science curriculum pet peeves

[EmilyGF]

What bothers you most about science curriculum?

What would your ideal science curriculum have that most don't now?

 

For people who don't have the strongest science background, what has helped you the most in becoming a confident science teacher? What would help you more?

Thanks, Emily

[SparklyUnicorn]

I heavily dislike dumb hands on components.  I don't mean anything hands on, but meaningless busy work hands on.  Dumb crap like making a weather station using paper plates and cups (no joke this is an activity in a science book I used).  I would like the right amount of information.  I know that's vague, but I don't want to be bogged down with a ridiculous number of concepts, but I don't want to read and read and read just to conclude I could have summed up the information in 2 pages.  I want something mostly open and go that is easy to navigate.  I don't want something with 100 different components.  Some of the public school science programs are like this.  They have workbooks, textbooks, on-line stuff, teacher manuals, extra practice books, some other books that nobody knows what they are for, testing books, challenge problem books.  Why not one book?!  I don't want to have to juggle 10 books.  Although I also wouldn't mind a program that is a list of living books (I'm talking mostly middle school and under though). 

 

And I hate page layouts like Usborne where there are 100 different text bubbles.  I never know what to read first or second.  There is never more than a sentence or two at a time so I feel like the information is not coherent.  It's just this or that, but nothing beyond surface information. 

 

And I don't want a religious science book. 

 

 

[Rachel]

What Sparkly said.

[regentrude]

What I dislike about science curricula:

 

dumbed down explanations that are incorrect

busywork

pretending that learning vocabulary words constitutes science

scripted demonstrations that are passed off as "experiments"

heavy emphasis on "hands on projects" for projects' sake

wordiness

patronizing tone

visual clutter like side bars and colored boxes and little sound bites of extra info

useless photographs that do not enhance understanding (a person in a  lab coat, for example)

[Chrysalis Academy]

Well, that was all comprehensive and scathing!  I agree with all of it.  No wonder we don't actually end up using any curricula for science!  :lol:

[73349]

Not having the lesson number or unit name on each page (& I can't find my place easily).

 

Not having a diagram or photo of something that would be best explained that way; or five pictures on a two-page spread, only one of which is important.

 

Leaving out significant topics. (The Earth & Space book leaves out plate tectonics, earthquakes, and volcanoes??)

[SparklyUnicorn]

I would also like to know what concepts I should cover and approximately when written in a way that isn't filled with eduspeak. 

 

 

[regentrude]

So, after I had to leave after writing what I dislike, here is what I would like to see:

 

Age appropriate  but correct explanations

It's really OK to say that such-and-such phenomenon is difficult to understand and that the explanation has to wait until xyz is covered/there is more math/whatever; better than trying to simplify it and getting it wrong. Some phenomena can only be stated as fact, and an explanation has to wait.

 

Well written consecutive text at an age appropriate level.

Clear layout that is engaging without being distracting.

Every element on the page should serve a purpose, and information should flow from top to bottom. Include tables and graphs only if they truly enhance understanding, and avoid jumping to sidebars and back.

 

Experiments to discover something at the beginning of a topic, if appropriate.

Demonstrations to illustrate a concept after the concept has been discussed, if the demo really enhances understanding.

Avoid demos that are pure entertainment and can not be explained with the concepts discussed.

 

Suggestion for optional projects that can be included or not. Not all kids are "hands-on" types; mine groaned every time "Can't we just read about this in a book?"

 

No busy work, no vocab drills, no fill-in-the-blank worksheets.

 

All in all, we found that we are better off just getting non-fiction books from the library until the kids are ready for the easiest college level textbooks. I have not seen science curriculum that I liked.

[Jackie]

Regentrude and Sparkly already covered my complaints. Oh, and I also specify in homeschooling circles that I want my science to be 100% secular, not so-called "neutral". And in addition to dropping the useless demonstrations, I would like to eliminate science journals for young students. And busywork, regurgitating of information type of worksheets. I wish additional reading suggestions had more of a variety of levels so that I (or my child) could choose how much information and how deep we really wanted to get into a topic.

 

In my piecing together of stuff, I find that I love the observational skills encouraged by The Private Eye and it would be great if that depth of observation were encouraged in any curriculum. I like the depth and sequencing of topics in BFSU, but wish it were available in a more open-and-go, lightly scripted version.

