How do you add more STEM into classical education/TWTM

[happycc]

How and what do you add more STEM stuff while classically educating your children? What do you subtract out of the day?

 

I don;t want a huge debate on whether or not TWTM/classical education is preparing your kids mathematically/scientifically.

 

I already have my hunches already but would like to hear how you add in more STEM stuff in your curriculum although I am sure you can guess what my hunches are based on my question.

[Sahamamama]

Great question! I'd love to hear from people who actually know how to make this happen (Hint: that wouldn't be me, LOL). I've been reading and gleaning from this blog. Beth is here on the boards, hopefully she'll post to this thread, too. She's done all the "legwork" on tracking down the best resources and ideas, so I'm just tagging along. ;)

 

One thing that hit me this past month as I was planning and preparing for this school year was how much control we as homeschool parents have over our children's "time on task." That is, for our official homeschool times, we can say who studies what and for how long. And I had to ponder that a while.

 

I think it would be easy for me (personally) to focus overmuch on all the subset skills of English, because that is my comfort zone and that is what I like. And while I was thinking this deep thought, my chattering children were talking, talking, writing notes, composing poems, writing lists, reading books, talking, talking, reciting poems, singing "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God."

 

Do they/we really need so much practice with words? [To be fair, I do have one child who counts everything and takes apart everything, but she's sort of the exception around here.] If you were to look at my Math Shelf, you would see that it is my area of insecurity. The shelf is full, not because math is my obsession, but because it is my nemesis. So, to "add more STEM" has never been my goal. :ack2: But...

 

It occurred to me that math was only difficult for me in ps because I was rushed to understand it. "Hurry up! Think abstractly! Quickly! Hurry up and conceptualize!" And really, I just couldn't do it that way. I could do math, though, just not at the expected march-in-step pace. When I study math on my own now as an adult, I'm surprised at how good I am at problem solving! :001_huh: Who knew?

 

What I'm thinking about for the next several years is to simply devote enough TIME ON TASK to math (and science, too, but that's another topic). "Enough time devoted to math" will mean something different each year for each child, but I want to keep my finger on the pulse of "what is enough time" completely devoted, given over, set aside for MATH.

 

We've started back up and my 2nd grader is doing 60 minutes of math per day. That's far more than she did in 1st grade, but because we break up the work (drill, lesson, practice, other type of drill, real [not virtual] game/hands-on), I don't think she's going to burn out. I can see that if we continue to put in the time, she will at some point gain a momentum that we didn't get with putting in the daily 30 minutes.

 

My second commitment is to devote "enough time" to math consistently, over the course of several years.

 

My third commitment -- if I were at this stage (I'm not) -- would be to regularly set all other studies aside for a week and do "Math Camp."

 

My fourth commitment would be to participate in math and/or science competitions.

 

My fifth commitment would be to outsource the math and/or science instruction, because if the girls get beyond a middle/junior high school level, they will have outpaced me. :tongue_smilie:HTH.

[8filltheheart]

How and what do you add more STEM stuff while classically educating your children? What do you subtract out of the day?

 

I don;t want a huge debate on whether or not TWTM/classical education is preparing your kids mathematically/scientifically.

 

I already have my hunches already but would like to hear how you add in more STEM stuff in your curriculum although I am sure you can guess what my hunches are based on my question.

 

While I am extremely far from labeling our approach as truly classical (Greek will never be a major subject in our homeschool, much to the disappointment of my 16 yos :tongue_smilie:) , we have been become more classical in orientation over the yrs.

 

My high school graduates are the ones that were the least classically educated. Especially in terms of their high school courses, the selections were more traditional than classical.

 

Of the younger kids (the youngest 5), I have not sacrificed anything in regards to STEM selections for their classical studies. So I am not sure what you mean by I don;t want a huge debate on whether or not TWTM/classical education is preparing your kids mathematically/scientifically. Our shift toward classical has impacted our literature selections (more ancient lit vs. modern) and studying 2 foreign languages (Latin and modern) vs. just modern, etc. but is hasn't influenced our math and science selections at all and my kids are all strong math/science students.

[regentrude]

We make time for more rigorous math and science by doing the heretical: we do not study Latin and Greek. (We prefer to study modern foreign languages; our kids are raised bilingually, and study a third language as well.)

 

Actually, it even is not so much a matter of time - the WTM does plan time for math and science - but rather of using better materials than the recommended ones. The recommended science materials for later grades are substandard, compared with the high quality of the recommendations for humanities. I follow the WTM suggestions for English and history, but replace everything in math and science with my own choices.

Edited August 12, 2012 by regentrude

[8filltheheart]

We make time for more rigorous math and science by doing the heretical: we do not study Latin and Greek. (We prefer to study modern foreign languages; our kids are raised bilingually, and study a third language as well.)

 

Actually, it even is not so much a matter of time - the WTM does plan time for math and science - but rather of using better materials than the recommended ones. The recommended science materials for later grades are substandard, compared with the high quality of the recommendations for humanities. I follow the WTM suggestions for English and history, but replace everything in math and science with my own choices.

 

For the OP, if you are referring strictly to the WTM recommendations for math and science, then please ignore my post b/c Regentrude's 2nd paragraph is probably the prevailing wisdom in that regard. In my response I was thinking more in terms of the broader general definition of classical education.

[happycc]

than the ones recommended?

 

 

Well I guess when I mean is that I see a huge focus on history for TWTM with lots and lots of additional reading, timeline, mapwork, biographical work, jackdaws etc, outlining, additional research just for history. I am not sure I will do all of this all the time just for history so I am thinking of shortening this process but adding more science/math stuff and with better recommendations. So just what are the better materials is the question of the day?

 

Also since this is my 2nd set of kids I am raising I am noticing that my first set of kids had really strong language arts skills thanks to the Well Trained Mind but math and science skills still lacking.

Edited August 12, 2012 by happycc

[8filltheheart]

than the ones recommended?

 

 

Well I guess when I mean is that I see a huge focus on history for TWTM with lots and lots of additional reading, timeline, mapwork, biographical work, jackdaws etc, outlining, additional research just for history. I am not sure I will do all of this all the time just for history so I am thinking of shortening this process but adding more science/math stuff and with better recommendations. So just what are the better materials is the question of the day?

 

I would suggest keeping the perspective that the WTM is a general plan for a solid education. Classical education is not encompassed solely by WTM methodology. Classical education can also be approached "philosophically." By that I mean if you understand the premises/foundational principles of classical education, then the what you do to meet them is set strictly by you. (I can say that our homeschool does not reflect your description at all, but I do believe our homeschool at this pt is more philosophically classical than what is represented by that list.)

[happycc]

How about some science kits?

Worked/what didn't?

What requires you to drive all over the place for parts?

What included everything?

Do you use Knex?

[CrunchyGirl]

:bigear:

[moonlight]

This has been on my mind a lot lately as well. Here are some things I want to add in this year..

