Down_the_Rabbit_Hole Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Is there anything out there like this? Any blogs about this? Curriculums? Moms who are doing this with their HS child and seeing great results (love of learning science returning sort of thing)? Anything? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regentrude Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 No, I do not believe this is possible - at least not if the goal is to prepare a student for college. Living books are wonderful, but they will not give the systematic treatment. A high school level physics or chemistry course contains a mathematical description of the phenomena, and the students have to learn problem solving, applying mathematical methods to chemistry and physics problems. This is not something that can be accomplished with a "living book". Living books can serve as a valuable addition to a more systematic curriculum and greatly enhance the student's enjoyment of the subject, but they can not teach these things. ETA: I can see a living books approach working for a science elective. Just not for the fundamental sciences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lewelma Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 I understand that Spectrum Chemistry is a high school course that focuses on experimentation as a way to learn the material. The text is very short because most of the learning occurs in the lab. Does your ds have a passion? I would reinvigorate his love for science by spending a year on his favourite science subject. Also, you do not need to *complete* a textbook. You can do half of a textbook and then follow rabbit trails and do independent research on pet interests. Like studying cloning after learning about cellular chemistry. However, if you ds plans to take any science exams like the SAT2, there will be core material that must be covered. Also, not all textbooks are created equally. I see that you are currently using Apologia, which has a reputation of being pretty dry. So perhaps you need to create a program that has a readable textbook as a spine, and only study about half of it. Then augment this course into a full credit by using videos, research papers, scientific investigations, and living books. This would be a very different course then reading through Apologia. Ruth in NZ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
athomemom Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Queen Homeschool has two high school level CM science courses. The third will be out soon. I am seriously considering Queen's for my high schoolers next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantlion Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 I've very much enjoyed reading through Quarks and Quirks and her plans for biology and chemistry. She does use a textbook, but not as the only source. She posts here on occasion as well. She obviously knows her science well. I attempted to put together a course using a textbook spine and outlining several topical books as supplements. In my case, I just don't know the science well enough to ensure everything is being covered properly. Another issue I ran into is that there is so much supplemental stuff online that it's hard to just choose one thing. So we are using a textbook for the majority of physics, a put together lab kit, online videos from various sources. I will probably do the same for chemistry. For biology we plan to do more outside the box, but only because ds has no interest in biology and wants less rigorous approach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb_ Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Prior to high school? Sure. I don't believe it's possible to completely cover what needs to be covered once the student is in secondary school. I'm with Ruth. Maybe you need to take a second look at your curriculum choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 My son did this, so yes, I recognize it is possible. However, he's a bright kid anyway, and was a bit obsessive with regard to learning science in his tween and early teen years. By 12, he was reading college biology text books simply because they had the most information in one place. He learned a lot by following resources after resource on wikipedia, learning about one concept after another. He also spent much time on youtube, watching animations of certain concepts, namely cellular and molecular biology. Also, we don't follow any curriculum in general, so he has as much time as he wants to dedicate to this. Some days he spends hours and hours, some days nothing at all. I think these things all contribute, but I just wanted to let you know that yes, being self taught is possible, even with science. Edited to add, labs would need to be done formally, for credit towards a diploma, of course. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regentrude Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 By 12, he was reading college biology text books simply because they had the most information in one place. He learned a lot by following resources after resource on wikipedia, learning about one concept after another. He also spent much time on youtube, watching animations of certain concepts, namely cellular and molecular biology. I'm confused - these are not exactly "living books". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 I'm confused - these are not exactly "living books". Fair enough. His learning wasn't limited to "living books." These were just a couple of other resources he utilized that I recalled off the top of my head. Sorry for the confusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shanvan Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Something interesting to look at mentioned in another thread. http://www.motherofdivinegrace.org/curriculum/syllabus/36 This is listed as a 10th grade resource. It probably doesn't fulfill HS science requirements on it's own, but it might make an interesting supplement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down_the_Rabbit_Hole Posted January 23, 2013 Author Share Posted January 23, 2013 No, I do not believe this is possible - at least not if the goal is to prepare a student for college. Living books are wonderful, but they will not give the systematic treatment. A high