Importance of a coherent course of study

[garddwr]

This is on my mind as I try to plan out an educational path leading up through high school. How important is a coherent course of study? In what subjects/areas of study does coherence/building step-by-step matter most? In what areas might it not play a significant role? And where it is important, how do I go about finding/creating/implementing such a course?

 

As background to my questions, my own formal education was extremely fragmented. By the age of 22 I had lived in 6 countries, covering Eastern/Western/Northern/Southern hemispheres. I had learned 3 foreign languages to the point of comfortable working (though certainly not native) fluency. I had attended a variety of schools both public and private, varying in instruction and expectations from less-than-mediocre to extremely rigorous.

 

I came out of that experience feeling that I was capable of diving into any situation and learning whatever was needed, with minimal or no background knowledge. Difficult, yes, but doable. The only subject that proved really problematic was mathematics--and by extension the more mathematically intense sciences. Math obviously requires a more systematic building of knowledge and skills than I was exposed to.

 

I committed early on to ensuring my kids had a solid and rigorous foundation in mathematics. But I admit to being unsure about how systematic the rest of their education needs to be. On the whole I felt that, eclectic as it was, my education prepared me very well for higher studies and for life. Obviously my children, who will likely spend their entire growing-up years in one country, are not going to experience the kind of education I did, with its unique strengths and weaknesses. I feel like I'm trying to create something entirely new, with very few preconceived ideas of what education should look like--not for lack of a model, but rather because I am aware of a multitude of models and am hesitant to pick any one of them.

 

Given the flexibility to tailor my children's education, and the confidence that there is not one single path to being "well-educated"--I find myself wondering how to provide some degree at least of the richness/breadth of my own education while also providing a more coherent base of knowledge to build on. I remain skeptical of the intrinsic worth of any particular scope and sequence and of the critical nature of specific elements or methods in education (i.e., every student should study Latin, or diagram sentences, or study history in cycles, or...). I hesitate to include something in our plan of education just because it is or was standard in some time or place. But I also recognize that each area of study must build on some kind of base, preferably a solid one!

 

In mathematics, there is some degree of consensus, at least at the elementary level, regarding what the scope and sequence should be, and at the secondary level regarding what elements need to be taught (although there are significant differences in the manner and order of the teaching). What of other areas? Does grammar really need to be taught year after year? I don't think I had even a single year of rigorous English grammar, and yet I always excelled in English language arts (probably a combination of wide reading and plenty of foreign language exposure). I think there is a lot to be said for a 4-year history rotation, though I would like to take time in the high school years to go deeper in a few specific areas. But what about science? I'm not convinced a 4 year cycle is the best method--it seems science should be more like math, laying a foundation surely and steadily over the years--I guess I'm more drawn to the model of simultaneous study of multiple strands, although so much is dependent on math that maybe focusing primarily on math at least until secondary school is most practical?

 

Literature--I don't really see the point of literature studies in primary grades--wide reading, yes, but simplified literary analysis of elementary level texts? My favorite experience with literary analysis was in a graduate seminar where we took one single novel and analyzed it ten different ways over the course of a semester. I didn't even particularly like the book, but it was fascinating to see everything that could be pulled out and discussed on so many levels. I would love to do that kind of analysis of a text at the secondary level--maybe one book a semester, but really dig into it.

 

Foreign language--ah, here I would love to have resources laid out with a scope and sequence similar to that found in math programs--something that would teach the very basics in the primary grades, and build on itself over the years. I can't provide the ideal of an immersion environment in my home; an orderly, graduated, and consistent study of a language seems like a workable alternative--if only I can find appropriate materials!

 

In teaching my young children, I have been relatively laid back and very eclectic--but my oldest is at a point where I feel there should be more structure in her studies, and I am personally re-evaluating what would be the most effective educational model to pursue. Also, I am really recognizing for the first time just how fragmented my own education was, and thinking that a more orderly progression is desirable.

 

If you have followed my ramblings thus far, and would like to contribute thoughts on building a solid educational foundation, I am :bigear:.

 

--Sarah

[regentrude]

No time for a long answer.... but in short:

I think the only subjects where coherency is an issue are math and, to a certain, degree foreign languages.

