Why, oh, why can't middle & high school science use living books?

[freeindeed]

I miss our "old" way of science (this concerns dd11.) Must we use textbooks for middle & high school science? Is there any way to use living books all the way through 12th grade & still meet college requirements?

[Hunter]

Have you read the first few chapters of Science Matters? It made me brave.

 

And Art Robinson made me braver.

 

And then I read part 2 of climbing Parnassus and went radically Latin/Greek centered.

 

Or maybe I was reckless and negligent.:tongue_smilie:

[sagira]

Well, I intend to continue with living books the whole way through. We use BFSU as a spine, and add in living books. Ds works with science kits on his own now that he's older. Why not?

 

I love the Alvin and Virginia Silverstein series of books. They are nonfiction gems. Check out Life in a Bucket of Soil. They have many other titles as well.

 

Here is a list of science living books you can pick from:

 

http://www.pennygardner.com/sciencebks.html

 

ETA: In high school we would still use living books, but the spine would be a more traditional text. I saw the OP had a dc in middle school, not high school. BFSU goes up to middle school.

Edited September 13, 2012 by sagira

[regentrude]

For middle school, I see no problems in ditching textbooks. I have not found any middle school science textbooks that I like. We use middle school to develop a broad knowledge base and wake an interest in science, but not for a systematic treatment. So, we use living books, documentaries, websites...

 

For high school, however, I see it differently. To us, this is the time for an introduction to a systematic study of sciences to prepare the student for college. IMO, living books are not delivering a comprehensive, systematic treatment with the necessary mathematical tools. They can be a valuable addition, but do not, IMO, replace a textbook in the upper grades.

[helena]

So glad you started this thread!

I'm listening :bigear:

[regentrude]

Well, I intend to continue with living books the whole way through.... Why not?

 

Why not? Because a student who has not learned to work with a textbook and who never actually worked any chemistry or physics problems would have an extremely hard time in introductory science courses at college.

Considered how challenging these courses are even for students with a systematic science preparation in high school, I would have doubts whether a student who only read living books for high school sciences could be successful.

 

ETA: I teach introductory physics at a university.

[Chrysalis Academy]

:bigear: here too. We will use living books through 8th grade, for sure, and then shift to texts. But I'm wondering about the feasbility of including some living books/primary source materials/essays etc. in high school? Or does it really take all 150 hours or whatever you count as a credit to get through the text? That's what I'm afraid of . . . Maybe we'll have to do a history of science/philosophy of science elective??

[momma2three]

I think living books should be used as a supplement in high school, to put science in context and make it more interesting. But I don't see how living books could cover everything a student needs to know at a level that would prepare a student for college level science.

[sagira]

:glare:

Why not? Because a student who has not learned to work with a textbook and who never actually worked any chemistry or physics problems would have an extremely hard time in introductory science courses at college.

Considered how challenging these courses are even for students with a systematic science preparation in high school, I would have doubts whether a student who only read living books for high school sciences could be successful.

 

ETA: I teach introductory physics at a university.

 

I was referring to middle school. High school is a whole different story. Should have read the OP's post better. For hs, I intend to do at least Giancoli and Campbell. Not sure about Chem yet. Depends on how good ds will be at that point.

[sagira]

I think living books should be used as a supplement in high school, to put science in context and make it more interesting. But I don't see how living books could cover everything a student needs to know at a level that would prepare a student for college level science.

 

:iagree:

[Lang Syne Boardie]

harmonyartmom has a squidoo lens showing how she Charlotte-Masonifies Apologia's high school biology course. She adds living books, more nature study, etc. although the student still does the full textbook and lab course.

 

http://www.squidoo.com/apologiabiology

 

Whether you want to use Apologia or not, maybe you can learn from her method of adding CM style to a textbook course.

 

My boys didn't want to. Living books and nature walks served their purpose in the younger years, but it was time to move on.