school level physics or chemistry course contains a mathematical description of the phenomena, and the students have to learn problem solving, applying mathematical methods to chemistry and physics problems. This is not something that can be accomplished with a "living book". Living books can serve as a valuable addition to a more systematic curriculum and greatly enhance the student's enjoyment of the subject, but they can not teach these things. ETA: I can see a living books approach working for a science elective. Just not for the fundamental sciences. But could you learn those things without an actual textbook? What if you have a list of things for let's say Biology that you know need to be learned...take that list and learn without a textbook. Chemistry math can be done this way (I would think)...you need to learn x, y, z and here is how to do it, now lets apply it to this problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down_the_Rabbit_Hole Posted January 23, 2013 Author Share Posted January 23, 2013 I understand that Spectrum Chemistry is a high school course that focuses on experimentation as a way to learn the material. The text is very short because most of the learning occurs in the lab. Does your ds have a passion? I would reinvigorate his love for science by spending a year on his favourite science subject. Also, you do not need to *complete* a textbook. You can do half of a textbook and then follow rabbit trails and do independent research on pet interests. Like studying cloning after learning about cellular chemistry. However, if you ds plans to take any science exams like the SAT2, there will be core material that must be covered. Also, not all textbooks are created equally. I see that you are currently using Apologia, which has a reputation of being pretty dry. So perhaps you need to create a program that has a readable textbook as a spine, and only study about half of it. Then augment this course into a full credit by using videos, research papers, scientific investigations, and living books. This would be a very different course then reading through Apologia. Ruth in NZ My ds has no plans for the SAT2, just the ACT and ASVAB. I will look into Spectrum Chemistry, thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down_the_Rabbit_Hole Posted January 23, 2013 Author Share Posted January 23, 2013 Queen Homeschool has two high school level CM science courses. The third will be out soon. I am seriously considering Queen's for my high schoolers next year. I will check this out. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down_the_Rabbit_Hole Posted January 23, 2013 Author Share Posted January 23, 2013 I've very much enjoyed reading through Quarks and Quirks and her plans for biology and chemistry. She does use a textbook, but not as the only source. She posts here on occasion as well. She obviously knows her science well. I attempted to put together a course using a textbook spine and outlining several topical books as supplements. In my case, I just don't know the science well enough to ensure everything is being covered properly. Another issue I ran into is that there is so much supplemental stuff online that it's hard to just choose one thing. So we are using a textbook for the majority of physics, a put together lab kit, online videos from various sources. I will probably do the same for chemistry. For biology we plan to do more outside the box, but only because ds has no interest in biology and wants less rigorous approach. Great blog post, thank you. I can use some of this now since we are shelving his Biology book after doing half of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down_the_Rabbit_Hole Posted January 23, 2013 Author Share Posted January 23, 2013 My son did this, so yes, I recognize it is possible. However, he's a bright kid anyway, and was a bit obsessive with regard to learning science in his tween and early teen years. By 12, he was reading college biology text books simply because they had the most information in one place. He learned a lot by following resources after resource on wikipedia, learning about one concept after another. He also spent much time on youtube, watching animations of certain concepts, namely cellular and molecular biology. Also, we don't follow any curriculum in general, so he has as much time as he wants to dedicate to this. Some days he spends hours and hours, some days nothing at all. I think these things all contribute, but I just wanted to let you know that yes, being self taught is possible, even with science. Edited to add, labs would need to be done formally, for credit towards a diploma, of course. :) Encouraging, thank you. How many hours of lab for each science subject would be needed towards a credit. Usually it is included with the course (or so I thought). He is taking labs for Biology through our Homeschool Program, but they are just once a month and are an hour and a half long. Each lab has required reading, videos to watch, and notes to take. I was hoping this would be enough lab for his Biology credit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down_the_Rabbit_Hole Posted January 23, 2013 Author Share Posted January 23, 2013 Something interesting to look at mentioned in another thread. http://www.motherofd...lum/syllabus/36 This is listed as a 10th grade resource. It probably doesn't fulfill HS science requirements on it's own, but it might make an interesting supplement. THIS looks very promising. Much thanks. I was thinking along the lines of taking the animal kingdom studies he has left in the textbook and do a nature study type thing (observe, record) along the way create a guide for the area we live in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down_the_Rabbit_Hole Posted January 23, 2013 Author Share Posted January 23, 2013 If I wanted to create such a program for one of my kids, I would structure it around primary source readings (Archimedes, Lavoisier, Dalton, Galileo, Newton, Leibniz, etc)... not snippets, but complete works and experiments based on those readings. I'd want to get up to modern research with journal articles, etc. It would be a *much* harder course of study than a textbook based one, and I'm doubtful that most high school kids would be ready for such an approach or that most hsing patents would