I am a scientist and do not teach formal science before high school; we use a variety of resources for middle school and are quite eclectic.

In history, I find a chronological progression useful, at least once; I do not think going through chronologically three times is absolutely necessary.

Our English education is eclectic as well; we do no formal grammar (gasp), no spelling after 5th grade -and my DD is doing extremely well in English.

[Gwen in VA]

We did what seemed right for each year. Coherence? No! But rigor and challenge -- yes!

 

The kids' interests changed. An approach to a subject failed. A class didn't work out. We had all kids of hiccups, but we pursued rigor and challenge and tried to respond to the kids' changing interests.

[JennW in SoCal]

I totally understand your ramblings -- that the eclectic approach is rich and satisfying but the worry that there is something valid in providing a more orderly and systematic education. I wrestled with that dichotomy for 12 years, but now have proof in my 2 college kids that you can be eclectic and still provide a solid foundation.

 

I tend to describe our homeschool as having two components -- skills and content. Skills were the three R's, and we diligently worked on math daily and enjoyed reading daily. Writing was not necessarily daily -- I didn't use a writing curriculum -- but it was weekly. Grammar and spelling were usually part of writing as I'd edit and they'd correct. We poked at formal grammar from time to time, but I found grammar and spelling worksheets were something my kids did perfectly but never applied to their writing so I abandoned it early on.

 

Content was everything else -- science, history and literature, and most of that was interest led and very eclectic until high school. If they hit a lull and weren't interested in anything in particular, I'd turn to my list of books I wanted to be sure we read while they were growing up. If there was a period of history we hadn't touched or a part of the world we hadn't explored, I'd pick out books on that. Logic puzzles and books were also a casual part of school, something they enjoyed and something I know were a huge benefit to them both. Formal logic was a high school course.

 

High school was more systematic as I knew I had to provide a transcript and course descriptions. I'd write a syllabus and have everything planned for the year, but courses were often designed around the interests of my boys. Foreign language was the weakest link in my homeschool. I would have stuck with Latin, as it seemed easier to learn a dead language when all you do is read and translate, but they wanted Spanish. The community college wound up being the best place for that.

 

I never have used the word "rigorous" to describe my homeschooling, yet it must have been because my kids have not found college to be difficult, and are at times bored with their intro classes. I suppose I just never let them be slackers -- even though they were following their interests, there was still the expectation that it was worthwhile learning. My boys report their frustrations in college mostly to be that their public schooled peers don't know how to discuss a book or express their ideas, that they are not inquisitive or excited about learning new things. My college freshman has attended several lectures so far this year and reports that he and a friend are the only 2 freshman ever in attendance unless there is the potential for extra credit in a class.

 

There you go -- a rambling reply to your original rambling post!! Bottom line -- you sound like someone who can make an eclectic approach work, who will provide a solid foundation for your kids. My rambling was an attempt at illustrating how it can work.

[Nan in Mass]

Hmm... I know what you are talking about... I worried about this lots. It seems backwards, but other than foreign languages and math, I worried about coherence much more in the areas in which my children were not interested. In areas of interest, an incoherent, meandering approach worked fine, but it took time, time which I wanted to steal from the uninteresting areas, which meant that I needed to teach those efficiently, which meant the subjects needed to be taught coherently, probably with a (good) textbook. I think of "school" as being divided into skills and content. For my family, focusing on academic skills during formal school time made the most sense. The rest of their learning could be left to the spine+extra's system, unless I wanted to cover it super efficiently.

 

Science is particularly difficult because it contains lots of content AND lots of skills (many of which involve math). We covered science more or less TWTM way in elementary school, a four year rotation plus natural history (because we are outdoors a lot and I know this knowledge is going to be super important for them as adults). The non-sciency did TWTM science in middle school and the youngest joined him towards the end. Then the non-sciency one did natural history/anatomy/biology, conceptual physics (non-mathy), and chemistry (at the community college) for high school. Meanwhile, the younger one followed along, then for high school did natural history/field studies, natural history/experiment design, community college chemistry, and then community college physics and biology in 12th grade. We laid the foundation in middle school, then gave them two years of natural history in which to learn science skills and learn to *be* a scientist, and then had them do formal science at the community college. Youngest is in 12th grade this year and science oriented and this has turned out to be a fantastic way of managing his sciences because it combined the best of both worlds.

