No science experiments

[KeriJ]

I just noticed a post where 8FillTheHeart mentioned she detested pre-planned science experiments before high school, and I know that this has been discussed here before. (I can't find it at the moment)  But I'd love to discuss this more.  

 

Some people are adamant that science lessons aren't science lessons without hands-on experiments.  Others focus on reading, writing, sketching, videos etc. without many experiments or lab reports.

 

I'd love to hear more from the 2nd group. :)  

 

 

[Jess4879]

:bigear:

 

I would love to hear from some veteran homeschoolers on this too!  If you skipped science experiments, do you feel like it negatively impacted your child's education? 

 

We do science experiments because I feel like I *have* to.  If I don't, I am sure that something terrible will happen.  I just don't know what.  ;)   I do, however, often skip ones that are long, require a lot of materials or a lot of time and effort.  Make me feel better! LOL

[Desert Strawberry]

In my limited experience, true experiments are rare. Demonstrations are more common. Which is fine, if you have hands-on learners who need to see it and feel it. But for most of us, elaborate"experiments" are unnecessary.

Lab reports, to me, are pointless, excessive busy work. Discussion is adequate to express understanding. I mean, why? Why does a third grader need to know all of that when you could be learning about states of matter or flow of electric current or human evolution or whatever. They can learn experimental design when they are old enough to fully appreciate the intricacies.

[Desert Strawberry]

I must point out that I am sciency. We have a LOT of discussion of how things work and why things are the way they are. My kids are familiar with the actions of retroviruses and know why the piggie toe is smaller than the other toes, and that it is slowly disappearing over generations. We make slime and draw pictures of polymers. They love physics and chemistry. For us, science is life. 

At this point, I want them acquire knowledge. They don't need to study the process of acquisition any more than they need to write a novel to learn how to read or study music composition to learn to sing folk songs. All of that comes later.

[JDoe]

 

 

Some people are adamant that science lessons aren't science lessons without hands-on experiments.  

 

Please ask them to specify what experiments they do in Astronomy. ;)

[sweetpea3829]

Depends on the science subject.  

 

We are studying oceanography.  The early part of our science unit revolves around water....what it is, its properties, its transformations, waves, currents, salinity, etc.

 

These topics readily lend themselves to science "experiments".  Labs, if you will.  Demonstrations is a better word, as a previous poster pointed out.  

 

Once we begin studying marine biology...there will be fewer opportunities for hands on demonstrations.  I mean...what can we do with a Ker, 1st, and two 3rd graders while discussing marine life?  Dissections?  Sure...maybe.  

 

How about a diorama?  I'm sorry but...I find those kinds of science labs/projects to be more busy work than anything.  Cutesy, but not much in the way of educational value.  

 

Instead, we typically do lapbooks, which include short minibooks for various topics.  A little bit of writing, but not much.  They're still too young for much journaling.  

[MEmama]

My sciencey kid has no interest in hands on anything either. We do labs only occasionally. Then again, his favorite science is astrophysics, so at least I don't feel guilty about not being able to provide decent labs! Lol.

 

(and no, he has no interest in going to the planetarium or staying up to look at the stars. He's a conceptual thinker all the way)

[Garga]

There was only one experiment that taught my son something he couldn't already easily guess just from the description of the experiment. It had to do with mixing leaves and rocks into dirt so that the dirt wouldn't wash away in the rain.

 

Other than that one, the experiments around here have been pretty much 100% demonstrations OR they didn't explain the science at all.

 

Consider: We learned that oil and water don't mix. We tried to mix them, and they didn't mix. And that's all we're told. Experiment done. Didn't really teach us anything other than a random fact: oil and water don't mix.

 

It wasn't until this year when we watched a high school level chemistry class that we finally learned about how some molecules can have a negative and positive side to them so they attract to each other just like magnets. But some molecules do not have a negative and positive side. When you try to mix molecules that don't have a negative or positive side, there's nothing for the molecules to stick to--no "magnetism" (though it's not really magnetism...I'm giving a dumbed down explanation.)

 

Finally, those oil and water things made sense and we felt we'd learned something. The oil doesn't have a positive or negative, so it can't stick to the H2O. But it wasn't until we studied something at the high school level that the fact that "oil and water don't mix" actually meant anything to us scientifically.

 

My kids are in 4th and 7th, so I don't know if it's ok not to do experiments, but I suspect that they're not necessary. The biggest reason to do them might be just to keep kids interested in and enjoying science, but I don't think they actually teach anything. To me, I think the point is just to have stuff to play with.

 

My kids enjoyed some experiments and were totally bored and getting rowdy with others.

[Bluegoat]

I don't think that artifically constructed experiements are necessary, or even labs, for elementary school.  Middle school kids can get some value out of them perhaps, but I think more in contexts like science fairs.

 

I do think that hands on is more important than reading books or watching documentaries.  So things like actually looking at stars, or growing a garden, or going to the seashore.  I think something like keeping a nature notebook with observations over time, or taking apart a flower to look at the parts, or then drawing them, and similar kinds of experiences, are what give the most direct and authentic experience of the natural world.  Just spending time on a canoe trip can begin to build up a store of experiences and images and sensations that can be accessed later when thinking in a more systematic way about science.

 

Labs are ways to simulate or control those experiences, but it would really be a shame for kids to have that as their first exposure to something rather than actually seeing it in its place in the world.

