Jump to content

Menu

High school science, NOT Apologia


Recommended Posts

Well, the winner for Biology has been "High School Biology in Your Home" by Bridget Ardoin. My olders are enthusiastic about the fact that they remember so much from our year doing this. My youngest is using it this year and doing labs with some friends. It is an inquiry based program, where the student is given a number of questions to research on each topic and writes out what they discover from various sources in their Biology notebook, which becomes their text. The teacher guide has the answers they are expected to find so that you do not need to do the research to discuss the content with them. It's quite a bit of work for the student, but as I said my kids remember lots of Biology--and they did it three years ago now....

 

Chemistry is something we'll do differently next time. I tried to piece it together with resources that I thought were interesting. Worked fine for my science minded ds, but not so well for my dd who is more science-neutral in interest.

 

After avoiding Apologia ourselves, we wound up using Apologia Physics this year for my science minded ds. He wanted a good Algebra based Physics and I wanted something he could largely do on his own. He's liking the Apologia Physics for that. It's getting the job done. He's strong in physics concepts already as that is his passion (and he's largely self-taught), but he wanted more experience with the math of Physics before college.

 

Hope some of that helps. I've not had an easy time finding homeschool science at the high school level that isn't college texts...at least not done in a way that seems interesting and engaging to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A. Beka has been a good choice for us so far. Dd12 is only in 9 th, however.

 

DH and I are both work in a science field. Dd really wants to follow suit. So our criteria is:

 

1. Intensive and detailed.

2. Very strong labs similar to real world, or at least a college lab.

3. Very colorful to help hold the attention of our short attention-span kiddo.

4. Tough quizzes and tests. Challenging material keeps DD12 interested.

5. DVD is available just in case my work schedule prohibits me teaching.

 

A Beka met this criteria easily. But there are many other good choices, too. I always suggest people start with the lab and work backwards. This is because lab is the most expensive and labor intensive part of teaching science. I have always done my own daily science labs for this reason up until this year. It also helps to have a strong applied math curriculum in place for the more challenging science publishers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the winner for Biology has been "High School Biology in Your Home" by Bridget Ardoin. My olders are enthusiastic about the fact that they remember so much from our year doing this. My youngest is using it this year and doing labs with some friends. It is an inquiry based program, where the student is given a number of questions to research on each topic and writes out what they discover from various sources in their Biology notebook, which becomes their text. The teacher guide has the answers they are expected to find so that you do not need to do the research to discuss the content with them. It's quite a bit of work for the student, but as I said my kids remember lots of Biology--and they did it three years ago now....

 

So you found High School Biology in Your Home to be well done? I've wanted to try it based on the website, but have heard some horrible reviews of it, like there are numerous typos and the answer guide doesn't line up with the questions in many areas. When I asked for clarification, I was told that it's not that the answers are wrong, it's that they don't correspond at all to the questions, like asking someone what color the dog was and getting the answer 14. Did you find this to be true?

 

We're using Landry Academy for Forensic Anatomy and Research Methods this year and dd loves it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you found High School Biology in Your Home to be well done? I've wanted to try it based on the website, but have heard some horrible reviews of it, like there are numerous typos and the answer guide doesn't line up with the questions in many areas. When I asked for clarification, I was told that it's not that the answers are wrong, it's that they don't correspond at all to the questions, like asking someone what color the dog was and getting the answer 14. Did you find this to be true?

 

We're using Landry Academy for Forensic Anatomy and Research Methods this year and dd loves it.

 

We've loved it and found it to be really challenging. I haven't experienced problems with the answer guide. Perhaps it's a matter of how you read it? I did notice that the student manual has been revised since when my older ones used it, so the first couple of chapters are out of sync with my teacher guide, but I assume that it is because I have an older teacher guide.

 

Also, the author of the program is the one who communicates with you when you contact someone through the website. She responds quickly if you have any questions. We've really enjoyed it and my older kids say that they learned so much this way. It is a good deal of work, but can be really engaging as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm looking ahead to high school. Dd11 and I just tried an Apologia science text and it bombed for us. We use Sonlight, and they suggest Apologia for the upper science courses. I am wondering if you all could tell me what you use b/c we won't be using Apologia. Thanks!

 

The Apologia elementary series is very different from the high school texts. I tried the earlier ones, too, and they did not fit our family at all.

 

I have used Apologia Physical, Biology, Human Body & Chemistry with my older students and they are all solid courses. I am just suggesting not to reject them because the earlier texts were not a fit.