[momma2three]

I definitely think there's room for fun books as a supplement for middle and high school. There are so many interesting pop-science books out there. I think I would tread carefully because I'm not sure the science is always sound, but I think you can usually glean if the book is worth it through Amazon reviews. My high school bio teacher had us read several books, though I can't remember them all now. One was Lives of a Cell, and there were at least two more that I can't remember. I read The Man Who Mistook his Wife For a Hat, but I think I read that for the psychology class I took (which also had a big thick textbook, but we read several other books too)

[Halcyon]

Why not? Because a student who has not learned to work with a textbook and who never actually worked any chemistry or physics problems would have an extremely hard time in introductory science courses at college.

Considered how challenging these courses are even for students with a systematic science preparation in high school, I would have doubts whether a student who only read living books for high school sciences could be successful.

 

ETA: I teach introductory physics at a university.

 

:iagree: we use CPO right now, amd i really like it. We STILL read lots of living books, but he is learning how to pull out mportant pieces of information, answer challenging questions, write a lab report and be (more) meticulous in his work.

[dbmamaz]

Just two books we used and loved in 8th and 10th - Dr Arts Guide to Science - this is very short. Joy Hakim's The Story of Science - 3 volumes covering the history of math, astronomy and physics, going in to modern/particle physics.

[Hunter]

What do you all think of the 1st edition TWTM science suggestions? Very little time was devoted to a textbook.

[Halcyon]

:iagree: we use CPO right now, amd i really like it. We STILL read lots of living books, but he is learning how to pull out mportant pieces of information, answer challenging questions, write a lab report and be (more) meticulous in his work.

 

What do you all think of the 1st edition TWTM science suggestions? Very little time was devoted to a textbook.

 

I think that's the one area of TWTM needed a bit of supplementation.

[regentrude]

What do you all think of the 1st edition TWTM science suggestions? Very little time was devoted to a textbook.

 

Not sure if what I have is the first edition, but the science suggestions for high school are woefully inadequate.

[Hunter]

Not sure if what I have is the first edition, but the science suggestions for high school are woefully inadequate.

 

Sorry, I can't help laughing. :lol: That's the first time I've heard "woefully inadequate" used to describe TWTM. :lol:

 

Are there colleges and degrees that would NOT think the 1st edition science was inadequate in CONTEXT of the COMPLETE program?

 

I had a friend who interviewed at a selective (but not ivy) college well known for it's teaching and psychology programs, and most of their students took an interesting sounding environmental science program. Serious science students had to take science at a neighboring college. My friend who was transferring from a junior college was SHOCKED at their science program. They were showing off their new labs, and we were wondering what they had been like before :001_huh: But seriously this was an expensive school with a graduate program.

[momma2three]

Sorry, I can't help laughing. :lol: That's the first time I've heard "woefully inadequate" used to describe TWTM. :lol:

 

Really? I've heard lots of criticism about the math and science programs outlined in TWTM are pretty inadequate. I don't have the 1st edition, but I'm pretty sure the edition I have says it's fine to stop math after Algebra II. And the inclusion of Earth Science in the high school lineup is nice, but it means that the student doesn't get to Physics until 12th grade. The top colleges want to see Calculus, and want the Bio/Chem/Physics trio finished in 11th grade so that the student can take a level II course (and the AP) in one in 12th.

 

I haven't read the high school section in years, but I remember being very, very underwhelmed by their math and science suggestions.

[PeterPan]

At 11, I'd use whatever you want frankly. By 8th grade your position will change because the bent of your child will be more clear. If he is science-bent, you're probably at that point going to decide to do both. In our case, dd is not science bent at all. Textbooks flop, but living books on science flop too. Hakim, none of it makes any difference. Well Mythbusters goes over big, but that doesn't get us quite far enough. I'm trying to do a lab-driven approach with her through high school, but even then you need a book to fill in the cracks and get meaningful understanding from the labs.

 

So no, it doesn't have to be textbooks. You still have plenty of options for this age that are plenty equivalent to what he'd do with a textbook.