[Garga]

Hey!  I wish I'd seen this thread before I started my thread about 8th grade science.  I agree with every single thing said in these posts 100%.  We have struggled for seven solid years to find a science that we like.  I've not yet found one.  Sooooo disheartening.  

 

The above problems are in each curriculum I've seen, often many of those problems in a single curriculum. 

 

This is solidifying my desire to finally ditch the curriculum for 8th grade (next year) and stick with books from the library and a few science fair type of projects to work on.  I'm dreading 9th grade where we have to lock into biology for a whole year for college requirements.

[Chrysalis Academy]

Hey!  I wish I'd seen this thread before I started my thread about 8th grade science.  I agree with every single thing said in these posts 100%.  We have struggled for seven solid years to find a science that we like.  I've not yet found one.  Sooooo disheartening.  

 

The above problems are in each curriculum I've seen, often many of those problems in a single curriculum. 

 

This is solidifying my desire to finally ditch the curriculum for 8th grade (next year) and stick with books from the library and a few science fair type of projects to work on.  I'm dreading 9th grade where we have to lock into biology for a whole year for college requirements.

 

Go for it! I voted in your poll.

[rdj2027]

So far a mix between Supercharged Science, BSFU and homemade works for my youngest two.  The play-acting in BFSU drives us all batty and it takes me awhile to go through it and form it into a lesson that works for us and I feel Supercharged Science could go a little deeper into detail.  We supplement that mixture with books, discussions and real life experiences.  For high school Derek Owens works for my kid.  Pretty straight forward algebra- based physics, nothing distracting about it and the "experiments" reinforce the lesson (so no, no real discovery either but my son is not particularly enamored with mechanics and I doubt he will delve deeper into the matter).  I have not yet found anything online for biology or chemistry that I like but he needs someone beside me to keep him moving forward and a somewhat acceptable pace.

[Haiku]

Experiments that don't work! Experiments that use "common household items" that aren't common! Anything that uses food (bound to be an allergen and non-vegan)! Books that give so much non-essential information that the essential points are lost! Programs that claim to cover way too wide an age span! Programs that claim to be secular but aren't! Inconsistency in difficulty level! Programs with 180-day schedules (who really is able to get everything done perfectly every day?)!

 

What would my ideal program have? Modules that could be purchased separately or bundled so that you can create your own sequence, affordable lab kits with experiments that actually show what they are supposed to show, meaningful activities that aren't stupid, time-wasting busywork activities (crossword puzzles!) or repetitive (fill-in-the-blank sheets for every chapter)! Video supplementation would be nice.

[Guest]

I would love a science curriculum that gives God the credit He deserves for all His wonderful work without feeling the need to push a YE agenda. All theories should be examined equally.

Until someone publishes this curriculum, we use secular science books.

[Sneezyone]

I really like the integrated science approach in the old My Pals Are Here series. It's accurate, thorough and doesn't try to cover everything, every year. The downside is that it has sooooo many components to juggle (Teacher's Guide, More Notes books, HOTS, Homework books, Activity and Test books?!?). Ugh. If they would only condense it!! I think they tried to do this with the new international version but it feels too classroom-centric.

 

I'd also love some open and go kits for REAL EXPERIMENTS that match up with our chosen topics.

 

Since I cannot wave a magic wand, I've settled on Fall/Winter meat and potatoes from MPaH (heavy vocab, major themes and concepts) and Spring/Summer sweets and treats by Mom (doing scientific investigations and reading nonfiction books).

[8filltheheart]

I think a better question is what do you like about k-8 science curriculum bc the answer is easy:

Nothing.

 

Reading whole books on various topics has definitely served my children well and we like it. :)

[Above The Rowan]

Everyone else has already summed up most of my pet peeves. All I can add to it is two words: Comic. Sans. 

Seriously, it just looks so unprofessional and ridiculous. My kids and I tried with all our might to like RSO but we just couldn't. I couldn't get past the god awful font. Petty? Maybe. But hey we're listing pet peeves, no? ;)

[J-rap]

My greatest pet peeve were the Christian science books that began with a conclusion and then tried to scientifically back it up.  And I am a Christian.  It's too bad, because otherwise I really liked the Apologia books.  They were very thorough, user friendly, hands-on, with good experiments.  But sadly there were just too many times that I had to tell my kids that I believed the author had it wrong.  We stuck with secular books after that. 