 

To make room for this, I needed a super-efficient history, which meant using a textbook (for us). To make school even more efficient, we combined this with French, using a history textbook meant for slightly younger students from France. The older one was more interested in history, so he followed the more time-consuming spine+reading method. Both were heavily based on primary sources, which meant the appropriate skills were being built. Some children appear to be born with these sorts of academic skills but my boys weren't - they needed to be taught how to look at several primary sources, see what they inferred, and write about it in an organized way, just the way that many people need to be taught in science that measuring equipment needs to be calibrated first (the sort of thing that comes more naturally to mine).

 

I relied on Latin to teach mine many things like grammar and spelling long words. If you are going to do several foreign languages, you are going to have to teach something else efficiently to make time. I taught two languages at a time, one via a textbook and the other via immersion. That worked ok until my son wanted to become literate in the immersion language. Then he had to drop the Latin and work with a textbook. If you can do immersion and some textbook work (probably in native language textbooks rather than foreign language textbooks) in a number of languages at the same time, then you should be able to avoid the back-tracking my youngest had to do. My foreign language skills are if-y enough that I couldn't manage that. If you want to do it without a textbook, you can look at one of the SAT2 study books for a scope and sequence, or a "grammar review" book. That combined with a wide variety of children's books in order to cover the vocabulary should allow you to do languages without a textbook per year.

 

You should go through at least one math textbook each year. But it sounds like you already know that so I won't bother to talk about that, except to point out that you should pick one with lots of word problems and make sure that you use the math at other times as well.

 

That just leaves reading and writing, which I think of as skills+reading list. There are a number of ways to teach literature analysis. One book that talks about how to do this for any lower grade with any book is Reading Strands. Much of it is a matter of making sure you talk about the book with your child and use vocabulary like "plot" and "setting". TWTM has guidelines for this, too. In high school, we used The Well-Educated Mind, which contains very general questions for each genre of book. Using the same set of questions meant that my children began to think about those questions to anything they read (or movies they watched). Again, this is a focus on skill-building with whatever literature we wanted. (If I had had a child who struggled to understand more complicated literature, I would have done a formal English grammar program and a formal vocabulary program with them, but mine didn't need this.) Other people find specific literature guides for each book they choose. Or they pick a textbook or curriculum and follow that. I found the more general questions worked better for discussions, both the ones for younger children in TWTM and the ones for adults in TWEM. If you are good at writing yourself, you can teach it within the context of the other subjects. If you aren't, then you probably are going to want to look at the many writing programs and pick one. Like other academic skills, if you have a child who struggles, you might need to separate this out and teach it as a separate skill, not mixed with other things.

 

Whatever you do, it is well worth thinking right now about what sort of adult you are trying to grow, and what sort of education will produce that sort of adult. You can't do it all. You have to make choices. If you decide now that you want to emphasize this and that, you will be able to make educational decisions more easily and not waste time and effort. For example, one family might not care if their children can actually use a foreign language but being able to use technology well might be a priority, whereas another family might have the goal of having their children fluent in several languages but not care as much about science or history, and another family might care greatly about English language skills and writing and put lots of time into reading classic literature and debate team but not much as much time into science. The emphasis will vary from child to child, of course, but usually each family has some idea of what well-educated means to them. Whatever sorts of plans you make, they will be sure to change, so don't get too attached to them.

 

I have a whacking great headache, so I'm not sure how much sense all this makes or whether I managed to convey what I hoped. If it is all a muddle, sorry.

 

Nan

[Nan in Mass]

GRIN - Jenn - I should have read your post before posting. Oops!

Nan

[Nscribe]

Whatever you do, it is well worth thinking right now about what sort of adult you are trying to grow, and what sort of education will produce that sort of adult. You can't do it all. You have to make choices. If you decide now that you want to emphasize this and that, you will be able to make educational decisions more easily and not waste time and effort.