 

A unit or two from the engineering is elementary curriculum

 

Life of Fred physics along with with a few science kits

 

A unit on forensic science using one hour mysteries, science sleuths and an elementary forensic science kit ( I think they have one on the delta site) we are even doing a mystery dinner book club.

 

I would also like to add in Lego robotics, but don't know how exactly to do that. I've heard of Lego robotics clubs and leagues, which we don't have in our area...I am hoping this could be something we could do ourselves??

 

Seema

[regentrude]

So just what are the better materials is the question of the day?

 

I have only been homeschooling since 6th grade, so I do not really know materials for earlier grades.

For math, we have been very happy with Art of Problem Solving. This is not a program that I would recommend for every student. It is great for strong math students who thrive with a discovery based mastery approach.

We are not doing formal science prior to 7th/8th grade, no textbooks, just library books and lots of documentaries and discussions and field trips, largely interest led. My kids have zero interest in experiment kits, so we are not using any of those.

In 7th or 8th, we start with a gentle introduction to textbooks, using the few bearable high school texts that exist (most are incredibly bad). Notable exceptions are Conceptual Physics by Hewitt, Conceptual Chemistry by Suchocki, Conceptual Physical Science by Hewitt and Suchocki, Exploring Life by Campbell, and Earth Science by Tarbuck.

As of 8th/9th, we are using college texts for introductory science classes for non-majors, which are of much better quality than the standard high school texts. The self-teaching guides recommended in WTM are, in my opinion, not suitable for learning and understanding. They may have a purpose in review and exam cramming, but lack the depth, conceptual explanations, and problem solving I am looking for in a science course.

[kubiac]

:bigear:

 

Best thing I've seen that made me go a-ha! was that you can do a four-year cycle for science too. The blogger I was reading (no idea where or I would cite) was planning:

 

Year 1 - Biology

Year 2 - Earth Science-Astronomy

Year 3 - Chemistry

Year 4 - Physics

 

I wonder if you could do that even in the early years, with physics adjusted to be simple machines and such. My memory of high school chemistry is so fuzzy (and was so weak to start) that I wouldn't know how to adjust for younger grades, but I like to think you could make a lot of exciting quasi-explosive chemical reactions for a least part of it. :)

[serendipitous journey]

Speaking to the OP, I should think it would be challenging to get hands-on STEM efficiently for such a wide range of ages! 8FilltheHeart has posted previously, I believe, on her approach which is not STEM-intensive per se but certainly STEM-friendly and generating children who are STEM-interested. It may be worth searching for some of those? or maybe she will post her ideas again here :) ...

 

lewelma has posted her very useful, from a STEM perspective, thoughts in different places; here's a link to a thread that followed her inquiry-based science fair projects with her two children. She has suggested, I believe, focusing on good books & DVDs, with some hands-on stuff as you go, for three terms; then use the fourth for an inquiry project. I understand that some other subjects get back-burnered during the Science Fair/inquiry term, and don't know how it would scale to a larger family.

 

I start departing from WTM when it comes to the goal of science education, which I believe is not understanding scientific principles per se but understanding the world we live in and how it works. I agree with SWB that in the elementary years developing a love for science is more important than a comprehensive Scope & Sequence, but even in the early years I focus on the explanatory power of science over the general principles it embodies.

 

Here are some things that have worked for us:

1. DVDs. WTM seriously underestimates the power of good videos, esp. since the children watch them over.and.over. "How the Universe Works" is great for astronomy; the Attenborough videos, for biology; Mythbusters has some physics (am sort of kidding there); I have used Schlessinger Library videos for some biology, for earth science, and now for studying energy: the production is not fancy, but the content is good and Button likes them pretty well. We took a six-month break when he didn't like the Energy videos, and now he is interested in them.

The Schlessinger videos are meant for educational use, and include experiments that can be done by a homeschooler. This is a quick-and-dirty way to bootstrap a good STEM curriculum.

 

2. Books. There is a lot on this. It's nice to have something the children will look at for fun -- pop-up geography (which covers a lot of other stuff) was a hit here, and some of the encyclopedias -- as well as something you read to them. I try to keep a science-related book in our CM-style readings, and Button's current poetry is "The Dark Emperor" which is about night life in nature.

 

3. GEMS units. These can require some serious overhead on the part of the parent/teacher, but they also span a great range of ages in terms of interest. We are doing biology this year, and I plan to base us in GEMS, add Attenborough and Schlessinger videos, and fill in with books as fits -- the GEMS guides often have great, if OOP, selections. I'll try to do an inquiry study a la lewelma over the spring or summer. Because the GEMS are time-intensive, if it hits the fan here (last spring my FIL, who lives with us, was hospitalized and that threw everything out the window for a bit) I'll fall back on the videos & use the Schlessinger experiments for hands-on.

 

 

Starting this year, we'll be subscribing to a science-oriented publication from the Cricket group (I forget which one, it is appropriate to Button's age).

 

There are also TOPS units, more variable in their inherent interest than GEMS but highly regarded generally. Both TOPS and GEMS have math-specific units.

 

For older children (high school, or advanced middle) if they will read Asimov he will give them an excellent education. I esp. recommend his chemistry book, which makes a sometimes-opaque subject clear, orderly, and interesting (for ex., he explains the geometry that gives rise to some isotopes being common but others very unstable/rare).

 

You may wish to vary the WTM sequence, if you do like the subject-per-year thing. I think starting with Astronomy/Earth Science, then doing Chem, then Biology (which is chem-intensive these days) and then Physics may make sense starting in middle school. Because we're following interests, we did Astronomy/Earth (very light earth :) ) last year for 1st and are doing Biology for 2nd. I may do physics for 3rd b/c our physics will be potato-cannon style with lots of building stuff, and I think Button will love it.

 

HTH ... will try to add some links tomorrow; it's late here!

Edited August 12, 2012 by serendipitous journey

[regentrude]

Best thing I've seen that made me go a-ha! was that you can do a four-year cycle for science too. The blogger I was reading (no idea where or I would cite) was planning:

 

Year 1 - Biology

Year 2 - Earth Science-Astronomy

Year 3 - Chemistry

Year 4 - Physics

 

I wonder if you could do that even in the early years, with physics adjusted to be simple machines and such. My memory of high school chemistry is so fuzzy (and was so weak to start) that I wouldn't know how to adjust for younger grades, but I like to think you could make a lot of exciting quasi-explosive chemical reactions for a least part of it. :)

 

That is the sequence suggested in TWTM. This is actually one of the points where I disagree with the WTM suggestions:

First: The reasoning is that it "correlates with the history cycle". I do not find this correlation very conclusive. The argument "students who are studying the Ancients learn about the things that the Ancients could see, i.e. animals and plants" makes me seriously wonder... what about the great achievement of the Ancients in physics and astronomy? The argument makes no sense to me.

Second, I have always been puzzled by the American need to compartmentalize sciences into neat one-year packages of one single science. That's not how science is taught elsewhere in the world. Especially in the younger grades, I would encourage an integrated study of all different sciences, not devote one year at a time to one science. (For practical reasons of compatibility, I grudgingly follow the model for high school).

