Math and Science and The Well Trained Mind

[cassafraz]

I am fairly new on the homeschooling scene, in fact, I haven't technically started yet. However, I have been reading books to help me define what my own goals and philosophy for education will be. In reading the Well Trained Mind, it seems to be very focused on the content areas. Literature, history etc. But it seems to not focus much on science, math, and the like. Is this accurate? Will I just need to add to the program to achieve enough math and science emphasis? (We are pretty nerdy in the math and sciences around this house.) Does TWTM devalue those studies or are they just not covered in as much detail because they are skill based vs content based? Should I keep searching for a different method that has a stronger focus on those subjects? I want my children to be well equipped for whatever they want to pursue in life, and while I think that literature and history is very important, there is a lot more out there than that. I feel like I am missing something...

 

 

I should add, I am looking big picture. My oldest will be a k-er this year, so I am not expecting dissections and calculus this year or something. I also have not read the entire book, primarily only the grammar section and skimmed the rest so far, so there is a very real chance that I am missing a shift in focus later.

[Crimson Wife]

I think you need to keep in mind that SWB is a humanities professor. Singapore math is in TWTM and that's definitely a rigorous option. Art of Problem Solving is not in TWTM, but certainly can work within the general framework of the book. The science I agree is relatively weak, and that's why I personally choose more rigorous programs.

[SarahW]

Yeah, I think there is a trend of thought in Classical education that kids can't do very much Science at a young age because they lack the abstract thinking skills to apply the scientific method.

 

Even if this is true, doesn't Science in the Grammar stage have a lot to offer? You could memorize the biological Kingdoms system, the Periodic Table, or the Laws of Motion. There's a lot of memorization involved once you get the Rhetoric stage Science, so why not knock some of it early?

 

I'm not a Science person, so I don't think these things are particularly thrilling. But my 6yo who watches Science dvd's for fun (PMK and Bill Nye and the like) will watch them over and over and memorize all of the terms and systems used, like the layers of the atmosphere, or how fire burns. "Mesosphere" is just another interesting vocab word at this stage, so why not take advantage of that?

[Melissa in Australia]

I have heard people say this before. But it has not been my experience at all. We followed the recommendations in TWTM pretty closely, including the science books. What we have found is that we progress through the science books at a much faster rate covering on average 1 1/2 books per year.

we re a very mathy andsciencey family. one ds is studying Aerospace Engineering, an other is about to start Conservation and Land Management.

[regentrude]

For the upper grades, I find the science recommendations in TWTM to be much weaker than the rigorous humanities coursework that is proposed. We are using TWTM for inspiration in history and literature, but prefer more rigorous curriculum for math and science.

 

As a scientist, I do not consider the approach that focuses heavy on reading original scientific writings to be a good way to teach science. Science requires doing and problem solving and developing an actual skill set, not just reading about it. The recommendations for original works, at least in physics, will lead to half-understanding and frustration; reading Einstein as a physics beginner will be fairly useless, because the physics behind his work can only be understood after several semesters of basics. So while it may look impressive that the high schooler has been reading Einstein and Newton, this will not be the physics background a college bound student needs to be prepared for university, especially in a STEM discipline.

 

SWB comes from a humanities perspective and TWTM shows clearly that this is her area of expertise; the math and science recommendations could have used the input from people who actually do math and science for a living.

 

This said: I do not follow any structured curriculum for science in the years before high school. There, a living book based approach, driven by the student's interest, with free exploration, hands on projects if desired, and a variety of resources is a great way to establish a broad knowledge foundation on which then to build a formal, systematic science education in high school.

[NotSoObvious]

For the upper grades, I find the science recommendations in TWTM to be much weaker than the rigorous humanities coursework that is proposed. We are using TWTM for inspiration in history and literature, but prefer more rigorous curriculum for math and science.

 

As a scientist, I do not consider the approach that focuses heavy on reading original scientific writings to be a good way to teach science. Science requires doing and problem solving and developing an actual skill set, not just reading about it. The recommendations for original works, at least in physics, will lead to half-understanding and frustration; reading Einstein as a physics beginner will be fairly useless, because the physics behind his work can only be understood after several semesters of basics. So while it may look impressive that the high schooler has been reading Einstein and Newton, this will not be the physics background a college bound student needs to be prepared for university, especially in a STEM discipline.

 

SWB comes from a humanities perspective and TWTM shows clearly that this is her area of expertise; the math and science recommendations could have used the input from people who actually do math and science for a living.

 

This said: I do not follow any structured curriculum for science in the years before high school. There, a living book based approach, driven by the student's interest, with free exploration, hands on projects if desired, and a variety of resources is a great way to establish a broad knowledge foundation on which then to build a formal, systematic science education in high school.

 

FWIW, I think SWB's goals are the same as yours for pre-high school students, especially after rereading this section last night. I do think it helps moms like me, who are not science oriented. We need the read, do a project, write about it approach described in the logic stage.

 

Would you mind sharing what you are using for high school?

[brownie]

I agree the classical education is history and LA focused. We're mathy and sciencey and the options out there, especially for science just aren't that great. Science is also hard to teach open and go. You need materials and time. I'm an engineer and we do lots of science and math here, but I still find myself struggling with the lack of quality guidance available. I end up using a lot of non-homeschool resources, field trips and extracurriculars to beef up science.