 

Blessings,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’d strongly recommend that you consider Campbell and Reece’s “Biology.†My wife has a Ph.D. in biology and I have a Ph.D. in physics, both from Stanford. Based on our own knowledge of science, we found this to be the best biology textbook available.

 

After making our choice, I checked around and found out that Campbell and Reece is widely considered the gold standard: e.g., three of the four sample syllabi provided by the College Board at the AP Biology site recommend Campbell and Reece ( http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/courses/teachers_corner/2117.html ), and it is also the textbook recommended at the University of California’s APBio open courseware site ( http://www.ucopenaccess.org/course/view.php?id=67 ). In fact, the preface says that it is now the “most widely used college textbook in the sciences†altogether.

 

Let me emphasize that we ourselves chose the book on our own before we knew how widely used it was in colleges, AP classes, etc. It simply is a clear, accurate, well-written book that is interesting to read. I’m learning things myself from the book, and there is some stuff in there that my wife does not know, since it’s been discovered since she got her Ph.D.

 

By the way, do *not* get “Biology†confused with other books by Campbell and Reece. There are (at least) two other biology textbooks by these authors with similar titles: “Essential Biology†and “Biology: Concepts and Connections,†which are at a lower level.

 

If you decide that “Biology†is at too high a level (though I really do not think it is too difficult for a reasonably good high-school student), then you could try Campbell and Reece’s “Essential Biology with Physiology,†which is also a good book (make sure, though, to get the “with Physiology†edition: the plain “Essential Biology†is a truncated version).

 

My own suspicion as to why the Campbell/Reece book is better than most other biology textbooks is that Jane Reece, who was the official “writing consultant,†also has a Ph.D. from U. of California in biology and did a postdoc at Stanford. Therefore, Reece can polish the writing style while still being focused on the actual science.

 

If you do not like any of the Reece/Campbell books, the BSCS “Blue Book†(technically known as “BSCS Biology: A Molecular Approach,†but usually referred to as the “Blue Bookâ€) is also a good text. I would however stay away from the other BSCS texts, such as the “Green Book†(full title “BSCS Biology: An Ecological Approachâ€).

 

Hope this helps.

 

Dave Miller in Sacramento

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’d strongly recommend that you consider Campbell and Reece’s “Biology.†My wife has a Ph.D. in biology and I have a Ph.D. in physics, both from Stanford. Based on our own knowledge of science, we found this to be the best biology textbook available.

 

After making our choice, I checked around and found out that Campbell and Reece is widely considered the gold standard: e.g., three of the four sample syllabi provided by the College Board at the AP Biology site recommend Campbell and Reece ( http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/courses/teachers_corner/2117.html ), and it is also the textbook recommended at the University of California’s APBio open courseware site ( http://www.ucopenaccess.org/course/view.php?id=67 ). In fact, the preface says that it is now the “most widely used college textbook in the sciences†altogether.

 

Let me emphasize that we ourselves chose the book on our own before we knew how widely used it was in colleges, AP classes, etc. It simply is a clear, accurate, well-written book that is interesting to read. I’m learning things myself from the book, and there is some stuff in there that my wife does not know, since it’s been discovered since she got her Ph.D.

 

By the way, do *not* get “Biology†confused with other books by Campbell and Reece. There are (at least) two other biology textbooks by these authors with similar titles: “Essential Biology†and “Biology: Concepts and Connections,†which are at a lower level.

 

If you decide that “Biology†is at too high a level (though I really do not think it is too difficult for a reasonably good high-school student), then you could try Campbell and Reece’s “Essential Biology with Physiology,†which is also a good book (make sure, though, to get the “with Physiology†edition: the plain “Essential Biology†is a truncated version).

 

My own suspicion as to why the Campbell/Reece book is better than most other biology textbooks is that Jane Reece, who was the official “writing consultant,†also has a Ph.D. from U. of California in biology and did a postdoc at Stanford. Therefore, Reece can polish the writing style while still being focused on the actual science.

 

If you do not like any of the Reece/Campbell books, the BSCS “Blue Book†(technically known as “BSCS Biology: A Molecular Approach,†but usually referred to as the “Blue Bookâ€) is also a good text. I would however stay away from the other BSCS texts, such as the “Green Book†(full title “BSCS Biology: An Ecological Approachâ€).

 

Hope this helps.

 

Dave Miller in Sacramento

 

Thanks! I say I'm going to use the CK12 text but I always have that text in the back of my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’d strongly recommend that you consider Campbell and Reece’s “Biology.†My wife has a Ph.D. in biology and I have a Ph.D. in physics, both from Stanford. Based on our own knowledge of science, we found this to be the best biology textbook available.