Third, in high school this is not a suitable sequence. Earth science is not typically a high school course, and doing physics first has great systematic advantages.

[serendipitous journey]

:bigear:

 

Best thing I've seen that made me go a-ha! was that you can do a four-year cycle for science too. The blogger I was reading (no idea where or I would cite) was planning:

 

Year 1 - Biology

Year 2 - Earth Science-Astronomy

Year 3 - Chemistry

Year 4 - Physics

 

I wonder if you could do that even in the early years, with physics adjusted to be simple machines and such. My memory of high school chemistry is so fuzzy (and was so weak to start) that I wouldn't know how to adjust for younger grades, but I like to think you could make a lot of exciting quasi-explosive chemical reactions for a least part of it. :)

 

This is recommended in WTM, too, which has experiment-based ideas for the Chemistry and Physics years of the elementary cycle (the biology and astronomy/earth years also have expts but are more reading- and concept-based than the chem and physics); and folks have really liked McHenry's Elements for chemistry, too ...

[kubiac]

That is the sequence suggested in TWTM. This is actually one of the points where I disagree with the WTM suggestions:

First: The reasoning is that it "correlates with the history cycle". I do not find this correlation very conclusive. The argument "students who are studying the Ancients learn about the things that the Ancients could see, i.e. animals and plants" makes me seriously wonder... what about the great achievement of the Ancients in physics and astronomy? The argument makes no sense to me.

Second, I have always been puzzled by the American need to compartmentalize sciences into neat one-year packages of one single science. That's not how science is taught elsewhere in the world. Especially in the younger grades, I would encourage an integrated study of all different sciences, not devote one year at a time to one science. (For practical reasons of compatibility, I grudgingly follow the model for high school).

Third, in high school this is not a suitable sequence. Earth science is not typically a high school course, and doing physics first has great systematic advantages.

 

Fascinating. (And apparently I should dust off WTM!)

[lewelma]

I see the classical method as incredibly strong in language skills, skills that are required in ALL fields. For elementary students, I focus on the basic skills - language arts and math. History and science take a back seat, get it in when we have time. Learning to communicate is so very very important, even for STEM majors. So in elementary we do about 10 hours per week of language arts and 2 hours per week of formal science (plus about 4 hours of DVDs). I agree with PP that science DVDs are wonderful. Our favorites are David Atenborough for Biiology and the TV series Modern Marvels for industry and engineering, and The Way Things Work for Physics. As previous pp have noted, I don't do a lot of hands on during the first 3 terms, and focus all my attention on a real scientific investigation in term 4. This condenses my stress to just 2 months and allows for a more authentic exposure to what science is all about. I have written extensively about this approach on 2 threads: http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/showthread.php?t=263107 and the one previously posted: http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/showthread.php?t=361740

 

How and what do you add more STEM stuff while classically educating your children? What do you subtract out of the day?

 

Like Regentrude, we don't do latin or greek. And we also do much less history. My dh reads to the kids about 30minutes per night history texts or literature. We do very little outlining, timelining, notebooking, summarizing of historical topics, or studying of original sources. During our writing time, my kids usually pick scientific topics. Starting in 7th grade, I have begun to work with my older son to be able to outling/take notes on a science textbook.

 

As pp stated, we drop many other subjects during our science fair term (9 weeks). I drop: spelling, vocabulary, grammar, typing, and logic (keeping math, writing, foreign language, music). Also, for the last 2 weeks, all writing and math is what is required for the science fair write up, so we drop all formal curriculum basically in all subjects except mandarin and music (subjects with tutors).

 

I already have my hunches already but would like to hear how you add in more STEM stuff in your curriculum

I think where we really get in the extras is in general discussion at the dinner table, while on walks, discussing the news, etc. My dh and I are much more likely to notice science news like the Mars lander than things like the Olympics. We just live and breath science, kind of like SWB does in literature and history. It oozes out. So I would think that more than half of my kids science education is in casual conversation and general family enthusiasm. I'll be driving down the street and wonder out loud why there is such a backup at the light. Then, we spontaneously start designing an observational study to determine why. We just do science all the time.

 

I would suggest that you sit down and think about your goals for science education at the different years. You have a spread of ages, which poses its own challenges. But without goals, it becomes much more difficult to lay out plans. More time on science is not really a goal or a plan. I have just written out my goals and how I lay out a plan and assess here: http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/showthread.php?t=414500

 

Ruth in NZ

Edited August 12, 2012 by lewelma

[kalanamak]

Math year round (I hs year round, but if I didn't, I wouldn't stop math for weeks in the summer).

 

For science, in the grammar stage, I made sure I was reading plenty of texts for 5-8 texts in my spare time. At that level of reading, I could zip right through them and have the ideas (which were not brand new to me, but a review) and vocab and concepts right on the tip of my tongue. Then I used these in daily life: ah, you slid on the waxed floor because the coefficient of friction was altered by the wax. See the ice cube floats: water has the unusual quality of being less dense when frozen, and this makes ice float. Look, the plant has moved to face the sun -- tropism!

Etc.

David Attenborough. Watching his enthusiasm and logical thought in vids such as Life of Birds, Life in Cold Blood etc is inspirational.

Field trips. There are some wonderful children's science museums, local nature centers, and aquariums, etc. to be seen.

Biographies of scientists. There are many brave and inspirational scientists/science stories out there. Kiddo is particularly enamored of biologists/medical stories. We started with Balto back when kiddo was very young (the dog who lead the team to bring the medicine to a typhoid-struck town in Alaska).

 

So, in short, for grammar stage: exposure, a nomenclature, evidence this is IMPORTANT to Mom and many others, and a habit of observing and thinking about the natural world around us.

[lewelma]

So, in short, for grammar stage: exposure, a nomenclature, evidence this is IMPORTANT to Mom and many others, and a habit of observing and thinking about the natural world around us.

 

oooh, I like this!

[AdventureMoms]

That is the sequence suggested in TWTM. This is actually one of the points where I disagree with the WTM suggestions:

First: The reasoning is that it "correlates with the history cycle". I do not find this correlation very conclusive. The argument "students who are studying the Ancients learn about the things that the Ancients could see, i.e. animals and plants" makes me seriously wonder... what about the great achievement of the Ancients in physics and astronomy? The argument makes no sense to me.

Second, I have always been puzzled by the American need to compartmentalize sciences into neat one-year packages of one single science. That's not how science is taught elsewhere in the world. Especially in the younger grades, I would encourage an integrated study of all different sciences, not devote one year at a time to one science. (For practical reasons of compatibility, I grudgingly follow the model for high school).

Third, in high school this is not a suitable sequence. Earth science is not typically a high school course, and doing physics first has great systematic advantages.