[stutterfish]

nm

[Haiku]

[Fwiw, science up to age 13 is pretty dumbed down in British schools, so resources aren't much better here. IGCSE materials (14-16) are a lot better, but until then it's hard to find something that works well to use at home.]

 

OT, but is it just me or has Galore Park moved from being a curriculum provider to being a test prep provider?

[foxbridgeacademy]

I heavily dislike dumb hands on components.  I don't mean anything hands on, but meaningless busy work hands on.  Dumb crap like making a weather station using paper plates and cups (no joke this is an activity in a science book I used).  I would like the right amount of information.  I know that's vague, but I don't want to be bogged down with a ridiculous number of concepts, but I don't want to read and read and read just to conclude I could have summed up the information in 2 pages.  I want something mostly open and go that is easy to navigate.  I don't want something with 100 different components.  Some of the public school science programs are like this.  They have workbooks, textbooks, on-line stuff, teacher manuals, extra practice books, some other books that nobody knows what they are for, testing books, challenge problem books.  Why not one book?!  I don't want to have to juggle 10 books.  Although I also wouldn't mind a program that is a list of living books (I'm talking mostly middle school and under though). 

 

And I hate page layouts like Usborne where there are 100 different text bubbles.  I never know what to read first or second.  There is never more than a sentence or two at a time so I feel like the information is not coherent.  It's just this or that, but nothing beyond surface information. 

 

And I don't want a religious science book. 

This, plus all activities/experiments are based off a kit I can buy from someplace like HSTs but I also have the option to, with relative ease, put it together myself from other sources.  

 

I also like PDF's over actual books if the PDF is a definite savings, otherwise I'll buy it used or not at all.

[PeterPan]

What bothers you most about science curriculum?

What would your ideal science curriculum have that most don't now?

 

For people who don't have the strongest science background, what has helped you the most in becoming a confident science teacher? What would help you more?

Thanks, Emily

Ok, this is a total aside, but do you remember the science curriculum Ria from the boards wrote years ago?  I still have one of the levels.  She had been teaching in a co-op and made materials to go along with books like the One Small Square books.  I think RR carried it for a while.  I don't know what happened, maybe she put her kids in school or life changed or something?, but then poof it was gone.  

 

So this is definitely something people have tried before.  I think the challenge is always your experience with your kids vs. broader experience.  I think the more kids you've taught (say in a co-op, whatever), the more diverse a population you're able to write to.  (just my opinion)  My frustration with most homeschool-specific market materials is how niched they are, really only being appropriate for a limited range of learning styles or types of learners.  I think the challenge for the writer is always to get outside themselves and write to a more diverse audience.  BJU really nails that, whether you specifically like BJU or not.  They'll encorporate auditory, visual, kinesthetic, creative, ESL, etc. angles into every lesson.  They'll have questions to handle comprehension issues for struggles and upper level questions for gifted students.  But that's just my little rabbit trail or rant or fettish.

 

Personally, I think something like the GEMS units only made more homeschool friendly (more content, more practical, more structure) would probably be highly appealing.  I think the challenge with homeschoolers is they want some skills integrated but not as much as some traditional curricula.  The Nancy Larson nails that.  (some but not too much) If they want narrative plus skills, it's already out there.  So your niche is secular plus ???  Dunno.

 

Anyways, that, to me, is what's no actually out there, the VERY hands-on, fully planned, not paper-driven or text-driven year but with literature integrated and sane.  I tried looking at Nebel's again recently and it just looks floozy and theoretical.  Some guy with degrees gets a theory.  That's not reality.  When you want a solution you pick up and use for four years...  I don't know, I just get tired of PhD "I have a theory" stuff.

 

Oh, I'm comfortable with science (took plenty in high school and some in college), but I don't really find things that let me implement my vision of wonder with my kids.  We were talking wonder in the math thread, and I see that with the science.  It's very challenging to find a curriculum that has enough doing for ADHD and super bright kids, that is practical to implement, that maintains thought and wonder, AND that goes for a year.  You can buy units and pieces, but to me that's what doesn't exist.