 

After making our choice, I checked around and found out that Campbell and Reece is widely considered the gold standard: e.g., three of the four sample syllabi provided by the College Board at the AP Biology site recommend Campbell and Reece ( http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/courses/teachers_corner/2117.html ), and it is also the textbook recommended at the University of California’s APBio open courseware site ( http://www.ucopenaccess.org/course/view.php?id=67 ). In fact, the preface says that it is now the “most widely used college textbook in the sciences†altogether.

 

Let me emphasize that we ourselves chose the book on our own before we knew how widely used it was in colleges, AP classes, etc. It simply is a clear, accurate, well-written book that is interesting to read. I’m learning things myself from the book, and there is some stuff in there that my wife does not know, since it’s been discovered since she got her Ph.D.

 

By the way, do *not* get “Biology†confused with other books by Campbell and Reece. There are (at least) two other biology textbooks by these authors with similar titles: “Essential Biology†and “Biology: Concepts and Connections,†which are at a lower level.

 

If you decide that “Biology†is at too high a level (though I really do not think it is too difficult for a reasonably good high-school student), then you could try Campbell and Reece’s “Essential Biology with Physiology,†which is also a good book (make sure, though, to get the “with Physiology†edition: the plain “Essential Biology†is a truncated version).

 

My own suspicion as to why the Campbell/Reece book is better than most other biology textbooks is that Jane Reece, who was the official “writing consultant,†also has a Ph.D. from U. of California in biology and did a postdoc at Stanford. Therefore, Reece can polish the writing style while still being focused on the actual science.

 

If you do not like any of the Reece/Campbell books, the BSCS “Blue Book†(technically known as “BSCS Biology: A Molecular Approach,†but usually referred to as the “Blue Bookâ€) is also a good text. I would however stay away from the other BSCS texts, such as the “Green Book†(full title “BSCS Biology: An Ecological Approachâ€).

 

Hope this helps.

 

Dave Miller in Sacramento

 

I'm curious if you are recommending this for AP Bio (or advanced students) or if you think this is a good standard text for general students. I've often seen Campbell Biology recommended for AP/honors level with Concepts and Connections recommended as a text for students who aren't looking for that level of detail (especially those who are doing biology as freshmen).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sebastian,

 

Well, our approach is really not to have discrete classes where we “do†the subject and then are through with it: I like to have the kids read some good books on a subject, get familiar with it, and then finally go through a solid textbook and really buckle down, do the problems, etc.

 

So, we started in grade school reading Mahlon Hoagland’s “The Way Life Works†and, a couple years later, his expanded “textbookish†version, “Exploring the Way Life Works.†“The Way Life Works†is really a wonderful book for grade-school/middle-school kids – it’s still my kids’ favorite science book that we have used to date (although one of the kids says that Reece/Campbell “Biology†is nearly as good). Hoagland, who is a big name in cell biology (e.g., co-discoverer of transfer RNA), teamed up with an illustrator to produce engaging but really informative cartoons to illustrate the book: the book is really eccentric, but extremely appealing and educational and, obviously, scientifically accurate.

 

We also, during grade school, read some good kids’ library books aimed at grade-school/middle-school kids, such as Rosen Pub. Groups’ “Library of Cells†series.

 

Then, in upper-grade-school/early middle school, the kids read both the BSCS “Blue Book†and also Reece/Campbell’s “Essential Biology with Physiology,†again just as casual reading without being tested or being assigned any problems from the books. We also watched Steve Nowicki's great video lecture series on biology from the Teaching Company (we got the video series through the library, but if you do buy from the Teaching Company, make sure you do it during one of their frequent 70 % off sales!).

 

And, now, finally, we are doing biology “for real†with Reece/Campbell “Biology.â€

 

So, yeah, it might be a mistake to use Reece/Campbell “Biology†as the first serious biology book a student ever reads: personally, I think it is always good, in any subject, to be exposed to several good books to get a “feel†for a subject. But, if a student has some good prior exposure to biology, so that, for example, “mitochondria,†“RNA,†etc. are not completely unfamiliar terms, then I think Reece/Campbell “Biology†can serve as the text for the first really serious biology course. Although it is basically an AP text, Reece/Campbell “Biology†really is well-written: it’s about as unintimidating as a book can be that is conveying serious science. I just wish I could find a physics or chemistry book that is nearly as well-written!

 

Sorry for the long-winded reply, but I always have trouble explaining briefly the approach that we’re taking.

