Saxon Physics ?

[Nscribe]

Background:

Dd chose Saxon math and has thrived with it.  She begins Advanced Math in September and we initially set fairly conservative goals (60 lessons for the year) in order to allow her plenty of time to tackle several firsts in other areas (first 2 AP's, beginning Lukeion Latin, driver's ed, a couple of added hours in dance and several other bits).  This would be her 10th grade year in a traditional setting.  As often happens with the best laid plans several changes occured.  The algebra based physics course she would be taking 2013-14 was effectively cancelled (moved to a time she can't attend), she scored a 790 twice on SAT timed math practice exams (with no prep) and she just underwent a maturity spurt that resulted in several lingering work items being completed.

 

She has asked if she can go ahead and start Saxon Physics this year with the aim of taking the SAT 2 sometime late Fall of 2014.  I found previous posts that suggested it is possible to do it simultaneously with Saxon Advanced Math because it teaches the math needed to some extent.  Her proposal was to shoot for closer to lesson 90 in Advanced Math this school year, and work 2 lessons a week of Saxon Physics (thus completing close to 60 of the 100 lessons by mid-April when she intends to back off for a while to focus on studying for the AP's more.)  She would pick it back up once the AP exams are complete.

 

I had Saxon Physics on the shelves, but had not given it an in depth look because the other options had emerged (and since disappeared again).  Looking at it since her proposal earlier this week, I can see where it might work since she actually really likes the Saxon method.  The topic arrangement is not what I had considered when trying to recoup from the cancellation of the planned class, but I am comfortable with the material and could guide it either way.  My backup plan had been to use the Knight 2ed + workbook, but I am willing to shift gears if her plan will be workable because I can see where she would be more invested in it.

 

If we go that route, I want a DVD supplement for the Physics and have not shopped them.  Any suggestions?  DIVE?  We have never used the DIVE products (we use Art Reed for the math piece).  Did anyone actually follow up on doing Advanced Math and Physics simultaneously?  How did that work out?  Any big pitfalls to anticipate?

[G5052]

DIVE is the only DVD program I'm aware of that fits the Saxon Physics book.  Given that it is going out of print, I wouldn't expect that situation to change.  Dr. Shormann is investigating other books, but for now there are plenty of Saxon books on the market.  I bought a set last summer at a used book sale for dirt cheap "in case."  Khan Academy has a fair number of physics videos if you want to pick your topics.

 

If you are thriving with Saxon Advanced Math, then indeed Saxon Physics may be good fit for you.  I am a little uneasy about the inch-by-inch Saxon approach for physics, but I've never taught through the Saxon Physics book, so I don't know.

 

My oldest thrives with Saxon and is in the Advanced Math book, but we probably won't do Saxon Physics.  We're doing DIVE Chemistry with the BJUP book this year after just finishing DIVE Biology, and I'm thinking that we'll probably do Conceptual Physics after that because we have a heavy senior year planned with two college-level language classes, AP Psychology, and the rest.  I'll make a decision next May or so.

[Nscribe]

We're doing DIVE Chemistry with the BJUP book this year after just finishing DIVE Biology, and I'm thinking that we'll probably do Conceptual Physics after that because we have a heavy senior year planned with two college-level language classes, AP Psychology, and the rest.  I'll make a decision next May or so.

What do you think of the DIVE products you have used in the other content areas? How long are the daily lessons on the DVD's generally?  I have Hewitt's book and the Knight text which as I look at the Saxon I suspect I would want to keep handy to enhance the conceptual bits. 

 

Yikes, didn't realize the going out of print issue.

[G5052]

What do you think of the DIVE products you have used in the other content areas? How long are the daily lessons on the DVD's generally?  I have Hewitt's book and the Knight text which as I look at the Saxon I suspect I would want to keep handy to enhance the conceptual bits. 

 

Yikes, didn't realize the going out of print issue.