be willing/able to guide such a study, but I do think it could work. I had thought about this, adding in the actual scientists who developed the sciences, study them and what they did. I am sure their are lists out their for this....top 10 scientists that made Chemistry history...or something like it. This would not be the whole curriculum because a basic knowledge of the science would need to be under the students belt to have any idea of what is taking place, but this idea coupled with several others ...I think it would make a great curriculum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down_the_Rabbit_Hole Posted January 23, 2013 Author Share Posted January 23, 2013 Thanks everyone. this has given me lots to think on as well as things to check out. Much appreciated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faithr Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 I have gotten that MODG Natural History curriculum before and I did not care for it. It just doesn't really deliver, I don't think. But I have problem with MODG's science anyway because to me their program is just a bunch of disjointed books in science that are excuses for learning how to write, except I don't think the writing instruction is very good! There is a popular Catholic naturalist who incorporates a lot of CM into her homeschooling. Her website is old (I think all her kids are grown now). She has a living books list and helpful hints too. If I were going to do a high school science program for 4 years (and I was actually good at teaching science! I farm out my kids to high school science classes in our homeschool community) I would do her Earth Science for 9th grade and her Astronomy for 12th and in between I'd do a regular Biology course with lab and a Chemistry course with lab to satisfy those college requirements. We use A Beka for these last two subjects. Anyway, here's the link: http://charlottemason.tripod.com/hisci.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down_the_Rabbit_Hole Posted January 23, 2013 Author Share Posted January 23, 2013 I have gotten that MODG Natural History curriculum before and I did not care for it. It just doesn't really deliver, I don't think. But I have problem with MODG's science anyway because to me their program is just a bunch of disjointed books in science that are excuses for learning how to write, except I don't think the writing instruction is very good! There is a popular Catholic naturalist who incorporates a lot of CM into her homeschooling. Her website is old (I think all her kids are grown now). She has a living books list and helpful hints too. If I were going to do a high school science program for 4 years (and I was actually good at teaching science! I farm out my kids to high school science classes in our homeschool community) I would do her Earth Science for 9th grade and her Astronomy for 12th and in between I'd do a regular Biology course with lab and a Chemistry course with lab to satisfy those college requirements. We use A Beka for these last two subjects. Anyway, here's the link: http://charlottemaso....com/hisci.html :grouphug: I knew it was out there somewhere...a usable list of books other then a textbook to get these sciences taught. The link is a treasure. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8filltheheart Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 :grouphug: I knew it was out there somewhere...a usable list of books other then a textbook to get these sciences taught. The link is a treasure. Thank you. I love MacBeth's list and I link it a lot and own many similar titles, but I am going to reiterate what others have stated an d say that creating a high school worthy course is not going to be easy. If it is a student that is not college bound or absolutely not interested in any future science career, maybe, but MacBeth is a naturalist and the knowledge she automatically incorporates is not going to be easily duplicated. I love the approach through 8th and for supplementing, but I can't pull it off at the high school level bc my science isn't strong enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingiguana Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 If I wanted to create such a program for one of my kids, I would structure it around primary source readings (Archimedes, Lavoisier, Dalton, Galileo, Newton, Leibniz, etc)... not snippets, but complete works and experiments based on those readings. I'd want to get up to modern research with journal articles, etc. It would be a *much* harder course of study than a textbook based one, and I'm doubtful that most high school kids would be ready for such an approach or that most hsing patents would be willing/able to guide such a study, but I do think it could work. This is actually two different fields of study -- science and the history of science. It's not something that would be done together even in a grad level class. It would be way too much work, and perhaps not all that useful. The point of using primary sources for history is to get information that is closer to what happened. The analogous information for science would be actually looking at how things work rather than reading about them. In other words, labs and independent investigations would be the way to go. I'm not really sure that reading what people thought on scientific subjects years ago is of much help in figuring out science as it's understood today. In fact, it may be more than a little mystifying. As far as reading current journal articles -- one usually needs a pretty darn good base of information in the field to even begin to understand what is being talked about in most journal articles. Most undergrads aren't ready for it. This is something professors will start to introduce in college, but they usually recognize that the point of reading journal articles as an undergrad is not so much to get information out of the articles, but to get practice in figuring out what is going on. There are a lot of popular science articles and books that might be of more relevance for a student just embarking on science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C_l_e_0..Q_c Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 I've looked at MacBeth's list for Chemistry, as that's what my son is learning this year, therefore