 

Dave

Edited by PhysicistDave
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wish I could find a physics or chemistry book that is nearly as well-written!

 

Dave, are you familiar with Randall Knight's text?

I use his algebra/trig based College Physics as a first high school science, but he also has a calculus based text (Physics for Scientists and Engineers) which I find really well written. (His grouping of topics is a bit different from other standard texts which is why I did not adopt his)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the long reply. I think it helps a lot to know where people are coming from when they make book suggestions.

We often have areas of passion that have been areas of study for years and years.

Was there something in the Concepts and Connections text you found problematic or do you just find Biology a better fit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dancer67,

 

We are signed up with a (happily extremely laissez-faire) charter school, so they bought the book at our request: I believe they got it through Barnes and Noble. You should be able to get it through either amazon or Barnes and Noble.

 

Like almost all higher-level texts, however, it is quite expensive, so if you are shelling out your own money, I’d recommend looking for used copies of recent editions on amazon, abebooks, etc., or even seeing if your local public or university library has a copy that you can just keep renewing indefinitely.

 

I’m doing the infinite-renewal thing with several books from the local university library: it is $100 a year for a library card, which more than pays for itself. If anyone needs the books, the library will recall them, of course, but that rarely happens. I actually started doing that with Campbell/Reece “Biology†(both our local county library and the local state university library own “Biology†as well as “Concepts and Connectionsâ€), but, since the charter school had some funds for books, I eventually decided to just ask them to get a new copy.

 

I’ll add that I have bought quite a few used books very cheaply on abebooks and amazon: in many cases, we find that we actually prefer the earlier edition (e.g., I like the 1997 edition of Bulliett’s “The Earth and Its Peoples†a lot better than the later edition).

 

I should also add that the paperbound edition of “Essential Biology with Physiology†is not well bound: it falls apart unless you are very careful (obviously, the hardbound “Biology†is sturdier).

 

As to whether a parent can teach “Biology†on his or her own, well, I’m the stay-at-home parent and I know physics, not biology – I have to confess that I managed to avoid all biology classes after junior high! So, I am reading the book, learning a lot, and then quizzing the kids orally on each chapter as we all move along. The book is pretty well-structured in terms of “concept checks,†end of chapter summaries and quizzes, etc., all with answers in the back of the book. When we finish the book, I’ll have the kids review it and then subject themselves to an interrogation by my wife the biologist. My wife has done the dissections with the kids, since we physicists don’t like icky/squishy things – give me some nice, clean, antiseptic electronics, please!

 

So, yes, I think Campbell/Reece “Biology†is at least as amenable to a parent’s teaching as most textbooks; however, it does require the parent to actually learn some of the biology for himself or herself, at least unless they know a lot more biology than I do. I actually told my Ph.D. biologist wife some cell biology the other day that she did not know, so I am feeling a bit empowered reading the book, personally.

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sebastian asked me:

>Was there something in the Concepts and Connections text you found problematic or do you just find Biology a better fit?

 

No, I don’t know anything wrong with “Concepts and Connectionsâ€: I suppose the biggest thing is that, when I started flipping through and reading a paragraph here and there in “Biology,†it just struck me that I would really like to read this book, even if I weren’t homeschooling our kids. So, if “Biology†was appealing to me, I figured it might appeal to the kids, too, which turns out to be the case.

 

By the way, before buying a book and really committing to it, I do always try to get a library copy and show it to the kids and get their feedback: they do not necessarily get the final say, but if they really hate a book at first glance, I suspect it might not work out too well as a textbook for them. So, I rarely impose a book on them unless they agree it is at least okay. And, I hope to find books that they think are really great.

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Campbell 's Biology is a dense college text with a college reading level. It presupposed a knowledge of basic chemistry. So, if you plan on doing the bio - chem - phys order for high school, do not use Campbell's Biology. If you are doing the reverse order, phys - chem - bio, and the dc will have had more math and other college level reading, Campbell's Biology would work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In The Great White North wrote:

>So, if you plan on doing the bio - chem - phys order for high school, do not use Campbell's Biology.

 

Well… we are doing bio first, and this is not a problem for our kids with Campbell/Reece Biology. I’ll admit that I would have preferred the phys-chem-bio sequence, both because it seems more logical, and because, as a physicist, I would give priority to physics. However, our kids take a lot more easily to biology than to physics.

 

Campbell/Reece Biology does not seem to presuppose any significant knowledge of physics at all that I can see. They do have a brief discussion of conservation of energy and increasing entropy and of free energy, but at a very elementary, introductory level that does not seem to assume any significant amount of prior knowledge.

