Science breadth vs. depth?

[Kfamily]

I'm really trying to sort out my thoughts on this topic, and reading the ideas and opinions of other parents really helps me turn my mangled mass of thoughts into a real plan or approach. (:lol:) I would love any ideas or suggestions about this.

 

My older dd's math track is slightly behind. I wanted to cover her math sequence for high school first in this post, since I know everything I think about in science will be based upon her math abilites.

 

Here is our general plan:

 

9th-Algebra I (with once a week Geometry Labs with such books as Patty Paper and Geometry Labs and a once a week time slot for working on word problems in general (a weakness of hers) and SAT math questions)

 

10th-Geometry (with a once a week review in Algebra topics and the same once a week time slot for SAT math problems)

 

11th-Algebra 2 (with intensive SAT math just before the actual SAT test/we'll probably take the ACT too...still need to look into this more)

 

12th-Pre-Calculus/Trig (hopefully with a tutor)

 

So now my questions about science....

 

My dd is working in a Physical Science text right now (Prentice Hall's Concepts in Action) and I can see that there are concepts she just doesn't understand very well. I'm working on a plan to create Ingegrated Science for her because she feels this will meet her needs better. (She would like math to be integrated as well, but...)

 

My concern is that I feel torn between what I think are two approaches I can take with her regarding science.

 

Approach 1:

I can have her follow the conventional approach by using good textbooks and covering all of the concepts contained in the textbooks. We would work through the Physical Science book this year to lay a foundation. We would follow it with a biology text with lab work, a chemistry text with lab work and then either a conceptual physics text or something else(?).

 

Pros:

She will cover all that is expected of her to be covered (like her peers) and will have a typical and appropriate transcript for college.

 

She will have followed a typical sequence and will be able to match her math to it.

 

She will have followed a typical sequence and this will make it easier for us if we need to find a coop or cc class or something else to take over science.

 

ETA: I can still give her integrated science, but I would use the conventional books as our spines. So, we can have an integrated science with both approaches, but this one will be will follow the more typical read each chapter, add an experiement to that chapter and then test that chapter and so on until the text is completed.

 

 

Cons:

She will leave her high school years without having gained a true understanding of science.

 

She will have checked the boxes (with lots of brain dumping along the way) and this goes against my deepest feelings and fears on education (and hers as well). I will feel as if I've let her down.:sad:

 

Approach 2:

I can have her follow a less conventional approach with regard to sequence and coverage. Our focus with this approach would be depth in what we do learn rather than breadth and exposure. We would still use quality textbooks for a spine but with less focus on covering everything in each book and with more time spent on adding whatever we need to make the concepts truly understood in what we do cover.

 

Pros:

She would at least learn to appreciate science (with me holding onto the hope that she might actually learn to like it :D) because what she did know she would know well. She tends to dislike what she doesn't understand and enjoy what she does (as is normal, I think).

 

She would be better positioned (I think) to do well in college science classes because she would have the skills needed to succeed (even if some of the material was new or had been only lightly covered before) and would have the most fundamental concepts down. This would give her a base upon which to build. Her math skills would also be better positioned in that she would be finished with all algebra.

 

We would both stay true to what matters the most to us with regard to our educational approaches which is true understanding.

 

Cons:

This approach will be more difficult and more time-consuming for me.

 

She will not have had a typical sequence and this will show on her transcipt. (Although I do plan on having a subject style transcipt and could list the very traditonally accepted textbooks for biology and chemistry that we use as a spine. And she would cover the majority of concepts for biology, chemistry and the conceptual level of physics at the very least. Most likely, we will venture a little into earth science and astronomy too.)

 

It may be harder for her to take coop or cc classes to fill in if we needed to, since her sequence would not match a typical sequence.

 

Here are the questions that run through my head:

 

Wouldn't it be more important for a non-science major student to focus on skills that are essential to science? I'm thinking we could spend more time on science/math skills, understanding how to set up, run and write up experiments, understand measurement in science, using models, presenting data, etc. If this is combined with a complete understanding of major concepts from chemistry, biology and physics with lectures, dvds, reading lists, journal readings/current events (with writing assignments too), then would this make it more acceptable?

 

I'm truly new to all of this...and I know how much more educated and intelligent you ladies and gentlemen are here...I'm not trying to do more than I'm capable of...I'm just trying to make the sense of what is right in my head and heart and what is right for my dd (who is very smart but has some issues with approaching problems...and it shows itself very much in math and science) and at the same time keep every door open to her and prepare her for college.

 

I'm sorry this is so long...