 

It is important I think to learn to write carefully and accuratly, to observe carefully, but that can also happen through other kinds of writing and narration or a nature noteebook.

 

 

[WahM]

We do BFSU and love the hands on aspect of it.y kids love doing and hate sitting, especially my daughter. I came from teaching in a school system where it was all reading and writing things out and they never got to experience it and little was retained. Of course, this isn't the case for all kids. I love science and love the hands that you can do with certain subjects.

[8filltheheart]

It hasn't negatively impacted my kids. :)

[SparklyUnicorn]

Blah..hate them...they stink.  That said, I did do them with my kids when they were little because they really liked it.  It was a lot about just something to break up the day and get them to do something hands on.  It kept their attention. 

 

[ALB]

I have had about zero success with science "experiments."  We tried growing crystals three. different. times.  Never worked at all!  And we even had a kit.  I'm sure its just me.

I blame living in a foreign country for the fact that we just don't do experiments any more.  I can't ever find any of the "easy to find household items."  But I'm sure that even once we return to the US it won't really be worth extra trips to the store in my book.

 

We tried BFSU and while I loved the concept and how it helped me to be a better science teacher, my kids didn't really like it at all.  They like reading books more than hands on.  Now we're doing MP science and it's about as un-experimenty as you can get.

 

We do have ScienceWiz, Thames and Kosmos, and Snap Circuits kits.  My son goes crazy over those things, and spends hours reading through the books and doing the projects on his own.  My daughter isn't especially interested in those, but she has practically memorized every animal, plant, and human body book we own.  I'm not concerned about the lack of experiments in our curriculum, and I honestly wouldn't even be too concerned with not doing formal science curriculum before middle school.

[lewelma]

Hey Keri,

 

I have written extensively on this topic on this thread:

 

Science activities: setting goals and evaluating the usefulness of activities.

 

We read, read, read and watch documentaries for 8 months of the year; however, we also do 6 week scientific investigation.  This allows me to avoid the weekly run around looking for supplies, and allows me to avoid those useless experiments that drive everyone nuts because the answer is either obvious or the outcome is not what you are told will happen.

 

Before you throw out all experimentation, read some of my thoughts in the thread, and figure out what you really dislike and what you actually want to teach your kids.

 

Ruth in NZ

 

 

 

[Mommy22alyns]

Blah..hate them...they stink.  That said, I did do them with my kids when they were little because they really liked it.  It was a lot about just something to break up the day and get them to do something hands on.  It kept their attention. 

 

 

Pretty much!  Mine love the "experiments," so we do them.  They love anything hands-on.

[Slache]

Thanks for this thread. Excellent topic.

 

 

 

 

Please ask them to specify what experiments they do in Astronomy. ;)

They're very expensive.

[Epicurean]

Hey Keri,

 

I have written extensively on this topic on this thread:

 

Science activities: setting goals and evaluating the usefulness of activities.

 

We read, read, read and watch documentaries for 8 months of the year; however, we also do 6 week scientific investigation.  This allows me to avoid the weekly run around looking for supplies, and allows me to avoid those useless experiments that drive everyone nuts because the answer is either obvious or the outcome is not what you are told will happen.

 

Before you throw out all experimentation, read some of my thoughts in the thread, and figure out what you really dislike and what you actually want to teach your kids.

 

Ruth in NZ

 

I've been busy reading your posts, and I want to thank you for putting so much time and thought into explaining what real science experimentation is like.

 

I can see clearly how a fifth grader or a seventh grader or a tenth grader could tease out an idea for a feasible science experiment. My question is, how do you really accomplish that with a five or six year old? It seems like young kids are just not sophisticated enough to make that leap. Can the average five year old really "get" falsifiable parameters? Can they then be gently led toward coming up with a reasonable experiment to do, without the parent basically scripting it?

 

I think it'd be fine to focus on a few fun demonstrations until the Logic Stage, if that's what we should expect. But unless I'm misunderstanding you, it sounds like this is a method you recommend starting early on to teach kids about the messy, frustrating, unpredictable nature of science. I really love that idea, in theory. I'm just not sure what it looks like in practice for the Grammar Stage.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I have had about zero success with science "experiments."  We tried growing crystals three. different. times.  Never worked at all!  And we even had a kit.  I'm sure its just me.

I blame living in a foreign country for the fact that we just don't do experiments any more.  I can't ever find any of the "easy to find household items."  But I'm sure that even once we return to the US it won't really be worth extra trips to the store in my book.

 

We tried BFSU and while I loved the concept and how it helped me to be a better science teacher, my kids didn't really like it at all.  They like reading books more than hands on.  Now we're doing MP science and it's about as un-experimenty as you can get.

 

We do have ScienceWiz, Thames and Kosmos, and Snap Circuits kits.  My son goes crazy over those things, and spends hours reading through the books and doing the projects on his own.  My daughter isn't especially interested in those, but she has practically memorized every animal, plant, and human body book we own.  I'm not concerned about the lack of experiments in our curriculum, and I honestly wouldn't even be too concerned with not doing formal science curriculum before middle school.

