What do you want in a science curriculum?

[chaik76]

Dh and I are gathering ideas to create a secular science curriculum for grammar-age students (grades 1-4).

If you could buy the perfect science curriculum, what would it include?

[rwalizer]

especially for your 4th grader, but I think your 1st grader could use it too. The first half of the book is a guide and the second half is designed to be cut out of the book and then the pages are made into many mini books that the students assemble (very simple, not like origami or anything). The mini books are like little textbooks, full of information on a elementary level. There is plenty of coloring, glueing and other hands on stuff. We used the earth science book but I can't remember what other books they sell. I'm sure you could google it and find the whole list. It's a great program.

[SheilaZ]

Actual experiments. Not demonstrations. Even for the itty bitty ones. The sooner they start thinking scientifically, the better.

Real experiments with lab pages. Problem, Hypothesis, Contols, 1 variable, and a conclusion.

Then ways this experiment applies to everyday life.

 

And use homeschool friendly supplies. Real science doesn't require bunsen burners and glass tubing. It can be done with whatever is handy.

(I just had this conversation with a homeschool mom with a high schooler. We spent an hour converting a well sold science program to be used at home. Using fancy equiptment doesn't make the experiments more relevent.)

[angela in ohio]

1.) Written by someone with a science background (degree) AND a teaching/homeschooling background.

 

2.) Lots of facts and pictures.

 

3.) Uses living books, but also has text of its own to tie it together... not just a simple schedule of when to read what book and do which experiment.

 

5.) Notebooking pages for child to complete.

 

6.) A focus on observation rather than experimentation, in keeping with the grammar stage of the trivium.

[chaik76]

especially for your 4th grader, but I think your 1st grader could use it too. The first half of the book is a guide and the second half is designed to be cut out of the book and then the pages are made into many mini books that the students assemble (very simple, not like origami or anything). The mini books are like little textbooks, full of information on a elementary level. There is plenty of coloring, glueing and other hands on stuff. We used the earth science book but I can't remember what other books they sell. I'm sure you could google it and find the whole list. It's a great program.

Thanks for this suggestion. I'll look into it. Dh and I are actually trying to create a science curriculum for homeschoolers, but until then it's always great to have new ideas to try out...ds is quite the "sciencey" kid, so all recommendations are appreciated!

 

Actual experiments. Not demonstrations. Even for the itty bitty ones. The sooner they start thinking scientifically, the better.

Real experiments with lab pages. Problem, Hypothesis, Contols, 1 variable, and a conclusion.

Then ways this experiment applies to everyday life.

 

And use homeschool friendly supplies. Real science doesn't require bunsen burners and glass tubing. It can be done with whatever is handy.

(I just had this conversation with a homeschool mom with a high schooler. We spent an hour converting a well sold science program to be used at home. Using fancy equiptment doesn't make the experiments more relevent.)

Thank you for your comments! In a previous post on another thread someone mentioned similar suggestions to yours.

I understand the difficulty of getting science supplies for the home...we're lucky in that dh can take ds to the lab to do experiments!

 

1.) Written by someone with a science background (degree) AND a teaching/homeschooling background.

 

2.) Lots of facts and pictures.

 

3.) Uses living books, but also has text of its own to tie it together... not just a simple schedule of when to read what book and do which experiment.

 

5.) Notebooking pages for child to complete.

 

6.) A focus on observation rather than experimentation, in keeping with the grammar stage of the trivium.

Well, dh is a college professor of chemistry, and I'm a homeschool mom, so I think we have No. 1 covered!

Thanks for your other suggestions also. I do understand the need for small children to observe, however I've noticed that many children enjoy science if there are "fun" experiments to do also. Do you want a program with no experiments, or one that doesn't focus on experiments exclusively? Currently our plan includes one experiment per week.

 

Thanks all! I appreciate the responses...I love the WTM boards specifically because people put so much thought into their responses!

[chaik76]

Hm, well, for science, here's what I want:

 

1. The best literary biographies of scientists, scheduled

2. Weekly lists of EVERY supply necessary (even the "common" household items)

3. Only one experiment per week, but good ones, really good ones, where kids have to guess what's going on, then look it up in their books to verify

4. Interesting, living books on the science topics, not just colorful reference guides (like, Crinkleroot rather than DK)

5. Website recommendations

6. Flashcards, and schedule for using those flashcards, to drill science facts

7. Evolution-positive (theistic evolution is okay, if the wording is vague enough that you could mean my gods)

 

If you make a science program like that, I and a thousand other homeschoolers will beat a path to your door and pay you big bucks, guaranteed.