it's what I'm most familiar with at the moment. Her list would fall short on so many points it's almost laughable. None of the books would explain enough about the atom's structure, for example. I looked at The Periodic Kingdom on Amazon, and reviewers list it as a 6th grade level book. High school? Not quite! Also, I would distrust anyone putting together a science program and who is able to write "books which discuss evolution as a fact rather than a theory" on her webpage (http://charlottemaso....com/hisci.html) As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena. (http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html, very first definitition of 'theory' that DuckDuckGo returned.) In science a theory is even more solid than facts. Her poor use of the words (irregardless of what one thinks about evolution) makes me doubt her goals in designing a thorough high school science program Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down_the_Rabbit_Hole Posted January 23, 2013 Author Share Posted January 23, 2013 I will take note of the warnings in the last few posts and proceed with caution. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regentrude Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 But could you learn those things without an actual textbook? What if you have a list of things for let's say Biology that you know need to be learned...take that list and learn without a textbook. Chemistry math can be done this way (I would think)...you need to learn x, y, z and here is how to do it, now lets apply it to this problem. If you are an expert in the field, you can certainly teach these things without a textbook. It will, however, be extremely time consuming to develop examples that illustrate precisely the point you want to teach and design practice problems. I find that even though I have a doctorate in physics and have been teaching at the university for over a decade, I would never want to teach physics without a text, because that would be reinventing the wheel: Writing one good homework problem or one set of good multiple choice questions takes one to several hours. Creating one good illustration for a difficult concept can easily take a day. So, sure, I can tell my students about Newton's Laws without a text. I can then develop a problem solving procedure, write examples, write a number of practice problems for them. I could do this for every single topic, creating the necessary amount of practice problems that are needed for mastery. It would take many months. Doing this would be a complete waste of time since there are dozens of books where people have done this before. And no, just reading about the concepts without actually doing problems would not teach the student what he needs to know. With my physics background, I would not be qualified to teach chemistry or biology without a text, because I would not even be able to identify the concepts that constitute the canon of necessary knowledge without the help of a text. (To be honest, I should not even use the word "teach", because even with a text, I am not qualified to "teach" chemistry- I can only facilitate my student's learning of chemistry.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Encouraging, thank you. How many hours of lab for each science subject would be needed towards a credit. Usually it is included with the course (or so I thought). He is taking labs for Biology through our Homeschool Program, but they are just once a month and are an hour and a half long. Each lab has required reading, videos to watch, and notes to take. I was hoping this would be enough lab for his Biology credit. Your state should have the requirements needed for a diploma. You would also want to tailor it according to any colleges your child wants to apply to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nan in Mass Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 If I wanted to create such a program for one of my kids, I would structure it around primary source readings (Archimedes, Lavoisier, Dalton, Galileo, Newton, Leibniz, etc)... not snippets, but complete works and experiments based on those readings. I'd want to get up to modern research with journal articles, etc. It would be a *much* harder course of study than a textbook based one, and I'm doubtful that most high school kids would be ready for such an approach or that most hsing patents would be willing/able to guide such a study, but I do think it could work. I think this would work if you had a very motivated student (like Albeto's), you didn't stop them from looking things up in textbooks to quickly get any missing background information, they were willing to chase down any missing background information, the person overseeing the course was a scientist with a broad knowledge base (not too specialized) and a good teacher and had access to a list of what normally was covered in basic science courses, and you had oodles and oodles of time. I agree that it would be much more difficult than a regular textbook course, and would take much longer than having somebody else pre-select and pre-digest everything. It would be a smashing course. We got a tiny, tiny flavour of this when we used the astronomy/earth science middles school WTM recommendation (from the How blank Works series). Nan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tearose Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 As far as reading current journal articles -- one usually needs a pretty darn good base of information in the field to even begin to understand what is being talked about in most journal articles. Most undergrads aren't ready for it. This is something professors will start to introduce in college, but they usually recognize that the point of reading journal articles as an undergrad is not so much to get information out of the articles, but to get practice in figuring out what is going on. I'd also add that unless you really know a field well, you would have a hard time knowing which articles were significant for that field. You can't just randomly flip through these journals and expect to find suitable reading material. You'd need to know if there was follow-up research after an article was initially published, how credible other scientists found it, etc. And, as pp have mentioned, these articles