 

I so feel your pain.  I flunked the first time I tried to culture and grow bacteria.  I mean HOW..HOW does that happen?  I don't know, but I figured it out.  LOL 

[eternalsummer]

I don't see why you need science "experiments" for most anything, except the learning of how to do an experiment, which is a skill in its own right.  That said, we love TOPScience, which is all "experiments" (they're really mostly demonstrations/explorations, but entirely student led - I do *nothing* except strew further exploration materials).  I just have the kind of kids who like holding things and making messes, I think.  The actual science learning/understanding largely comes from the books they read and documentaries they watch, but they read/watch those because they have an interest in something concrete in the real world, and TOPS makes it very student-oriented, so that any accomplishment really feels like an accomplishment.  For kids who think they might not be any good at science, these books/kits have really helped build the confidence and interest.

 

Finding good quality documentaries is a huge portion of our science programs at the moment, though.  DS6 likes the kiddy shows (Bill Nye, Zula Patrol, WildKrat Kids, Magic School Bus, etc.) and DD9 likes Nova, which does a lot of drama, but it is hard to weed out the good from the bad otherwise.  If anyone has great documentary recommendations that would be great.

[dragonflyer]

I am a second generation homeschooler.

My mom ignored science until a coop in 6th grade (where I did a science experiment).  Then I did science in the public high school.  I wish that we had done more science reading, but am planning on reading and nature study for my own kids.

I had a really easy time with science in high school because no background knowledge was assumed and I could read and write proficiently.

[Susie in MS]

Keri, I have found almost all of the experiment/demonstrations in HOD to be useless for us. Most of the time we would just skip it cuz we knew what would happen. Every now and then we would hit a gem. However I have found that sometimes internet searches or suggestions in other unit studies yield very good results and go a long way in the teaching process. For instance both KONOS and BYFIAR suggest dissecting a cow's eye. I was just about to skip this one :ack2:  till I saw how taking each part apart would help to see how the eye works. See pics at link. Now I will be the one with the blade, and you can BE SURE I will be wearing gloves! :blush5:  LOL

 

However I also see great benefit in doing notebooking pages like Carrie assigned for the science books. We enjoy those as well and I feel it enforces the learning experience just like demos do. Basically, I feel you can't go wrong with either one, and if you don't want the experiments skip them. Don't cha just love hsing!  :thumbup1:

 

No need to blow up the back yard :zombie:  if Johnny is happy keeping it clean. 

 

ETA: My dd is VERY hands on person. For her just reading won't work in the science department. She loves stuff like seeing how a worm improves the soil by eating stuff and making air pockets. Did you know you can buy worm castings for your garden? We will do the worm demo in a clear dixie punch cup. It can be fun if you are the hands on type, but if not, draw the cycle.  :)

[madteaparty]

I love this thread! I feel so... Deficient. I mean I can barely work our microscope.

I don't do experiments here (I've printed the Yale pond unit study 3 times, I think it ends up in the wood stove), but owing to the aforementioned feelings of deficiency I did sign DS up for 2 days of Landry labs. I also try to do hands on type field trips as often as I can, ie we are doing maple sugaring, spring ecology and Hudson River ecology in the next couple of months. I doubt anything sinks in there, but I do them to make self feel better. Kind of like piano lessons.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I think some of the coolest "experiments" my kids have done are things they have come up with on their own.  To me that is where the real learning takes place.  One of mine was obsessed with seeing what would happen when he puts various things into the freezer.  It might seem like a silly little thing, but he came up with that on his own.  Some of the activities (I refuse to call them experiments) are so contrived they really feel pointless.  Or they flat out don't work.  I hate when that happens!  And then some are really silly.  Like track the weather.  You know, write down if it's raining or not today.  I mean really, a kid never noticed that some days it rains and some days it does not?  LOL  I don't think anyone needs to keep track of that. 

 

 

[KeriJ]

Thank you for all the thoughts.  Here is where we are:  We read, read, read.  We go to the library weekly and come home with stacks of books.  On their own, they check out science/nature type books they are interested in.  We have quite a home library of "living" science books as well as an Audubon Nature encyclopedia set.  We have regular memberships to the children's science museum, the aquarium and the zoo.  and we go often.  We go to a farm weekly to get milk.  We spend A LOT of time outside.  We have raised chickens from start to finish.....and by finish, I mean Daddy made them look through all of the insides he had laid out on a tray.  We garden and compost, and yes, we bought worms this year!  We enjoy Snap Circuits. We watch a lot of nature/science stuff on netflix etc.  We cook a lot...and we experiment with different ingredients etc.  We make some homemade cleaners and personal products.  We own numerous field guides.  We have several bird feeders around the yard, and the kids enjoy watching the birds and occasionally identifying them.

 

We do a small amount of scheduled science with Science in the Beginning, and I only do the demonstration if we have the stuff and it looks easy.  My oldest is doing the living science scheduled in HOD, but skipping the experiments. (she does reading, writing, notebooking and sketching)

 

But, 7th grade is coming.  and every program I look at has pricey lab sets that seem to be "crucial" to the curriculum.  But in my heart, I feel like reading, coupled with real life experiences, is enough.  Then I wonder if that cuts it for chemistry and physics in the middle school years??  But I can't imagine spending hundreds of dollars for each of my 5 children to do science in middle school, especially when high school is coming up.

[eternalsummer]

I love this thread! I feel so... Deficient. I mean I can barely work our microscope.

I don't do experiments here (I've printed the Yale pond unit study 3 times, I think it ends up in the wood stove), but owing to the aforementioned feelings of deficiency I did sign DS up for 2 days of Landry labs. I also try to do hands on type field trips as often as I can, ie we are doing maple sugaring, spring ecology and Hudson River ecology in the next couple of months. I doubt anything sinks in there, but I do them to make self feel better. Kind of like piano lessons.