[foxbridgeacademy]

So, after I had to leave after writing what I dislike, here is what I would like to see:

 

Age appropriate  but correct explanations

It's really OK to say that such-and-such phenomenon is difficult to understand and that the explanation has to wait until xyz is covered/there is more math/whatever; better than trying to simplify it and getting it wrong. Some phenomena can only be stated as fact, and an explanation has to wait.

 

Well written consecutive text at an age appropriate level.

Clear layout that is engaging without being distracting.

Every element on the page should serve a purpose, and information should flow from top to bottom. Include tables and graphs only if they truly enhance understanding, and avoid jumping to sidebars and back.

 

Experiments to discover something at the beginning of a topic, if appropriate.

Demonstrations to illustrate a concept after the concept has been discussed, if the demo really enhances understanding.

Avoid demos that are pure entertainment and can not be explained with the concepts discussed.

 

Suggestion for optional projects that can be included or not. Not all kids are "hands-on" types; mine groaned every time "Can't we just read about this in a book?"

 

No busy work, no vocab drills, no fill-in-the-blank worksheets.

 

All in all, we found that we are better off just getting non-fiction books from the library until the kids are ready for the easiest college level textbooks. I have not seen science curriculum that I liked.

 

Experiments to discover something at the beginning of a topic, if appropriate. This, exactly..... some sort of discovery based activity first. 

 

Avoid demos that are pure entertainment and can not be explained with the concepts discussed.  Actually, I like the just for fun stuff but it should be labeled that way.  "After all the real work is done just for fun let's do this....!"

 

Especially this> No busy work, no vocab drills, no fill-in-the-blank worksheets.

 

I also like the way Science Explorer books are separated into themes (for want of a better word).  That way you can do all the Earth Sciences in 1 year or mix and match Earth/Life/Physical.  I don't like how busy they are or that each 3-6 page section could easily fit all the relevant information on one page with a couple pictures.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*I bolded Regentrude's comments for clarification.

[sixpence1978]

I agree with a lot that has been said so I won't restate it.

 

But my current pet peeve is when I turn to a lesson for the day and there was something that needed to be prepped the night before (like soak beans overnight, etc...).  I need that warning to come at the end of the previous lesson.  I'm not good a looking ahead.  It's entirely my fault, and I admit that.  But I would also like a little heads-up too.

[ErinE]

Everyone else has already summed up most of my pet peeves. All I can add to it is two words: Comic. Sans. 

Seriously, it just looks so unprofessional and ridiculous. My kids and I tried with all our might to like RSO but we just couldn't. I couldn't get past the god awful font. Petty? Maybe. But hey we're listing pet peeves, no? ;)

 

I was coming back to this thread to add this, but you beat me to it!

[scbusf]

I agree with all of this.  I guess this is why I can't find a science curriculum I like.  At all.  This year, both of my older kids are taking science classes at our co-op.  Next year, I have no idea what we'll do.

[Monica_in_Switzerland]

The only thing I've found and "like" is BFSU- like because of the content and basic philosophy behind it.  But it is WAY too wordy and requires a lot of prep.  If he were to turn it into a textbook written to the student, it'd be pretty awesome! 

[cintinative]

So, after I had to leave after writing what I dislike, here is what I would like to see:

 

Age appropriate  but correct explanations

It's really OK to say that such-and-such phenomenon is difficult to understand and that the explanation has to wait until xyz is covered/there is more math/whatever; better than trying to simplify it and getting it wrong. Some phenomena can only be stated as fact, and an explanation has to wait.

 

Well written consecutive text at an age appropriate level.

Clear layout that is engaging without being distracting.

Every element on the page should serve a purpose, and information should flow from top to bottom. Include tables and graphs only if they truly enhance understanding, and avoid jumping to sidebars and back.

 

Experiments to discover something at the beginning of a topic, if appropriate.

Demonstrations to illustrate a concept after the concept has been discussed, if the demo really enhances understanding.

Avoid demos that are pure entertainment and can not be explained with the concepts discussed.

 

Suggestion for optional projects that can be included or not. Not all kids are "hands-on" types; mine groaned every time "Can't we just read about this in a book?"

 

No busy work, no vocab drills, no fill-in-the-blank worksheets.