....

The emphasis will vary from child to child, of course, but usually each family has some idea of what well-educated means to them. Whatever sorts of plans you make, they will be sure to change, so don't get too attached to them.

 

Nan

:iagree:I actually started with the statement, "what well educated means to me", at the top of a piece of paper and starting noting what that was. Then tempered it with the skills/interests/talents/weaknesses of DD.

[garddwr]

Thank you for the thoughtful replies. It is so nice to have a group of people who take the education of their children equally seriously to help me sort things out.

 

No time for a long answer.... but in short:

I think the only subjects where coherency is an issue are math and, to a certain, degree foreign languages.

I am a scientist and do not teach formal science before high school; we use a variety of resources for middle school and are quite eclectic.

In history, I find a chronological progression useful, at least once; I do not think going through chronologically three times is absolutely necessary.

Our English education is eclectic as well; we do no formal grammar (gasp), no spelling after 5th grade -and my DD is doing extremely well in English.

 

Regentrude, this matches my own experience--that a specific scope and sequence were not critical for most subjects, math being the primary exception. It was actually something you posted on an older thread that got me thinking about this issue--you mentioned the way you were taught foreign languages, starting the first in elementary school and continuing through high school. I saw how consistent, long-term study of a language could lead to mastery--something I very much want for my children. It has bothered me that I am not able to provide a full immersion environment for them such as I learned in. I have attempted to learn several languages through classroom and textbook study, but have never achieved anything close to competency that way--but then again, I've never stuck with a single language for year after year after year either. In a full immersion approach the learning happens so organically--aided by intentional study, of course, but there is so much that is picked up without conscious thought, and the point of natural understanding and speaking just comes all on its own. At least that was my experience. I wasn't the fastest at acquiring languages--I hardly spoke a word the first 18 months we were in France--but day after day of complete immersion eventually worked its magic and French became as natural to speak as English. But that is not an experience I have been able to transfer to my children, and I'm glad to know there is another effective way to go about language learning.

 

We did what seemed right for each year. Coherence? No! But rigor and challenge -- yes!

 

The kids' interests changed. An approach to a subject failed. A class didn't work out. We had all kids of hiccups, but we pursued rigor and challenge and tried to respond to the kids' changing interests.

 

This is one reason I like homeschooling--trying to figure out how to teach each child each day keeps me intellectually stimulated!

 

I totally understand your ramblings -- that the eclectic approach is rich and satisfying but the worry that there is something valid in providing a more orderly and systematic education. Yes! This is exactly what I am wrestling with. I wrestled with that dichotomy for 12 years, but now have proof in my 2 college kids that you can be eclectic and still provide a solid foundation.

 

 

Jenn--Thank you so much the snapshot of how things worked in your home. I don't want to take the space to quote the whole thing, but I appreciated the description of planning and structuring academics around your children's interests. There are certainly subjects and skills I need to make sure we cover, but even with my young children I notice how much farther they go in their learning when the motivation comes from inside them--when they are pursuing their own interests.

 

Hmm... I know what you are talking about... I worried about this lots. It seems backwards, but other than foreign languages and math, I worried about coherence much more in the areas in which my children were not interested. In areas of interest, an incoherent, meandering approach worked fine, but it took time, time which I wanted to steal from the uninteresting areas, which meant that I needed to teach those efficiently, which meant the subjects needed to be taught coherently, probably with a (good) textbook. I think of "school" as being divided into skills and content. For my family, focusing on academic skills during formal school time made the most sense. The rest of their learning could be left to the spine+extra's system, unless I wanted to cover it super efficiently.

 

 

I hadn't thought of things in quite this way before, but what you are saying makes sense--given the time and freedom to truly explore their areas of interest, children can excel in those areas without following a specific program--in fact will likely go far beyond where any program could take them. Teaching other subjects as efficiently as possible makes more time available for pursuing their personal areas of interest. An ordered approach will likely be the most expedient in these cases. Definite food for thought here.

 

HmmScience is particularly difficult because it contains lots of content AND lots of skills (many of which involve math).

