Science sequence, long-range planning

[musicianmom]

Has anyone had their accelerated kids go through the bio-chem-physics sequence twice in grades 7-12? Once using regular texts and once using an AP level text?

 

Is this a good plan? Is there a downside? What science material should be covered in grades 4-6 in order to make it work?

[8filltheheart]

I didn't accelerate my ds nor did he do anything structured in grades 4-6. Science in our homeschool is lots of reading via topics of interest until high school credits. (He is also dyslexic and struggled with even reading on grade level until 5th grade, so if anything he lagged behind my other kids bc his reading level was low. By 8th grade, though, he was reading college level books w/o any problem.) He was always very strong in math.

 

In 8th grade he took regular physics. In 9th chemistry. In 10th ap chem. In 11th, he took university cal based physics (which had cal as a pre-req) 1&2 at a local university. He is taking Thinkwell's AP bio this yr but with no intention of taking the ap exam.

 

Those were the standard sequence courses. But he also self studied astronomy in 9th-10th and a dark matter study in 11th. He has also taken modern physics, and mechanics 1and 2 at the university.

[musicianmom]

Thank you 8!

[Jackie]

Thank you for posting this question! I've been trying to do some very-long-range planning, and I've been wondering about this. My current plan is to do K-6 as interest-led and discovery-based, and then basic high school level in Junior high and AP level in high school. I wondered if others did the same, whether by design or chance.

[EndOfOrdinary]

I would love to know the answer to this as well! Though I have not done it yet, I don't know of any other option for us.

 

My son began using Apologia Chemistry this year, the high school text not chem/physics. I was initially hesitate, but he was insistent so I caved. He is doing quite well and really enjoys it. Then he wants to do earth sciences for the next year and physics after that. Basically, that is the majority of high school science. Even if they stretch out to a year and a half a piece, he is going to have to take the run again.

 

I do not consider him mature enough to extrapolate the concepts yet, or to be able to articulate himself in writing enough to consider it high school level. We are flat out going to have to go with AP at that point.

[8filltheheart]

I don't know of any other option for us.

There are literally 10s of 1000sof books out there on topics that students can read. If you stick to textbooks and the main core science topics that typical high school students cover, then, yes, it would seem like you are going to "run out of science to cover." But that is the equivalent of approaching math like the only math topics beyond basic arithmetic are alg, geo, and calculus.

 

Last yr when my dd was in 8th grade, she spent an entire yr exploring ecological systems devoting a month or so each to caves, marshes, forests, ponds, etc. Definitely not your typical science sequence, but she loved every minute of it. She is an ornithologist at heart and loves all things connected to nature. Based on her math sequence and abilities in general, she could have stared high school science in 7th grade. But she is earning her first highschool credit now as a 9th grader

 

My ds that is now a sr spent months researching various types of bees and ants when he was 9ish. He found it fascinating how unique each species is. (Funny that life sciences are now his least favorite bc he loved them when he was little.). (And see months on an interest like that at 9 is great science. I didn't influence him or dictate it was time to move on. He would spiral off from one related topic to another bc his desire to know more would lead him there.)

 

My ds that is now ChE spent his younger yrs fascinated with the way things work. He is definitely a born engineer. He still " plays" around with stuff at his home in his spare time......everything from creating bio-fuel to brewing beer.

 

There is a world of opportunity out there to study and it does not need to be found in a textbook or a "science sequence." As a matter of fact, until I am giving high school credit, my kids never see a textbook. :)

[Dmmetler]

Well, so far, we're not sequencing science yet. We're now to the point that I almost feel I'd do her a disservice to try. I figure that around high school age, we'll probably self-study and review for things like the SAT-Subject tests or AP exams in the areas that she's self-studying and working in extensively, and fill in gaps to round out a high school science sequence then. I'm guessing we'll need to pretty much fill in anything that doesn't move on it's own or doesn't do something exciting visually right now.

 

Ask me in a decade or so how it worked.

[regentrude]

Has anyone had their accelerated kids go through the bio-chem-physics sequence twice in grades 7-12? Once using regular texts and once using an AP level text?

 

Is this a good plan? Is there a downside? What science material should be covered in grades 4-6 in order to make it work?

 

I would think this incredibly boring for the student.

We did informal no-textbook sciences in middle school. I would do the same in grades 4-6 and use library books and documentaries, chosen by my kids. No textbooks and not "curriculum".

 

My DD did  biology with Campbell in 7th, skipped 8th, then algebra based physics, chemistry, three semesters of calculus based physics at the university.

She would have hated to take another chemistry course, and was not interested in another run through biology.

As long as the basic requirements are fulfilled, I'd like to let the student study according to his or her interests.