are often so specialized that even undergraduates need guidance in learning how to read them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nan in Mass Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Is there anything out there like this? Any blogs about this? Curriculums? Moms who are doing this with their HS child and seeing great results (love of learning science returning sort of thing)? Anything? Probably not very helpful to you, but the approach I took for high school was to have my son do something I called natural history for the first two years. This involved lots of experiments designed by my son, real ones where he didn't know the answer beforehand, lots of reading, learning to use various pieces of equipment, keeping a nature journal, lots of time and frustration, a lot of interest in some aspects of science, a reasonably good idea of how things work, an ability to identify quite a lot of plants and animals before he even began, a willingness to draw, TWTM's previous science training (more or less), a good ability to describe things, living in a house in the woods on a lake and spending half the summer on a boat, a grandmother who was a biologist, a grandfather who is a fantastic teacher (at my son's request, he reviewed basic physics concepts with no reference materials whatsoever during one month's sailing vacation), and a father who was used to coaching young engineers to design a reasonable experiment and write it up properly. We did that so he would learn to DO science. We finished that off by having him take chemistry, physics, and biology at the community college the last two years of high school. He had a number of independent projects going during all this time as well, things that involved other aspects of science and engineering, like electronics. The end result seems to me to be good, but we won't really know until ten or twenty years from now, when we see what youngest does with his life. Nan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tearose Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 I'm sorry. I can see that my terse response has left any number of things unclear! No, I would not propose grabbing journal articles at random! And, yes, absolutely, a knowledgeable guide would be essential, but I think that is true of all the material to which I was alluding. However, if I were attempting a course such I described (and that has not been the route we took with any of our kids so far), I would very much expect to get them to the point where they could handle such material. ...and I know my own experience as a high school student and as an undergraduate was greatly enriched by such content. ymmv :) Perhaps we're talking about different publications--I am referring to peer-reviewed journals written by scholars and intended for a scholarly audience. I think that many students who have had an introductory class or two in chemistry (or physics, biology, etc. ) at the college level are not ready for such reading because the research is so specialized. If you are referring to peer-reviewed journals, we'll just have to agree to disagree :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regentrude Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 I believe it to be within the capabilities of high school juniors and seniors *if* they have been given a strong background and have good teachers. ...and my belief is based in observation of kids, not just idealistic theory. ...not all journal articles, not every topic, but I don't see it as an intrinsically inaccessible format. ...and I do believe that familiarity with the format and experience deciphering research is a valuable, and practical life skill. I, personally, have been deeply grateful for that skill in my own life. It would, however, require an extremely careful selection of appropriate articles. I have a doctorate in physics and worked in research, so did my share of reading and writing original papers. I am unable to understand the journal papers my DH, also a physicist, writes, unless I were prepared to spend several months reading up on literature and acquiring a background in theoretical techniques used. Even grad school did not teach me the advanced math involved. I could see such an approach working if review articles are used (but even then, the basic knowledge must have been established through more conventional means, because no review article is going as far back as the basics high school physics - the approach is not working as a substitute for textbooks), but original publications on cutting edge research are very often not suitable. It is difficult enough for physics undergraduates to understand colloquium presentations where the researcher spends an hour explaining the content of his paper to a general audience of students and faculty. I would expect a science undergraduate to practice this skill and acquire it over the years of his graduate education, but definitely not a high schooler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lewelma Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 My ds has no plans for the SAT2, just the ACT and ASVAB. I think it would be worth your time to think about *why* your ds should learn science, because it would inform your course design. He does not need it for testing or for a STEM major. So why learn science at all? Yes, it is a requirement for graduation, but there are lots of different types of courses he could take to fulfil a science requirement. Are you a believer that everyone should study science because it is a part of being an educated adult? Or are you more practical? -- he should learn it because one day he will be a voter and he needs to have a science foundation to make educated choices. Perhaps, you are less society focused and have more personal goals for your ds -- for example he needs to know some biology to understand doctors, medical claims,etc, and basic physics so he can rewire his home one day. Think about these things and discuss them with him. Learning from a textbook stinks if you have no interest in the topic. If the material seems esoteric or worthless, it can really turn a student off. So perhaps you need to pick sciences that are applied: Environmental science is a great course http://www.biozone.co.nz/modular.php scroll down For Biology he