 

:iagree: This is pretty much my exact reaction to the 4-year history-based science concept. I can't make sense of it as a STEM person. Physics is ancient. Our understanding of biology has been radically altered in modern times. The ancients started stargazing, but the moderns started actually exploring space. My kids are little so I don't know what we'll do exactly, but for the early years I plan to do science, not broken down by discipline. I'm leaning toward a unit-study type format for science, probably interest led as long as there is an interest in something. DD spent the summer cutting and pressing flowers and is now collecting insects. I'm hoping to do a leaf collection this fall. Maybe a "simple machines" study in the winter would be fun... We'll end up heavy on biology/nature in the beginning, in part because it is convenient for doing outdoors where little kids should spend lots of time, IMO.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

How and what do you add more STEM stuff while classically educating your children? What do you subtract out of the day?

 

I don;t want a huge debate on whether or not TWTM/classical education is preparing your kids mathematically/scientifically.

 

I already have my hunches already but would like to hear how you add in more STEM stuff in your curriculum although I am sure you can guess what my hunches are based on my question.

 

I think that it is partly an issue of the teaching parent's comfort level with math and science.

 

Many of the homeschoolers I know (generalization alert) love books and reading and enjoy history. SWB clearly loves the written word and loves the interconnections of historical threads and has devoted years to them. (A fact for which I'm very greatful)

 

But I sense that parents can be a little too quick to toss out math as too hard, confusing, not worth the struggle or irrelevant to adult life. There will be times when a kid needs to dwell on a concept for a while and see it from several angles before it clicks. (I remember spending a whole week reteaching division of fractions before it even started to stick.) I think that many are quick to throw out an entire math program, because it isn't easy or coming without solid application of effort. Or cutting off a program at the knees by only doing sections of it (and then complaining that it's a bad math program).

 

My youngest recently moved up to a math book that requires him to do more problems and show more written work. He was complaining that it was going to take him over a half hour just to do the problem set. I told him that was exactly correct and that his expectations were unrealistic if he thought he would get through math in 15-30 minutes. He needs to budget 60-90 min for math every day. (I would have to qualms about telling him that he needs to plan an hour or more of reading time for history and lit; why shy away from that with math and science?)

 

I have similar thoughts about science. STEM can fit in with other facets of classical education. But the knowledge isn't going to pour into children's heads while they sleep. Trips to the library need to include age appropriate science books and math books as well as history, biography and literature. I think that nature study is vastly underrated in younger years as being too simplistic. But it leads to curiosity and open eyes. It does need to be followed up by probing questions and thoughtful answers.

 

And for me, a lot of science means saying, "I don't know; lets see if we can find out." And since my kids became masters of reading, it's meant a lot of saying, "Really? Where did you learn that?"

[laughing lioness]

We are participating in Lego League (2nd year). There are 4 parts of the competition: Programming/Technical Briefing/Presentation/Team-work.

There is a theme and a mission each year. The program stresses scientific inquiry, brainstorming, creating workable solutions to problems. It is a fantastic program!

Dh is also very scientifically oriented and he spends time with the kids on science related web-sites and discussions.

We are also fortunate enough to have a great Tutoring Center and ds 12 will take intro to physics as a 7th grader (he took intro to chem last year).

Science News.

Tiner's series, "The history of... Medicine, Mathematics, et al"

Reading/Watching about scientists- Tesla, Edison,

[8filltheheart]

How about some science kits?

Worked/what didn't?

What requires you to drive all over the place for parts?

What included everything?

Do you use Knex?

 

While I am by NO stretch of the imagination an unschooler, my answers to these questions may be interpreted by some that way (I would disagree with that interpretation, btw.)

 

In terms of young children, yes, engineering *can* be taught. Yes, scientific principles can be taught. But, some things are just better learned and understood through trial and error w/o direct instruction.

 

Kids playing for hrs upon hrs, days upon days, yrs upon yrs with Legos, pulleys, gears, levers and fulcrums, etc will discover via success and failure major principles. They may not know the terminology or the more complex reasons why, but they will know what they have observed. When they encounter the concepts at a higher level academically, they will be able to easily relate what they knew as a young child w/the science behind it.

 

Regentrude's description of what she has done "formally" (used here to distinguish between the above description from "school time" science reading) w/her 2 kids from 6th grade on, is very similar to what I have done w/my oldest 6 from 3rd+ over the last 19 yrs. It does provide a strong science foundation.

 

There have been posters that have strongly disagreed w/my approach and have accused it of being nothing more than letting my children stand in the backyard looking at birds for 2 yrs :confused: :tongue_smilie: , but my kids have proved the approach successful. Their ability to observe/distinguish/apply what they have learned from just reading and playing/engaging in hobbies has lead to very strong high school/college/professional science studies/careers.

Edited August 12, 2012 by 8FillTheHeart

[nono]

Second, I have always been puzzled by the American need to compartmentalize sciences into neat one-year packages of one single science. <snip> Especially in the younger grades, I would encourage an integrated study of all different sciences, not devote one year at a time to one science.

 

Completely agree. To me it feels forced, and I'm only at the 3rd and 1st grade level. I also agree with a general relaxed approach for the younger years.

 

I should say, even though I went to a classically-inspired grade school and high school, I never got the message that STEM was somehow in the back seat. Science and math were integral pieces of the puzzle.

 

As to how, I think there's a lot of ways to integrate or increase the amount or percentage in one's homeschool. There are so many good books on both applied and pure science for the younger years -- the library can be a treasure trove! I'll never forget my older's reaction to a book of poetry about the solar system where she said something like, "Finally, poetry about something that matters!" :lol: I guess a lot of the children's poetry was reaching into areas that are not her cup of tea!

 

One thing we're doing this year is hopping islands all over the world, and finding out what the scientists and inventors have done through the years in that location. It provides an interesting overlay to our chronological approach. Its fun to contrast different points on one island's timeline right up to the present. And, it seems to be helping my littles grasp elapsed time in centuries, not just minutes! (A long, hard road here...No I did not live when Charles was beheaded! :glare:)

[happycc]

http://www.seenmagazine.us/articles/article-detail/articleid/566/stem-education.aspx

[regentrude]

http://www.seenmagazine.us/articles/article-detail/articleid/566/stem-education.aspx

 

Reading gibberish like this

STEM education curricula should be planned and constructed around several non-negotiable design elements. A STEM education curriculum should minimally:

• Be trans-disciplinary in its overall approach;
  
• Be driven by standards that complement the trans-disciplinary philosophy;
  
• Use the backward mapping techniques advocated in Understanding by Design;
  
• Use both problem-based and performance-based teaching and learning;
  
• Use the 5E teaching and learning cycle to plan units and activities within the curriculum;
  
• Be digital in format and coupled with digital teaching technologies such as whiteboards, tablets, student response systems, etc.; and
  
• Use both formative and summative assessments with task and non-task specific rubrics.

makes me, a scientist, want to run and hide from the educators.

None of this has to do with content - and it is content that in the end decides what a good curriculum is, not whether it uses digital resources or "performance based teaching" (whatever the heck that is supposed to be).