[Chrysalis Academy]

I've decided to save the textbooky standard Physics-Chem-Bio for high school and to spend the middle school grades doing a much more integrated kind of science that looks a big picture questions, connections between disciplines, and follows their interests as well as providing basic, foundational knowledge.  There is so much interesting stuff out there to learn about! And I feel like it gets crowded out in the standard sequence, which tends to present science as if it's all neatly separate and compartmentalized, while the most interesting work is being done at the "edges" of fields, or is explicitly cross-disciplinary.  I can't imagine putting a kid through the standard sequence twice.  The texts (even college texts) all start at the beginning (although clearly prior exposure helps).

 

So we've spent 6th grade exploring an interest (Astronomy) and getting solid on needed background information to take that interest further (basic physics).  Next year we're going to do a big,multi-disciplinary Origins study, with some astronomy, chemistry, earth system science, evolution and maybe a little genetics.  We'll see where it goes.  We'll also get in some of the less standard sciences - physical anthropology, archaeology, etc.  This seems like the perfect time to explore interests and expose them to what's out there.  

[snowbeltmom]

My oldest's science program was very unstructured and completely interest led until 7th grade.  At that time, my son read about some science classes at a summer camp that he was interested in that had a pre-req of high school biology.  So in 7th grade, he studied biology, followed by AP Physics B and Chemistry with ChemAdvantage in 8th grade.  By the time he graduates high school, he will have AP credit in Chemistry, both physics C courses and biology.

[brownie]

Since we've done things differently, I thought I'd mention it.  We've pretty much used textbooks all the way through, primarily rotating bio, chem and physics.  I believe in introducing fundamental scientific principals right from the beginning, so that science doesn't seem like a foreign language when they get to high school (Conservation of energy, Newton's laws, etc...) To do this we have used a variety of materials...RS4K, Prentice Hall, CPO, Apologia, Runkle's Physical Geography, BFSU...

 

That doesn't mean we never branch out.  We read many library books on the topics we are covering, watch videos, do science fair projects, participate on robotic teams, etc...but our day to day science is traditionally from a textbook.  Much of what is most readily available for younger kids (both in library books and in their own yards) seems to be life science and my kids just aren't that interested in traditional life science.  They do not care to learn about animals, etc...

 

While I think the outside projects and activities are what have allowed my kid to think like scientists, I think the book learning has laid the foundation along with math which is even more important than the science foundation in the long term.

 

FWIW I have an older son who went into school for 7th grade and his science teacher was amazed with him.  They did more of a discovery and expert lecture series that year, so they actually had to think.  The answers weren't in a book.

[sunnyday]

 

 

There is a world of opportunity out there to study and it does not need to be found in a textbook or a "science sequence." As a matter of fact, until I am giving high school credit, my kids never see a textbook. :)

 

It almost feels heretical since science is a passion for me and for my kids but I'm shifting this direction. Even more heretical since I'm an eclectic atheist, I'm being swayed by the Christian Classical educators who point out that the "seven liberal arts" were originally hierarchical -- the quadrivium was studied atop a *foundation* of the trivium. Logic and rhetoric train the mind to do an investigation in a meaningful way. That doesn't mean you can't open your eyes and look around and wonder, but I'm shying away more and more from the "scientific method for first graders" model that misrepresents this hierarchy of learning and understanding.

 

So, personally (still so early in the journey that I'm not technically homeschooling yet, LOL), here's my current iteration of goals for science. I'm hoping to get the hang of BFSU well enough to get through Volume III by the end of eighth, with accelerated-kid-appropriate depth -- mainly using the books to give me some sparks of ideas for topics and threads of investigation to suggest and areas of the library to look at each week. I'm hoping to do a science-fair-quality investigation once or twice a year (maybe starting in second or third). I'll buy my kids a telescope, and a microscope, and some stuff they can take apart and put back together, maybe some basic glassware, and I'll start getting more serious about nature study during our frequent walks. Fortunately between my husband (Bio major turned Biochem major) and myself (Physics major) we have the sciences covered and what we don't already know we can easily model interest about.

 

Looking back, I didn't get science of any flavor (except, self-directed, one quasi-impressive science fair project in 4th and one research paper about cancer in 6th) until junior high. I don't remember 7th grade science, but in 8th I remember learning to juggle, building mousetrap powered vehicles, and learning to operate a bunsen burner well enough to shape our own glassware (we made and used our own personal glass stir rods). My 9th-11th college prep honors sequence of Bio/Chem/Physics was solid, and I had a strong foundation for college. But do you know what I didn't have? An inquisitive spirit. A personal history of wondering what was going on in the world and poking around to see what I could find out. Every single lab-based course I ever took in college, I fumbled through and in my gifted-kid perfectionism, ended up throwing the class. "I didn't even try, that's why I barely scraped a C."