Just wanted to pull this over from another thread of mine, because I think dragons had some really good suggestions, and this is the post that first got dh and I to sit down and start brainstorming. Thanks!

[Targhee]

Here's a post from a while back that asks the same questions - maybe some will be useful for you in planning.

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36579

[chaik76]

Here's a post from a while back that asks the same questions - maybe some will be useful for you in planning.

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36579

Thanks!

[angela in ohio]

Well, dh is a college professor of chemistry, and I'm a homeschool mom, so I think we have No. 1 covered!

Thanks for your other suggestions also. I do understand the need for small children to observe, however I've noticed that many children enjoy science if there are "fun" experiments to do also. Do you want a program with no experiments, or one that doesn't focus on experiments exclusively? Currently our plan includes one experiment per week.

 

 

I think it depends on what you mean by experiment. By experiment, I mean forming a hypothesis and then testing it. I think this is not in line with the needs of grammar-stage students. SWB explains this well on her Science tape. I shy away from science programs that follow the public school model of discovery science, and rely instead on the classically-based model.

 

If by experiment you really mean a demonstration or observation of some physical science event, natural process, or the like; then I think there should be plenty, and I think dc should write about and draw them as well.

 

Also, these should tie somehow into the concept being learned. I see many things called science experiments which are really just toys and diversions. Of course, children love this, but that should be free-time fun and not replace learning about science.

[SheilaZ]

I think it depends on what you mean by experiment. By experiment, I mean forming a hypothesis and then testing it. I think this is not in line with the needs of grammar-stage students. SWB explains this well on her Science tape. I shy away from science programs that follow the public school model of discovery science, and rely instead on the classically-based model.

 

If by experiment you really mean a demonstration or observation of some physical science event, natural process, or the like; then I think there should be plenty, and I think dc should write about and draw them as well.

 

Also, these should tie somehow into the concept being learned. I see many things called science experiments which are really just toys and diversions. Of course, children love this, but that should be free-time fun and not replace learning about science.

 

Warning: the following diatribe has nothing against the person I quoted. It's a point of view that I have seen many times before and this quote was just handy.

 

Aahh...see I don't really agree with WTM method of science and I'm against "discovery learning" as a whole.

I think students should cover a mixture of science topics at ability level until 5th grade at the earliest. I do think that demonstrations have a very important place in science but it is so easy to go that extra step and start discussing scientific method. And all students, no matter if they are in kindergarten or in college should observe and draw and write about what they are observing. They should also discuss how these things work into daily life.

Drawing structures is one of the easiest ways to learn about structures. Observing alone is just not that helpful. But you can only draw so much.

When should you start experimentation? Logic stage? Rhetoric? I think that's too late. You wouldn't wait until 5th grade to start math or history. Scientific thinking needs to be nurtured early.

Even 5 year olds can start asking, "What happens when I do this?"

 

I think the biggest flaw in science teaching, in public, private, and home schools, is that science isn't really an academic subject until middle school. You have to get kids interested from the get go. You have to get them asking questions and looking to find the answers.

 

An experiment doesn't have to be some complex thing. An experiment is just a demonstration with some questioning and a single vaiable. And it can't be magic tricks and " Wooooo...look how cool science is" kind of things. And that's not science anymore than digging up a fake archeaology site is history.

 

I find it so strange that a group of people who schedule the study of ancient history down to the point where they make chicken mummies....are against scientific study as an actual subject.

 

I wish SWB would treat science with a little more importance, especially in the younger years. In our very rapidly changing world, our children are going to need a lot more of it so they can tell the facts from the rhetoric.

 

I know....I take my science way too serious. Thankfully, I married another science nerd and we live quite happily together amongst all our strange stuff.

[angela in ohio]

Sheila,

 

I'm confused as to where you disagree with what I posted. You restated many of the same points I made. I know you quoted my post, but I'm not sure you read it through.

 

I wouldn't usually say anything, except that you seem to be lumping me into some group of science-fearing or science-ignorant masses, to which I do object.

[SheilaZ]

I agree with most of your post. I think you are spot on.:D

I just have issues with the idea that scientific method shouldn't be introduced to grammar aged children. I didn't intend to lump you in with science haters. I apologize for making you feel as if I did.