Edited October 11, 2012 by Kfamily

[lewelma]

There seem to be 2 different issues in your post: 1) integrated science and the difficulties of non-standard transcripts, and 2) depth vs breadth. I cannot speak to #1, but I can comment on depth vs breadth.

 

As far as I am concerned, you do not need to do a survey of the field of science to count it as a science course. There is absolutely nothing wrong with going in depth instead. For example, you could design a biology course with 3 units each taking 12 weeks, here are some examples:

 

1) ecology, cell biology, and evolution

2) conservation biology, molecular biology, health and disease

3) genetics, physiology, animal diversity

4) marine biology, botany, and biochemistry

 

Any of these groupings would fulfil a biology credit. Notice that I have included some breadth in the in-depth units. I would not suggest that you dc study ecology, conservation biology, and marine biology, because it is not really a biology course but rather an ecology course.

 

Just something to think about. Just been called to dinner....

 

Ruth in NZ

Edited October 11, 2012 by lewelma

[Arcadia]

Are you schooling year round? I was calculating that if you are using high school textbooks meant for a school year, that would be 180 academic days/36 school weeks. You would have a buffer of 16 non-school week per year.

 

Whether it is approach one or two, you could cover a lot of depth in the 16 non-school weeks per year.

[Kfamily]

Thanks Ruth, this makes sense and I didn't think of it this way. I liked your examples of a biology course with three main units of study.

 

 

I do think we can integrate science with either approach (and I tried to edit this in my original post) but that in the first one we will only be changing the order in which we handle the chapters of each book (with only a little time left for supplements) and the second one will leave some topics/concepts out in order to make time for the depth of what we do cover. Does that make sense? So, I think we will be fine on our transcripts in the first approach, but I'm concerned that the second approach will leave out some work and will not give her enough of a survey of these sciences. I don't want this to work against her.

[Kfamily]

Yes, we do school year round (and yes we try for about 40 weeks per year), although we really got off-track this past year and half. This had a huge affect on our work. We moved 3 times in two and a half years and the last move was to Okinawa, Japan. Our life has been very upside down during this time.

 

For us, part of the problem comes around when where a typical student could finish any one of these chapters from a textbook in one week (or two in some cases) and still do well on the test, while my dd seems to need more time, more explanation or demonstrations and more practice to really make these concepts work for her. We just recently covered the gas laws and while she understood some of it, it seems she is still struggling with it too. We will go over the math aspect of it more closely tomorrow and then she will need to work a number of problems. I feel like the wording of the defintions and explanations really start to overwhelm and go over her head. I did go over it with her (and tried to use real world examples for her), but I'm not sure if this was enough. I've been looking for some simple, uses-household-goods type experiments to add to this chapter. We have to add all of this in order to make the chapter finished for her. We could just read the chapters, complete the study guides, memorize the facts and formulas and take the tests for this book, but I really consider this to be so foundational to her understanding of science in general and I want her to really understand what she is learning.

Edited October 11, 2012 by Kfamily

[Nan in Mass]

We did a non-standard science sequence. I'll let you know in a few months, when we find out if he was accepted to college, whether it was a problem. We did two years of natural history, then a year of cc intro chem, then (this year) a semester of intro bio and two semesters of calc-based physics. I don't know how colleges will view this, but as far as learning goes, this turned out to be an excellent approach. Natural history was really lots of natural history plus learning to find information, use measuring equipment, observe, draw, and design and document experiments. My son designed the experiments and they ranged through all the science subjects, not just natural history ones. He also did lots of extra reading in all the science subjects. It was a very interest-driven few years. It was also very, very time-consuming. I separated out a few of the more extensive interests and labeled them as different courses. For example, he spent quite a lot of time working on electronics. I was extremely nervous about the switch to classroom based science, but it went smoothly (other than remembering to put his name on his lab reports and learning to choose his lab partner wisely lol). A year and a bit hasn't dulled down his interest in science and he is in a much better position to deal with the labs than many of his classmates. Some of them are unable to focus a microscope, graph things, zero a balance, or use calipers. The first two years felt very scattered, but apparently we managed to cover quite a bit of ground. I did have a list of natural history concepts that I felt we needed to cover and he read most of a biology book as background as well as many other books.

 

If you want to be completely overwhelmed, you can go read that mega depth versus breadth thread from a few years ago lol. Ruth's advice is good. You can look for posts from Correllano (sp?) who also is doing a non-standard sequence. She is a scientist herself and was helpful in showing me what I needed to cover. You might also want to read Creekland's recent thread about biology.