[Hunter]

Really? I've heard lots of criticism about the math and science programs outlined in TWTM are pretty inadequate. I don't have the 1st edition, but I'm pretty sure the edition I have says it's fine to stop math after Algebra II. And the inclusion of Earth Science in the high school lineup is nice, but it means that the student doesn't get to Physics until 12th grade. The top colleges want to see Calculus, and want the Bio/Chem/Physics trio finished in 11th grade so that the student can take a level II course (and the AP) in one in 12th.

 

I haven't read the high school section in years, but I remember being very, very underwhelmed by their math and science suggestions.

 

I know there are people who want to and can do more science, especially if they are going to major in science. It was the "woefully inadequate" as a general description that just struck me as funny. I have an odd sense of humor. Ignore me. Reading Einstein's Relativity at 17 sounds pretty rigorous as a GENERAL suggestion for the average student, to ME. :001_huh:

[Mukmuk]

This has been a fantastic thread for me as well.

 

I see the logic. Thank you all!!

 

I will use whatever I find as a spine, but will supplement generously.

 

:grouphug:

[regentrude]

Reading Einstein's Relativity at 17 sounds pretty rigorous as a GENERAL suggestion for the average student, to ME.

 

But the student reading Einstein's Relativity without an actual grounding in Newtonian mechanics will not really get much out of it. Beginning the study of physics with General relativity makes no sense from a systematic point of view- you have to do the first things first. I recall you saying this frequently.

The Self-study guides she recommends have been frequently discussed on these boards. You can not actually learn physics form the self-teaching guide; there is not enough discussion of concepts and not enough problem solving.

I am all for original sources, but for a systematic science study, reading the original sources is not the best way. The original works can be a great enrichment for the student who already understands what is going on; he can then focus on the way the original authors expressed their theories.

 

I do love SWB's recommendations for literature and history and find them excellent; this is the area where she has the expertise. But the recommendations for math are average and uninspiring, and the ones for science show that her area of expertise lies elsewhere. I am always struck by the imbalance between the top notch humanities education and the not nearly as excellent math and science education a strict following of TWTM would produce.

 

ETA: And considering Saxon Physics a math course??

Edited September 13, 2012 by regentrude

[stripe]

I do love SWB's recommendations for literature and history and find them excellent; this is the area where she has the expertise. But the recommendations for math are average and uninspiring, and the ones for science show that her area of expertise lies elsewhere. I am always struck by the imbalance between the top notch humanities education and the not nearly as excellent math and science education a strict following of TWTM would produce.

 

I too would love a book or other articulation of math/science course of study by a mathematician or scientist. I used to think most HSing parents were all just literature buffs, but I have come to see that is not the case.

[Down_the_Rabbit_Hole]

If your child is going to one of the top colleges out there or going into a science field then no, you will need a rigorous science using textbooks or better yet, send your child to take college science at a community college or local college. They get the hands on labs and in-depth teaching. However, my opinion only, if your student is not science bound or plans to attend a local college or no college at all then a HS science course can be done with a textbook as a guide for what to teach and clarifying info found in living books. There are numerous books written by passionate authors who take a science topic and present it in book form showing the way the topic works in real life.

If your child has an interest in the topic studied them chances are he will look deeper into the matter through a textbook or other means.

 

My opinions are not the norm when it comes to HS so take this with a grain of salt, but just wanted to put it out there as the other side of the coin sort of thing.

[freeindeed]

Thanks, everyone. The responses have given me a lot to ponder. At this point dd11 is interested in pursuing a career in acting or in the culinary arts. Of course she is young, so that is subject to change.;) She is using Apologia Physical Science in co-op, so I am thinking that I'll add some living books to that. While I *love* the idea of living books only, I just feel like a college bound student needs to be exposed to textbooks.

[AimeeM]

I'm still on my first cuppa coffee, so excuse me if I'm missing the obvious :D.