 

We are now in the most “chemical” part of the book, cellular respiration and photosynthesis, and our kids are not finding the chemistry overwhelming. I don’t see any of the hard-core stuff you would expect in a high-school chem class: e.g., detailed calculations involving equilibrium constants, etc.

 

The book certainly does assume that the student is comfortable with the idea that “C” denotes a carbon atom, “O” an oxygen atom, etc., that atoms fit together in definite ways to form molecules, that molecules have definite 3-D shapes, etc. However, at least out here in California, that is considered grade-school material, even in the public schools.

 

The reading level is definitely higher than “Harry Potter” or “Hunger Games,” but not as difficult as most of the textbooks I used in college.

 

What may be a real challenge for some students is grasping the mechanistic, reductionist perspective that is central to modern science: that perspective is certainly integral to the book. As I tell my kids, “A rosebush is a machine.” From the perspective of modern science, all that is happening inside a rosebush is electrons, protons, and neutrons pushing and pulling on each other: a rosebush has no purpose, no goals, no ultimate end.

 

That perspective tends to be very alien to most people, but, for better or worse, you do not “get” modern science unless you grasp that perspective.

 

Incidentally, I am not making any larger philosophical or theological point here: like a number of my fellow physicists, I actually doubt that this mechanistic perspective can explain consciousness. But, scientists are pretty sure it does explain a rosebush.

 

In any case, Reece/ Campbell Biology is widely available in libraries, so I’d certainly encourage anyone to look at a copy before actually buying it.

 

Dave

Edited by PhysicistDave
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well… we are doing bio first, and this is not a problem for our kids with Campbell/Reece Biology.

From your description, your dc have essentially had their high school science in middle school, so the order of revisiting the sciences would not be as important. For children whose previous science exposure was sprouting seeds, it's a different story.

 

The book certainly does assume that the student is comfortable with the idea that “C” denotes a carbon atom, “O” an oxygen atom, etc., that atoms fit together in definite ways to form molecules, that molecules have definite 3-D shapes, etc. However, at least out here in California, that is considered grade-school material, even in the public schools

 

That's very interesting. And definitely not the same here. Ds, who did up through 8th at a local school, did not have either the science background nor the reading level for this when we started homeschooling in 9th grade. They had observed some experiments but had no exposure to the elements, chemical formulas, chemical equations, molecular shapes, entropy, conservation of energy, etc. I'm sure you get the idea.

 

Background is everything. They can get the background in the middle school years or they can get it in high school, but it makes a huge difference in their ability to handle the text.

Edited by In The Great White North
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From your description, your dc have essentially had their high school science in middle school, so the order of revisiting the sciences would not be as important. For children whose previous science exposure was sprouting seeds, it's a different story.

 

 

 

That's very interesting. And definitely not the same here. Ds, who did up through 8th at a local school, did not have either the science background nor the reading level for this when we started homeschooling in 9th grade. They had observed some experiments but had no exposure to the elements, chemical formulas, chemical equations, molecular shapes, entropy, conservation of energy, etc. I'm sure you get the idea.

 

Background is everything. They can get the background in the middle school years or they can get it in high school, but it makes a huge difference in their ability to handle the text.

 

Passion and interest can be a powerful driver. Artichoke (DS #1) is thrilled with our beginning physics (College Physics AP edition by Knight Jones) even though it is a stretch for him mathematically. If we'd started with biology, I think it would have been considered just another thing to gut through (even though he has been reading college level books on insects and arthropods for many years).

 

Similarly, Cauliflower (ds #2) was thrilled to see the latest collection of Teaching Company sets included one on Utopia and Terror (lots of 20th century -isms covered) and has loaded it to listen to while he runs. He will also ask to join us when we're watching various agitprop movies.

 

I have to be careful when I recommend books to keep in mind that not every young teen has the same background mine have. And I also need to keep this perspective in mind when I choose books based on the recommendations of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here we used Christian Liberty for Biology. My son get so much more out of this book and finds it much more readable that Apologia (my son made it to module 6 and then said "No more! I can't take all the talking.").

 

Anyway, we are doing Spectrum Chemisty with Greg Landry. My son really likes the class, but he dislikes Chemistry. (He would dislike chemistry no matter what). He finds Spectrum Chemistry understandable and very doable. This is a solid, first year chemistry high school course.

 

Next year, he will be doing Physics with Greg Landry and they use Conceptual Physics by Hewitt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...