 

HTH

Nan

[regentrude]

I do think we can integrate science with either approach (and I tried to edit this in my original post) but that in the first one we will only be changing the order in which we handle the chapters of each book (with only a little time left for supplements) and the second one will leave some topics/concepts out in order to make time for the depth of what we do cover. Does that make sense? So, I think we will be fine on our transcripts in the first approach, but I'm concerned that the second approach will leave out some work and will not give her enough of a survey of these sciences. I don't want this to work against her.

 

EVERY science course covers only a part of the material in any given field. We are just so used to seeing the same kind of selection in every standard text that we tend to think that this constitutes "complete" science, and if we just cover the whole book, we did a good job. But we need to realized that, even using a complete book, we are only dealing with a selection.

 

My philosophy has always been to select what to teach and teach this thoroughly. I teach a college physics class, over two semesters, and there are whole chapters we do not even touch, because I find an thorough understanding of certain subjects more important than a superficial coverage of all the content selected for the book.

Ruth's example about biology is great - there are so many different ways to select content.

 

I see absolutely nothing wrong with a careful selection of topics to study. There are, of course, some constraints about sequence - some topics make no sense without certain foundations - but I do not subscribe to the school of thought that a course must cover the complete textbook in order to be credit worthy.

[angela in ohio]

Cons:

She will leave her high school years without having gained a true understanding of science.

 

She will have checked the boxes (with lots of brain dumping along the way) and this goes against my deepest feelings and fears on education (and hers as well). I will feel as if I've let her down.:sad:

 

We *are* currently doing something along the lines of Approach 1, and this has not been our experience at all. I don't know if this helps or not, but imho, you can have either of these problems regardless of whether you use the standard science sequence or not. It's more a factor of how you approach the subjects.

[Kfamily]

We did a non-standard science sequence. I'll let you know in a few months, when we find out if he was accepted to college, whether it was a problem. We did two years of natural history, then a year of cc intro chem, then (this year) a semester of intro bio and two semesters of calc-based physics. I don't know how colleges will view this, but as far as learning goes, this turned out to be an excellent approach. Natural history was really lots of natural history plus learning to find information, use measuring equipment, observe, draw, and design and document experiments. My son designed the experiments and they ranged through all the science subjects, not just natural history ones. He also did lots of extra reading in all the science subjects. It was a very interest-driven few years. It was also very, very time-consuming. I separated out a few of the more extensive interests and labeled them as different courses. For example, he spent quite a lot of time working on electronics. I was extremely nervous about the switch to classroom based science, but it went smoothly (other than remembering to put his name on his lab reports and learning to choose his lab partner wisely lol). A year and a bit hasn't dulled down his interest in science and he is in a much better position to deal with the labs than many of his classmates. Some of them are unable to focus a microscope, graph things, zero a balance, or use calipers. The first two years felt very scattered, but apparently we managed to cover quite a bit of ground. I did have a list of natural history concepts that I felt we needed to cover and he read most of a biology book as background as well as many other books.

 

If you want to be completely overwhelmed, you can go read that mega depth versus breadth thread from a few years ago lol. Ruth's advice is good. You can look for posts from Correllano (sp?) who also is doing a non-standard sequence. She is a scientist herself and was helpful in showing me what I needed to cover. You might also want to read Creekland's recent thread about biology.

 

HTH

Nan

 

This really does help a lot. I think the first two years of natural history along with a real focus on science skills followed by two more years of either of the major sciences such as chemistry, biology and physics sounds interesting.

I will go back and read the various threads you've mentioned as I think they will give me some ideas to consider too.

Thank you so much.

[Kfamily]

EVERY science course covers only a part of the material in any given field. We are just so used to seeing the same kind of selection in every standard text that we tend to think that this constitutes "complete" science, and if we just cover the whole book, we did a good job. But we need to realized that, even using a complete book, we are only dealing with a selection.

 

My philosophy has always been to select what to teach and teach this thoroughly. I teach a college physics class, over two semesters, and there are whole chapters we do not even touch, because I find an thorough understanding of certain subjects more important than a superficial coverage of all the content selected for the book.

Ruth's example about biology is great - there are so many different ways to select content.

 

I see absolutely nothing wrong with a careful selection of topics to study. There are, of course, some constraints about sequence - some topics make no sense without certain foundations - but I do not subscribe to the school of thought that a course must cover the complete textbook in order to be credit worthy.

 

Thanks regentrude. Knowing your science background, I really find a lot of comfort in your thoughts. I think you may have singled out the most important idea for me right now. I have been so convinced that I must cover everything in each textbook in order to correctly expose her to what she needs to know for high school science, that it has begun to loom over us as an overwhelming feat. If you add in a slightly behind in math, non-science loving kind of girl who needs more practice with concepts, then you have an amount of work with which she cannot keep up. (And additionally, she prefers to learn about science through non-textbook approaches such as museums, nature study, experiments, dvds, etc. This too needs more time.)