 

Real experimentation is important. And by "real", I mean questioning what will happen and trying to find out why. Scientific thinking needs to be nurtured in the same way that mathmatical thinking is.

I don't see that being done.

 

I'm spoiled in that my very first teaching venture was at a Science Education Center. I was surrounded by people who loved science and math. And also thought that the teaching of science and math was essential to becoming an educated person....just as important as reading and writing.

I'll readily admit that the experience colored my view of the way science should be experienced and learned.

 

I guess if my first job had been in a inadequate school with low-level learners surrounded by teachers who thought science was a waste of time, I may have formed a different mindset. Thankfully, that was my secod job.;)

[Ummto4]

Agree with Sheila.

 

As a former scientist, I cringe when I saw 'cool demonstration' at the science fair which often dominate the exhibit. Only a minority of students asking the right questions (i.e. narrow enough) and answer the questions using expts, complete with both neg-ve and pos-ve controls. Really, this is the way scientists operate. That is asking the big question, form a hypothesis, then try to answer the big question by formulating a series of small questions which need to be answered trhough a series of expts. Then, based on those, scientist should be able to answer the question. This is the way real scientific papers are written.

 

My experience from attending local science fair ( my friend's children's school) shows a shallow understanding of scientific enquiries in the part of students. But then it's not their fault, because when I asked several about the guidance they received during the process, they said that they were not closely guided. Teachers just look at their proposal and checked on those on weekly basis, and simply said agree or not. No wonder. Makes me wonder about teacher quality as well.

 

However, there's one expt in that science fair which was so simple, but I so deeply loved. IT's not cool, but it showed scientific thinking. WHen I asked, it turns out that this boy's mother is a scientist. :001_smile:

 

Now on to demonstration. Demonstration has a place when teaching facts and it helps cement the facts. I know WTM is BIG on facts. But children can be guided to think scientifically and logically from the early age, as long as you know how to do it properly. In short, , this approach has to be balanced by other equally important but often overlook approach for teaching science which aims to also:

- encourage development of scientific thinking.

- encourage observation in the REAL world.

- develop understanding of law of nature at conceptual level so that a child will be able to apply these principles to real life phenomenon.

 

If you want to know what science curriculum I'm impressed so far ... it's NEbel's Building Foundation for Scientific Understanding. There's a thread on this book just now, so you can just search it.

 

HTH.

Dian

[angela in ohio]

Hmmm, I guess I disagree that the only way to love science is to teach the scientific method at an early age. Personally, I have managed to nurture a deep love of science without a hypothesis before 6th grade. In 6th grade, dd went into Apologia General Science, which is full of experiments, and aced it.

 

To me, saying a child won't ever know the scientific method if it isn't taught early is like saying that they won't ever learn algebra if they don't learn it in elementary school. It is the foundational step, established young, that allows the higher skill to be successfully learned and thus enjoyed.

 

Like SWB says, trying to make a child form a hypothesis before they have the facts/experience upon which to base a hypothesis is like squeezing a dry sponge and expecting water to come out. I have seen children in co-op class turned off by this. At this age, they just hunger for "why" - they don't really want to guess, they want to gobble up information.

 

Anyway, we agree with what needs to be done. I just think there is another way to get there. :) I am used to being the only one to think so, LOL.

[Ummto4]

Hi Angela,

 

What I mean by teaching children to think scientifically through expt does not mean to ask children to guess wildly or making hypothesis wildly. May be this is what happening in public schools with their 'discovery program'. I don't know ... I didn't grow up in the US.

 

What I think we should do though, is to lay good foundation/ basic, then based on that basics, we can ask children to make an educated guess what happens if there is an xyz scenario. So, here, it's clear that I would not ask children to guess wildly. But I'm first going togive them the info they need to make a guess (KWIM ?). Sometimes you can just discuss these with children, sometimes you need experiment to prove your guess.

 

Therefore, one of the most important thing to have in a science curriculum is a scope and sequence which makes sense, so children are able to draw relation from different branches of science and at the end will understand the world from early on. That's why I love Nebel's science, since it teaches science to children this way with of course appropriate demonstration to cement the facts.

 

Secondly, it's okay to do expt without forming any hypothesis at all. This can happen if we don't have enough knowledge to make an educated guess. Scientists do these often. Usually this happens when the question is like this: which one cause the x to happen ? Is it y, is it z, or is it w ? Then the scientist has to make expt to enable them to see clearly whether it is y, z or w. This translates easily to real life, like: which is better for cleaning windows: windex, vinegar, or xxxx ? Or, which is better to clean a yucky chopping board ? Alcohol, clorox, water, soap, or xxx ? Or, after learning about the nature of mixture and solution, children then will be able to guess: what happen if x is mixed with y, w and z, etc.

