it was crawling around the bottom of the sliding glass door, and we were like, "What is THAT?"). My son said this week, "I like nature study!" :D I have some books on hold at the library for some topics I think DS will enjoy, and some have experiments in them, if he chooses to do those. I also keep some science kits handy, so he can use those when he wants to.

 

I've tried and tried many times to use curriculum, but frankly, they all seem to make science B-O-R-I-N-G. I have the Apologia books, for example, and he LOVES reading them. But if I try to use them as a curriculum? They get boring. So it's better for me to have books like that on the shelf and let my son read them at will. Then he learns a lot and tells me all about it. ;) I will also agree with a PP that said that a lot of homeschool curriculum seems watered down. We tried RSO, that everyone raves about, and I was shocked that the weather unit for E&S didn't even mention cloud types? :confused: That seems like such a basic thing for a weather unit. And really, most of what we were learning in that unit, my son already understood pretty well. He was 6 at the time, so right in the age range it is intended for. We did the experiments as directed, and we just didn't learn much science. Oh well. Library books are great, and I doubt we'll ever run out of those. ;)

 

Once we finish our IEW SWI-A course, my plan is to have my son write across curriculum for the next year or so, and I'll alternate between history/science/literature each week (so write a paper for one of those each week). In that way, he'll get some science writing in every few weeks, and that research will help him retain even more. We'll start that toward the end of 3rd grade probably.

 

My son will very likely have a STEM career (unless he follows the path of his uncle and becomes a history professor, which is entirely possible - he LOVES history!). Currently, he wants to be a "storm chaser", and he's wanted that for about 3 years now. He loves weather. He loves watching the storms on the radar and predicting whether they'll hit us. He loves studying tornadoes and such. So I would not put it past him to actually become a "storm chaser" at some point, or at least be a meteorologist on the research side. I feel very confident that not doing a "science curriculum" in elementary will not hurt him in the least. He's learned so much more from library books than from any curriculum I've tried.

[Hunter]

I have learned not to rely on cooking advice from chefs. Few of them understand or prioritize frugality and nutrition. Their priorities and agendas are different than mine.

 

I also don't take much math and science TEACHING advice from mathematicians and scientists. Most of them inhabit a different world than I do, and have different strengths and resources.

 

My cooking is mocked by those with more resources than I have. But those dealing with poverty or illness, seek me out. I cannot cook gourmet, but recently, at midnight, I showed an impoverished and hungry nightclub bouncer how to mix up a cake without eggs, in a pot with a potato masher, and to bake it in a cast iron frying pan.

 

Before taking advice, make sure the advisor is living in YOUR world. What good is gourmet baking advice if you don't have eggs and baking pans?

 

Oh, and the cake came came out yummy. We sat on the floor, eating it hot at 1:00 in the morning, off of napkins stolen from Dunkin Donuts, with no silverware, burning our fingers and giggling like a couple kids.

 

I've learned to approach science like I do cooking. I ignore most of the "experts" because they don't live in MY world. And too many of them have forgotten how to have fun. Life is too short to do things "right".

[swainsonshawk]

Read science education people think science should mostly be about the scientific method, hypothesis, experimentation, repeatability, and all that. They label all the "experiments" we do at school age (correctly) as demonstrations and point out that the child isn't learning the scientific method. They're correct

 

But, I don't think a child really NEEDS to.

 

Before there was a printing press, adults spent their whole lives discovering and rediscovering the facts of the universe and the world around them. After the printing press, they could read and absorb the information in a shorter amount of time, without having to "discover" it on their own.

 

Our children could be prepped as children to investigate the scientific method and discover the wonders of the world themselves, or they could just read about it in books and leave the investigating and discovery to the adults.

 

I think this is an example of pushing stuff down to the younger kids and thinking that if we teach them earlier, they'll know it better. I just don't think it's true. I think there is a place for learning about real experimentation, but it comes after there is a lot of knowledge built up in a person.

 

I'm all for yearly science fairs where kids learn to be experimenters, but I don't want to be burdened with trying to fit "real" science education in 1 hour blocks three times a week. It can't be done. It takes a life time.

[FairProspects]

Like everything else, it depends on the child. My ds needs to learn about the world inductively and discover how it works for himself and with others. He is a hands-on learner. The surest way to kill his love of science would be to just reduce him to reading and writing about it. I know many kids can learn science just as effectively from book work, but some kids are tinkerers and require a level of self-connection with the physical objects for the best learning to take place. So no, I don't think experiments in the early years (or rockets or robots) are a waste at all. I think they are some of the best use of time in our house. :D

[EmmaNadine]

I wasn't saying that you shouldn't do hands-on learning. Demonstrations and tinkering and discovery are wonderful and important parts of education.

