Poll: Science for upper elementary and middle - one topic or mixed -

[Heather in VA]

I was discussing this with a friend of mine and it's an issue that even after 8 years of homeschooling I still am not sure which I like better. Do you feel that for these ages (say 4th - 7th or 8th) it is better to do the one subject a year as it typical with the classical approach or science with multiple topics?

[Mrs Twain]

I use BFSU which fits into the second choice of covering multiple topics concurrently, weaving them together since they are interrelated. It has been a fantastic program for science.

 

I am not saying the other way is bad, though. I would say that if you are covering science in any kind of sequential, systematic way, it would likely be effective.

[Chrysalis Academy]

Well, I picked "prefer classical 1 topic per year" but I guess I really should have picked "other" ;)

 

I have read the argument in BFSU for doing topics concurrently. It just doesn't work very well for us: we like to focus on something for a good long chunk of time and get into it deeply. Even when I was using BFSU I found that I would group the threads by topic.

 

That's not to say that I strictly segregate topics, either. For example, even for a young kid who isn't doing all the math, it helps to have some chemistry under your belt before you start looking at cell biology, or photosynthesis, or other bio topics.

 

I guess I prefer to study things when they seem to make sense and/or be needed. How that has looked at our house is that we did Chemistry in 3rd grade (afterschooling), basic biology/ecology topics in 4th (which included a fair amount of earth science to make sense of the ecology) as well as human anatomy & physiology, and now in 5th we're doing "the rest" of biology - cell bio, microorgansims, botany, and entomology. So I guess that means we have to do physics & astronomy next, since that's the only thing we haven't hit . . .

 

So, when I write it out it doesn't seem classical at all, but it's not an intentionally integrated study either.

[Farrar]

We've been doing a topic a year for the grammar stage, though not following WTM. While I just stumbled into it, I now really firmly believe that young children should have lots of physics early on because the basic concepts are so easy to teach through discovery, which is much less true of chemistry and earth science, and somewhat less true of biology as well, I think. Anyway, when we finish this cycle midway through 4th grade next year, I want to dump it and pick up something much more like BFSU's style of interweaving the topics. I don't think what we've done has been wrong really and there have been many chances to make connections, but I think we can do even better.

 

So, multiple topics, but not at random - in a purposeful way.

[regentrude]

We do not do formal science before high school, but an eclectic mix of topics and materials.

The WTM approach of one science per year makes no sense to me, especially not the justification of the science sequence by its presumed link to history.

[Farrar]

By the way, the phrasing of the poll (whether intended or not) seems to imply that the primary reason to do multiple topics is to increase interest for the students. In reality, I think a lot of people would argue that the primary reason is to show kids how interconnected science is - that it's not separate disciplines and that our understanding of the world is informed by different things. For example, to understand the human body, you have to understand concepts in biology, but also in physics to understand movement, in chemistry to understand enzymes, etc. etc.

[Crimson Wife]

I really dislike the "random mish-mosh of topics" approach because that is not the way science is taught at the high school, college, and grad school levels. Sure, there are a few interdisciplinary science courses, but for the most part, each course focuses on a single discipline.

[regentrude]

I really dislike the "random mish-mosh of topics" approach because that is not the way science is taught at the high school, college, and grad school levels. Sure, there are a few interdisciplinary science courses, but for the most part, each course focuses on a single discipline.

 

But elsewhere, kids in school study several sciences simultaneously. The one-science-per-year approach is fairly unique to the US.

In my home country, they would introduce biology in 5th, add physics in 6th, and add chemistry in 7th - each 2-3 periods per week, and students would study all three through high school.

[Crimson Wife]

But elsewhere, kids in school study several sciences simultaneously. The one-science-per-year approach is fairly unique to the US.

In my home country, they would introduce biology in 5th, add physics in 6th, and add chemistry in 7th - each 2-3 periods per week, and students would study all three through high school.

 

But concurrent studying of 3 distinct sciences is not the same thing as the "let's study animals for a month and then let's study magnetism and then let's study the weather" approach. When I was studying science in college, I often did take classes in different disciplines simultaneously. However, I never took a class that was just a random motley of topics the way many elementary school science textbooks are set up.

[freeindeed]

We like multiple topics for variety.

[Farrar]

But concurrent studying of 3 distinct sciences is not the same thing as the "let's study animals for a month and then let's study magnetism and then let's study the weather" approach. When I was studying science in college, I often did take classes in different disciplines simultaneously. However, I never took a class that was just a random motley of topics the way many elementary school science textbooks are set up.

 

I agree that a lot of elementary textbooks are absurd in their complete randomness. But I also think college is different or even high school to some extent. Once you have a foundation, then you focus in every discipline in college. I think it makes sense that I was taking literature surveys in high school (and effectively before that too, though no one calls 4th grade reading a lit survey) but taking classes about specific themes in literature and specific authors in college.

[NittanyJen]

I would say that although we focus on one topic per year, we actually appreciate an integrated approach, and we don't necessarily follow the WTM sequence; remember, 4 year cycle does not equate to classical; it is simply one author's method of implementing classical! You can study classically very well without a four-year cycle.

 

Now that we are into biology, I am very glad we covered chemistry first; ATP, processing doe by chloroplasts, DNA, lipid rafts, proteins, the role of RNA and enzymes, and other key ideas make far more sense to my kids with a year of chem under their belts. The musculoskeletal system nearer to the end of the year, the movement of blood through veins, vision, and other topics will provide a nice early glimpse of some physics this time around, and practical physics application next time around.