 

So what we are after here is the habit to do scientific thinking.

 

You mention about arithmetic and algebra, stating that algebra is akin to scientific expt, and should be reserved after knowing the facts.

 

I both agree and disagree. Yes, we should know the fact. But we also need to know the concept behind the facts. THat's why I like Rightstart math, because it teaches concept. Nebel science is the same. Some children survive through algebra, etc, but without guidance of a teacher which teaches them conceptually, it is possible that those children survive algebra merely by memorizing the facts. In my mind, conceptual thinking or understanding, should also be practiced at grammar stage.

 

And yes, from my experience, some first year phD students don't get this. I've mentored several of them during my tenure in a well-known public univ in Tx. They all came from reputable public univ (and presumably among the best ?), but they never had any science project in the univ.

 

I literally had to coach them on how to design expts properly. And they're phD candidates ! I've also mentored summer students (pre med and biology major). And they're the same. Not to mention that their math ability is somewhat scary. I had to check on their calculation everytime, otherwise they would make wrong solution. Makes me wonder how they survive the higher math at all. I mean .. making chemical solution is just simple arithmetic, isn't it ?

 

I had my degree in UK, and in UK, we had both big library and lab projects at the final years (3rd year). This really helped me on how to design an exprt. I also learned a lot of these when working for pfizer as a student trainee (I took one year out univ). So when I did my phD, I was pretty trained in terms of expt design and lab technique.

 

I mean, that's the point of having a degree in science, right ? If you still cannot apply scientific methods after graduation, then what's the point of having a science degree ? And surely you don't need to wait till your phD graduation to get the scientific thinking pinned down ?

 

It's interesting that I had this conversation with my PI. She's a US professor, but was educated in Canada. She was so proud her son doing an independent research project at Yale. I didn't understand why she was so proud and said to her, "But that's what I did in the UK." At that point, she said, "But most US students don't have such projects. How could they ? There are hundereds of them in one class."

 

Then my prof also complained about the fact that US public univ do not train the science student properly like what she got in Canada. She told me to be careful to choose a univ for my children, and would not recommend public univ at all. She said,"They spoon-fed these children with facts, so when they get to graduate school they're in shock." I concur. Some of the students I mentored need spoon-feeding, even at graduate level. The transition to graduate school is rough, and shocking for them. You know, the experience of having to find your own answer because the note just doesn't give you an answer. The experience to read real paper. Yes, they're only 1st year phD student, and they will sure 'grow up' by the time they finish their phD and go to real life. But, how about those who only finish the first degree ? How about those who never got into college ? To this, my prof said, " They will learn these at their first job in a hard way." GASP.

 

Scientific thinking is needed not only in the science field. IT's just logic.But it needs some guidance and training for thinking scientifically. And you need this kind of thinking in real life. Apparently, unless taught properly, children would never get it, even after high school graduation.

 

This is just based on my personal experience. I don't know the stats, but what I saw was worrying.

 

Dian

[magistramom]

I'd like to see the following:

 

-science history (sort of like what Joy Hakim wrote) with modern day applications

 

-videos online showing the experiments so we don't have to hunt through YouTube for them

 

-interviews with scientists at work

 

-an outline on how to set up a co-op group with the program

[angela in ohio]

Sorry, Dian, I should have been more specific. I was responding to Sheila's post.

[Targhee]

To me, saying a child won't ever know the scientific method if it isn't taught early is like saying that they won't ever learn algebra if they don't learn it in elementary school. It is the foundational step, established young, that allows the higher skill to be successfully learned and thus enjoyed.

 

In order to accurately understand algebra we don't teach kids what n equals (or x, or y, or any other variable) - we teach them to start thinking algebraically, like "if you have 2 and you want 10 how many more do you need?" Your analogy of math to science (IMO) should go something like this. In order to accurately understand science, we don't teach what the result of this experiment should be - we teach them with the elements of scientific study. We teach children how to observe (keenly), question (with the voracious appetite for the answer to "why"), and hypothesize (in a limited way, as in "I'm going to raise the ramp now - do you think the ball will roll faster or slower?"), and analyze (more questions and directed study).