 

I like DIVE.  My teens have asked for something a bit more lively, but it is rigorous and gets the job done.  The BJUP DVDs require daily watching of lessons (a negative for kids that already have several online classes to fit in).  And I'm not fond of Apologia for various reasons, so the Apologia DVDs are out too.

 

DIVE has one lecture for each module, and the other days are reading, labs, glossary, questions, etc.  That model works well for us with all of the juggling that we do.

 

Saxon Physics is actually still available through Amazon, Rainbow, etc., but I've heard through multiple sources that Houghton Mifflin is no longer printing them.

 

 

[Nscribe]

I like DIVE.  

...

DIVE has one lecture for each module, and the other days are reading, labs, glossary, questions, etc.  That model works well for us with all of the juggling that we do.

TY, that combined with a blurb on one of the catalog sites (which indicates each lesson is about 10-15 minutes) is helpful.  Dd is also a juggler and we have to be very careful about adopting anything that requires daily use and pre-fills the time (longer lectures/demos and so forth).

 

Apparently DIVE also has about 23 labs featuring some of the items less available for homeschoolers.  Whatever program we do, playing with labs would be part of along the way (DH has a workshop we intrude upon ...).  Having the demo's might be nice though for the less practical stuff.

 

Hopefully someone who has used Saxon Physics will chime in too.  The reviews I can find cite the odd topic bit but don't seem to take issue with the overall effectiveness.  Different but effective would be ok, it is just hard to find info citing much experience with it.

[regentrude]

I have not seen the actual book, but have looked up the table of content and am scratching my head how the student can possibly develop a cohesive physics understanding when the book jumps between completely unrelated topics. I can see no benefit in sprinkling miscellaneous lessons on thermodynamics and optics among the mechanics. I would be concerned that the students may be able to learn about each topic in isolation, but that the random order of subjects prevents them from seeing the red thread. I have taught physics for over a decade, and the sequence of lessons in Saxon makes absolutely no sense to me.

Saxon is very unique in this ordering. ALL other physics texts I have seen follow the same logical progression, for good reasons. I'd like to see a convincing argument what this random mix is supposed to accomplish that is superior to a logical order.

[Teachin'Mine]

Same as Saxon math - the incremental and spiral approach works very well for some and not well for others.

[G5052]

Same as Saxon math - the incremental and spiral approach works very well for some and not well for others.

 

Personally, I don't like Saxon Math.  That approach would have driven me utterly bonkers when I was their age.  The explanations just don't click for me.

 

But my teens are doing very well with it.  I periodically given them other problems from other books, and they do beautifully.

 

If a kid does well with Saxon Math, will they do well with Saxon Physics?  I just don't know.  And I don't know about the approach for that discipline.  Every other text approaches it differently, but Saxon Physics has also been around for a long time.  I know of 3-4 kids locally who did beautifully on the Physics AP after using it.  To my knowledge all of them used Saxon math in high school as well.

[Nscribe]

I have not seen the actual book, but have looked up the table of content and am scratching my head how the student can possibly develop a cohesive physics understanding when the book jumps between completely unrelated topics. I can see no benefit in sprinkling miscellaneous lessons on thermodynamics and optics among the mechanics. I would be concerned that the students may be able to learn about each topic in isolation, but that the random order of subjects prevents them from seeing the red thread. I have taught physics for over a decade, and the sequence of lessons in Saxon makes absolutely no sense to me.

Saxon is very unique in this ordering. ALL other physics texts I have seen follow the same logical progression, for good reasons. I'd like to see a convincing argument what this random mix is supposed to accomplish that is superior to a logical order.

I was thrown by the TOC as well.  Looking at the actual lessons confirms what he states in the Preface to describe what he attempted to do with the topical order.  I wouldn't say it is superior, but reading through the lessons it is also not internally disconnected and disjointed. It is different.

[Nscribe]

Regentrude:  If you are still tuned in to this thread....about how many problems a week do your college students do for your class?