Ouch.

[FairProspects]

In terms of young children, yes, engineering *can* be taught. Yes, scientific principles can be taught. But, some things are just better learned and understood through trial and error w/o direct instruction.

 

Kids playing for hrs upon hrs, days upon days, yrs upon yrs with Legos, pulleys, gears, levers and fulcrums, etc will discover via success and failure major principles. They may not know the terminology or the more complex reasons why, but they will know what they have observed. When they encounter the concepts at a higher level academically, they will be able to easily relate what they knew as a young child w/the science behind it.

 

:iagree:We don't have the upper level science experience here yet, but so far my plan has been to just fill the house with interesting math/science toys. My boys still play for hours building complex train elevated tracks and cities with blocks (like yesterday). We have Legos of all kinds including the motors/robotics pieces, wedgits, marble runs, leaf presses, a microscope, a bug terrarium, snap circuits, Make magazine, pvc pipe, plastic tubing & connectors, circuit boards & pieces, LED lights, small motors from Radio Shack, paper airplane books, and squirrel traps (okay these stay at Grandpa's house), but you get the picture. :D

 

As part of school we do use Intellego and GEMS units, but Intellego is mostly just interesting science videos, sometimes with a craft for my creative younger, and GEMS is pretty much do-it-yourself experiments and mess. I mostly just want the boys to mess around in science during these younger years and discover the whys and hows of things themselves through hands-on play.

[regentrude]

Another aspect that I failed to mention earlier:

what I find even more important in science education for young children than content knowledge is an attitude of scientific thought. Not even complicated experiments and formal scientific method - but that they grow up with the experience that phenomena have explanations. I want them to know that one can ask questions about the world, and that there will be answers.

It is a way of thinking. I am appalled when I hear adults say things like "I do not know why antibiotics, vaccinces, microwaves, airplanes.... work, and it has never occurred to me to ask myself this question." Yes, I encountered this here, on these very boards. That means living surrounded by things and phenomena that work in mysterious ways. It means being afraid of the unknown. I want my kids to grow up with the understanding that one can ask "why?" and find out an answer to many, many things, and that they do not have to go through the world surrounded by things they do not understand. Granted, some questions can not yet be answered by science, but the basic idea is that, in principle, one can find out reasons and mechanisms.

So, this is a whole way of thought, of approaching the world, which I consider infinitely more important than knowing the precise details of some scientific fact.

[Sahamamama]

Another aspect that I failed to mention earlier:

what I find even more important in science education for young children than content knowledge is an attitude of scientific thought. Not even complicated experiments and formal scientific method - but that they grow up with the experience that phenomena have explanations. I want them to know that one can ask questions about the world, and that there will be answers.

It is a way of thinking. I am appalled when I hear adults say things like "I do not know why antibiotics, vaccinces, microwaves, airplanes.... work, and it has never occurred to me to ask myself this question." Yes, I encountered this here, on these very boards. That means living surrounded by things and phenomena that work in mysterious ways. It means being afraid of the unknown. I want my kids to grow up with the understanding that one can ask "why?" and find out an answer to many, many things, and that they do not have to go through the world surrounded by things they do not understand. Granted, some questions can not yet be answered by science, but the basic idea is that, in principle, one can find out reasons and mechanisms.

So, this is a whole way of thought, of approaching the world, which I consider infinitely more important than knowing the precise details of some scientific fact.

 

Thank you for posting this.

[Embassy]

We spend less time in history so we can have more time for science. We do enjoy history and literature, but science and math get a big chunk of our time. I've generally done experiential science studies on topics that allow us to dig in deep and get to know the material. Although my biology background is relatively strong, I don't have a strong earth science, chemistry or physics background so I find I need a textbook to guide me there. I don't need to make things textbooky though. My oldest started using a textbook last school year. I went with a big thick one that covers all 3 of those topics. It looks like it will take us a couple years to get through it. I like adding creative science challenges to our line-up too. Last year we did two tracks of science (biology and physics) and this year we are doing 3 (biology, physics, and computer science).

 

We probably spend less time in language arts too. We don't do Latin, but we are studying ancient Greek as well as a couple modern languages.

[Woodland Mist Academy]

Another aspect that I failed to mention earlier:

what I find even more important in science education for young children than content knowledge is an attitude of scientific thought. Not even complicated experiments and formal scientific method - but that they grow up with the experience that phenomena have explanations. I want them to know that one can ask questions about the world, and that there will be answers.

 

 

Thanks for posting this. I sometimes skip experiments (which are often just testing our ability to gather supplies and do the demonstration correctly) partly for this reason.

[kalanamak]

oooh, I like this!

 

Today we watched A Blank On the Map:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3840459477996788886

 

It is fascinating, and full of examples of how scientific knowledge and observation of the world is so useful. The packers who were not from the mountains had no knowledge of making a vine bridge, but the three mountain men did, and deftly directed the building of one, clearly safe and strong. D.A sees a bird feather, and from long observation, mimicked it to see if the natives they were having trouble communicating with recognized it. The light in their expressions when they found a point of contact, even if it was not a word, is vastly evident. Next we had a discussion, al la Guns Germs and Steel, about how the absence of large mammals on an isolated island would hinder the progress of civilization.

 

This film is found on Attenborough in Paradise, and has a fascinating section on Easter Island, and what happened to the civilization. The Thor Heyerdal footage was especially interesting, and illuminated how one person, with courage and curiosity, could dare to do so much. This film led to far ranging conversation .. as far as WHY there were onion-shaped caps on the towers in St. Petersburg: was it all style, or did it have something to do with the snow?

[Pen]

This is an interesting discussion.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Another aspect that I failed to mention earlier:

what I find even more important in science education for young children than content knowledge is an attitude of scientific thought. Not even complicated experiments and formal scientific method - but that they grow up with the experience that phenomena have explanations. I want them to know that one can ask questions about the world, and that there will be answers.

It is a way of thinking. I am appalled when I hear adults say things like "I do not know why antibiotics, vaccinces, microwaves, airplanes.... work, and it has never occurred to me to ask myself this question." Yes, I encountered this here, on these very boards. That means living surrounded by things and phenomena that work in mysterious ways. It means being afraid of the unknown. I want my kids to grow up with the understanding that one can ask "why?" and find out an answer to many, many things, and that they do not have to go through the world surrounded by things they do not understand. Granted, some questions can not yet be answered by science, but the basic idea is that, in principle, one can find out reasons and mechanisms.

So, this is a whole way of thought, of approaching the world, which I consider infinitely more important than knowing the precise details of some scientific fact.

 

I don't mind the bolded above, IF it is followed by, "Let's see if we can find out." (There are all kinds of things that I've never paused to really examine.)

 

What drives me batty is when I hear adults say things very authoritatively that are wrong. And that could often be corrected if they'd read the sign next to the museum display they are looking at. Often it strikes me as not really wanting to invest the time with the kid in finding the answer or as being afraid of looking like there is something they aren't master of.