 

I also didn't have any sense of the development of science through history. One of my early college physics profs would throw in biographical details about the people whose names were on units of measurements or who'd made significant breakthroughs relating to our topic of study. This was all in one ear and out the other. "Will this be on the test?" Oh, the shame I feel about that now. I think a human touch on the threads of science would make the whole experience so much more vivid and meaningful and take the edge off of that "science is a thing that you're doing wrong if you don't get the expected answer" perfectionism, seeing how science has always been a little messy. So that's another part of my goal, to keep some science biographies flowing during the elementary years, and maybe to shift toward some primary sources in math/science/philosophy by middle school to early high school. Context, yo.

 

Just some proto-homeschooler, regretful-gifted-kid thoughts...

[8filltheheart]

. Much of what is most readily available for younger kids (both in library books and in their own yards) seems to be life science and my kids just aren't that interested in traditional life science.

I want to completely affirm your approach bc we all need to do what works for us. However, I did want to address this comment, bc it is not accurate. Just going to Amazon and selecting children's science as a filter shows 1805 chemistry titles, 4128 astronomy, 4116 earth, 457 electricity, 4016 physics, etc. and that does not include titles for adults (only Amazon's under age 12 selections and my kids tend to read a lot of adult books.).

 

Just wanted to share that in case anyone wanted to go this approach and thought they would be limited to life sciences.

[EndOfOrdinary]

There are literally 10s of 1000sof books out there on topics that students can read.....

 

There is a world of opportunity out there to study and it does not need to be found in a textbook or a "science sequence." As a matter of fact, until I am giving high school credit, my kids never see a textbook. :)

  

 

You are completely right about this. I think I am still a bit freaked out by the leap my son made with school this year. Not only was I not expecting it, but he is still moving quite rapidly. I know he likes a standard textbook to have as a spine. It makes him feel secure to branch out. I got the spine and then just sort of stopped thinking it would somehow stop the inevitable progression forward.

 

 

 There is so much interesting stuff out there to learn about! And I feel like it gets crowded out in the standard sequence, which tends to present science as if it's all neatly separate and compartmentalized, while the most interesting work is being done at the "edges" of fields, or is explicitly cross-disciplinary.  

 

This rings very true! Thank you for your comment. I think I have succumb to a bit of pressure from my Dh this year to make things neat and pretty. He is a public high school teacher and neat and pretty is what he is comfortable with. In my times of being unsure, neat and pretty is the major push.

 

 

Sunnyday, another gem of a post filled with ideas! My son is currently excited about chemistry, but definitely a humanities kid in that it is concepts he loves. The historical people and thoughts behind the periodic table and such would be great. A human touch to the world is so important to him. Sometimes we get in these ruts....I am very thankful there are others out there who can pull us out of them!

[brownie]

There are non-bio books out there...but many of them stink.  And trying to progress in any logical way is difficult.  They cover the same tired, limited topics over and over.  When covering simple machines, I can find about 50 options at my local library, but only one author that does a good job of actually conveying understanding.  And if you don't already know what you are doing, identifying those can be difficult.  And sometimes full of errors, especially if you don't pick up recent editions.

 

Alternatively, the life science books are potentially appealing, beautifully illustrated, chock full of information  (less understanding and scaffolding required), and easier to find.  Then you can go out in your yard and explore...but my kids just don't care.  They prefer physical science.  I find it more effective to guide our progress logically from topic to topic with a test, picking up books and videos that are available and worthwhile along the way once the child has a fundamental understanding.

 

I'm not saying it's the right way.  It's just to read this thread you would think nobody uses a text for middle school, so I am providing an alternate viewpoint.

[Embassy]

Has anyone had their accelerated kids go through the bio-chem-physics sequence twice in grades 7-12? Once using regular texts and once using an AP level text?

 

Is this a good plan? Is there a downside? What science material should be covered in grades 4-6 in order to make it work?

 

I'll doing something somewhat similar.  We started a late middle school/early high school text in 4th grade as part of our science studies.  We are finishing it this year in 6th grade.  I like more informal studies, but my knowledge was too limited for the topic.  I needed something with a teacher's guide to help me and my son needed something with a bit of depth to it.  My son has learned a lot with it (so have I).  It covered physical science, chemistry, and earth science.  He is starting a high school biology text with labs later this school year, but I'm not doing any formal assessment or grades until high school.  I have made long term plans and posted them on my blog, but need to revise them because the recent text has awakened an area of interest.

 

We focused mostly on life science in the younger years with an emphasis on discovery and engagement.  My son was naturally interested in astronomy so he did lots of self-study on the topic too.  He wants to go into a science field, but not sure which one yet.

 

My other son is a totally different kind of learner.  Because he wants a future in a STEM field I plan to use the high school texts before high school, but use them more creatively as a content-guide rather than a textbookish way to learn.