mathmarm Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 If you could only teach one of the two subjects during the elementary years, which one would you pick and why? Of course there would naturally be some overlap, but if you were going to make only one of these a formal subject of study for the elementary years, which one would you pick and why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kubiac Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 I didn't vote but someone on this board once suggested doing geography the kinder year (so they actually know where Europe and Egypt and China are, etc.) and then starting the 4-year history cycle for grades 1-4 (grammar) as SWB recommends. I really liked that idea, so I am currently stockpiling books for a geography study, but we are also listening SWB's audio version of Story of the World. I promised DS5 that it had "lots of fighting" and so far he has listened intently to it while on long car rides. Useful Google Doc (not mine) of books recommended for a literature-based geography study: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xqZXIiDBS8ENb4G2uuY6fZPEYzpUEkaSUAetiucfrIg/edit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excelsior! Academy Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 Having a foundation in geography is a huge plus when tackling high school readings and in depth history. Preferably one would at least rotate a run through of history and geography. Year 1 geography, year 2 Ancients and so on until following Moderns in year 5 with another year of geography. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ali in OR Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 History, no question. In fact, that's what we did--never did a formal geography program through 8th grade. But history involved map work, so I think my kids actually have a pretty good grasp of geography too. In our last 4-year cycle, the map work was done with Map Quest. I don't understand why anyone would study only geography without the story of what has happened in those places. Of what use is that? Really these two subjects mesh very well--in studying one WELL, you should be getting the other too. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excelsior! Academy Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 It is possible to study history well, and still choose to do an in depth study of geography separate from a history study. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurelia Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 I would do geography for K-2 and history for 3-5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 I'm not voting. I don't see why or how that could ever become a choice. Obviously one can and should do both. And there are a million different ways to do it - center the study around geography, but incorporate history or vice versa, do some years history and others geography, do map drills alongside a history program... This is simply not a choice anyone would ever have to make. 20 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcadia Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 I would fall asleep teaching history and actually so do my kids. They don't mind reading about history but did not like SOTW. They are not into hands on stuff for history and wasn't interested when we stop at the California Missions on our road trips. Physical geography they are interested without touching a book because it is all around them. Human geography too as we flew home to SE Asia and transit in Hong Kong. Also, I think the philosophical part of history comes later so history in K-5 was more to "please" mommy by not failing the public school tests. For example, I learned about the atomic bombs in 3rd grade in Chinese class. It was in my Chinese textbook. The use of the atomic bomb is such a complex issue. We also learned about genocide, holocaust and apartheid in elementary schools. I think those can be covered better in middle school then to do those topics in elementary school. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElizaG Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 As specific courses, both history and geography are pretty recent additions to the school curriculum. Before that, people would just pick them up (or not) in daily life, from conversation and reading. I think this can still work for history. If there are some good non-fiction books on the shelves, the children can read them at their leisure, and family members can talk about historical topics as they come up in literature or other contexts. This could happen with geography as well, but there are significant differences. It's more visual than narrative; using maps and globes involves some technical skills; and cultural geography requires large amounts of up-to-date information about many different places. So if we could only study one of these in a systematic way, geography is the one I'd choose. I also agree with the PP who brought up the point of age-appropriateness. For elementary aged children, I think there's more that can be done with geography without getting in over their heads with abstract and heavy subject matter. This past year, I couldn't figure out how to do modern history in depth, so we ended up just going over the major events very briefly, then revisiting them in the course of studying the physical and cultural geography of Asia and Europe. We're only about half done, but it's been working out very well so far. As we move from country to country, the children can see the concrete manifestations of the wars, ideologies, etc., that they've been told about. At the same time, they're learning about the lives of other children and their families, which I think (and hope) is helping them to grow in compassion and interest toward those who are living elsewhere. It seems to me that it's important for this to happen early. There's time enough later to turn our focus to details about the history of all this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shinyhappypeople Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Geography. I personally think detailed, chronological history is overkill for most young kids, unless they happen to be interested in history :leaving: Most of the details are forgotten, and that's a whole lot of time and work just to hang a few pegs. I think there are more efficient and interesting ways to approach it. We're doing a geography/cultures mix this coming year. There will, by necessity, be a little history mixed in, but not much, just enough to establish a baseline of cultural literacy (big events, big ideas, influential people). I'm a broad strokes thinker, so that approach fits me better than wading through the nitty-gritty details from day 1. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsuga Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 I think it's much easier to use geography as a spine for history, than the other way around. I also think that as concrete thinkers, it's easier to go from, here is my house, here is my street, all the way up to, here is my continent, here are the oceans surrounding it, etc. And from there you have a great template for the people who lived there and what they did before you. Whereas if you start from history, it's easy to get disconnected. It's actually much bigger because it's all of geography, for thousands of years on end! The idea of a distant past is so abstract and hard to grasp for all but the most abstract thinkers. Geography can be experienced now. Plus, worst case scenario, you get present-day events, which will be history by the time the kid takes the SATs, so there's that! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeekingHim77 Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 In our home geography is integrated into our history studies. We read wonderful living books for history and we look up the places we are reading about. We do map drill once a week on whatever area our history studies are concentrated on. It takes all of 15 minutes. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternallytired Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 If I were going to do one without the other, I'd probably do geography, at least for early el. How can you effectively learn about the world if you don't have a concept of the world? But I'm entwining the two. I started with a basic continents/oceans intro to geography before diving into activity-based history. (We read historical fiction and biographies, but the kids at this point aren't into the history encyclopedias; they LOVE anything hands-on, so I think of a project to go with a topic and as they work I discuss details of the project and relate it to history.) As we discuss different regions, I have them map them--important cities, geographical features--and we look at where they are on our world map. This fall I'm also going to use an idea I ran across somewhere online: one day a week I will hand out a map to study for 5 minutes; on the back will be a blank version. When the 5 min are up, we'll flip it over and see how much we can remember, doing this week after week until we have a decent grasp of that particular region/continent before moving on. (Maybe that's what PP was referring to.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantlion Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 History - but looking back I would have focused more on civilizations versus a world chronological approach. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneStepAtATime Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 The elementary years covers a wide span of time and development. I would not limit my choice to only one for the entirety of the elementary years. That being said, I also think this depends on 1. Your goals as a parent/instructor. 2. Your child's (children's) interests. FWIW: DD likes Geography. If we were to start over, and I was homeschooling her for the elementary years (she was in a brick and mortar at that time) I would start with Geography and maybe add in a little bit of culture and history as we went. As she got to 4th grade we might have started a more formal history program. She does not like history. I think starting with something she has a natural affinity for and allowing history to be woven in more systematically later onwould have maybe helped keep her from absolutely loathing history now. On the flip side of that coin DS loved history from the time he was tiny. He started picking things up quickly and by the end of 1st grade was totally enamored of anything history related. If we had been homeschooling him back then I would have wanted to start him with history and incorporate a little geography along the way. He has already worked out his long term plans for how to become a history professor. He even looked up average salaries, how to get tenure, his PhD. etc. He knows pay and options will be low for years to come. He has taken that into account and has a plan for how to make ends meet while he works on his degrees. Making this child wait on history would have been wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoundAbout Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 I don't see why you would ever need to choose. Geography is very easy to incorporate casually into your learning. We have map placemats of the U.S and the world, play geography games, look at maps during road trips, watch How the States Got Their Shapes, etc. For us history at this age is just read and discuss. I focus on big themes (rise and fall of empires, causes of conflict, etc.) rather than details. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsWeasley Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 History, because I can't imagine studying history without getting at least a sense of where the continents are, a good number of states, and a good number of important countries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 I think it's much easier to use geography as a spine for history, than the other way around. Ha. I think it's much easier to do it the other way. :laugh: If that's the real question (because I still don't get why, in six years of elementary from K-5 why anyone would have to choose to do only one) - which is the better overarching lens through which to tackle social studies, I can see it both ways, but I'd say history simply because there are more homeschool curricula that center on history, like SOTW. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wintermom Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 If you could only teach one of the two subjects during the elementary years, which one would you pick and why? Of course there would naturally be some overlap, but if you were going to make only one of these a formal subject of study for the elementary years, which one would you pick and why? Can you actually study (in any great depth) one without the other? 