Thank you. This has helped me tremendously! :grouphug:

[Kfamily]

We *are* currently doing something along the lines of Approach 1, and this has not been our experience at all. I don't know if this helps or not, but imho, you can have either of these problems regardless of whether you use the standard science sequence or not. It's more a factor of how you approach the subjects.

 

Thanks angela. I hope I didn't give the impression that I find fault with anyone who follows my first approach. If I did, I'm truly sorry.:grouphug: I absolutely agree that it is all in how your approach the sequence. My fear was that I would fall into the conventional textbook approach in my method of teaching (teaching out of a place of safety for me or of uncertainty about a subject I'm not used to teaching...at least at this level) and not giving her what she needs to truly understand it. I've also just realized (thanks to regentrude:001_smile:) that I've been too focused on thinking that I must cover everything in each textbook. I think this has been my biggest problem. I can use either approach, integrate it for her, add all of the supplements and time she needs and still have her accomplish a fair bit.

I don't know what it is about moving into high school territory...the idea that I only have four more years left....it just makes me lose focus sometimes.:lol:

[elegantlion]

I'm following you around again. :lol: I've been dealing with this question. I originally wanted to do Physics with one book, then he had some math glitches, so I've changed it all around, even since the beginning of the year. One thing I want to do is preserve the love of the subject, currently for science that is physics and space. My underlying fear is if I push the too much or too hard book on him up front he'll balk and the interest will wane.

 

I really appreciate the responses here too, they are helping me gain confidence in my plans.

 

I don't plan to go as deep in biology as chemistry, and chemistry won't be as deep as physics. At the end of the 3 years I hope to have a transcript with physics w/lab, chem w/lab, and bio w/lab. We will have approached each subject a little differently.

 

I also plan to tie some humanities type subjects with science. For instance, I'm planning an Ethics class and one area we'll cover is ethics in medicine, ethics in science overall, you could tie literature into science and some of the more abstract concepts in early sci-fi, like Journey to Center of the Earth, Jules Verne.

[Kfamily]

I'm following you around again. :lol: I've been dealing with this question. I originally wanted to do Physics with one book, then he had some math glitches, so I've changed it all around, even since the beginning of the year. One thing I want to do is preserve the love of the subject, currently for science that is physics and space. My underlying fear is if I push the too much or too hard book on him up front he'll balk and the interest will wane.

 

I really appreciate the responses here too, they are helping me gain confidence in my plans.

 

I don't plan to go as deep in biology as chemistry, and chemistry won't be as deep as physics. At the end of the 3 years I hope to have a transcript with physics w/lab, chem w/lab, and bio w/lab. We will have approached each subject a little differently.

 

I also plan to tie some humanities type subjects with science. For instance, I'm planning an Ethics class and one area we'll cover is ethics in medicine, ethics in science overall, you could tie literature into science and some of the more abstract concepts in early sci-fi, like Journey to Center of the Earth, Jules Verne.

 

Hi Paula!

Don't worry...I follow you around too.:lol:

 

Yes, all of the advice has been very helpful to me. I'm interested in your Ethics class. When you have time, I'd love for you to share with me your ideas on it.

 

I agree, I like dd to finish with a full credit with lab in biology, chemistry and physics. If we can accomplish this, along with getting rid of her I'm-not-good at-science-and-I-don't-like-it attitude, then I will be very content!

[angela in ohio]

Thanks angela. I hope I didn't give the impression that I find fault with anyone who follows my first approach. If I did, I'm truly sorry.:grouphug: I absolutely agree that it is all in how your approach the sequence. My fear was that I would fall into the conventional textbook approach in my method of teaching (teaching out of a place of safety for me or of uncertainty about a subject I'm not used to teaching...at least at this level) and not giving her what she needs to truly understand it. I've also just realized (thanks to regentrude:001_smile:) that I've been too focused on thinking that I must cover everything in each textbook. I think this has been my biggest problem. I can use either approach, integrate it for her, add all of the supplements and time she needs and still have her accomplish a fair bit.

I don't know what it is about moving into high school territory...the idea that I only have four more years left....it just makes me lose focus sometimes.:lol:

 

No, I didn't get that impression at all. I just didn't want you to make your decisions based on a faulty assumption. You cannot guarantee a deep understanding of science and avoid box checking just by following an alternate timeline for high school science unfortunately. I think you can alleviate the problems you see in both apporaches at the same time, really. The same things you could do on an alternate schedule you can do just as easily with the usual sequence.