 

 

(The whole paragraph was great, snipping for space but it sounds like what you did with your children worked very well to meet their needs)--One thing I have considered with science in particular, though it also applies to other areas, is that I often understood a concept better if I was exposed to it multiple times. This is where I think either a spiral rotation such as WTM presents or a multi-strand develop of scientific concepts across the years makes sense.

 

To make room for this, I needed a super-efficient history, which meant using a textbook (for us). To make school even more efficient, we combined this with French, using a history textbook meant for slightly younger students from France.

 

 

I love this idea...

 

I relied on Latin to teach mine many things like grammar and spelling long words. If you are going to do several foreign languages, you are going to have to teach something else efficiently to make time.

 

 

and this. How did you go about finding the French history text? You are so right about needing be efficient/cut back in other areas to make room for multiple foreign languages. Using the foreign language study to cover other areas is brilliant.

 

 

Sigh, I want to comment on the rest of your post and on others, but it's taken me all afternoon working in stolen moments to write this much. If I don't post now I never will.

 

 

 

--Sarah

[Nan in Mass]

...How did you go about finding the French history text? ...

 

Joan in Geneva suggested the idea and helped me to get the textbooks, especially the instructor's manual. My son used Hachette's histoire/géographie series, 6e - 3e. I liked the series very much. It is almost all primary sources. Of course, it is European/French history, so we had to do US history separately, but it was very interesting to hear the French perspective. The Hachette site has sample pages which give a good idea of what the textbooks are like, if you want to look. I am very grateful to Joan for suggesting this method.

 

Nan

[garddwr]

Joan in Geneva suggested the idea and helped me to get the textbooks, especially the instructor's manual. My son used Hachette's histoire/géographie series, 6e - 3e. I liked the series very much. It is almost all primary sources. Of course, it is European/French history, so we had to do US history separately, but it was very interesting to hear the French perspective. The Hachette site has sample pages which give a good idea of what the textbooks are like, if you want to look. I am very grateful to Joan for suggesting this method.

 

Nan

 

Does this look like what you used? I did go to the publisher's site and it looks like there is a newer edition. Did you just use student books? I need to explore more and see what they have at an elementary level.

[garddwr]

 

Whatever you do, it is well worth thinking right now about what sort of adult you are trying to grow, and what sort of education will produce that sort of adult. You can't do it all. You have to make choices. If you decide now that you want to emphasize this and that, you will be able to make educational decisions more easily and not waste time and effort. For example, one family might not care if their children can actually use a foreign language but being able to use technology well might be a priority, whereas another family might have the goal of having their children fluent in several languages but not care as much about science or history, and another family might care greatly about English language skills and writing and put lots of time into reading classic literature and debate team but not much as much time into science. The emphasis will vary from child to child, of course, but usually each family has some idea of what well-educated means to them.

 

The part I bolded is one of my greatest challenges--I want to do everything! Surely my children can learn 5 languages fluently, and play 4 musical instruments, and excel in sports, and participate in math competitions, and win science fairs--all while maintaining their enthusiasm and love of learning and enjoying an un-stressed childhood with plenty of friends and social activities...:lol:

 

OK, I'm working on simplifying my vision here...honestly with a baby,toddler, and preschooler all in the mix, my primary goal is just to make sure something educational happens each day.

 

 

Whatever sorts of plans you make, they will be sure to change, so don't get too attached to them.

Nan

 

I've seen this already, and I'm sure I'll experience it many more times along the way. Also, with multiple children I realize things will work out a little differently (or a lot differently) with each one.

Edited October 29, 2012 by thegardener

[Nan in Mass]

http://www.amazon.fr/Histoire-G%C3%A9ographie-3e-Livre-format-Edition/dp/2011256437/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1351527161&sr=8-2

This is what my son is using this year. He does the excersizes in this book and we have the instructor's manual, which has the answers. I needed the answers because I'm working out of my culture and my French isn't that great and I sometimes can't tell what the book is looking for in the way of an answer.