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco_Clark Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 I'm with Farrar. Why would this even be a choice? Why would you ever have to commit to one or the other for an entire 6 or 7 years? Why wouldnt the obvious answer be to teach both of these hugely important subjects? My family plan has been to focus on geography for a year (basic continents and oceans, with lots of cultural context). Then start the history cycle, which as you admit overlaps quite a bit with geography. Then take another year "off" history to do another geography year (with govmt as well, most likely, I'm not actually there yet) and so on. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairProspects Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 I'm not voting. I don't see why or how that could ever become a choice. Obviously one can and should do both. And there are a million different ways to do it - center the study around geography, but incorporate history or vice versa, do some years history and others geography, do map drills alongside a history program... This is simply not a choice anyone would ever have to make. Yup, this. There is just no way to teach history well without also teaching geography and vice-versa. They are intertwined. Countries and states are the shapes and divisions they are because of history. History happens in real time in real places. I'm not sure I could separate the two if I tried. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 I do map work as part of history and literature, and I could shunt a lot of other geography stuff like landforms over to science, so I guess I would choose history. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxbridgeacademy Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 As long as I could teach history later then I think Geography is more useful. Honestly, I think children need to be older to study History, to get the full benefit from learning where we've been. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lea_lpz Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 I can't see why you can't do geography and world cultures for a year or two and then do history the other early elementary years. Are you asking about a single year or grades 1-4? I honestly can't see spending that long on geography. Or doing it without learning about world cultures, even for one year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneStepAtATime Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 If you could only teach one of the two subjects during the elementary years, which one would you pick and why? Of course there would naturally be some overlap, but if you were going to make only one of these a formal subject of study for the elementary years, which one would you pick and why? Maybe you could add an option of doing both through the elementary years, either in rotation or simultaneously or one then the other? Many have chosen not to vote because they don't think picking just one for that many years is a good plan. Or perhaps you didn't mean for all of elementary just stick with one? Is there a specific reason you would want to choose just one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loesje22000 Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 I did in K-3 Social Studies, in 4-6 two hours of history AND two hours of Geography per week. As far as I can see now I will continue that to the end. It is how I grew up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luuknam Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Geography, because my kids need to know what to do when the zombies come: http://www.zombiebased.com/ Zombie-Based Geography, for grades 4-8 Silly questions will get silly answers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneStepAtATime Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 mathmarm, where did you go? :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElizaG Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Geography, because my kids need to know what to do when the zombies come: http://www.zombiebased.com/ Zombie-Based Geography, for grades 4-8 Silly questions will get silly answers. I don't find it silly at all. The OP has raised the possibility of only teaching one of the two as a formal subject. She also acknowledges that lessons in history would include some geography, and vice versa. The implication is that the rest could be picked up informally. And this is totally legitimate, IMO. We all have different philosophies, family cultures, and life circumstances. Some people don't teach any "content subjects" in a formal way in the elementary years. Some don't do formal science lessons at that age (and this group includes parents who are scientists). And so on. We do teach both history and geography in a structured way, but frankly, it's less because I think it's essential right now, and more as a strategy to keep the children pleasantly and productively occupied. Spending that time on things like climbing trees and visiting construction sites might be just as helpful in the long run (if not more so), but I find book work easier to manage. :unsure: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-rap Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 I'd do both at the same time. So while doing a study of US History, we'd work on the ever changing map of the U.S. In fact, I don't even see how you could do one without the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bakpak Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 I always hated history in school. Boring...blah blah blah. Then as a freshman in college I took a 1-month-long World Geography course that the VP of the college taught. BAM!! It was astounding!! I was riveted by the interconnectedness of history and geography and it suddenly felt like this amazing 2 million piece 3-D puzzle were coming alive in front of me. Sadly it was only for a month and I never continued down that rabbit hole as I'm a sciency gal, but I admit to finally seeing the light. It's astonishing what an excellent teacher can accomplish. I got to sit on the edge of this enchanting precipice and see the gloriously woven canyon of history & geography laid out before me, but I never tumbled into its depths. Now if anyone has any book recommendations that would inspire me to delve further into this subject...I would be forever in your debt :) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luuknam Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 I don't find it silly at all. The OP has raised the possibility of only teaching one of the two as a formal subject. She was asking what we'd do if we could pick only one. That's silly - of course we can decide to pick both or neither or call it social studies and do them both at the same time. Especially if we're talking about all of elementary school. I'm curious to know in what universe you would have to pick just one. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syllieann Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Either seems perfectly reasonable for elementary. I prefer the chronological approach because there are more curricula available and it makes combining ages easier. The ps style self-out model doesn't sit well with me for philosophical reasons, and the idea that the distant past is too abstract for young children has certainly proved false in my home. I find it easier to connect the ideas chronologically since each event influences the next, but the causal relationships are probably a little beyond most early elementary students. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 I don't find it silly at all. The OP has raised the possibility of only teaching one of the two as a formal subject. She also acknowledges that lessons in history would include some geography, and vice versa. The implication is that the rest could be picked up informally. And this is totally legitimate, IMO. We all have different philosophies, family cultures, and life circumstances. Some people don't teach any "content subjects" in a formal way in the elementary years. Some don't do formal science lessons at that age (and this group includes parents who are scientists). And so on. We do teach both history and geography in a structured way, but frankly, it's less because I think it's essential right now, and more as a strategy to keep the children pleasantly and productively occupied. Spending that time on things like climbing trees and visiting construction sites might be just as helpful in the long run (if not more so), but I find book work easier to manage. :unsure: I'm not sure if that is the implication. Maybe? I thought maybe what she meant was which should you choose to be the lens through which to study everything. But she left. But I still don't get why this would be a choice. There are six years in elementary school if you count kindy. Clearly there's plenty of room for both of them and I firmly believe no one should make this choice. Covering at least some aspects of both are important. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohdanigirl Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 I couldn't vote because I couldn't choose just one. In the primary years, I always incorporated Geography into our History studies. We used SOTW with the AG and also had wall maps in out home. We would do the blackline map activities and also look over the modern wall map. We also pkayed a fame where we would shout out the name of a country and whoevers turn it was had to find it on the map. The kid ds got very good at finding and remebering sone pretty much obscure countries. If anyone got some stuck, we would give hints like in Africa or bordering the Atlantic. ocean, etc. We never did a year and of geography only. HTH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparklyUnicorn Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 I'd focus on history, but you don't have to completely ignore geography. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 I would go with history because a) it's a lot more interesting, b) building the foundation of history will help kids understand more as they grow older, and c) it's incredibly easy to fold geography into a history study. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElizaG Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 I couldn't vote because I couldn't choose just one. In the primary years, I always incorporated Geography into our History studies. We used SOTW with the AG and also had wall maps in out home. We would do the blackline map activities and also look over the modern wall map. We also pkayed a fame where we would shout out the name of a country and whoevers turn it was had to find it on the map. The kid ds got very good at finding and remebering sone pretty much obscure countries. If anyone got some stuck, we would give hints like in Africa or bordering the Atlantic. ocean, etc. We never did a year and of geography only. HTH I guess Farrar is right that we need the OP to clarify. To me, the description above would be the sort of thing she's asking about doing. SOTW + AG would count as formal study of one of the subjects (history), with some overlap with the other (geography). And then there's some informal work with place names. It never occurred to me to count SOTW twice. For one thing, elementary geography, when taught as a stand-alone subject, typically involves a survey of modern world or regional cultures. There's a lot of attention given to the way the landscape shapes the people's way of living in the present day, not just in the past. It could be that it depends on whether you see geography -- as a school subject -- more as the study of a method (how to think about the interaction between people and their environment), or a body of knowledge (understanding the world today). My sense is that it's both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lea_lpz Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Mathmarm if I remember correctly has a toddler and posts some somewhat unusual questions. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HS Mom in NC Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Didn't read the replies. I'd pick history (world history and national history) because it can be used as spine which is an easy to integrate subjects like writing, literature, economics, philosophy, art and geography with history to whatever degree you like as you go. History can be a way to introduce your child to a whole lot of new ideas and depending on how you do it, you can pursue a child's personal interests in those new things they've been exposed to through history (a scientific development, anthropology, a particular place or time, an interesting person, a new idea, etc.) as time and inclination allow. I see history as having far more potential to do more things and geography as being more limited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EKS Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Only one or the other for 4+ years? History without