[lewelma]

Approach 2:

I can have her follow a less conventional approach with regard to sequence and coverage. Our focus with this approach would be depth in what we do learn rather than breadth and exposure. We would still use quality textbooks for a spine but with less focus on covering everything in each book and with more time spent on adding whatever we need to make the concepts truly understood in what we do cover.

If you choose to study fewer topics in more depth I would suggest that you find different resources than a traditional textbook. Survey-style traditional textbooks can lead to more questions than answers for some kids, which can be good but can also just be frustrating. My ds is working through chemistry and he is not *satisfied* with the depth of the material. He always has questions, good questions, that lead us to try to find stuff on the internet. This is ok, but it would be far better to have a book with more depth, because the in-depth material would be more systematically organized than my internet searches. (he is studying for the IGCSE exam so we do have to use this textbook). There are books out there that cover less material in more depth (like biozone modular books http://www.biozone.co.nz/modular.php), and I would recommend you find some of those rather than covering 1/4th of the material in a spine (traditional textbook) and then looking all over for supporting material.

 

For example, suppose you chose to focus on genetics. Instead of doing the one genetics chapter in a standard biology textbook and then looking up material that she does not understand, I would recommend you use books like The Cartoon Guide to Genetics or The Stuff of Life (or both) and then working through Hemophilia in the Royal families of Europe. Finally, doing an investigation of your own family genetics and tracing some genes.

 

I really don't think I am expressing myself well, but my concern is that if you only do 1/4th of a textbook and try to really understand the topics, it might feel to *her* that you are doing a remedial class because she can't understand the material without more resources. Obviously, it depends on how you "sell" it to her, but I have found that kids are shockingly perceptive. My point is to design a study for each unit. Have a plan, rather than using a spine and trying to find resources that will help her understand material that is too difficult for her. Often the material is not really too difficult, but because some textbooks explain things at such a surface/simple level, the explanations can actually confuse some students that need *more* to really get it or even accept a concept (like my son). You want to be very careful with a non-sciency kid to make sure that they develop positive attitudes about science, and using a survey style text as a spine for an in-depth style kid might be asking for frustration. Something along the lines of "if other kids can understand these concepts with this explanation, then I must be stupid because I don't get it." Having taught high schoolers for a number of years, I have definitely seen this attitude form.

 

Ruth in NZ

Edited October 11, 2012 by lewelma

[PeterPan]

You know, when I read your post, I was surprised you were not considering branching out into a more humanities-driven history approach, especially considering HOW far you've gone to customize for her in the past. Picking up a blechy physical science text was probably a shock! And it sort of reeks of Mom realized it was high school and we better do it "right". :) So for what it's worth, my dd is rather similar to yours. She's a humanities/history person who has no need in the world to read non-fiction science. If she hits something she doesn't understand, it's game over. There's none of that perfectionist drive that helps some kids stick through something they don't understand. I suggested to her all she has to do is reread it 10 times, and she STILL wouldn't understand. Whatever. :D

 

We're using the BJU physical science labs plus the PH Concepts in Action labs this year. I have the BJU text, didn't get the one from PH. From the samples, I see what you're saying that the text from PH has lots of math, where BJU seems to put the math into the labs. The way I tortured her today, I would definitely say that was the case. :lol:

 

We're doing the double labs, because I really felt like I had a *better* chance of connecting with her via hands-on than I would via the text. I've LOVE to use a humanities-driven approach, but I didn't really find anything in that vein that struck me as the right fit. I've seen the lists and understand they might fit other people. It's just those books didn't seem the right fit for her right now. I would have to take the reading level very, very low to get her able to read and intersect with it, and then the content wouldn't be appropriate. Her reading level is age 30+ on the WJIII btw. It's not a reading issue; it's HER.

 

So what has happened to us over the last how many weeks is that we realized we couldn't go into the labs cold, with NO background, because she was giving the same Huh response as if she tried to read the text. So I tried having her read the text using outline notes I made. That sorta works, but it's very, very, very tiring for her. Like unacceptably tiring, ruin your life tiring. Clearly she's not headed for a future in science, lol. On the some of the chapters she was willing, and on this last chapter (intro to kinetics, speed vs. velocity, acceleration, distance vs. displacement, etc.), she just totally bucked. We locked horns for days and days, and I finally realized I had UTTERLY FORGOTTEN the coolest resource on the planet!!