 

I am of the belief that science is two things (both of which should be taught all along the way, in developmentally appropriate ways) - it is both a body of knowledge, and a process of discovery about our world we use to build the body of knowledge.

 

Like SWB says, trying to make a child form a hypothesis before they have the facts/experience upon which to base a hypothesis is like squeezing a dry sponge and expecting water to come out. I have seen children in co-op class turned off by this. At this age, they just hunger for "why" - they don't really want to guess, they want to gobble up information.

 

I agree that the child, especially the young child who thinks very concretely, needs the "real life context" of the matter in order to make a hypothesis. And you can provide this context without drilling words into their heads. Children use context and "facts" they have gathered through observation to make and test hypothesis all the time! Baby drops a ball, and it bounces and rolls away. From observing this baby hypothesizes that if she drops her bottle it will bounce and roll away. It does! On to the next trial, she drops mom's cell phone which doesn't bounce or roll away. However, it did drop to the floor. Hmm. Baby reasons "if I let go of things they drop to the ground." Through this, and many other contextual experiences, baby has a pretty firm grounding (pun intended) in gravity and can apply it in her life - even if she didn't know that Newton was the scientist to explain it, or that it is related to the masses of bodies (and is not particular to our life on earth), or any other such information. And, no one had to tell her.

 

I don't expect a child to hypothesize about orbiting bodies, acid-base chemical reactions, or how the a genetic trait will manifest it self in a particular cross. If this was the expectation, the student really would be a "dry sponge." But if you teach them science process, and teach them foundational concepts/information they will better be prepared to handle these kinds of questions later in their academic careers. There is no good reason (except "I want to know, Mom") that you should teach your child the phyla of the animal kingdom (as suggested in WTM). If they need to, they can learn them later, with a contextual frame on which to hang them. But believe me, taxonomy is a changing field, especially with the introduction of phylogenetic study, and even some classifications I learned in college are now out of date 10 years later.

 

One more thing, the kids keep asking "why" because they want to understand, not because they want to know more facts. You can give them all the facts in the world, but without the framework for understanding it is meaningless.

 

I want to make sure you know I am not attacking your post - I am simply using it as a framework to base my argument, so no malice intended. :)

[Peela]

Well I differ from most here. If I was doing science again with kids those ages, I would take a literary and nature-discovery approach much more than an academic, sciencey approach. I would prefer to nurture the love of the world around us first.

I personally have not found a science course I like though, but I would take a CM approach next time, as I now am with my kids. But it could also be because my own kids are more literary than sciencey- so they haven't responded well to an academic, hard science approach. Only now that they have an actual science teacher who is passionate and an excellent teacher, are they warming up to science. And it's still not something they read about in their spare time or anything- they are not the sort of kids who do experiments in their free time.

I think I am more of the mindset that really inspiring a curiosity for the world around them, rather than abstract concepts and knowledge, is more important. For my kids, facts clothed in a more literary, interesting to read, personable style are far more digestible. But then, they have never liked encyclopedias, or Usborne books, either- thats why most science courses just seem too dry to them. They simply are.

 

Edited to add: as kids get older, of course doing more academic science may- may- be necessary for them. But, I am referring to the smaller kids. I don't think it is necessary and for many, it may actually deter an interest in the subject rather than inspire it. The whole idea of teaching little kids earlier and earlier what they could easily learn later, just leaves me cold.

If I were Christian, I would use the Apologia books in a flash. They are the closest modern books that teach the way I prefer. However they are way too christian for us, unfortunately.

[angela in ohio]

Shannon,

 

I also don't think we really disagree on much.

 

When I say a child wants to know "Why" and you should just tell them, I mean exactly the same thing you said. They want to understand, so you tell them why. Then they understand. I don't know why you would tell them facts that didn't just explain what happened. I certainly didn't say that.

 

If you read down through this whole thread, you will see that I did not include memorizing useless facts in my ideal science program, so we also don't disagree there. I do want my children immersed in facts (through reading, exploring, observing, etc.,) though, as they soak them up at a young age and enjoy doing so.

 

And I don't see elementary science programs teaching things that naturally occur to children. I DO see them trying to teach things that the children have no background knowledge with which to form a hypothesis (chemical reactions, etc.) That is exactly what discovery-based science is. I have looked at an awful lot of science curriculum over the years and this is common. That is what I was responding to.