 

What I was getting at is this idea that science curricula are lacking because they aren't teaching true experimental science. I don't think a seven year old should be required to do controlled experiments to be considering doing science. Most science fair "experiments" aren't really experiments. They are demonstrations.

 

lewelma on this board does a wonderful job of doing inquiry based science with her kids. But that's not something you are going to be able to get from a curriculum. That's something that you are going to have to guide. You are going to have to understand the scientific process yourself so that you can design a research project. Mentoring research is time-consuming and I think a lot of parents aren't comfortable with it.

[mythreesonz]

We use supercharged science. It is an online program. It has units and each unit has a video or two and some reading and TONS of experiments. You do have to gather the supplies but most are household supplies. I make a list once a month and hunt them down in the house or add them to my shopping list.

[FairProspects]

I wasn't saying that you shouldn't do hands-on learning. Demonstrations and tinkering and discovery are wonderful and important parts of education.

 

What I was getting at is this idea that science curricula are lacking because they aren't teaching true experimental science. I don't think a seven year old should be required to do controlled experiments to be considering doing science. Most science fair "experiments" aren't really experiments. They are demonstrations.

 

lewelma on this board does a wonderful job of doing inquiry based science with her kids. But that's not something you are going to be able to get from a curriculum. That's something that you are going to have to guide. You are going to have to understand the scientific process yourself so that you can design a research project. Mentoring research is time-consuming and I think a lot of parents aren't comfortable with it.

 

I don't think this is true of all curriculum. ;) Perhaps it is true of some of the more popular choices on this board. However, GEMS and Supercharged Science (the 2 that come to mind immediately) include real experiments for young children with controlled variables. I get it that not all parents will want to do that level of supervision or experimentation with their kids, but some of us are and I don't feel that is a waste of our time or money (just answering the question after all :D).

[Alice]

I was a chemistry and biology major in college. I love science. My son loves science. I bought BFSU and it made my head hurt. It seemed to try hard to make things more complicated.

 

I also have heard the “demonstration vs. experiment” argumentt. Sure, most elementary experiments are really demonstrations but in my opinion the main value of science instruction in the younger years is to make kids think science is fun and interesting. Actually, I don’t think you have to make them think that. For most kids it’s just about not making them think it’s boring.

 

I think the biggest thing that would help non-science people in teaching science is to get over the “experiment didn’t work right” hurdle. Our best science days have been when we set up an experiment (or demonstration if we want to be all technical) and then have it turn out different than expected. We can talk about why. We can try to figure out why. We can see if we can play around to make it work the way we wanted. That becomes science. Science is all about observing and predicting and playing. Kids are good at those things.

[mystika1]

However, GEMS and Supercharged Science (the 2 that come to mind immediately) include real experiments for young children with controlled variables. I get it that not all parents will want to do that level of supervision or experimentation with their kids, but some of us are and I don't feel that is a waste of our time or money (just answering the question after all :D).

 

Do you find the gems guides to be easy to use?

 

Thanks,

 

Penny

[FairProspects]

Do you find the gems guides to be easy to use?

 

Thanks,

 

Penny

 

Yes and no. They are written for the classroom, so you have to be willing to adapt some of the activities to homeschool (the Think, Pair, Share type). The activities/experiments are broken into separate lesson sections, so that part is easy. You also have to be willing to gather the books and materials for each experiment and set them up yourself, which is a deal-breaker for some homeschoolers, but I don't find it to be any harder than getting materials for SOTW projects. The back appendix always includes literature connections, so I just check my library for books that go with the unit. I haven't felt like I needed any additional teacher info other than guide, so I usually just read through each section ahead of time, get the materials, and then do it. :) We do keep a pretty extensive science box of parts/pieces/materials, so I usually don't have much to acquire.

 

ETA: It is much, much easier than something like BFSU, where you have to plan out the schedule yourself and see how it all fits together. The GEMS guides are scheduled and scaffolded for you with concepts/activities that build on each other sequentially. You do have to get the materials and books yourself though.

Edited July 26, 2012 by FairProspects

[Syllieann]

Another science major here...My main frustration is the lack of secular options, especially if you want more of an integrated approach instead of the 4 yr rotation. Our local public schools don't really do anything until 5th grade other than a few demonstrations. The bar is set pretty low if one just aims to do better than ps. I personally feel that a lot of the whiz bang demonstrations are overkill. I'd rather put time and money into good books and videos. The demonstrations are also, imo, the reason so much science doesn't get done. Unfortunately, when you strip them away from most programs, there are only a few small morsels left. Also, math governs physics, which in turn governs chemistry. Chemistry is responsible for most underlying biological principles. Naturally, they will not be able to truly understand the major forces in science until they get the math. Prior to that, I think it's good exposure (particularly understanding scientific method) but they simply can't have a very complete understanding so I won't be losing any sleep if we don't use the latest and greatest curriculum in the early elementary years.