Have you ever made a thread listing your favs for textbooks, general lit, and hands on guides for science in the middle school/high school years? I'm sure you have commented on threads about them (as I recall), but I can't seem to find them.

My husband has a degree in physics (and one in computer science, which is the degree he utilizes in his career), but doesn't have any suggestions as to what we should use during our children's school years; he was a random who discovered a love for physics DESPITE having used simply a boring catholic school text throughout his school days. The most advice I can gather from on this subject is that he thinks Life of Fred physics is unnecessarily "wordy" and not enough "hands on" :tongue_smilie:; he gives no alternative though. Lol.

But the student reading Einstein's Relativity without an actual grounding in Newtonian mechanics will not really get much out of it. Beginning the study of physics with General relativity makes no sense from a systematic point of view- you have to do the first things first. I recall you saying this frequently.

The Self-study guides she recommends have been frequently discussed on these boards. You can not actually learn physics form the self-teaching guide; there is not enough discussion of concepts and not enough problem solving.

I am all for original sources, but for a systematic science study, reading the original sources is not the best way. The original works can be a great enrichment for the student who already understands what is going on; he can then focus on the way the original authors expressed their theories.

 

I do love SWB's recommendations for literature and history and find them excellent; this is the area where she has the expertise. But the recommendations for math are average and uninspiring, and the ones for science show that her area of expertise lies elsewhere. I am always struck by the imbalance between the top notch humanities education and the not nearly as excellent math and science education a strict following of TWTM would produce.

 

ETA: And considering Saxon Physics a math course??

[regentrude]

Have you ever made a thread listing your favs for textbooks, general lit, and hands on guides for science in the middle school/high school years? I'm sure you have commented on threads about them (as I recall), but I can't seem to find them..

 

I uisually write on the high school forum and have posted there frequently about our preferred materials.

I don't like anything I have seen for middle school and do a very relaxed approach with library books, documentaries and random stuff for the middle grades. I only begin formal science tecahing in high school.

I find few designated high school texts acceptable. Notable exceptions among high school texts are Tarbuck Earth Science, Campbells Exploring Life, Hewitt Conceptual Physics, Suchocki Conceptual Chemistry, and their combined work Conceptual Physics Science.

For high school, I use exclusively introductory college texts for non majors; they are far better quality than the high school texts. (The main reason for this is that school texts are adopted by a school board for a variety of reasons, but not for actual quality because the school board members do not have the expertise to discern good and bad books. College texts OTOH are adopted by professors who themselves are experts in the field and who would not choose a bad text; so you can count on frequently adopted texts being good.)

The texts I am using with my high schoolers are: Knight Jones Field College Physics for algebra based physics, which starts our high school sequence; Chang General Chemistry; Campbell Concepts and Connections for biology.

[EKS]

Sorry, I can't help laughing. :lol: That's the first time I've heard "woefully inadequate" used to describe TWTM. :lol:

 

I think that there are a lot of people who think the science and math suggestions in TWTM are inadequate.

Edited September 13, 2012 by EKS

[momma2three]

I know there are people who want to and can do more science, especially if they are going to major in science. It was the "woefully inadequate" as a general description that just struck me as funny. I have an odd sense of humor. Ignore me. Reading Einstein's Relativity at 17 sounds pretty rigorous as a GENERAL suggestion for the average student, to ME. :001_huh:

 

A 17 year old is only going to understand Einstein's Relativity if they already have a super-solid, college-level understanding of Physics. Reading it in a vacuum and expecting the student to learn something from it is like handing a student who has a basic guidebook-level knowledge of French a copy of Madame Bovary in the original and expecting him to become fluent from reading it.

[momma2three]

I too would love a book or other articulation of math/science course of study by a mathematician or scientist. I used to think most HSing parents were all just literature buffs, but I have come to see that is not the case.