 

Anyway, I do disagree about introducing algebra or the scientific method or any other logic-stage concept early on. I stick with the classical understanding of a child's development - the grammar, logic, and rhetoric of a subject. (It is not a hard and fast cut-off, of course I start to introduce some concepts casually as they transition.) We will just have to agree to disagree on that one. Like I said, I am used to standing alone in this, especially IRL, where there are few classical educators. :)

[rafiki]

.

[Capt_Uhura]

I've been reading this thread with interest. I had the same experience as one of the posters regarding the school science fair. Most were demonstrations copied right out of a book. There was NO guidance what so ever. This was 2nd-5th grade. I saw maybe 2-3 projects which caught my eye and one was my son's. His burning question of the day was does hot water warm up at the same rate as cold water warms up to room temp. He then designed experiments to test that. Uh yes, the boy has two scientists for parents lol as well as grandfather.

 

I try to watch for those teachable moments that Nebel talks about. Last winter I did this for ex with my 4yr old. Below a tree, there was small holes in the snow. We talked about what we observed, then we brainstormed how those holes might be made. For each of his observations I would give reasons why his hypothesis was incorrect. I lead him down the path of looking up at tree. He came around finally to noticed the water dripping off the tips of the branches. We then tested it by dripping water off our finger tips.

 

 

OT: mom2moon2 and Sheilaz - are you both scientists? I think mom2moon2 mentioned she is a former scientist and Sheilaz said she married *another* science nerd. I was an immunologist in my former life preKids. I'm wondering if you have any plans to return to science? You can PM if you like to talk off-list.

[Jumping In Puddles]

Well I differ from most here. If I was doing science again with kids those ages, I would take a literary and nature-discovery approach much more than an academic, sciencey approach. I would prefer to nurture the love of the world around us first.

I personally have not found a science course I like though, but I would take a CM approach next time, as I now am with my kids. But it could also be because my own kids are more literary than sciencey- so they haven't responded well to an academic, hard science approach. Only now that they have an actual science teacher who is passionate and an excellent teacher, are they warming up to science. And it's still not something they read about in their spare time or anything- they are not the sort of kids who do experiments in their free time.

I think I am more of the mindset that really inspiring a curiosity for the world around them, rather than abstract concepts and knowledge, is more important. For my kids, facts clothed in a more literary, interesting to read, personable style are far more digestible. But then, they have never liked encyclopedias, or Usborne books, either- thats why most science courses just seem too dry to them. They simply are.

 

Edited to add: as kids get older, of course doing more academic science may- may- be necessary for them. But, I am referring to the smaller kids. I don't think it is necessary and for many, it may actually deter an interest in the subject rather than inspire it. The whole idea of teaching little kids earlier and earlier what they could easily learn later, just leaves me cold.

If I were Christian, I would use the Apologia books in a flash. They are the closest modern books that teach the way I prefer. However they are way too christian for us, unfortunately.

 

I think your post really highlights the facts that kids all learn differently and have different interests. In the younger years its just a matter of finding what works for your kids and following their interests.

 

For example, like you said, teaching them something early that they could learn easily later would leave some kids frustrated. My son, who is not advanced but is extraordinarily eager, loves to learn about facts and prefers books that are more encyclopedic and topics that are more suited to older kids. Believe it or not, learning about atoms is something my son would find fascinating!

 

I do believe in nurturing a love for the world around us too but I think some kids, like my son, want more. They want experiments and things that would bore a non-sciencey kid.

 

It's looking like I may have to take 2 different approaches for each of my kids - which stinks because they are so close in age!

[materursa]

Chaik,

I have been mulling over what to do for science recently and haven't been too pleased with what's available to me for options.... I think that my list would look very similar to the list that dragons made on the other post (and you copied above). So, to borrow heavily (a lot of copying) from her list and add a little bit, this is what my list would look like:

 

1. Either biographies of scientists scheduled or information about them in the program.

2. Weekly lists of EVERY supply necessary (even the "common" household items)

3. Only one experiment per week, but good ones, really good ones. These should not need a lot of expensive, specialized equipment, and should have lab pages.

4. Interesting, living books on the science topics. I would also like the program to include a written text as a spine, place to focus, to introduce important vocabulary (which seems to be lacking from many programs), and tie everything together.

5. Flashcards, and schedule for using those flashcards, to drill science facts.

6. Evolution-positive

7. Notebooking pages to complete

8. There should be an emphasis on the scientific method with the experiments. Like SheilaZ said: "Problem, Hypothesis, Contols, 1 variable, and a conclusion. Then ways this experiment applies to everyday life."