 

Disney Imagineering has these science dvds on a scad of topics. There are physical science, life science, etc. Bill Nye also was under the Disney umbrella, so when I search "Disney Science" at our library system, all his come up too. So what we did was watch (on youtube) what we could find of various videos on the topics. So *I* knew the material by studying the textbook. *She* learned the material by watching a scad of videos online with me. I could talk her through them, pause, and make sure she got the important points, because I knew what she needed to cover. Then we did the labs. Insert blood and tears in there while I wondered if she was going to be able to do the labs, but do them she did. I don't know about your dd, but my dd is a doer. Once she knows what to do, she's really handy at setting it up and getting it going and enjoys that part.

 

So whatever. I don't think you have to totally die on the math hill with your PH CIA. Skip that part. If you want to watch youtube videos or the Disney stuff on the topics and skip the book entirely, I think that's ok. I would do the labs. A unit is time spent, and they want to see labs. So you're doing the labs and you're spending the time. The videos help with the connection. I think if you *trim out* some of the stuff that's a weak point (like 80,000 computations, I speak in hyperbole), then she'll have energy left to focus on the key points.

 

As far as modeling and all the other things you listed, every single one of those is covered in the BJU. The BJU is a pain in the rear end (personal opinion) to implement, but it's more thorough than the PH. The PH labs are more fun, and the BJU labs are more like a teeth cleaning. What I did was rip up the lab books for both, punch them all, and organize them into 36 "weeks". That way we have labs every week. As long as we put in the time each week, it really doesn't matter *how* you put in the time.

 

In your shoes, I would probably pick what components *are* working for her and retain those. Dump the components that are not or decrease them radically (no tests, drop the math problems down to 2 on each topic, etc.). Then, if the videos plus labs plus whatever doesn't get her to where you want her to be for time (~5 hours a week total per week to call it a unit), then start adding in some of that humanities stuff to connect to the science. Start adding in those science biographies, etc. I'm not assigning high school credit for this (because she's technically 8th), but that's how I would get there if I needed that time in.

 

BTW, as a total aside, have you seen the stuff from Logos Science? Someone pointed it out to me last night. Sorry this is getting so long btw. It was just my torture for the last few days and really on my mind. We're finishing our 7th week of it, and it got kinda rough. Anyways, the Logos Science has lab kits (or separately available manuals, if you already have tons of supplies) that seem like they would stand alone. I wish I had found them earlier. I might have used them exclusively for the labs and then added in all the humanities stuff and the videos and been done with it. When you get the textbook, you kinda feel compelled to USE it and don't know how to break free, kwim?

 

And another aside. I think narrative thinkers actually do better when they see all the concepts *come together* as they do in a lab. I think, in that sense, a more sophisticated problem that brings all the concepts together and lets you *highlight* them as the kid discovers them is BETTER than an approach that parcels it up, says to learn the definition of accuracy vs. precision, and then heads to a lab. Some kids really learn better in the whole, in context. It's another reason why, if *I'm* on top of the material, I can use the lab as the driver for a lot of it. The insanely hard part is being on top of it myself enough to guide her in that.

 

That's what I really concluded this week, after a lot of heartache, that it's not the materials but me. And alas, my physics is just stinkin' rusty. (read non-existent)

[Kfamily]

If you choose to study fewer topics in more depth I would suggest that you find different resources than a traditional textbook. Survey-style traditional textbooks can lead to more questions than answers for some kids, which can be good but can also just be frustrating. My ds is working through chemistry and he is not *satisfied* with the depth of the material. He always has questions, good questions, that lead us to try to find stuff on the internet. This is ok, but it would be far better to have a book with more depth, because the in-depth material would be more systematically organized than my internet searches. (he is studying for the IGCSE exam so we do have to use this textbook). There are books out there that cover less material in more depth (like biozone modular books http://www.biozone.co.nz/modular.php), and I would recommend you find some of those rather than covering 1/4th of the material in a spine (traditional textbook) and then looking all over for supporting material.

 

For example, suppose you chose to focus on genetics. Instead of doing the one genetics chapter in a standard biology textbook and then looking up material that she does not understand, I would recommend you use books like The Cartoon Guide to Genetics or The Stuff of Life (or both) and then working through Hemophilia in the Royal families of Europe. Finally, doing an investigation of your own family genetics and tracing some genes.

 

This is would be my ideal approach. I'll look more closely at the books from Biozone. She would find the idea of studying genetics, especially with the books you've listed very interesting. Just last night, we were watching a series of dvds entitled The Celts and it began with the early history and it also covered scientists tracing the bloodlines of Celtic people today. She found this fascinating.

 

 

 

And I agree with how you explained what could be problematic for non-sciency students with this textbook and especially with the idea that a survey style is not a good fit for her. She is an in-depth type of student. This helps so much. Thank you.