a doubt. The where-things-are aspect of geography is easily integrated into a good history course. The only time I'd pick geography over history is if it was for a kid who had tons of history already and was looking for something different for a year--and then it would be a college level geography course and not a "this is where things are" course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luuknam Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Only one or the other for 4+ years? History without a doubt. The where-things-are aspect of geography is easily integrated into a good history course. The only time I'd pick geography over history is if it was for a kid who had tons of history already and was looking for something different for a year--and then it would be a college level geography course and not a "this is where things are" course. Then and again... http://www.buzzfeed.com/summeranne/americans-try-to-place-european-countries-on-a-map Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanjay12 Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Well both ask you to memorize a lot of things. But history requires a LOT more memory and skill in analysis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ajayram Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Depends on the person entirely. If you're good at science, history will be harder and if you are good at English, geography will be harder. Subject is only easy to you if you enjoy that subject and you are prepared to work, because then you will be more interested and you would want to learn more finding it easier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmilyGF Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 I think what I always thought was "geography" should actually be called "geonomy" - naming the things on earth. What Europeans call "geography" is actually much more detailed and requires a lot of interconnected analysis and understanding. Why the wind patterns affect the weather, how the rock cycle works and how that affects various countries, the water cycle and how that leads to dry and wet parts of the world. Most of us might call it earth science, but it is earth science mixed with some history. If you want a geography course instead of a history course one year, look at a British book. If you want a "geonomy" course, have your child play stack the states and stack the countries. ETA: Here's a sample from a UK geography course. :-) Emily Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElizaG Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 What Europeans call "geography" is actually much more detailed and requires a lot of interconnected analysis and understanding. Why the wind patterns affect the weather, how the rock cycle works and how that affects various countries, the water cycle and how that leads to dry and wet parts of the world. Most of us might call it earth science, but it is earth science mixed with some history. If you want a geography course instead of a history course one year, look at a British book. If you want a "geonomy" course, have your child play stack the states and stack the countries. ETA: Here's a sample from a UK geography course. This is certainly part of it, but note that the book that's linked above is specifically about physical geography, which is just one of the two main branches. They also have a "human geography" book. These texts are specifically designed for UK exam prep, so they're fairly dry. I think homeschoolers could do much more interesting work, especially if they're spending more than one year on the subject. :001_smile: This page has a breakdown of topics that might also be helpful: About.com Education: Physical Geography and Cultural Geography The Montessori geography curriculum has more ideas that are great for homeschooling, especially to help children learn about life in other countries (though I don't recommend getting the special wooden maps, etc.). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mommee & Baba Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 I voted Geo. When I began homeschooling my daughters I taught them History first. They didn't understand where what was where and so on. This time around with my boys I'm making sure to spend at least their 1st grade year focusing on Geography Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msec123 Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 I prefer geography because I find it more interesting and its just my personal preference really. I don't mind history but theres a lot of essays in it I didn't pick it. Geography isn't that hard theres quite a bit to learn a few case studies but once you know it its not too bad . But go with which one you prefer and find more interesting or which one that you are better at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmilyGF Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 This is certainly part of it, but note that the book that's linked above is specifically about physical geography, which is just one of the two main branches. They also have a "human geography" book. These texts are specifically designed for UK exam prep, so they're fairly dry. I think homeschoolers could do much more interesting work, especially if they're spending more than one year on the subject. :001_smile: This page has a breakdown of topics that might also be helpful: About.com Education: Physical Geography and Cultural Geography The Montessori geography curriculum has more ideas that are great for homeschooling, especially to help children learn about life in other countries (though I don't recommend getting the special wooden maps, etc.). Sorry that was misunderstood. I just wanted to show that the scope went far beyond what most homeschool geography courses teach (from my experience), and of course that was only one of two books to get a fuller scope. ETA: A PP argued geography didn't have enough analysis, which shows a much smaller scope for geography than other countries understand. Emily 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarah0000 Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 I would pick geography just because history topics naturally make their way into holidays, fiction and non fiction literature, tv shows, sometimes even billboards, park events, and of course museums, etc. I'm guessing it would be more likely a child would miss out on the vast majority of geography if its not taught. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.