9. It would focus on one area of science per year, as WTM schedules: life sciences, earth & space, chemistry, & Physics.

10. It should be scheduled for no more than 4 days a week so I can do either nature study one one day, or take a day off.

 

Like pp have said, the study of science should be treated as an academic subject, and I'm not really sure why so many classical homeschoolers seem to push science aside. I see it as important not only to be a more educated and well-rounded person, but as an exercise in thinking logically and to learn how to ask well-formed questions.

 

Amanda

[momto2Cs]

I like several of the points I have seen above...

1. A good spine that ties together and encourages the use of living books.

2. Interviews/biographies/articles with/on scientists.

3. I love the interchangable unit idea mentioned in one post. I do follow my kids' inetrests to some degree in science, and would love to be able to pick units a, x and c, instead of simply following a, b, c...

4. A good experiment per week. Something that can be done with household stuff (maybe a few extras!) but still a good solid experiment that follows the scientific method.

5. Simple notebooking/lab pages to keep track of the hypothesis and results of the experiments, and to record other notes/observations as they relate to the current topic.

6. A lack of fear in exploring evolution!

7. A list (for each section/unit/subject maybe) of good science documentaries that could be watched if you have visual learners.

 

Something that is overall clear and concise, but not dumbed down. I have a 5 year old and 7 year old that LOVE science (my father was a chem & physics teacher, so we have a lot of exposure to science), and there is nothing they dislike more in science, or any other subject for that matter, than being talked down to. If it helps, I like the writing style of RealScience4Kids for my children, but I wish it covered more topics and intro'd evolution (yes, I realize the publishers are Christian so this is not likely to happen).

[Country Girl]

I like several of the points I have seen above...

1. A good spine that ties together and encourages the use of living books.

2. Interviews/biographies/articles with/on scientists.

3. I love the interchangable unit idea mentioned in one post. I do follow my kids' inetrests to some degree in science, and would love to be able to pick units a, x and c, instead of simply following a, b, c...

4. A good experiment per week. Something that can be done with household stuff (maybe a few extras!) but still a good solid experiment that follows the scientific method.

5. Simple notebooking/lab pages to keep track of the hypothesis and results of the experiments, and to record other notes/observations as they relate to the current topic.

6. A lack of fear in exploring evolution!

7. A list (for each section/unit/subject maybe) of good science documentaries that could be watched if you have visual learners.

 

Something that is overall clear and concise, but not dumbed down. I have a 5 year old and 7 year old that LOVE science (my father was a chem & physics teacher, so we have a lot of exposure to science), and there is nothing they dislike more in science, or any other subject for that matter, than being talked down to. If it helps, I like the writing style of RealScience4Kids for my children, but I wish it covered more topics and intro'd evolution (yes, I realize the publishers are Christian so this is not likely to happen).

 

:iagree:

 

I want your curriculum! The only think I might add is that I want a really good spine and comprehension questions/critical thinking. I know this is really unpopular... but I personally loved textbook formats for science :eek:. I am a scientist by training and I'd venture to say that many of the people I know in the science field like them too. I like things laid out in one nice, comprehensive format. I don't like having to pull a little chunk of information from book A, a second little tidbit from book B etc. Don't get me wrong, I love reading and think extra books are great and want them included... but don't make me hunt and peck for my information from a bunch of different places (and just to clarify, these comments in no way refer to the issue of research and multiple sources).

[Kim in SouthGa]

someone to come to my house and do the science experiments with the kids while I have coffee and cruise the WTM boards:D

 

Seriously, it needs to be super simple to teach, day by day lessons broken down, supply kit with EVERYTHING included (don't assume I have coffee filters,please!), short lessons to hold their attention.

[sagira]

I want a combination of momto2Cs' and Targhee's curriculum -- in an ideal world, right? :D

 

I have found great links and information on living books in science at Paula's Archives and movies on History, but alas not Science. For science I really like Nova and I've heard good things about Bill Nye the Science Guy.

 

For 7th grade and up I like Rainbow Science, but I'll see if something better comes up. If Noeo comes up with more for the later grades and Building Foundations for Scientific Understanding keeps on going with their volumes for later grades all the way to high school with lists of recommendations, I'll be ecstatic!

 

This is what I love about creating my own curriculum -- the freedom, the seemingly unending possibilities!