 

All in all, we found that we are better off just getting non-fiction books from the library until the kids are ready for the easiest college level textbooks. I have not seen science curriculum that I liked.

 Yes, yes, and yes. All of this.

 

In addition, some pet peeves:

 

• A quiz or worksheet is not "an experiment." Don't call it that.
• For heaven's sake, fix the typos. You want me to take your book seriously? Get it edited and issue errata lists.
• Do not put an experiment in your text unless you have tested it in a home kitchen and provided sufficient detail for the average mom to reproduce the results. Period.
• If you are going to put a broad age range on it, make sure the lower end can at least understand the text. If not, don't bother advertising it for lower ages.

 

 

For my ideal:

I have a wiggly willy and a compliant charlie (or whatever those terms are). I teach them together. So it must have enough meat to be worth our while to read and enough hands on to keep my wiggler interested. Generally I find that you either get one or the other, not both.  My ideal would be an at grade/age level text discussion of the topic, an experiment that demonstrates the topic or further expands on it, and enough description to help my kids understand the science behind the experiment and how it relates to what we read. Occasional games that reinforce concepts are good. Otherwise, for my kids' ages 2nd and 3rd--as much hands on as can be easily managed without overwhelming the homeschool mom.

 

My first year of homeschooling we followed the CC science subjects and just got books from the library. It drove me crazy because we jumped subjects so often. But I think the books from the library plus experiments idea has merit. The problem is I am not aware of a version of this that is already out there (I'm thinking Elemental Chemistry, NOEO, etc.) that people I know have not had some issue or another with.

 

We just scrapped Mr. Q Chemistry in part because the text was too high, in part because the experiments were generally not working, and in part because I felt like it was boring us all to  death. I like chemistry. I don't want my kids to hate it because I picked a poor curriculum to teach it to them.

 

Stepping off the soapbox . . .

 

[stutterfish]

OT, but is it just me or has Galore Park moved from being a curriculum provider to being a test prep provider?

I don't know, but Galore Park books make me want to poke my eyes. :)

[Peaceful Isle]

I have no idea what I am going to use for science next year. I want something like SOTW but for science.

[Farrar]

Nearly all of mine were covered (even the typos and the comic sans!), so all I can add is getting the level right. So many of the ones I've seen for elementary school are either at the so dumb it's for children who have never been outside level or it's so complex that an average adult - even one with an interest in science - is confused by it.

 

So strongly seconding the whole demos are not experiments thing. Not that demos aren't great sometimes. Sigh. Also, not everything can be demonstrated with candy or by making an edible model as fun as that is sometimes. Also, an edible model is not an experiment either.

[lewelma]

Well, I'll just go write one for you guys.  :auto:  

 

:D

[Chrysalis Academy]

:hurray:  :hurray:  :hurray:  :party:  :party:  :party:

 

 

(don't tease me like that!!!  :toetap05: ) ;)  :D

[Farrar]

I have finally gotten to where I feel like I can find all the hands on stuff I want. And obviously there are plenty of great narrative books about most topics (some more physics and chemistry themed books for the K-8 set would be nice, but there is some stuff out there). But what's missing for me is that central cohesive narrative. I've finally gotten to where I feel like we didn't have to have it, it's not the end of the world that it doesn't exist. But every time I think about it, I'm a little appalled that it doesn't. I mean, a big fat (or shorter with a few volumes) narrative story of the world through science sort of thing that really unfolds what we know about the universe, what makes things up, why things work the way they do, and what is life, told for the elementary age set. Why does that not exist? It's baffling to me. If I could write it, honestly, I think I would. I'm 100% sure homeschoolers would buy it - if it was good, not in comic sans, and basically typo free anyway.

[lewelma]

:hurray:  

 

(don't tease me like that!!!  :toetap05: ) ;)  :D

 

Well, I was going to ask you to be an equal partner! So get to work :toetap05:

[ErinE]

Well, I'll just go write one for you guys. :auto:

 

:D

Yes, please!