could study Health and Disease, or Anatomy and Physiology http://www.biozone.co.nz/modular.php same link as above, scroll down He could study Applied Chemistry: the American Chemical Society has a text called Chemistry in the Community which focuses on introducing chemical topics by way of real life problems http://bcs.whfreeman.com/chemcom5e/ You need to check your state's requirements, but IMHO, not all students need 'basic' science. Some students will be more focused and driven by an applied course. I do think that at this level, textbooks are your friend. But you need to find a topic that interest him and a textbook that is written well or is brief. I like the biozone worktexts (linked to above) because they are reasonably thin paperbacks, where each page is a separate topic explained by 1) 1 or 2 paragraphs, 2) one related diagram/graph/table and 3) thought provoking questions. This kind of text seems so much more accessible than a big tomb with lots and lots of pages and words. Give it some thought, Ruth in NZ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lewelma Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 One more thought. This would take more work, but you could create a number of courses about science in society. For example, for biology in society, you could choose 4 topics for 4 terms, each one focused on a societal issue, but each one concerning a different subsection of biology (meaning don't choose all ecological issues). Term 1) the ethics of cloning. Background reading: biochemistry Term 2) killer bees migrating north: Background reading: ecology and speciation Term 3) an endangered species in your area. Background reading: conservation biology Term 4) Aids: Background reading: immunology and physiology Each term might have 3 chapters from a different textbook to read, and then with that background he could research the legal, ethical, and societal issues associated with the topic. Finally, for each topic he would prepare a oral presentation or term paper that explains the scientific underpinnings in addition to the societal complexities. This would take more work from you, but if your ds chooses the issues he wants to study, it could be tailored to his interests. Obviously, your ds would study fewer topics than a traditional Biology course, but he would go more in depth with each one. IMHO, motivated students always learn more than unmotivated students. So I would rather a student be well grounded in a few topics of interest, than indifferently study a broad range of topics and walk away with a hatred of science. Others on this board could tell you better than I can if this is an acceptable science course from an American point of view. Ruth in NZ ETA For chemistry, he could study issues like: Water pollution: background reading on chemistry basics (symbols, formulas, equations, bonding) Fish Kills; background reading on solubility, acids/bases, pH Designing new coins for the soda machines: background reading on industrial chemical reactions, electrochemistry Hydrogen fueled cars: Background reading on petroleum fractional distillation and hydrogen fuel cells Nuclear Power plants: background reading on nuclear chemistry Clearly, he will not cover all of chemistry, and it will be much less systematic than reading a textbook in order from start to finish. However, this approach will teach him to evaluate media claims about scientific issues by using REAL science, rather than media talk. A very good lesson to learn. It will also show him that these topics are often incredibly complicated, and that the media simplifies them to a level of stupidity. Also a good lesson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down_the_Rabbit_Hole Posted January 24, 2013 Author Share Posted January 24, 2013 Ruth :grouphug: I think between your recent posts and the link Faithr has given has got me thinking in the direction I want to go with this ds. There is a light at the end of this science tunnel and I think it will fit my ds perfectly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jelbe5 Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Not sure if this would work for someone who wants to major in science, but look at this site: http://charlottemason.tripod.com/hisci.html Also, search for this topic on the High School Forum "Biology . . . Not Rigerous Please" and check out post #33. Again, this would be suitable for a non-science major. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingiguana Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 It is the approach St John's College takes and Eva Brann, in her lovely book Paradoxes of Education in a Republic, makes an erudite and compelling argument for the inherent benefits. As I said above, it is not at all the approach I have chosen, and I think it requires far more effort, from both student and teacher, but I see potential advantages. Given how most college science professors find it difficult to just fit in the basics of current science to their courses (majors and non-majors), I'm guessing that these courses you're referring to don't cover as much science as a comparable course that doesn't try to fit these in. There may be the argument that this would be a good approach for non-STEM majors, but I don't agree. Current science is an important thing to understand to be a good citizen. Filling up a science course with science from centuries back is only going to limit the amount of current science students are exposed to. One could design a curriculum where the science course has a concurrent course studying the history of science, and I can see the value in that, but that would be another credit, not just extra things stuffed into the science course. Have you read the primary sources? I feel that you are underestimating both the relevance of their content and the learning that can come from working (and it takes serious work) through them. Yes. It really makes a lot more sense to read them AFTER learning current science, though. I came to them with a strong science background, but many of my fellow Johnnies had very little and from what I observed, these readings and the corresponding discussions and experiments were very, very effective at conveying core scientific concepts and thinking. Kind of depends on which ones they are. And I'm not actually coming