[regentrude]

I don't mind the bolded above, IF it is followed by, "Let's see if we can find out." (There are all kinds of things that I've never paused to really examine.)

 

 

In the context it was said, it was clear that the person did not have the slightest interest to find out and considered it an unreasonable expectation to do so. There were comments along the lines of "Why should I bother to find out how the human body works if I have a doctor who knows?"

 

What drives me batty is when I hear adults say things very authoritatively that are wrong.

Yes, this too. And when you start a discussion, you are accused of "approaching things scientifically". I recall a discussion about the function of microwaves, where I tried to dispel the myth that "minerals are broken down" .... it ended with me being accused of scientific thinking, and the person stating her preference to remain ignorant and simply avoid using the microwave. Can't win. Never ever do I want my children to approach the world like this.

ETA: Just to clarify: I don't care one iota if somebody uses a microwave or not, or has made an informed decision about it. What bugs me is avoidance because of an unclear understanding of the science behind it.

Edited August 13, 2012 by regentrude

[Bluegoat]

:iagree: This is pretty much my exact reaction to the 4-year history-based science concept. I can't make sense of it as a STEM person. Physics is ancient. Our understanding of biology has been radically altered in modern times. The ancients started stargazing, but the moderns started actually exploring space. My kids are little so I don't know what we'll do exactly, but for the early years I plan to do science, not broken down by discipline. I'm leaning toward a unit-study type format for science, probably interest led as long as there is an interest in something. DD spent the summer cutting and pressing flowers and is now collecting insects. I'm hoping to do a leaf collection this fall. Maybe a "simple machines" study in the winter would be fun... We'll end up heavy on biology/nature in the beginning, in part because it is convenient for doing outdoors where little kids should spend lots of time, IMO.

 

That was my feeling as well as a classics major. It seems an odd conclusion to draw. I don't really see the point of trying to correlate all of science to all of history anyway.

[Colleen in NS]

than the ones recommended?

 

 

Well I guess when I mean is that I see a huge focus on history for TWTM with lots and lots of additional reading, timeline, mapwork, biographical work, jackdaws etc, outlining, additional research just for history.

 

I would suggest that most of those activities associated with TWTM history/lit. suggestions also develop skills that are transferable to science study. Reading, timelining, mapwork, outlining, looking at primary sources...all of these train the mind to pay more attention to detail, which is useful in science.

 

...if you understand the premises/foundational principles of classical education, then the what you do to meet them is set strictly by you.

 

:iagree: and you can use the skills learned to study different subjects.

 

My youngest recently moved up to a math book that requires him to do more problems and show more written work. He was complaining that it was going to take him over a half hour just to do the problem set. I told him that was exactly correct and that his expectations were unrealistic if he thought he would get through math in 15-30 minutes. He needs to budget 60-90 min for math every day. (I would have to qualms about telling him that he needs to plan an hour or more of reading time for history and lit; why shy away from that with math and science?)

 

I have similar thoughts about science. STEM can fit in with other facets of classical education. But the knowledge isn't going to pour into children's heads while they sleep. Trips to the library need to include age appropriate science books and math books as well as history, biography and literature. I think that nature study is vastly underrated in younger years as being too simplistic. But it leads to curiosity and open eyes. It does need to be followed up by probing questions and thoughtful answers.

 

And for me, a lot of science means saying, "I don't know; lets see if we can find out." And since my kids became masters of reading, it's meant a lot of saying, "Really? Where did you learn that?"

 

Awesome post. This is an example of why you have a tag. :D

 

Reading gibberish like this

 

makes me, a scientist, want to run and hide from the educators.

 

I'm not a scientist, but that made me want to run, too. It's too gibberishy. I'm discovering that science study is more fun than that.

 

Another aspect that I failed to mention earlier:

what I find even more important in science education for young children than content knowledge is an attitude of scientific thought. Not even complicated experiments and formal scientific method - but that they grow up with the experience that phenomena have explanations. I want them to know that one can ask questions about the world, and that there will be answers.

It is a way of thinking. I am appalled when I hear adults say things like "I do not know why antibiotics, vaccinces, microwaves, airplanes.... work, and it has never occurred to me to ask myself this question." Yes, I encountered this here, on these very boards. That means living surrounded by things and phenomena that work in mysterious ways. It means being afraid of the unknown. I want my kids to grow up with the understanding that one can ask "why?" and find out an answer to many, many things, and that they do not have to go through the world surrounded by things they do not understand. Granted, some questions can not yet be answered by science, but the basic idea is that, in principle, one can find out reasons and mechanisms.

So, this is a whole way of thought, of approaching the world, which I consider infinitely more important than knowing the precise details of some scientific fact.

 

Awesome post from you, too. I grew up afraid of things like that, but no more.

 

it ended with me being accused of scientific thinking...

 

:lol::lol::lol:

[Bluegoat]

OP, I haven't got as far as actually executing my plan yet, but I can tell you what it is. FWIW I tend to follow a very CM based philosophy. I'll also say that I'm a humanities person, but I think a good education is strong on both humanities and sciences. I also think that ultimatly there is no hard barrier between the two and I suppose that also makes me see the issue in a particular way.

 

My plan in the early years is primarily to develop a good strong math background, and how I do that will depend on my kids to some extent. I do plan to teach Latin and eventually a few other languages. For the most part though I expect serious Latin study to take the place of a lot of the spelling, vocabulary, and even mechanistic parts of English composition. OUr work in English will be largely practical. Very much the approach suggested in LCC really.

 

I do expect my kids, even now when they are quite young, to tackle substantial texts for their age in literature and history. I don't expect them to spend a ton of time doing outlining and that sort of thing - we use narration and keep it pretty simple.

 

Like a few other posters I think a significant issue at a young age is to have a lot of experience of the physical world, which is what science is about. I remember reading years ago in The Amateur Naturalist that the author routinly found he had students that knew the life cycle of a frog, but couldn't go to a pond and easily find frog spawn because they had never done it. I think that spending those early years on learning about the physical world is like trying to learn what it means to be in love by reading novels. The student isn't coming into contact with the thing itself but with a human representation or abstraction.

 

From CM, I would say the most basic (not only) goal of science learning is to allow the student to develop her own relationships with the object of study, and to draw connections between those things and create an order in her own mind. I think too much theory and not enough hands on at an early age tends to squash that, and can also lead to a belief by the student that reading about a thing is really knowing it. So seeing and touching the physical world, naming it, thinking about what is seen, and so on.

 

I absolutely think that a really good grounding in logic and some knowledge of epistemology is important in later years, as well as the history of science - and I don't just mean what happened, but why it happened that way and what people thought about what science does.

 

I haven't worried too much about later years curricula because it is too far in the future. Right now we are focusing on nature study because it is what the kids are most interested in. We will be looking at doing other topics as they become appropriate. My husband works in meteorology and also is really into radio stuff, so we'll incorporate some of that kind of practical application into their theoretical studies.