[regentrude]

Would you mind sharing what you are using for high school?

 

 

For science, we use introductory college texts for non-majors. For math, Art of Problem Solving (but this is definitely not a good fit for every student, so I would not give this as a general recommendation.)

[cassafraz]

 

 

 

As a scientist, I do not consider the approach that focuses heavy on reading original scientific writings to be a good way to teach science. Science requires doing and problem solving and developing an actual skill set, not just reading about it. The recommendations for original works, at least in physics, will lead to half-understanding and frustration; reading Einstein as a physics beginner will be fairly useless, because the physics behind his work can only be understood after several semesters of basics. So while it may look impressive that the high schooler has been reading Einstein and Newton, this will not be the physics background a college bound student needs to be prepared for university, especially in a STEM discipline.

 

SWB comes from a humanities perspective and TWTM shows clearly that this is her area of expertise; the math and science recommendations could have used the input from people who actually do math and science for a living.

Thank you! This is what I was thinking, well, trying to formulate anyway. I have done a lot of work in science and while reading original works may have helped me later, I don't think there is any way I would have benefited from it being my introduction to phsyics. Doing the work, in the upper grades, is what made science work for me. But as you said, that is for the upper grades. Do you feel that TWTM approach and suggestions for the younger grades is appropriate and that following them would set my children up for a solid science understanding later?

[SailorMom]

We aren't exactly classical home-schoolers, though we have benefited from the ideas and used a few of them.

What I have found personally is that "doing" science, and not just reading and watching videos from pre-k up has been very beneficial for my sons. We followed their interests until about 8th grade, had fun with the topics, took a lot of field trips and worked on many hands on labs, demonstrations, and experiments. They were dissecting animals as early as 4th grade.

It isn't that they learned all of the concepts perfectly, or memorized all the information, or that they were able to go into the "deep thoughts"; what it did was slowly and steadily increase their understanding of science in context. They learned the language of science the way we learn English, rather than through vocabulary words in a science book. The scientific method was never a new concept to them, just something we learned more about every year.

Many people (IRL) thought what I was doing in science was a waste of time before 7th grade; but - wow - not at all. So - there are good arguments for waiting - but imo - great ones for diving right in.

[Kalmia]

It is a common theme amongst the posters here that the TWTM science recommendations are weak. But please do not throw out the baby with the bathwater! The history and language arts in the TWTM are superb, so most of us just substitute science from another source.

 

There are many threads on where to look for good science resources. For your young ones, a few suggestions to look at might include: Building Foundations of Scientific Understanding by Nebel (teacher intensive); Supercharged Science (expensive but is experiment and demonstration based, includes ALL the materials, and is written for the child to complete on their own); and Exploration Education physical science kits (kid led, all the materials, less expensive); or trade science (rather than curricula) books like the Discover Nature series by Elizabeth P. Lawlor; or the "for all ages" series by Globe Pequot press: Botany for All Ages, Astronomy for all Ages, etc. Hands-On Nature by Jenepher Lingelbach is also good. The Happy Scientist has short videos on many science topics on his website. Science documentaries have always been popular with my children. Also take advantage of programs at local zoos, museums, nature centers, and Audubon societies.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Building-Foundations-Scientific-Understanding-Curriculum/dp/1432706101/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1360766625&sr=8-1&keywords=building+foundations+of+scientific+understanding

 

http://www.superchargedscience.com

 

http://www.thehappyscientist.com

 

The Discover Nature series is extensive I include a link to only one book, you can find the rest from there. I highly recommend them)

 

http://www.amazon.com/Discover-Nature-Sundown/dp/0811725278/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1360766717&sr=1-1&keywords=discover+nature+at+sundown

 

http://www.amazon.com/Botany-All-Ages-Discovering-Activities/dp/1564402819/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1360766788&sr=1-1&keywords=botany+for+all+ages

 

http://www.amazon.com/Hands--Nature-Information-Activities-Environment/dp/1584650788/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1360766811&sr=1-1&keywords=hands+on+nature

 

http://www.explorationeducation.com

[regentrude]

Do you feel that TWTM approach and suggestions for the younger grades is appropriate and that following them would set my children up for a solid science understanding later?

 

I have not spent enough time investigating those resources in detail, since I did not start homeschooling until 6th grade. They are probably fine.

I have a fundamental problem with the "once science per year" approach; it is not how science is taught in my home country (there, all three core sciences are introduced in a staggered way and then taught concurrently). I also have a big issue with the reasoning to "match" science to history - it make absolutely no sense to me, since even the Ancients studied a variety of scientific fields. It seems contrived to me to say that chemistry "fits" a certain period in history and physics "fits" another. So, that is a restriction I feel completely unnecessary.

[brownie]

We do one science a year hypothetically so that we can dig deep enough, however we manage to pull in many disciplines throughout the year. For example, this year we are doing chemistry, but ds10 will be doing a geology expt for a little science fair we will do with another family. We have done some other earth science chapters from Runkle on water. We also took a break to do a robotics curriculum. We may have time to do some biology or electronics toward the end of this year. Last year we did physical science but also did FLL which had food safety as a topic so we did a TON of reading and research with respect to that topic. I am forever saying, "Do you remember when we learned last year,....?" and relating it to our current studies. After all Bio, Chem and Physics naturally intertwine. You just need to point out the connections.