 

This is a precise explanation of the reasoning behind 1/3 of our homeschooling curriculum.

[eternalsummer]

Thank you for all the thoughts.  Here is where we are:  We read, read, read.  We go to the library weekly and come home with stacks of books.  On their own, they check out science/nature type books they are interested in.  We have quite a home library of "living" science books as well as an Audubon Nature encyclopedia set.  We have regular memberships to the children's science museum, the aquarium and the zoo.  and we go often.  We go to a farm weekly to get milk.  We spend A LOT of time outside.  We have raised chickens from start to finish.....and by finish, I mean Daddy made them look through all of the insides he had laid out on a tray.  We garden and compost, and yes, we bought worms this year!  We enjoy Snap Circuits. We watch a lot of nature/science stuff on netflix etc.  We cook a lot...and we experiment with different ingredients etc.  We make some homemade cleaners and personal products.  We own numerous field guides.  We have several bird feeders around the yard, and the kids enjoy watching the birds and occasionally identifying them.

 

We do a small amount of scheduled science with Science in the Beginning, and I only do the demonstration if we have the stuff and it looks easy.  My oldest is doing the living science scheduled in HOD, but skipping the experiments. (she does reading, writing, notebooking and sketching)

 

But, 7th grade is coming.  and every program I look at has pricey lab sets that seem to be "crucial" to the curriculum.  But in my heart, I feel like reading, coupled with real life experiences, is enough.  Then I wonder if that cuts it for chemistry and physics in the middle school years??  But I can't imagine spending hundreds of dollars for each of my 5 children to do science in middle school, especially when high school is coming up.

 lewelma (I never spell her name right) has never led me astray.

 

Do this, just the reading, with one experiment a year to teach the scientific method itself, and you're good to go

[8filltheheart]

Keri,

 

All high school science is taught at an introductory level. Students learn how to write up labs, etc. I would not want my children to enter high school courses without a strong foundation in science topics, but there is nothing earth-shattering about labs. By simply being well read across a broad range of topics, my kids have been able to step into high school science courses without missing a step. (Being solid in math is an equal contributor. :) )

 

FWIW, I have known kids who thought they loved science, but what they really loved was being entertained by demonstrations and found actual science courses drudgery. My kids have fallen in love with subject matter and that love has lead them to spending hours in independent research.

 

Everyone needs to find their own path forward, but fear of not being equipped for high school labs should not be a factor.

[Susie in MS]

Keri, your science sounds perfect! 

 

I understand your concern about $$$ for middle school science. 

[Bluegoat]

 

 

But, 7th grade is coming.  and every program I look at has pricey lab sets that seem to be "crucial" to the curriculum.  But in my heart, I feel like reading, coupled with real life experiences, is enough.  Then I wonder if that cuts it for chemistry and physics in the middle school years??  But I can't imagine spending hundreds of dollars for each of my 5 children to do science in middle school, especially when high school is coming up.

 

Well, from the perspective of my own experience as a student, we actually did not do anything called physics or chemistry when I was in middle school.  I was really lucky, my science/math teacher in those grades was really excellent, and I think he made good use of the curriculum we had. 

 

We had science class, and we did do about one lab period a week.  I remember doing a few things with electricity, learning a bit about light, growing plants, and making tinfoil boats and seeing who could float the most pennies in them.  A lot of it was stuff that could easily be done in more casual settings with minimal planning.  Nothing at all like what you would do in a high school or university lab.

 

We did learn the nuts and bolts of how to put together an experiment, and were required to do one science project each year that included a properly formated, and very neat, lab report. 

 

The thing I remember most vividly though was being taught the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning, and what that meant for dealing with scientific information.

 

[Bluegoat]

I wonder a bit about the inexact nature of a lot of the lab work students are asked to do.

 

I remember doing chemistry labs in high school, we very rarely had the outcomes that we were supposed to have.  However we wrote them up as if we had - I'm sorry to say we even made up data to make it work.

 

I read an interview a while ago with James lovelock about this - he was talking about how lucky he felt he was for having done lab work for a company before he went to university, because they were very serious about getting the actual answers to the questions, wheras many of the students in the university had a pretty casual attitude to whether the results were as they should be, and the reasons that sometimes they weren't.  He felt this impacted their work.

 

It makes me wonder if there isn't potential for bad learning or habits to develop with lab work, which would I think mean that some care would be required in designing lab components.

 

 

[KeriJ]

Keri, your science sounds perfect! 

 

I understand your concern about $$$ for middle school science. 

 

I agree with what you said about HOD experiments.  We quit after awhile because some of them were so silly.  But in the 7th and 8th grade guides, she schedules the pricey lab components.  Multiply that by 5 kids.....  I don't mind spending money on homeschool if it's something I feel is necessary.  I'm just not so sure I feel it's necessary. :)

[pehp]

I am in the second camp, we read and sketch, and will do a dry run science project this year (he is 7). I find most elem science experiments are just demonstrations, and do not interest me.

[Curlymom]

I just noticed a post where 8FillTheHeart mentioned she detested pre-planned science experiments before high school, and I know that this has been discussed here before. (I can't find it at the moment)  But I'd love to discuss this more.  