 

Overall my thought is not to duplicate effort in skills to much, and not to have too much quantity over quality. A deep understanding of a few good books is more important than a less deep understanding of many - a strong grounding in the principles of science with an accompaning background in the humanities and math is more valuble than a lot of extra science stuff with little attention to literature or history. I think the WTM program can tend in that direction. But I would not want to sacrifice the deep understanding of humanities or science for any student because I think they support each other.

[SunnyDays]

That is the sequence suggested in TWTM. This is actually one of the points where I disagree with the WTM suggestions:

First: The reasoning is that it "correlates with the history cycle". I do not find this correlation very conclusive. The argument "students who are studying the Ancients learn about the things that the Ancients could see, i.e. animals and plants" makes me seriously wonder... what about the great achievement of the Ancients in physics and astronomy? The argument makes no sense to me.

Second, I have always been puzzled by the American need to compartmentalize sciences into neat one-year packages of one single science. That's not how science is taught elsewhere in the world. Especially in the younger grades, I would encourage an integrated study of all different sciences, not devote one year at a time to one science. (For practical reasons of compatibility, I grudgingly follow the model for high school).

Third, in high school this is not a suitable sequence. Earth science is not typically a high school course, and doing physics first has great systematic advantages.

 

I'm curious... you said you follow the standard (one subject at a time) model for high school science but not in standard sequence... what sequence do you use, or what topics in what year?? :bigear:

 

We tend to do more science reading and discussion here... we rarely do hands-on experiments. My son finds more value in reading a book, then putting together K'nex or Snap Circuits. Although, I was looking at Mr. Q's Advanced Chemistry where the "experiments" are mostly cooking projects... I think that would be a fun term!

[regentrude]

I'm curious... you said you follow the standard (one subject at a time) model for high school science but not in standard sequence... what sequence do you use, or what topics in what year??

 

 

We do physics first, because it is the basis for chemistry; then chemistry, because it is the basis for biochemistry which constitutes a large part of a modern biology curriculum; Biology after that.

 

DD did algebra based physics in 9th grade, chemistry in 10th grade.

She will take calculus based physics in 11th and advanced biology in 12th (but we could easily have switched these two; it was just a matter of her preference, no systematic reasons)

[serendipitous journey]

... I would have to qualms about telling him that he needs to plan an hour or more of reading time for history and lit; why shy away from that with math and science? ...

 

This caught my attention, because we do not do nearly so much math or science as other reading -- and I am on the very mathy end of educating, at least 'round here -- perhaps because math is slower going than history. I find that math is dense mental work: the symbols pack a lot of meaning. For instance, I am much slower at reading equations than text; and am slower at reading serious science than serious literature or history; and illustrations in science or math texts require much more analysis and thought, for me, than illustrations in the humanities, as a general rule. When I was reading a history of the concept of infinity (popular math) I didn't move as quickly as when I read 1491 (popular history) and I didn't read for as long at a stretch.

 

I have to agree that an hour a day for math seems perfectly reasonable; I am just thinking that if it were me, I would be finding the math work more intense than most of my history reading. I don't know if that is generally true.

[regentrude]

I have to agree that an hour a day for math seems perfectly reasonable; I am just thinking that if it were me, I would be finding the math work more intense than most of my history reading. I don't know if that is generally true.

 

I definitely agree; to me, even as a very "mathy" person, math is mentally more exhausting than most history readings - unless you read very dense original works of philosophical literature; I find those equally taxing, or more. (I'd rather do multi variable calculus than read Augustine.)

 

For this reason I prefer my children to do math early in the day when their minds are still fresh; it works better to save some English or history reading for the afternoons.

[Bluegoat]

I definitely agree; to me, even as a very "mathy" person, math is mentally more exhausting than most history readings - unless you read very dense original works of philosophical literature; I find those equally taxing, or more. (I'd rather do multi variable calculus than read Augustine.)

 

For this reason I prefer my children to do math early in the day when their minds are still fresh; it works better to save some English or history reading for the afternoons.

 

 

This brings up an interesting question though to me - shouldn't older children be doing close readings of just those kinds of texts for their school work? While individuals will have differing abilities, I would tend to think the literature and math selections would both be pretty challenging, and that kids would only be able to do so much per day of either.

[8filltheheart]

This brings up an interesting question though to me - shouldn't older children be doing close readings of just those kinds of texts for their school work? While individuals will have differing abilities, I would tend to think the literature and math selections would both be pretty challenging, and that kids would only be able to do so much per day of either.

 

While I won't say that the amt of time is equal (it really depends on what and the day), the level of difficulty is equally appropriate across subject matter for my kids. For example, an hr of reading for ds's philosophy of science and religion course is very mentally taxing for ds........probably far less than 3 hrs of complex math or physics.

[kalanamak]

Third, in high school this is not a suitable sequence. Earth science is not typically a high school course, and doing physics first has great systematic advantages.

 

In WTM, the shift is to astronomy from earth science in 10th grade.

 

I agree for high school, where I intend to do more standard classes/texts (and maybe even at the local school), but in the younger years I like the progression of the years. I think a 6 year old is more "ready" for bio than physics. If you think about it, there is simply less math and theory, generally, in rocks and worms than in chemistry and physics. I planned on switching over to a more varied science program in 5th grade, but once I got there I looked at all the options and texts, and decided to do 95% bio (I don't look a gift horse when there is a perfect experiment or field trip looming at us, or if kiddo suddenly asks to get out the rock kit and test some he brought home).

 

Why? Because of what SWB mentioned in WTM about taking awhile for a child to get into a topic. It works for us. YMMV.

 

As for physics first before chem and biochem, I always found physics harder than chemistry, and would do it later unless kiddo shows an opposite preference in his abilities.

[Bluegoat]

While I won't say that the amt of time is equal (it really depends on what and the day), the level of difficulty is equally appropriate across subject matter for my kids. For example, an hr of reading for ds's philosophy of science and religion course is very mentally taxing for ds........probably far less than 3 hrs of complex math or physics.

 

Yes, I think it is always going to depend on the child. One child might be able to do an hour of challenging math without fatigue, but only only half an hour of Augustine, and another child would be different.

 

I rather get the impression though that many people think that reading literature and history is meant to be fairly painless. I find myself wondering if it is kind of a carryover from the idea that if the books are too difficult it will turn kids off reading?

[regentrude]

I rather get the impression though that many people think that reading literature and history is meant to be fairly painless. I find myself wondering if it is kind of a carryover from the idea that if the books are too difficult it will turn kids off reading?

 

I do not think so. I think one reason is that it is possible to read the same piece of literature on different levels. I can read a great book and just get the story, and that will be a fairly quick and painless process for a good reader. I can read the same book much more slowly and pay attention to the intricacies of the language, and I an read it again and take a lot of time analyzing the significance of the symbolism, the philosophical questions raised, the structure etc.

In math, you do not have these different levels for the same problem in most cases. If you have to solve a problem, you have to solve it, and that means completely until you reach an answer - there is no first or second or third layer or varying complexity. It is clear-cut.