[ErinE]

I have finally gotten to where I feel like I can find all the hands on stuff I want. And obviously there are plenty of great narrative books about most topics (some more physics and chemistry themed books for the K-8 set would be nice, but there is some stuff out there). But what's missing for me is that central cohesive narrative. I've finally gotten to where I feel like we didn't have to have it, it's not the end of the world that it doesn't exist. But every time I think about it, I'm a little appalled that it doesn't. I mean, a big fat (or shorter with a few volumes) narrative story of the world through science sort of thing that really unfolds what we know about the universe, what makes things up, why things work the way they do, and what is life, told for the elementary age set. Why does that not exist? It's baffling to me. If I could write it, honestly, I think I would. I'm 100% sure homeschoolers would buy it - if it was good, not in comic sans, and basically typo free anyway.

Yes, Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything does a great job of making science come alive in the narrative. If that could be translated to a SOTW-level, with a supplemental AG that would be fantastic.

 

I don't feel like I'm asking for too much ;)

[Farrar]

Yes, Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything does a great job of making science come alive in the narrative. If that could be translated to a SOTW-level, with a supplemental AG that would be fantastic.

 

I don't feel like I'm asking for too much ;)

 

Exactly. There is a young person's edition of Short History of Nearly Everything... and it's a huge letdown if you were hoping for anything as brilliant as the original. It's a bunch of short paragraphs on a range of disconnected feeling topics. It's useful, I guess, but more like a DK sort of book than a real narrative.

[ErinE]

Exactly. There is a young person's edition of Short History of Nearly Everything... and it's a huge letdown if you were hoping for anything as brilliant as the original. It's a bunch of short paragraphs on a range of disconnected feeling topics. It's useful, I guess, but more like a DK sort of book than a real narrative.

I just saw that. I was thinking of getting it, but I trust your opinion. Maybe I'll add the other book to our read alouds.

[Farrar]

I just saw that. I was thinking of getting it, but I trust your opinion. Maybe I'll add the other book to our read alouds.

 

It's not a bad book, mind you. If you know what to expect, you may be really happy with it. I just had way too high hopes. I am thinking of doing the real one as a read aloud... next year though.

[MEmama]

What bothers me most? Every year I do so much research and think I've finally found just the right thing...and then a few weeks pass and we are both bored with it. DS is very science minded, but I have yet to find a program that is a good fit. Maybe it's that failure that I'm most bothered by. :(

[Monica_in_Switzerland]

Another thing I thought of: 

 

- I would love an experiment free science, where demonstrations are pulled from nature.  So for example, if the lesson is on the adhesive property of water (or some such...), have the kids learn about it, then go outside on a dewy morning or after watering the garden and notice water clinging to things against the pull of gravity.  Or if the lesson is on plant growth, have kids go out and see how many different plant seeds they can find (anything from danilion puffs to acorns).  No prep, no mess, and the "hooks" for memory are coming from nature. 

[Sweet Home Alabama]

Have any of you used this book?  I had it years ago and was impressed with it.  It employs the scientific method as the most science-minded ladies on the board describe.  You could go through the book as written-especially to learn the principles of scientific method-but then apply them to any other science.

 

It's written for elementary school aged kids, but the essence of it is applicable to high school as well. 

 

 

 

http://www.amazon.com/Creepy-Crawlies-Scientific-Method-Hands-/dp/1555911188/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1297298250&sr=8-1

 

 

Also at Rainbow Resource with sample pages:

 

http://www.rainbowresource.com/proddtl.php?id=014924

 

 

There is a 2nd edition at Acorn Naturalists:

 

http://www.acornnaturalists.com/store/CREEPY-CRAWLIES-AND-THE-SCIENTIFIC-METHOD-2nd-Edition-P11150C789.aspx

 

 

 

 

[cintinative]

Another thing I thought of: 

 

- I would love an experiment free science, where demonstrations are pulled from nature.  So for example, if the lesson is on the adhesive property of water (or some such...), have the kids learn about it, then go outside on a dewy morning or after watering the garden and notice water clinging to things against the pull of gravity.  Or if the lesson is on plant growth, have kids go out and see how many different plant seeds they can find (anything from danilion puffs to acorns).  No prep, no mess, and the "hooks" for memory are coming from nature. 

