Question for sciency people about integrated v. topical in grammar stage

[momma2three]

I know that the WTM endorses starting separate biology/earth science/chemistry/physics tracks in first grade, and that's always spoken to me because I pretty much thought that's how science worked. After all, when I was in school, they told me that Biology is a different class from Chemistry, and since I wasn't particularly interested in science that was the takeaway I kept.

 

But now that I'm actually researching Science curricula, and researching how science is taught throughout the world, and thinking more about science as a field, and I'm starting to think that integrated is the way to go. But, at the same time, it seems hard to dig deeper when you are going all over the place.

 

I bought the Pandia Press Life Sciences, and I'm really impressed by what it covers. I think a first grader would come out with a really expansive knowledge of a super wide range of plants and animals. There's certainly plenty of stuff in there that I know nothing about. I have a really naturally curious kid, and I think it goes into a level of detail that she would find fascinating.

 

But then I also look at BFSU, and the UK/French/Singapore standards, and it occurs to me that I don't really think it's okay to wait until 4th grade to learn elementary physics. And my recent revelation that there aren't really clear dividing lines between the different topic areas, so if you're not kind of keeping up with your understanding of chemistry and physics, then you're missing a bunch of biology and earth science (and that the above statement is true no matter which order you put the different areas.)

 

So, and sorry for rambling, I'm just wondering what other people's opinions are about teaching integrated science, versus by topic? Particularly if you're a sciencey person with a better understanding of how all the fields are related than I currently have.

[2_girls_mommy]

Not a person w/any experience in the fields of science here. But just an idea. I do the WTM topical science to go deep. But I don't let it limit us when other opportunities arise. If my dds pick a topic for the science fair that is out of the field we are studying, then we go deep on that for the month. If we are learning about the ancients in history and we come to the Greeks and Romans, then we take a bit of time to explore what they had to offer as far as science and try it out. But then we get back to our regularly scheduled program when we are finished w/whatever rabbit trails we have found. I work best w/ a guideline, but I don't limit. At least in the case of my dds, they have managed to read and pick up so much on their own and from field trips and scouts and whatnot that they have a workable knowledge of topics we are not studying officially each year.

[Five More Minutes]

I think that it's most important to be systematic. That doesn't mean being a slave to a schedule, but It does mean having a sense of an overall framework that we're working within.

 

For some, that may be most easily done by using a WTM approach, studying one area each year. In that approach, drawing linkages to what has already been studied will take a bit more effort, but it's completely doable.

 

Another way to do it is to use an integrated approach that makes those linkages jump out at you. The danger here is, I think, doing topics randomly without ever linking them to previous topics. I use BFSU as a spine because it reminds me to make those connections. When my dds want to dive further into a topic, we do so, but then return to our spine and pick up from there.

 

For science, the content is important, but the skills (observation, inquiry) are equally important. Whichever framework if systematic study is chosen, the real trick for us is finding ways to nurture those skills while studying different topic areas.

[jar7709]

For our family, integrated threads of science is the only way in these young years. DH and I have backgrounds in interdisciplinary sciences and I work in an interdisciplinary industry. I can't imagine putting the different divisions of science in separate boxes like that. I understand that many people (and WTM) want to set them out a year of this, a year of that, for ease of planning and wrapping their arms around a topic, but it's not for us. In college sciences, ime, science is rarely studied in a vaccuum from itself and it is the connections that make it fascinating. I think the practice of taking out the connections to force each subject into a box is what dries up the interest level in many K-12 science classrooms, which creates students who think science is boring and/or that don't really understand it, which in turn helps continue the vicious cycle of boxing the subjects, making science boring, etc etc.