[regentrude]

Regentrude:  If you are still tuned in to this thread....about how many problems a week do your college students do for your class?

 

Depends on the difficulty of the problems. In my algebra based course, I assign between 7 and 9 fully worked out problems each week, or more if some of the problems are conceptual and do not require full calculations. Students take on average 3-4 hours to complete the weekly homework.

ETA: It requires this much time because a worked problem would involve drawing a diagram that contains all information used in the problem, beginning from a basic starting equation solving symbolically for the variable they are looking for, computing a numerical answer. The starting equations are few and foundational; the complete derivation of the answer has to be shown - I do not permit them to go hunting for equations in their notes or books. (One of the biggest issues with beginning physics courses, esp. high school, is that the students come to think of physics as a grab bag of equations out of which they pull anything that has characters vaguely resembling their symbols. It is important to counteract that, but very difficult.)

 

 

My students also do problems and conceptual questions in class, it is not just all lectures.

[Nscribe]

Depends on the difficulty of the problems. In my algebra based course, I assign between 7 and 9 fully worked out problems each week, or more if some of the problems are conceptual and do not require full calculations. Students take on average 3-4 hours to complete the weekly homework.

 

TY for the response.  The thing really throwing me is this would be 20 problems per lesson (plus 5 "curveball questions") and to do it in a year would be 3 lessons per week.  He does a lot of the drawing for them initially and then drops it on later, a modeling sort of approach.  I guess it is probably about the equivalent timewise, maybe a bit closer to the 4 hour to 5 hour a week range.  Ugh!  I really have a love/hate thing going with Saxon...

[regentrude]

TY for the response.  The thing really throwing me is this would be 20 problems per lesson (plus 5 "curveball questions") and to do it in a year would be 3 lessons per week.  He does a lot of the drawing for them initially and then drops it on later, a modeling sort of approach.  I guess it is probably about the equivalent timewise, maybe a bit closer to the 4 hour to 5 hour a week range.  Ugh!  I really have a love/hate thing going with Saxon...

 

Depends entirely on the problems.

If he gives them equations and all they have to do is put things in, that takes very little time, but it also is pretty worthless.

If the problems are just conceptual and the student only has to think, but not write a lot, that's quick, and very useful.

So, you need to have a look at the mix of problems.

More problems is not necessarily better than fewer, well constructed ones.

 

Sorry, I can't give good advice.  ( I definitely have a pure hate relationship with Saxon :P )

[Nscribe]

Sorry, I can't give good advice.  ( I definitely have a pure hate relationship with Saxon :p )

You have been very helpful.  I actually bought Knight on your suggestion and I really appreciate it on many levels.  The writing is a real strength in it, very personable without being cheeky or condescending.  If Dd didn't have this Saxon crush...

[Nscribe]

Margaret, your post prompted me to search result for the SAT 2 Physics, and yeah it does appear it has a nasty curve.  Did your other teens take it at some point and study Physics with something else?

 

 

[Nscribe]

Margaret, you have wandered many paths :) .  Honestly, if I knew Dd would not want to try for admission to a competive college, or was definitely interested in a major in the performing arts, or really anything more definite, I could plan and provide for her much easier.  This kid is an enigma.  I guess it keeps things interesting, but it sure doesn't make them easy to plan.  I appreciate you sharing the path you took with each, it helps in my thinking.

 

I am going to try to finish my walk through the Saxon Physics over the weekend.  Hopefully, any others who have also used the program will post their input about it. 

 

 

[MyThreeSons]

I have not seen the actual book, but have looked up the table of content and am scratching my head how the student can possibly develop a cohesive physics understanding when the book jumps between completely unrelated topics. I can see no benefit in sprinkling miscellaneous lessons on thermodynamics and optics among the mechanics.

It just doesn't make sense to me, either. But then, I don't like Saxon math products for the same reason.