 

Some people are adamant that science lessons aren't science lessons without hands-on experiments.  Others focus on reading, writing, sketching, videos etc. without many experiments or lab reports.

 

I'd love to hear more from the 2nd group. :)

 

Last year, we followed the 'science isn't science without experiments method' studying chemistry using RSO and Elemental Science. Some of the 'experiments' worked, some didn't.  Like other posters, I could never get crystals to grow.  But my 7 year old knows about simple chemical reactions, atoms, molecules, and the periodic table.  And he loves combining baking soda and vinegar.

 

We moved on to earth science and astronomy this year, using the same two curricula, and, like someone mentioned, how do you do experiments about astronomy? Nearly everything is demonstration based and he just wasn't getting the connection.  Or the demonstration demonstrated something so intuitive that he would just stare at me with this look that said "really, mom?"  Twirling a washer on a string around in the air is *sort of* like planetary movement.  But not really.  And we dabbled in physics but I can tell that the concepts are a little beyond my 7 year old, although he loves making the various contraptions recommended in the various kids physics books we have found.

 

Sooo, I'm leaning much more toward your 2nd group with a focus on nature study.  But we've sort of switched to CM-style, so that's part of our shift.  We are reading living books, and then we go explore what we just read about.  I bought both of my kids binoculars and we started bird watching.  I'm ordering loupes so we can explore insects, dirt, and whatever we can.  Studying stars includes learning about constellations, and staying up late to find those constellations.  And what do you know, we saw Jupiter, too.

 

I don't mind experiments that serve a purpose, and we will still include those that are relevant to something we read.  Baking soda and vinegar volcanos are awesome, but there are only so many times you can do that.  

[Desert Strawberry]

Agreeing with pp who mentioned the "experiments" without explanation. This makes me In. Sane.

 

If we are going to make slime, I want either a pretty decent explanation of the chemistry involved, or a fun afternoon craft. Let's not do a craft and call it science, umm Kay? I have been disappointed many times by science that really isn't.

 

Now, rubbing a coin on a sheet of paper to demonstrate friction as energy, handling water, ice, and steam as states of matter, taking apart a flower or a seed to identify parts, I'm down with all of that. Writing up a lab report on the "findings" would suck all of the fun out of something that should nourish a love of learning and build a solid base of knowledge. ETA: for MY kids. Some kids are less horrified by the sight of a pencil.

[Guest]

We are a science loving STEM family and do zip in the way of hard sciences and experimentation until high school. This is intentional. We don't have our kids using science they cannot mathematically derive and fully understand, because both my husband and I are convinced that leads to more problems and confusion. So science as an official subject begins after calculus, with chemistry and physics.

 

Now, that doesn't meant the children have no science exposure at all - they do lots of reading, nature studies, science biographies, meteorology, etc. But those don't require experimentation thankfully! School is complicated enough and we like to have it as integrated and streamlined as possible. I'm completely uninterested in complicated science when it isn't helpful or necessary to their progress in thinking or education as a whole. My focus is on giving them the foundation and tools for reasoning that will allow them to approach mathematical sciences confidently and with full comprehension, as well as make educated and fully developed studies of observational science. I think those subjects fit best after the foundation of understanding has been achieved, and that is what the years of grammar and logic are focused upon.

 

We are working toward it, and we'll let your now how it turns out in a few more years ;)

[SparklyUnicorn]

I wonder a bit about the inexact nature of a lot of the lab work students are asked to do.

 

I remember doing chemistry labs in high school, we very rarely had the outcomes that we were supposed to have.  However we wrote them up as if we had - I'm sorry to say we even made up data to make it work.

 

I read an interview a while ago with James lovelock about this - he was talking about how lucky he felt he was for having done lab work for a company before he went to university, because they were very serious about getting the actual answers to the questions, wheras many of the students in the university had a pretty casual attitude to whether the results were as they should be, and the reasons that sometimes they weren't.  He felt this impacted their work.

 

It makes me wonder if there isn't potential for bad learning or habits to develop with lab work, which would I think mean that some care would be required in designing lab components.

 

Same here.  I found that maddening!

[lewelma]

I've been busy reading your posts, and I want to thank you for putting so much time and thought into explaining what real science experimentation is like.

 

I can see clearly how a fifth grader or a seventh grader or a tenth grader could tease out an idea for a feasible science experiment. My question is, how do you really accomplish that with a five or six year old? It seems like young kids are just not sophisticated enough to make that leap. Can the average five year old really "get" falsifiable parameters? Can they then be gently led toward coming up with a reasonable experiment to do, without the parent basically scripting it?

 

I think it'd be fine to focus on a few fun demonstrations until the Logic Stage, if that's what we should expect. But unless I'm misunderstanding you, it sounds like this is a method you recommend starting early on to teach kids about the messy, frustrating, unpredictable nature of science. I really love that idea, in theory. I'm just not sure what it looks like in practice for the Grammar Stage.

 

I've done investigations with my kids starting at age 5.  They don't need falsifiable parameters. :001_smile:   What I have done is organise simple observation around a question.  So the investigations we have done with my kids in primary school include:

 

1) What is the most common mushroom in my woods?  We got a 'data collection notebook' (kids always love that), and an identification guide.  Then we got a map of the woods and marked off where we had been.  We had a few interesting problems to figure out.  1) what happens when there are like 1000 mushrooms on a log, how do you count them?  We discussed how to estimate by counting only a fraction of the entire group and then multiplying up.  2) DS  had to decide what 'most common' meant because one mushroom had more individuals but another was more widely spread.  Definitions always trip kids up.