Edited October 11, 2012 by Kfamily

[Kfamily]

You know, when I read your post, I was surprised you were not considering branching out into a more humanities-driven history approach, especially considering HOW far you've gone to customize for her in the past. Picking up a blechy physical science text was probably a shock! And it sort of reeks of Mom realized it was high school and we better do it "right". :) So for what it's worth, my dd is rather similar to yours. She's a humanities/history person who has no need in the world to read non-fiction science. If she hits something she doesn't understand, it's game over. There's none of that perfectionist drive that helps some kids stick through something they don't understand. I suggested to her all she has to do is reread it 10 times, and she STILL wouldn't understand. Whatever. :D

 

:lol: You're posts always start me off with a laugh. Yes, I'm reeking of a Mom who worries about doing it "right"!:D

 

 

There were so many good things to think about in your response. I will definitely look into the Disney Imagineering that you mentioned, and I'll also take a look at Logos Science. I've had some trouble having science supplies/lab kits sent here through Amazon. I'll need to find another way to do this, I think.

 

And another aside. I think narrative thinkers actually do better when they see all the concepts *come together* as they do in a lab. I think, in that sense, a more sophisticated problem that brings all the concepts together and lets you *highlight* them as the kid discovers them is BETTER than an approach that parcels it up, says to learn the definition of accuracy vs. precision, and then heads to a lab. Some kids really learn better in the whole, in context. It's another reason why, if *I'm* on top of the material, I can use the lab as the driver for a lot of it. The insanely hard part is being on top of it myself enough to guide her in that.

 

(Still haven't learned how to multi-quote here yet...:lol:)

 

This part above really rings true for her. This is just why I posted this. All of you ladies here really pull out ideas that I hadn't considered or help me make sense of the mess inside my head. Thank you so much Elizabeth! And thank you everyone else too.:grouphug:

[Kfamily]

So, I asked dd which science topics she found most interesting...

 

Biology

Botany

Genetics

Marine Life

 

Chemistry

topics through lab/hands-on work

 

Physics

topics through lab/hands-on work

 

Astronomy

 

Earth Science

 

She is interested in ethics...so science tied to ethics might interest her

 

I read through some old threads, including the one started by Elizabeth about science, and found a book suggestion from Honoria Glossop that sounds like a good find for a study of genetics.

 

Saxons, Vikings and Celts: The Genetic Roots of Britain and Ireland by Brian Sykes

 

(This sounds like what I was describing in an earlier post from the dvds on the Celts we watched last night.)

 

I also looked at Corraleno's interesting web diagrams she drew for the Daniel Boorstin books.

 

Here:

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/showthread.php?t=207482

[PeterPan]

You know, I have those Boorstin books, picked them up at a book sale a couple years ago. They're one of those things I didn't know what to do with but knew I ought to get? Well anyways, I think that's pretty much a stretch to call it science. The stinkin' things are TOMES. You still need labs. If you do the Logos Science labs (just as an example of something you can get as a kit that is within the realm of doable), you could add on any topical books you want. I'm not really sure Boorstin helps with that except from the history/humanities side. But get it from the library and see for yourself. Mine are up high on my later in high school shelf.

 

And see what I told you about the labs? :D The labs are where it's at, not the books. Honestly, the PH CIA labs are fine. They're simple and don't lose the kids on the math. Have you thought about tossing the book, just doing the LABS, and adding in your videos and biographies and humanities stuff? As long as you get some labs done and put in the hours, you can put that unit on the transcript. Unit is time. Credit is material covered. Put units.

[Totmama]

I think you should go into depth on topics within each science subject, even if you do opt for the first option (survey). For example, really get into the Krebs cycle in biology, to the point she can draw the diagram on a blank chalkboard by memory. Then in Chemistry the next year, she can get into some of the molecular structures of these same chemicals, that way the material builds year to year and she gets some depth that a student in a survey class would not. You can choose a few topics to do this with, DNA transcription and translation, photosynthesis/light cycle, NAD/NADH, ADP/ATP and some simpler ones. All these cycles only 'turn' because there are differing levels (gradients) of each chemical present in the same part of a cell, and figuring chemical change rates with different concentrations of reactants is typically a chapter covered in chemistry.

 

You can do the same with chemistry to physics, studying how electron movement creates electrical flow in a wire, then in physics studying how circuits work and electromagnets. You can probably find some more overlap between subjects by looking at the table of contents in the textbooks. I imagine gr 9 phys sci will overlap more with algebra than the other sciences, but I may be wrong.