 

I also find that for many people, the verbal skills are much better developed than their analytical math skills. Part of it is probably time spent. Just think of all the hours of read-alouds and reading and story telling and verbal communication and compare this with the amount of time spent on mathematical activities... I would assume most people spend vastly more time using verbal language than mathematical skills. That must mean that they will be more comfortable with anything language related than with math.

[Bluegoat]

I do not think so. I think one reason is that it is possible to read the same piece of literature on different levels. I can read a great book and just get the story, and that will be a fairly quick and painless process for a good reader. I can read the same book much more slowly and pay attention to the intricacies of the language, and I an read it again and take a lot of time analyzing the significance of the symbolism, the philosophical questions raised, the structure etc.

In math, you do not have these different levels for the same problem in most cases. If you have to solve a problem, you have to solve it, and that means completely until you reach an answer - there is no first or second or third layer or varying complexity. It is clear-cut.

 

I also find that for many people, the verbal skills are much better developed than their analytical math skills. Part of it is probably time spent. Just think of all the hours of read-alouds and reading and story telling and verbal communication and compare this with the amount of time spent on mathematical activities... I would assume most people spend vastly more time using verbal language than mathematical skills. That must mean that they will be more comfortable with anything language related than with math.

 

I don't disagree with this, except that I think for a high school student and maybe middle school the actual school reading should generally be what I call close reading - slowly reading and considering all the levels you mention. But that has been kind of an assumption on my part, and when I consider the comments I sometimes hear from people I am wondering if maybe most people don't do it that way. I consider that close reading is actually quite a difficult skill, even for people who read well - I think sometimes people who read more slowly actually find it easier than those who really whip through books. I'm not sure most people do get a lot of practice at that kind of reading of large texts - I know public school kids here never have to try anything that focused.

 

It is very interesting what you say about math problems. Perhaps that is a good reason to have a balance of both humanities and math for a basic education? If most math to that level is clear, it will be balanced by the complexity of questions the humanities generates, and math will tend to develop a sense of real meaning and logic into students reading discussions that might seem to have no real answers.

Edited August 14, 2012 by Bluegoat

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Let's see if I can do this right...

 

This caught my attention, because we do not do nearly so much math or science as other reading -- and I am on the very mathy end of educating, at least 'round here -- perhaps because math is slower going than history. I find that math is dense mental work: the symbols pack a lot of meaning. For instance, I am much slower at reading equations than text; and am slower at reading serious science than serious literature or history; and illustrations in science or math texts require much more analysis and thought, for me, than illustrations in the humanities, as a general rule. When I was reading a history of the concept of infinity (popular math) I didn't move as quickly as when I read 1491 (popular history) and I didn't read for as long at a stretch.

 

I have to agree that an hour a day for math seems perfectly reasonable; I am just thinking that if it were me, I would be finding the math work more intense than most of my history reading. I don't know if that is generally true.

 

 

I definitely agree; to me, even as a very "mathy" person, math is mentally more exhausting than most history readings - unless you read very dense original works of philosophical literature; I find those equally taxing, or more. (I'd rather do multi variable calculus than read Augustine.)

 

For this reason I prefer my children to do math early in the day when their minds are still fresh; it works better to save some English or history reading for the afternoons.

 

I think that much depends on how challenging the math/reading is to the student. I can sit and read a Jane Austen book at one sitting and come away able to discuss plot and characters. On the other hand, it took me a couple weeks to gradually work through Jane Eyre, annotating, making character lists, looking up allusions and symbols as I prepped to teach it this year. Similarly, I was able to get through the first couple chapters of AoPS algebra in a few hours. But by the time we reached the chapter on rates and ratios, I found that there were problems that I had to think about for 15 min just to work out how to set the problem up. Those were intense problems that involved pictures, talking to myself and eventually going into the garage and acting them out so I could get the relationships right.

 

 

This brings up an interesting question though to me - shouldn't older children be doing close readings of just those kinds of texts for their school work? While individuals will have differing abilities, I would tend to think the literature and math selections would both be pretty challenging, and that kids would only be able to do so much per day of either.

 

What I have sometimes noticed is a willingness to give up on hard work. The excuse is made that the product isn't worth the effort. Maybe in some cases that's true. Or it might be true that there is another work that can cover the same ground and provide a better connection. (I see this mostly with literature and history.) On the other hand, I want my kids to leave my home with skills of self-discipline and perseverance well developed. I want them to not be afraid of spending time learning (math, history, literarture, languages, athletics, craft, whatever).

 

This isn't to say that each lesson should take four hours or that I ignor a kid who's struggling or that tears over lessons are just shrugged away. It is only to say that I don't measure the successfulness of an academic program by how quickly and easily each lesson is completed.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I don't disagree with this, except that I think for a high school student and maybe middle school the actual school reading should generally be what I call close reading - slowly reading and considering all the levels you mention. But that has been kind of an assumption on my part, and when I consider the comments I sometimes hear from people I am wondering if maybe most people don't do it that way. I consider that close reading is actually quite a difficult skill, even for people who read well - I think sometimes people who read more slowly actually find it easier than those who really whip through books. I'm not sure most people do get a lot of practice at that kind of reading of large texts - I know public school kids here never have to try anything that focused.

 

It is very interesting what you say about math problems. Perhaps that is a good reason to have a balance of both humanities and math for a basic education? If most math to that level is clear, it will be balanced by the complexity of questions the humanities generates, and math will tend to develop a sense of real meaning and logic into students reading discussions that might seem to have no real answers.

 

The emphasis on more challenging texts is one reason why I'm leaning toward AP style courses in high school. I look at the summer reading lists for 7th and 8th grade and see graphic novels, books that my kids read several years before, books they read over the weekend for fun (and books that I wouldn't have them read because I think they are low quality).

 

Our summer history project for the Civil War has included the Ken Burns video documentary, a Teaching Company series, Battle Cry of Freedom, portions of Uncle Tom's Cabin, The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglas, primary documents, and Red Badge of Courage.

 

I know that there are many homeschoolers with similar loads. But there are also homeschoolers that read one chapter in a US history book and figure that's plenty.

 

This difference in attitudes shows up in math and science too.

 

I'm not saying that you need to be doing deep, ground breaking work in every subject. But don't be so quick to shrug something off, whether that is a perplexing science question or a history topic that requires some research or a literature book that is a bit of a challenge to get into (because of writing style, age of the work, or confusing narrative).

 

[i have Jane Eyre on the list to teach in coop this year, so ask me in six months how well I was able to do in conveying this concept of application and diligence to kids who aren't under my roof.:D)

 

I think the point about lit having multiple levels of understanding vs math being right or wrong is a good point. Math demonstrates a person's weaknesses very quickly. Often I look at a problem and have trouble figuring out where to start. Sometimes I don't even know what the symbols represent.

 

But it can be easier to read a book and not realize how much you aren't understanding, because you can read each of the individual words.