 

:iagree:

 

My own math and science education was pathetic, just totally pathetic: it's the only word for it. I am very eager to give my kids a solid foundation in math and science. I have heard really good things about BFSU, and we have just begun it. I also bought Nebel's Elementary Education, which I've heard described as a sciencey version of TWTM, but I'm finding it a bit difficult to understand in a practical manner. I have to read it more closely, but I'd like something that was spelled out in a more concrete list, the way TWTM is.

[regentrude]

A 17 year old is only going to understand Einstein's Relativity if they already have a super-solid, college-level understanding of Physics. Reading it in a vacuum and expecting the student to learn something from it is like handing a student who has a basic guidebook-level knowledge of French a copy of Madame Bovary in the original and expecting him to become fluent from reading it.

 

I like the comparison.

Btw, despite having a PhD in theoretical physics, I still do not really understand General relativity. It was an upper level elective course for theory majors in college, and pretty much the whole class was lost... we were writing down copious amounts of metric tensor equations and were hanging on by checking that the upper and lower subscripts matched on both sides, but understand we did not.

Edited September 13, 2012 by regentrude

[Tress]

:iagree: Special relativity theory was the first physics course at university, but General relativity....oh man, that is something completely different :tongue_smilie:. (Master degree in theoretical astrophysics)

[Hunter]

Really? I think that there are a lot of people who think the science and math suggestions in TWTM are inadequate.

 

in·ad·e·quate/inˈadikwit/

Adjective:

Not adequate; lacking the quality or quantity required; insufficient for a purpose.

(of a person) Unable to deal with a situation or with life: "inadequate to the task".

Synonyms:

insufficient - unsuitable - inappropriate - unfit

 

I take it back. I had a mistaken understanding of the exact definition of the word. It's not about it being easy, it's about it being unsuitable.

 

A 17 year old is only going to understand Einstein's Relativity if they already have a super-solid, college-level understanding of Physics. Reading it in a vacuum and expecting the student to learn something from it is like handing a student who has a basic guidebook-level knowledge of French a copy of Madame Bovary in the original and expecting him to become fluent from reading it.

 

I don't know enough about physics in general or what other people are capable of learning. I just knew that WE were not ready to read THAT book with just the preparation leading up to it, and that it wasn't a priority for us to figure out what supplements WE needed to do first to get to that book.

 

SO many high school programs are just not doable for many of the students that attempt them. So many of the high schoolers I knew were failing to be able to finish their high school correspondence courses, and it wasn't laziness. They were not given the tools to accomplish the lofty goals that had impressed their parents enough to sign them up.

 

The old Alpha Omega and CLE high school worktexts were a joke. I don't know what they are like now. TM's were hard to get for high school science texts, and TM's for college texts were impossible to get. And none of them were written for students or moms.

 

So many public high schools have a fancy looking DESCRIPTION of their courses that don't reflect actual learning for students. I'm not sure I have a problem with high school homeschool students graduating with the equivalent of a fancy SOUNDING public school education. It's just not what I would do. We did AP environmental science, after just reading piles of physics books from the library.

 

This is all over my head, then and now, and probably for the future.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Hunter

[momto2Cs]

We're using BFSU volumes 1-3 as a guide, adding in living books for my ds11 and dd9. I plan to continue this approach for the next few years. At that point, I'll use textbooks to organize and summarize, but still base most of our science on living books through high school.

 

There have been a few people whose blogs I have read that planned on or did use living books all the way through. I don't think it is an issue as long as you choose good living books. You might want to get a hold of a textbook or two to familiarize your student with that approach, but personally I glean more from a really good book on such and such topic than a textbook.

[AimeeM]

I uisually write on the high school forum and have posted there frequently about our preferred materials.

I don't like anything I have seen for middle school and do a very relaxed approach with library books, documentaries and random stuff for the middle grades. I only begin formal science tecahing in high school.

I find few designated high school texts acceptable. Notable exceptions among high school texts are Tarbuck Earth Science, Campbells Exploring Life, Hewitt Conceptual Physics, Suchocki Conceptual Chemistry, and their combined work Conceptual Physics Science.