up with a big list of ones from centuries past that would teach as effectively as a decent modern text. (There's a reason why Mendel was neglected so long. Also, you seem to be defending the idea that the science education should come before reading the primary sources, given that you came to them with a strong science background. Yes, it is challenging, but if I were undertaking a source based science program, one of my goals would be getting my student to the level where s/he could handle that material. ...but those are so predigested, so easy to read through and nod and think you understand. Entertaining, but not anything that could be used as a core text. It depends on the science and the book when it comes to popular science. Yes, there are a ton out there that are useless, but there are a few that can help students understand material. And ditto to what Regentrude said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down_the_Rabbit_Hole Posted January 24, 2013 Author Share Posted January 24, 2013 Not sure if this would work for someone who wants to major in science, but look at this site: http://charlottemaso....com/hisci.html Also, search for this topic on the High School Forum "Biology . . . Not Rigerous Please" and check out post #33. Again, this would be suitable for a non-science major. Thanks for the link. I looked on this site recently (as per another posters suggestion) and found it extremely helpful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faithr Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 I just stumbled across this: https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://www.greatbooks.org/fileadmin/pdf/catalogK12_2013.pdf If you scroll down to page 26 in the catalog the Great Books Curriculum has a high school level science program based in reading classic science writings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down_the_Rabbit_Hole Posted January 25, 2013 Author Share Posted January 25, 2013 I just stumbled across this: https://docs.google....logK12_2013.pdf If you scroll down to page 26 in the catalog the Great Books Curriculum has a high school level science program based in reading classic science writings. Going to look at it now, thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Marple Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 My second son took a course at the local Community College entitled Conceptual Physics when he was a senior. This course was nothing like the course, Conceptual Physics (using textbook by Hewitt), that I taught at our local high school co-op. But I think it was probably an OK course for a high school student who wasn't particularly interested in science. The course was taught more like a combination of the history and the science of physics. It had two instructors: a philosophy professor and a physics professor. It was also considered a "science for non-majors". There was no textbook - rather they used online resources of the famous physicists in history (taught by the philosophy professor) then the physics professor would take off on a few of the science aspects that each physicist discovered. The students did an online "experiment" which was basically the interpretation of science data from graphs and charts. In this section, the introduction of a basic equation was given and used in the "experiment". The bulk, though, of the course seemed to focus on the philosophy aspects. I can see that it would be an interesting course that required a lot less rigor than even an introductory physics course and I can see that it would appeal much more to a liberal arts major. FWIW, we dropped the course because the philosophy section was agonizing to my son. He really wasn't too interested in the emotions and questions that the scientist encountered...he really wanted to know how physics worked. He also had the advantage over the class of having had my Conceptual Physics course at the co-op. The problem I can see in developing a course of this type is that I, as the teacher, would have a difficult time evaluating various aspects of it. Not being a philosophy major would hamper me greatly in determining if my student had learned that aspect adequately. Nor would I be able to have a fruitful discussion with the student because I would be learning it at the same time. I would be fine with the basic physics (nothing to the level of Regentrude, though) but I would never consider that I had enough knowledge to adequately evaluate my student without a text or some sort of guideline (which are provided in teacher guides). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lisabees Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 I think it would be worth your time to think about *why* your ds should learn science, because it would inform your course design. He does not need it for testing or for a STEM major. So why learn science at all? Yes, it is a requirement for graduation, but there are lots of different types of courses he could take to fulfil a science requirement. Are you a believer that everyone should study science because it is a part of being an educated adult? Or are you more practical? -- he should learn it because one day he will be a voter and he needs to have a science foundation to make educated choices. Perhaps, you less society focused and have more personal goals for your ds -- for example he needs to know some biology to understand doctors, medical claims,etc, and basic physics so he can rewire his home one day. Think about these things and discuss them with him. This is key. I think that, in general, society undervalues science education because people cannot understand how it impacts our lives. Having a strong science foundation helps us see the world from outside our time and space bubble. It helps shape our decisions and our values and our children's future. I don't want to be argumentative :) ...and I do suspect that we're on the verge of having this type of material go out of the reach of the general public, with the possible exception of the medical field... which is exciting on the one hand, but bittersweet. It worries me, honestly, how science illiterate we are as a nation, and how ill equipped folks are to evaluate scientific arguments or research. My passion on this particular little piece is a reflection of the intensity of my concern - I hope I 'sound' passionate rather than combative! Ha! Eliana, no one could ever see you as combative! ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kareni Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 I have no first hand experience with it, but this plan of study looks appealing to me: High School Biology with Living Books by Jamie McMillin. The resources used are listed here. Regards, Kareni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swimmermom3 Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 I just stumbled across this: https://docs.google....logK12_2013.pdf If you scroll down to page 26 in the catalog the Great Books Curriculum has a high school level science program based in reading classic science writings. I have the biology anthology. I like it very much for supplementing a biology or life science course, but don't see it as a replacement for a biology text. For us, it was valuable in triggering rabbit trails to meander down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle in IL Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Heart of Dakota is currently working on their first High School Guide and has posted a "Sneak Peek" at what the science is looking like for that guide. It is not finished yet but they are very reliable about finished a new guide every year. This one should be done in time for fall 2013. Their sciences always have a living book feel (sometimes to a fault for our family as I have a STEM-oriented ds). The spine of this course is "Integrated Physics and Chemistry" written by John Hudson Tiner. Tiner is the guy who has written all the "Exploring the World of..." science books which have a living book feel to them. Take a look to see what Carrie at Heart of Dakota has to say about it. http://www.heartofdakota.com/board3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=12932 Just a thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swimmermom3 Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Heart of Dakota is currently working on their first High School Guide and has posted a "Sneak Peek" at what the science is looking like for that guide. It is not finished yet but they are very reliable about finished a new guide every year. This one should be done in time for fall 2013. Their sciences always have a living book feel (sometimes to a fault for our family as I have a STEM-oriented ds). The spine of this course is "Integrated Physics and Chemistry" written by John Hudson Tiner. Tiner is the guy who has written all the "Exploring the World of..." science books which have a living book feel to them. Take a look to see what Carrie at Heart of Dakota has to say about it. http://www.heartofda...php?f=6&t=12932 Just a thought. I would have some concerns about using this with a STEM student. I could be wrong, but I believe there is misinformation in the description itself. Physical science, I believe, is the broad category that includes chemistry, physics, and astronomy as opposed to life sciences which include biology, anatomy, and the like. To me, it looks as though they are proposing a physical science class for 9th grade which is usually not a part of many high school curricula. I don't know. Miss Marple? Ruth? Regentrude? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle in IL Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 My kids are not there yet, and I'm not sure if I will use it or not when we get there. If we did, it would be for my STEM guys 8th grade year instead of 9th. Is the OP interested in Living Books for a STEM-oriented student? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faithr Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 I don't know a thing about Heart of Dakota, but I do think it is legitimate to have the science sequence they are suggesting. I know Kolbe Academy has the same lprogession as a possible science line up. It is very wise to have some chemistry before biology. In the a beka line up they have you do a short intro to chemistry course before Biology. Usually you should have a year of Algebra before chemistry and some people don't hit Algebra until 9th grade, so the proposed line for HOD looks like it takes that into consideration. So I honestly don't see anything wrong with what they have planned. Some schools do an Earth Science class in 9 th but this really is a combo of things that encompass a lot of into chem stuff ( elements) and physics, meteorology, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymonkeybug Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Also, I would distrust anyone putting together a science program and who is able to write "books which discuss evolution as a fact rather than a theory" on her webpage (http://charlottemaso....com/hisci.html) Where was the ...evolution...thing? I don't see that but would love to go back and find it and read that snippet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang!Zoom! Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 I've very much enjoyed reading through Quarks and Quirks and her plans for biology and chemistry. She does use a textbook, but not as the only source. She posts here on occasion as well. She obviously knows her science well. I attempted to put together a course using a textbook spine and outlining several topical books as supplements. In my case, I just don't know the science well enough to ensure everything is being covered properly. Another issue I ran into is that there is so much supplemental stuff online that it's hard to just choose one thing. So we are using a textbook for the majority of physics, a put together lab kit, online videos from various sources. I will probably do the same for chemistry. For biology we plan to do more outside the box, but only because ds has no interest in biology and wants less rigorous approach. Thank you so much for taking the time to post this link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down_the_Rabbit_Hole Posted February 2, 2013 Author Share Posted February 2, 2013 Just saw that GuestHollow will have a chemistry for High school using books but it will not be out till 2015 :sad: I need it now. i did however get some ideas from her younger chemistry schedule that will work with my High Schooler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.