 

Chem was applied concurrently to geology and used to review some earth and space science, and physics will absolutely review those topics in some detail as well, along with some bio (effects of the space station on astronaut bodies? Growing foods in zero-G?)

 

Throughout the year, my kids will also just watch Neil DeGrasse Tyson videos and read random science books and current magazines in any discipline for fun, outside of schoolwork, though I would not call science a passion for either of them at this age.

 

I selected the four year cycle as the "best answer" of those presented, but my real answer is far more nuanced.

[Sahamamama]

In my home country, they would introduce biology in 5th, add physics in 6th, and add chemistry in 7th - each 2-3 periods per week, and students would study all three through high school.

This is how several of our European friends were taught, and this is how we plan to handle science in the middle grades.

 

5th -- Biology

6th -- Biology + Physics

7th -- Biology + Physics + Chemistry

8th -- Biology + Physics + Chemistry

9th -- Biology + Physics + Chemistry

10th -- Biology + Physics + Chemistry

11th -- Biology + Physics + Chemistry

12th -- Biology + Physics + Chemistry

 

After a thread in which EsterMaria discussed the integration of the sciences in the middle and upper grades, the light bulb went on for me. It seems clear that this approach is superior to the Life, Earth/Space, Chemistry, Physics sequence of WTM. It's also superior to the typical US approach of General Science (8th), Earth Science/Environmental Science (9th), Biology (10th), Chemistry (11th), and Physics (12th). Of course, I don't have any idea how to carry it out here in the US, except to work through the respective disciplines at a slower, deeper pace over a longer time.

 

Here are some links you might find useful:

 

http://www.nsta.org/about/olpa/faq.aspx

 

http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200907/physicsfirst.cfm

 

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/showthread.php?t=240996

 

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/showthread.php?t=330717&highlight=science

 

HTH.

[Laura Corin]

We focused on particular areas of science, because we preferred to dive deeper into them. If your child prefers a more mixed approach, I don't think it matters much either.

 

FWIW, the usual UK system is:

 

Mixed science up to age 13 - you might do one term each year of physics, chemistry and biology.

From age 14 three separate sciences simultaneously.

 

The boys' school system is:

 

Mixed science up to age 12

From age 12 three separate sciences simultaneously.

 

Laura

[Walking-Iris]

I voted reading from random topics. I feel like this post needs to be called confessions of a homeschool science slacker because I have the hardest time planning this stuff.

 

With my oldest we just read whatever science we liked. Lots of life science (animals/plants/anatomy/nature studies/environmental awareness etc under our belt). And then last year we worked on RS4K chemistry. And he liked it so we followed that rabbit trail. I've been using ScienceWorks with my kinder because he loves this stuff. Units on animals, human body, plants, weather, etc. My oldest has been doing life science/biology/anatomy type readings again. I'm trying to go deeper with him. Then I want to spend time on physical science with him. We do nature studies and I sort of thought Private Eye would be fun. We pull out activity books at random.

 

:001_huh:

 

As my siggy says "hodge podge." I think I unschool science!!!!:eek:

[kiwik]

At school we did compulsory mixed science until grade 10 eqivalent after which it was split into physics, chemistry and biology. None of these was compulsory so some people did none, some 1 or 2 and some 3.

[8filltheheart]

My kids read completely random topics (well, random used in terms of my not deliberately picking a topic. Not random in the fact that they have interest in the topic they choose.)

 

FWIW, for my younger kids, I could careless how science is covered in high school and college yrs. (we get there soon enough) I want them to be exposed to a wide variety of topics (and I really want them exposed to topics they probably won't see at all in high school b/c these are great yrs to explore the numerous fields outside of the standard.) If my kids thought that science was simply the study of a narrow range of topics, I would consider my elementary science yrs a failure. I want them to know that the science is incredibly broad and impossible to contain in a single book (or any book, for that matter. ;) )

Edited October 12, 2012 by 8FillTheHeart

[Embassy]

Other - I'm combining a curriculum with a home-made study so we are covering two different topics.

[missmoe]

I would say that although we focus on one topic per year, we actually appreciate an integrated approach, and we don't necessarily follow the WTM sequence; remember, 4 year cycle does not equate to classical; it is simply one author's method of implementing classical! You can study classically very well without a four-year cycle.

.

 

:iagree:

 

I chose your second option, but I still feel we study in a classical manner though we don't follow the sequence from TWTM.

[Sahamamama]

:lurk5::bigear:

[sagira]

I use BFSU which fits into the second choice of covering multiple topics concurrently, weaving them together since they are interrelated. It has been a fantastic program for science.

 

I am not saying the other way is bad, though. I would say that if you are covering science in any kind of sequential, systematic way, it would likely be effective.

 

:iagree: with everything she said :D

 

This is our fourth year using BFSU (first K-2, now 3-5), and the interrelatedness of topics is exactly what this teaching mama needs and a broadening of ds' world.

[sagira]

By the way, the phrasing of the poll (whether intended or not) seems to imply that the primary reason to do multiple topics is to increase interest for the students. In reality, I think a lot of people would argue that the primary reason is to show kids how interconnected science is - that it's not separate disciplines and that our understanding of the world is informed by different things. For example, to understand the human body, you have to understand concepts in biology, but also in physics to understand movement, in chemistry to understand enzymes, etc. etc.

 

:iagree: :iagree:

[Juliegmom]

I think my dd would do best with multiple subjects.