 

2) Can I predict rain from looking at the clouds?  This is also a great question but just using observation.  DS learned how to identify clouds from a bunch of books and then learned how they come in in sequence before a storm.  He practiced for a few days, and then set himself a ten day challenge. He recorded not just his prediction, but then after it was written down, he recorded the weather service's predication.  The following day he recorded if it rained or not.  The problems he had were 1) what actually counts as rain?  If it just spits, does that count?  2) how far ahead is a reasonable time frame, are we talking 24 hours exactly, the next day in general?  what?  These are actually definition issues.  And I think it is very good for kids to realize that they need to be very precise.  He actually beat MetServices 9 to 8 days accurate.

 

3)  How much insect diversity do I have in my garden?  In this project, we hunted for bugs! :001_smile:   We took photos, and sorted them by classification.  The difficulties we ran into was 1) how do you actually catch bugs?  We had to look up a bunch of ideas like shaking a tree over a sheet, making pit fall traps, digging in soil.  2) How do you know you got them all?  We had to try to think up all of the different possible environments.  In the end, we made a huge poster and used string to connect all the different related species together.  Very fun.

 

My point is that doing a single investigation each year allows kids to understand that they can actually answer their own questions.  It allows them to the chance to observe and explore with a purpose.  It helps them to understand how science is actually done, rather than doing goofy little demos or non-working experiments.  My kids remember these projects all the way back.  Over time they got more involved, but the early ones were just fun and straightforward. And very educational.

 

Ruth in NZ

[SparklyUnicorn]

Thank you for this timely thread. I have been feeling very unhappy with our science, and so has ds. Mostly it's because we're following a textbook this year, complete with overwhelming amounts of 'experiments' aka demonstration.

 

I am going to use this as permission to go back to what already worked in our house once - lots of living books, lots of documentaries, lots of discussions - and doing some genuine science investigations along the way.

 

You might find a ton of useful demonstrations on Youtube.  And a lot of really cool ones you could not easily pull off yourself.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I love this.  It's just not easy to pull off anything naturey where I live. 

 

 

I've done investigations with my kids starting at age 5.  They don't need falsifiable parameters. :001_smile:   What I have done is organise simple observation around a question.  So the investigations we have done with my kids in primary school include:

 

1) What is the most common mushroom in my woods?  We got a 'data collection notebook' (kids always love that), and an identification guide.  Then we got a map of the woods and marked off where we had been.  We had a few interesting problems to figure out.  1) what happens when there are like 1000 mushrooms on a log, how do you count them?  We discussed how to estimate by counting only a fraction of the entire group and then multiplying up.  2) DS  had to decide what 'most common' meant because one mushroom had more individuals but another was more widely spread.  Definitions always trip kids up.

 

2) Can I predict rain from looking at the clouds?  This is also a great question but just using observation.  DS learned how to identify clouds from a bunch of books and then learned how they come in in sequence before a storm.  He practiced for a few days, and then set himself a ten day challenge. He recorded not just his prediction, but then after it was written down, he recorded the weather service's predication.  The following day he recorded if it rained or not.  The problems he had were 1) what actually counts as rain?  If it just spits, does that count?  2) how far ahead is a reasonable time frame, are we talking 24 hours exactly, the next day in general?  what?  These are actually definition issues.  And I think it is very good for kids to realize that they need to be very precise.  He actually beat MetServices 9 to 8 days accurate.

 

3)  How much insect diversity do I have in my garden?  In this project, we hunted for bugs! :001_smile:   We took photos, and sorted them by classification.  The difficulties we ran into was 1) how do you actually catch bugs?  We had to look up a bunch of ideas like shaking a tree over a sheet, making pit fall traps, digging in soil.  2) How do you know you got them all?  We had to try to think up all of the different possible environments.  In the end, we made a huge poster and used string to connect all the different related species together.  Very fun.

 

My point is that doing a single investigation each year allows kids to understand that they can actually answer their own questions.  It allows them to the chance to observe and explore with a purpose.  It helps them to understand how science is actually done, rather than doing goofy little demos or non-working experiments.  My kids remember these projects all the way back.  Over time they got more involved, but the early ones were just fun and straightforward. And very educational.

 

Ruth in NZ

 

[pitterpatter]

Ugh...you needed to find a new resource. That's horrible. Density experiments/demonstrations are neat. Even if a resource doesn't get into the whole positive/negative charge thing in great detail, understanding density is basic science. Why would the author have not included that info?  :huh:  What did you use?

 

OP, have you tried researching experiments/demonstrations that match the topic you're studying on Pinterest? People often post the ins and outs of experiments on blogs with pictures to match.

 

 

There was only one experiment that taught my son something he couldn't already easily guess just from the description of the experiment. It had to do with mixing leaves and rocks into dirt so that the dirt wouldn't wash away in the rain.

Other than that one, the experiments around here have been pretty much 100% demonstrations OR they didn't explain the science at all.

Consider: We learned that oil and water don't mix. We tried to mix them, and they didn't mix. And that's all we're told. Experiment done. Didn't really teach us anything other than a random fact: oil and water don't mix.