For high school, I use exclusively introductory college texts for non majors; they are far better quality than the high school texts. (The main reason for this is that school texts are adopted by a school board for a variety of reasons, but not for actual quality because the school board members do not have the expertise to discern good and bad books. College texts OTOH are adopted by professors who themselves are experts in the field and who would not choose a bad text; so you can count on frequently adopted texts being good.)

The texts I am using with my high schoolers are: Knight Jones Field College Physics for algebra based physics, which starts our high school sequence; Chang General Chemistry; Campbell Concepts and Connections for biology.

Those are wonderful suggestions. We own Hewitt Conceptual Physics and I will look into the rest. Would you mind one more question? Lol (sorry).

Any suggestions on easy to read/high content selections for a dyslexic science lover - texts that will still offer high content, but it isn't necessary to be reading at a necessarily college level?

[PeterPan]

Those are wonderful suggestions. We own Hewitt Conceptual Physics and I will look into the rest. Would you mind one more question? Lol (sorry).

Any suggestions on easy to read/high content selections for a dyslexic science lover - texts that will still offer high content, but it isn't necessary to be reading at a necessarily college level?

 

I can address this a little. Some of the texts like Hewitt are very narrative in style and conducive to reading aloud and discussing together. With my dd, I've given up and am making her detailed outlines with spots to fill in her notes. We're doing a lab-driven approach, but you still need that book knowledge to understand what's going on.

 

I'm saying at some point you pick the material you need to work with and keep trying an accommodation till you land a method that fits.

[AimeeM]

I can address this a little. Some of the texts like Hewitt are very narrative in style and conducive to reading aloud and discussing together. With my dd, I've given up and am making her detailed outlines with spots to fill in her notes. We're doing a lab-driven approach, but you still need that book knowledge to understand what's going on.

 

I'm saying at some point you pick the material you need to work with and keep trying an accommodation till you land a method that fits.

We do have (and I love the looks of) Hewitt Conceptual Physics - I think I need to wait until she's a bit further in math before using it. I'm glad you recommend them in general - it's nice to know that not only CP is narrative in style (it is a nice read). I do plan on using the Hewitt texts when she's in high school I think. I love your idea about making outlines with spots for her to fill in. I think I will use that :D. I love TOPS for labs too - doable labs with equipment within my reach. Lol.

[freeindeed]

Well, I decided today that we are going to "table" Apologia Physical Science for a couple of years & pick it back up when dd11 is in 8th grade. She is only in 6th grade this year & it's just way over her head. I am going to put together something for her to use this year. I have some ideas already.:) Both she & I are feeling much less stress and a great deal more excitement.

[PeterPan]

Oh good! Didn't want to say anything, but that was like the elephant in the room on this thread! :)

 

Well good for you. You have so many cool options for 6th. If she's that science, advanced, she might like the BJU 7. Otherwise, the BJU6 on grade level would be awesome. Or TOPs kits or Snap Circuits (my dd loved 'em at that age and still does) or whatever you like. No need to jump into drudgery yet, and CERTAINLY no need to do a text aimed at kids multiple years older if she's not having a good time. She'll get there eventually! 11 and 13 are totally different beasts. Move on and have a great year. You're making the right decision! :)

[freeindeed]

Oh good! Didn't want to say anything, but that was like the elephant in the room on this thread! :)

 

Well good for you. You have so many cool options for 6th. If she's that science, advanced, she might like the BJU 7. Otherwise, the BJU6 on grade level would be awesome. Or TOPs kits or Snap Circuits (my dd loved 'em at that age and still does) or whatever you like. No need to jump into drudgery yet, and CERTAINLY no need to do a text aimed at kids multiple years older if she's not having a good time. She'll get there eventually! 11 and 13 are totally different beasts. Move on and have a great year. You're making the right decision! :)

 

:):) Thanks for the encouragement. It definitely feels like the right thing.