 

 

This is "sort of" the approach I am using in a co-op class I am teaching on Nature Study and Field Biology.  While we are studying biology we are doing it in a hands-on way.  While we do our insect collection we are learning about classification and orders. While we do wild edibles we are learning a bit about botany and survival skills. When we do dyeing with pokeberries we are learning a bit about weeds and even history. We did owls but from the perspective of how to find them, how to attract them, where to find pellets. When we cover mammals we will focus more on how to find them, where they live, tracks and scat, etc.  We will be covering bird silhouettes and songs.  Taking the traditional topics and applying the nature study lens to them if that makes sense.

[Mrs Twain]

I love love love love love BJU Science 6 online with Mrs. Vick. I can't believe how good it is.

 

I also enjoy using BFSU 1 for younger grades, but it requires real prep time.

[Dory]

I love love love love love BJU Science 6 online with Mrs. Vick. I can't believe how good it is.

 

I also enjoy using BFSU 1 for younger grades, but it requires real prep time.

 

I can't believe Mrs. Vick is still teaching the science class. I remember her from the old BJU video science.

[SarahW]

Another thing I thought of: 

 

- I would love an experiment free science, where demonstrations are pulled from nature.  So for example, if the lesson is on the adhesive property of water (or some such...), have the kids learn about it, then go outside on a dewy morning or after watering the garden and notice water clinging to things against the pull of gravity.  Or if the lesson is on plant growth, have kids go out and see how many different plant seeds they can find (anything from danilion puffs to acorns).  No prep, no mess, and the "hooks" for memory are coming from nature. 

 

I'm in the middle of doing weather in Mr Q Earth Science and I haven't bothered looking at the weekly experiments lately. Precipitation? "Yeah, that includes rain, have you seen it rain recently? That's what it is." Lol.

 

I recently picked up this book, Teaching Science Process Skills, at a FOL sale. It teaches the skills needed for science (observation, inferences, graphing data, etc.) through hands on activities using simple things. It looks really neat. One activity is to fill a ziplock bag with water and use a "sharp pencil" to poke holes in it.  :biggrinjester:

 

It says grades 6-8, but I think a 5th grader could do it, and maybe a bright 4th grader with help. 

[EndOfOrdinary]

I like it when science curriculum recognizes what we don't know. It frustrates me when everything is presented as matters of fact. Yes, there are many things that we have narrowed down very specifically. There is a lot that we are darn near sure of. However, there is a whole lot which we are assuming and those things I would really like to be called out as "this is what we think and this is why. This is still what puzzles us. This is why we cannot quite seem to get an answer."

 

I do not think that discredits science at all. It makes the whole thing so much more hopeful and ready to have room for all the budding young scientists. It is the scientific method at work. It is like the text glosses over the bajillion times the experiment didn't point to exactly the hypothesis. The books always write about how you can gain just a much information from a no as you can from a yes, but they do not present it that way. They present it like everything magically just appears after one or two experiments you have a Law. It would also help with things like how they are having to re-develop do much electron science right now. They know electron shields are not exactly what is happening (it is far more like a cloud), but since they do not exactly know, they keep writing curriculum with the not-exactly-right material rather than owing up with thoughts.

 

I think it gives kids a complete misrepresentation of science, so they become discouraged when they try anything. They feel cheated when we find out something new which discredits the old. They feel like there is only one black/white answer because all the grey is removed.

[Mrs Twain]

I can't believe Mrs. Vick is still teaching the science class. I remember her from the old BJU video science.

The class has recorded videos of Mrs. Vick, and I don't know when they were made.

:)

[daijobu]

I should preface by saying I love BFSU enough that we are nearly finished with all 3 volumes.  Having said that...

 

I could really use some worksheets and quizzes and tests.  By middle school level I want a better assessment than just their science notebook.  Plus, I'm too lazy to make one from scratch.

 

Getting correlated readings from the library is great and all, but BFSU can be really forest, not the trees, and it's hard to find books about the forest.  For example, every elementary botany book published is obligated (under penalty of jail time and a fine) to describe xylem and pholem.  Xylem and phloem, xylem and phloem.  Which is which?  Who knows?  Who cares?  What does BFSU care about?  STEM CELLS.  Yes, stem cells, cell growth, division, and differentiation.  Why?  Because that's what ties plants to the entire kingdom of living things.  

 

How many elementary botany textbooks cover stem cells?  At my last count... zero.  

 

Other than that, BFSU is pretty awesome.