It wasn't until this year when we watched a high school level chemistry class that we finally learned about how some molecules can have a negative and positive side to them so they attract to each other just like magnets. But some molecules do not have a negative and positive side. When you try to mix molecules that don't have a negative or positive side, there's nothing for the molecules to stick to--no "magnetism" (though it's not really magnetism...I'm giving a dumbed down explanation.)

Finally, those oil and water things made sense and we felt we'd learned something. The oil doesn't have a positive or negative, so it can't stick to the H2O. But it wasn't until we studied something at the high school level that the fact that "oil and water don't mix" actually meant anything to us scientifically.

My kids are in 4th and 7th, so I don't know if it's ok not to do experiments, but I suspect that they're not necessary. The biggest reason to do them might be just to keep kids interested in and enjoying science, but I don't think they actually teach anything. To me, I think the point is just to have stuff to play with.

My kids enjoyed some experiments and were totally bored and getting rowdy with others.

 

[HeWillSoar]

Well I don't know if experiments are necessary or not but after a day of unmotivated, maddening behavior from my son (11), he became a different child when we did an experiment at the end of the day.  Suddenly he perked up.  He was motivated and excited, and when filling out his lab book, he did his best penmanship (I didn't know he could write that well).  My older child looked like he was writing cuneiform letters in his lab book-he was so disinterested in the whole thing.  Really, I was ready to just call it a day after our science reading.  I asked the kids if they wanted to do the experiment or wait for another day, and the 11 yo said he wanted to do it.  Now I'm trying to see if I can find a Science Olympiad group for him. 

 

This is our first year (so take it for what it's worth) but I'd say that if the experiments add to child's experience and motivates them, why not do them?

[Momof3littles]

My kids are in 5th and 2nd, and we do very few experiments.  They explore a lot, have access to things like snap circuits and solder on breadboards, we talk science all of the time, we are currently using some of the McHenry books, they read a lot of science, etc.  However, we rarely do experiments.  My husband has a doctorate in chemistry and I have a master's in a healthcare/science field. 

[Epicurean]

I've done investigations with my kids starting at age 5.  They don't need falsifiable parameters. :001_smile:   What I have done is organise simple observation around a question.  So the investigations we have done with my kids in primary school include:

 

1) What is the most common mushroom in my woods?  We got a 'data collection notebook' (kids always love that), and an identification guide.  Then we got a map of the woods and marked off where we had been.  We had a few interesting problems to figure out.  1) what happens when there are like 1000 mushrooms on a log, how do you count them?  We discussed how to estimate by counting only a fraction of the entire group and then multiplying up.  2) DS  had to decide what 'most common' meant because one mushroom had more individuals but another was more widely spread.  Definitions always trip kids up.

 

2) Can I predict rain from looking at the clouds?  This is also a great question but just using observation.  DS learned how to identify clouds from a bunch of books and then learned how they come in in sequence before a storm.  He practiced for a few days, and then set himself a ten day challenge. He recorded not just his prediction, but then after it was written down, he recorded the weather service's predication.  The following day he recorded if it rained or not.  The problems he had were 1) what actually counts as rain?  If it just spits, does that count?  2) how far ahead is a reasonable time frame, are we talking 24 hours exactly, the next day in general?  what?  These are actually definition issues.  And I think it is very good for kids to realize that they need to be very precise.  He actually beat MetServices 9 to 8 days accurate.

 

3)  How much insect diversity do I have in my garden?  In this project, we hunted for bugs! :001_smile:   We took photos, and sorted them by classification.  The difficulties we ran into was 1) how do you actually catch bugs?  We had to look up a bunch of ideas like shaking a tree over a sheet, making pit fall traps, digging in soil.  2) How do you know you got them all?  We had to try to think up all of the different possible environments.  In the end, we made a huge poster and used string to connect all the different related species together.  Very fun.

 

My point is that doing a single investigation each year allows kids to understand that they can actually answer their own questions.  It allows them to the chance to observe and explore with a purpose.  It helps them to understand how science is actually done, rather than doing goofy little demos or non-working experiments.  My kids remember these projects all the way back.  Over time they got more involved, but the early ones were just fun and straightforward. And very educational.

 

Ruth in NZ

 

Thank you so much for sharing. This helps immensely. It seems like most of the straightforward observational experiments are related to nature and mesh well with biology or earth science. Did you try to steer them toward a chemistry themed experiment in third grade? Or a physics experiment in fourth grade?

 

And I saw a thread where members were asking you to write a book. :drool: Would you be opposed to members of the WTM forum funding a Kickstarter for you? If you aren't planning on working on it at the moment because you're too busy, just send me a message when you feel ready to start and I'd be honored to help raise funds for the time/money investment such a worthy but epic undertaking would require. :hurray:

[mom2scouts]

I think some of the coolest "experiments" my kids have done are things they have come up with on their own.  To me that is where the real learning takes place.  One of mine was obsessed with seeing what would happen when he puts various things into the freezer.  It might seem like a silly little thing, but he came up with that on his own.  Some of the activities (I refuse to call them experiments) are so contrived they really feel pointless.  Or they flat out don't work.  I hate when that happens!  And then some are really silly.  Like track the weather.  You know, write down if it's raining or not today.  I mean really, a kid never noticed that some days it rains and some days it does not?  LOL  I don't think anyone needs to keep track of that. 