 

As someone who took many high school and college science courses (science geek!), I can tell you those processes I listed above were hit on time after time in bio and chem courses. I wish I had really understood the cyclical nature of those processes the first time, instead of finally getting there in my 300- level university classes.

[Kfamily]

We have the Boorstin books, and I'm still trying to decide where/when we can use them. Dd has shown an interest in them, but I haven't put them into the plan yet. I wouldn't use them for science, but Jackie's plans with them which integrated science was so interesting. I keep going back and admiring them.:001_smile:

 

 

And see what I told you about the labs? :D The labs are where it's at, not the books. Honestly, the PH CIA labs are fine. They're simple and don't lose the kids on the math. Have you thought about tossing the book, just doing the LABS, and adding in your videos and biographies and humanities stuff? As long as you get some labs done and put in the hours, you can put that unit on the transcript. Unit is time. Credit is material covered. Put units.

 

Yes!:lol: I see about the labs!

 

I need to buy a good lab kit that will mail to a base in Okinawa.

[Kfamily]

I think you should go into depth on topics within each science subject, even if you do opt for the first option (survey). For example, really get into the Krebs cycle in biology, to the point she can draw the diagram on a blank chalkboard by memory. Then in Chemistry the next year, she can get into some of the molecular structures of these same chemicals, that way the material builds year to year and she gets some depth that a student in a survey class would not. You can choose a few topics to do this with, DNA transcription and translation, photosynthesis/light cycle, NAD/NADH, ADP/ATP and some simpler ones. All these cycles only 'turn' because there are differing levels (gradients) of each chemical present in the same part of a cell, and figuring chemical change rates with different concentrations of reactants is typically a chapter covered in chemistry.

 

You can do the same with chemistry to physics, studying how electron movement creates electrical flow in a wire, then in physics studying how circuits work and electromagnets. You can probably find some more overlap between subjects by looking at the table of contents in the textbooks. I imagine gr 9 phys sci will overlap more with algebra than the other sciences, but I may be wrong.

 

As someone who took many high school and college science courses (science geek!), I can tell you those processes I listed above were hit on time after time in bio and chem courses. I wish I had really understood the cyclical nature of those processes the first time, instead of finally getting there in my 300- level university classes.

 

Thanks, this is interesting. I am interested in hearing from those who follow a survey approach but are also tying depth into it. Because I've resolved one point in my mind about using textbooks (the point where I do not have to cover every chapter in each book :001_smile:) like in the first approach, I've realized that I can use either approach and make it work for us.

 

 

 

This is why I find these responses so helpful...these points help me to clear my thinking, remind me of points I've forgotten and teach me new ideas to consider.

Edited October 13, 2012 by Kfamily

[PeterPan]

We have the Boorstin books, and I'm still trying to decide where/when we can use them. Dd has shown an interest in them, but I haven't put them into the plan yet. I wouldn't use them for science, but Jackie's plans with them which integrated science was so interesting. I keep going back and admiring them.:001_smile:

 

 

 

 

Yes!:lol: I see about the labs!

 

I need to buy a good lab kit that will mail to a base in Okinawa.

 

Have you tried HST (Home Science Tools)? They did an AMAZING job with the packing for the stuff I ordered. If they will ship overseas, I think it will get to you safely. Here's the link for the Logos Science stuff. http://www.logosscience.com/physcikit.html You know what I did was get really intentional about the labs. I ripped the entire book apart, divided them into piles by weeks, and then got religion about getting every single supply necessary. If you don't have the supplies, then google the lab and find an alternate. Some of their labs look picky, when really you could sub something else and still get the *point* of the lab. And some of the items actually had household item equivalents (the chemicals).

 

You know, I was just thinking... How long are you going to be there? Might be super-cool if she could do something that sort of connected her to the science of that region. I'm just pulling straws here, but like volunteer at a science aquarium and use it toward her biology time... Or work at a state park (equivalent, you know what I mean, Mt. Fuji or something, lol) and learn about the geography and wonders there. Her education doesn't have to be so disconnected from where she's at. Tour nuclear plants...

[Arcadia]

Might be super-cool if she could do something that sort of connected her to the science of that region. I'm just pulling straws here, but like volunteer at a science aquarium and use it toward her biology time... Or work at a state park (equivalent, you know what I mean, Mt. Fuji or something, lol) and learn about the geography and wonders there. Her education doesn't have to be so disconnected from where she's at. Tour nuclear plants...

 

Now you remind me of the Pacific Rim of Fire. Might be suitable for a plate tectonics study.

 

OP,

 

Okinawa has a new Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology in case you like to visit