 

Nan

[Nan in Mass]

I have no experience with homeschooling with that many children, so take everything I say with a grain of salt. I homeschooled two, had one in public school, and had a baby/toddler underfoot some mornings (my sister's). That was hard enough for me. I used a reading+writing+math+foreign languages Mon-Thurs/history+science+math+foreign languages Fri schedule until high school and it worked really well. In general, I put math first during the day, but there were years when I put it last because we tended to peter out and I knew I wouldn't skip math, so that forced us to keep going. We did "school" 7-2 M-F following the public school calendar. We all had to know when we were done. I interspersed "fun" things like keeping their nature journals (which counted as writing 4 days a week and part of science the 5th) with more chore-like things like dictation or Latin excersizes. I tinkered with the order in which we did things until I had something that worked comfortably (well worth it at the beginning of every year). They had foreign language and math most evenings as "homework" because unless they touched those subjects twice a day, nothing stuck. Every moment spent building academic skills was SO worth it, despite it not seeming like I had anything to show for it at the end of the year except a child who wrote a little bit better or read a little bit better. A teenager with academic skills, the skill to read a book and pick out the important parts, put those parts together with others and draw a conclusion, and then write coherently and convincingly about that conclusion, can learn through academics. One who can't is at a severe disadvantage. So - at the point where you are, it is well worth figuring out what skills you want and then trying to teach those, along with encouraging curiosity and interest. In general, people tend to dislike doing things that are a struggle and like doing things that are easier. Learning academically is like this. If you can read and write and take notes and memorize and keep a schedule fairly easily and speedily, then you just do that when you need to learn something like chemistry. If it is hard and it takes forever, then you are not going to like studying and avoid doing it. To drag a balky older teenager all unwilling through his studies is almost impossible. It works better to have those skills in place by 15 or so.

 

I don't know if any of that is helpful to you. Your description of what you want sounds so exactly like mine lol... You might like to read Regentrude's posts and Ester Maria.

 

Nan

[Storm Bay]

We have had some similarities here to others, and basically (don't have time for a long answer) here's what I found to be effective at our house.

 

Other than the 3 R's and a bit of a classical base, we did a better late than early approach to formal curricula in other subjects. I agree that you need a scope & sequence in math, but we actually found using 2 programs with different scopes and sequences highly effective for some of our dc when they were younger.

 

However, I do like having a scope & sequence for learning grammar, syntax, etc once we start it. Although my eldest didn't need it after gr 5, she wanted to do it because she found it logical & learned some fairly advanced grammar along the way and preferred doing that kind of work to other English work.My other two still needed the review, etc., because they tended to make careless errors & to forget punctuation rules, etc. I have had to switch at times as it was a learning process, but I found it very effective to stick with one curricula for that starting at around gr 3. As for literature, I agree that literary analysis is something best left until late jr high or high school, and not just because it squelches my dc's enjoyment of reading. While it took a long time for my ds, they all now enjoy reading.

 

History is something I found to be better done with something as a spine to help us through the chronological sequence. We don't do that sequence through 3 times, though, in part because we don't start it in gr 1.

 

I agree about needed a scope and sequence for foreign languages, which is why I bought a textbook etc for ds for German. However, it's meant for a significantly older student & ds isn't ready for that yet as he is more of a music/math/science dc.

 

We did little formal science when they were younger, although now & then I did it to be sure my middle one got some exposure as she's not interested. having something to do & check off worked for her. By and large I don't think it has to be done, but she wasn't doing it informally & I needed something as we live in a red state for homeschooling and I was dealing with the challenges my eldest was giving us. If I were to start again with some other dc (certainly not mine as I'm done having dc) I'd do it the way I did with my eldest & just stick with interest based trade books, etc, in whichever science areas they enjoyed, or if that fails, more nature walks.

 

Art is certainly something you don't need any formal teaching on when they are young. I did buy WTM recommended books when they were little, but for my dds what worked best was giving them paper, crayons, markers, model magic, etc, etc, and letting them have fun. Ds, OTOH, wouldn't draw anything he wasn't shown how to draw until someone helped him figure out how to draw airplanes by remembering what they look like. To this day he can only draw what he's passionately interested in & looking at plenty of pictures of. My dd's have talent in art, although neither is planning to pursue it as a career, but of course they spent a lot of time drawing for fun for years.