 

I'm going to disagree with you a bit.  One of my most memorable science projects was one about weather.  Actually, it's the only thing I remember about science from school.  I built weather instruments and kept track of the weather every day for a month.  It really helped me see how wind, precipitation, barometric pressure, cloud formations, and temperature were related. Obviously, it was more than just keeping track of whether it was rainy or sunny, but some of those types of things can be done well.

[Julie of KY]

I love hands on science experiments for young kids, but I don't do it formally or which reports, conclusions, etc. We gather data informally and chat about it but I don't make it "schoolish". I'm the house the neighborhood kids gather at and ask to do more science experiments - it's fun with learning.

 

I'm the one that teaches hands-on science in co-op and everyone else send their kids to me to fulfill the need to do science experiments. At my home, science experiments are not formal, but are more like explorations of topics. Often when we are reading a book like history, we'll come across the mention of something and we decide to try it out. My kids love to watch science videos and then recreate the experiment and tweek it every way they can think of to further investigate. This is the real power of doing the experiments - the kids change variables of their choosing and then test. They don't have to report on their findings. My kids explore books on science experiments and then pick out what sounds interesting.

 

It's definately more fun to do experiments with friends than alone.

 

I teach formal experiments with lab reports in high school.

[Bluegoat]

I actually am rather bothered about the whole idea of calling elementary aged activities experiments at all.  This is one issue where I firmly agree with SWB - young kids are not generally capable of making predictions and forming hypothosis to the extent that is required.  "What do you think will happy Tommy if we mix the baking soda and vinegar"?  "Um, a frog will pop out of it?  It will turn blue? "  On what possible basis could Tommy make a reasonable or logical guess about this?  Really what is going on in most cases are collection of data/observation, or demonstrations of some sort.  I think its important to think about it that way or it isn't going to be as effective.

 

On another note - many people, especially those influenced by CM think of science for young people being about nature study.  I would also say that handwork can in many cases be the basis of learning about the physical properties of the world.  That could include things from sewing to small engine repair to basket-weaving, and involves not only learning the physical principles in an intuitive way, but also the skill of manipulating things.

 

 

[KeriJ]

I actually am rather bothered about the whole idea of calling elementary aged activities experiments at all.  This is one issue where I firmly agree with SWB - young kids are not generally capable of making predictions and forming hypothosis to the extent that is required.  "What do you think will happy Tommy if we mix the baking soda and vinegar"?  "Um, a frog will pop out of it?  It will turn blue? "  On what possible basis could Tommy make a reasonable or logical guess about this?  Really what is going on in most cases are collection of data/observation, or demonstrations of some sort.  I think its important to think about it that way or it isn't going to be as effective.

 

On another note - many people, especially those influenced by CM think of science for young people being about nature study.  I would also say that handwork can in many cases be the basis of learning about the physical properties of the world.  That could include things from sewing to small engine repair to basket-weaving, and involves not only learning the physical principles in an intuitive way, but also the skill of manipulating things.

 

Dh likes to include our kids in small, around-the-house building projects that he does.  There's definitely science involved there.  In fact, our "Grand Prix" race is at AWANA tonight....plenty of physics topics come up while they get ready for it.  (and dh isn't even a science kind of guy....its just part of the process)

[SparklyUnicorn]

I actually am rather bothered about the whole idea of calling elementary aged activities experiments at all.  This is one issue where I firmly agree with SWB - young kids are not generally capable of making predictions and forming hypothosis to the extent that is required.  "What do you think will happy Tommy if we mix the baking soda and vinegar"?  "Um, a frog will pop out of it?  It will turn blue? "  On what possible basis could Tommy make a reasonable or logical guess about this?  Really what is going on in most cases are collection of data/observation, or demonstrations of some sort.  I think its important to think about it that way or it isn't going to be as effective.

 

On another note - many people, especially those influenced by CM think of science for young people being about nature study.  I would also say that handwork can in many cases be the basis of learning about the physical properties of the world.  That could include things from sewing to small engine repair to basket-weaving, and involves not only learning the physical principles in an intuitive way, but also the skill of manipulating things.

 

Yeah I think my older kid learned a ton about electronics just from tinkering with stuff like Snap Circuits.  In the beginning it was just a toy and game to him. 

 

I've made about oh 10 volcanoes.  My kids just like crafty stuff.  Because honestly it's more of an art project than a science project. 

[pitterpatter]

Perhaps, but a child is learning that you can mix certain substances together to create fizzing/bubbles. If a child never sees/experiences these very basic reactions (and understand why they happen), how can he/she be expected to make reasonable guesses to what might happen during true experiments. Every experience is a peg to hang future learning upon.

 

Seems like everyone wants to put the cart before the horse these days.

 

Yeah I think my older kid learned a ton about electronics just from tinkering with stuff like Snap Circuits.  In the beginning it was just a toy and game to him. 

 

I've made about oh 10 volcanoes.  My kids just like crafty stuff.  Because honestly it's more of an art project than a science project. 

 

[KeriJ]

To be clear, I don't hate all "demonstrations".  We've mixed baking soda and vinegar.  Just this week we did an activity with the stove and pots and steam to learn about condensation.  We did the magnifying glass with sunlight to catch paper on fire.  etc.

 

I just don't like the idea that science lessons have to have a hands-on component.  I'd like to think there are many way to learn.  and I do think many "experiments" are silly.  We've done some really time-consuming, pointless ones in the past.