 

So for my kids, who have sciencey minds like their parents, the last thing I want to do in these young years is spend a year on biology, a year on chemistry, etc. The BFSU approach is much better for us. Right now we're studying food webs and adaptations through studying a pond and growing some tadpoles on our bathroom counter. Understanding food webs thoroughly means understanding that the biggest mass of organisms in the pond environment is the microscopic algae and such (biology) who have converted the sun's energy (physics/astronomy) into energy in their bodies, and who in turn provide energy to the creatures that eat them up the chain. You can find a pond in low places in the topography, where water gathers and can't drain away (earth science); as creatures die in the pond and fall to the bottom of the water, they are covered by mud, and if conditions are right (chemistry) and they are not disturbed for a long time, they might become fossils (more earth science). If we have a succession of fossils in an environment, we can look at how the organisms and/or the environment (biology/earth science) changed over time. Just for a start. I understand that this type of approach is often overwhelming for people who are intimidated by science topics or who want to lay things out in a very linear way, but it works for us.

[8filltheheart]

While I am not a sciency person per se, I have managed to raise sciency children/young adults. (one is a chemical engineer, another is pursuing occupational therapy, and a 3rd aspires to astrophysicist. :) The rest are still too young to say. )

 

Anyway, our approach prior to high school level courses is to completely stay away from textbooks and read whole books on topics. Sometimes they might read every book they can find on a single subject while other times they might read a single book and then move on to a new completely different topic.

 

FWIW, we are not systematic in what they choose to study. Over the course of elementary and middle school, they are exposed to depth across vast areas of science. My kids have all transitioned into high school/college level science w/o any difficulty and have thrived there.

 

Another fwiw, strong math skills are essential for upper level science. Kids who really love science need to have their love of math nurtured/encouraged. :)

[Down_the_Rabbit_Hole]

Not sure if this addresses your question but we do both, study a wide variety along side single topics or branches of science. Both have benefits and draw backs so why pick and choose which one is better? Example, this past year we studied Astronomy, this was our dive deeper subject and spent 24 weeks on it. As we worked our way through space we also did nature studies from our nature walks/observations, learned about dolphins for 3-4 weeks since dd wanted to learn about them, did a 2 week raptor study, added some chemistry and physics with a few hands on experiments and books we got at the library, studies magnets for a few weeks, and now we are finishing up a 10 week geology course., When we come to something in our studies that looks like a great rabbit trail we take it. So in a course of the school year we are getting the basic branches of science: Biology, Astronomy, Geology, Chemistry, and Physics. All are really intertwined in some form or fashion anyway.

[momma2three]

Thank you everyone for your replies. Particularly jar7709. What you say resonates with me in what science study should be like, though that fact had never really occurred to me until the past few weeks. And you're right that it seems overwhelming to me, as a non-sciencey person, but I think I'm going to have to get over that!

[regentrude]

My approach is similar to 8FillTheHeart. We do not do any systematic study of science before high school, but read books, take fields trips, watch science documentaries for whatever topics the kids are interested in. This creates a broad knowledge foundation for a systematic study in high school.

I find the years before high school important for exposure, waking an interest, exploring - not for systematics.

 

FWIW, we are definitely "sciency people"; my DH and I both teach physics at a STEM university.

[Stellalarella]

One very enjoyable thing that I've found as we've studied science in a 4 year cycle is the joy that comes when we make connections between the fields. Honestly, I find that it just happens naturally as we go along.

 

For example, last year we studied chemistry. This year we have done biology. Just last month as we talked about blood and the red blood cells it contains, we talked about iron and how it will "carry" oxygen. Even my littlest ones were able to understand this. Just out of the joy of learning, we are making those connections. They easily made the connection because we had been studying atoms and molecules last year. I think there is power when kids (people!) make those "spontaneous" connections. There's nothing wrong with planning--but I do value the spark of connections.

 

In PS, my oldest two kids had a steady diet of science textbooks that would cover a large range of topics every year. Essentially, they would learn the same concepts every year, just with a bit more detail added in. They didn't find it particularly compelling. I actually purchased some of those used elementary Harcourt science textbooks for home use. Seriously--each grade level would have the same general progression and information. Sometimes even the same pictures! I do like to pull out those books for the benefit of grade level reading, but it would be mighty boring to do the same progression every single year.

 

It's been delightful to soak in a whole year's worth of study in one field.

 

With really young kids, what I'm really hoping they "catch" is a joy and curiosity for studying the natural world.