Science-is it truly better to immerse in ONE topic all year long?

[Meadowlark]

Like Apologia for instance? Right off the bat, I think it would get very boring very fast. But I keep hearing voices in my head that immersion is really the only way for it to sink deep. Other programs that touch on several different topics are just scratching the surface. 

 

Can you really focus on one thing all year long and stay sane?

[HomeAgain]

To answer your last question, yes. :D  We enjoyed going through each topic a year at a time with Noeo and then Mr. Q.

 

That said, I don't know if it is better.  It is definitely a way to get a good handle on the subject, and my oldest had no problem at all continuing the format in high school and was able to keep up very well because it wasn't all new or forgotten material.

 

We're doing things a little different with the youngest.  While I do have Mr. Q life science scheduled, I also will be taking the time to incorporate science into history so we can get hands on with various achievements in the Ancients world and understand better how science influenced civilizations.  It'll be once a week historical science, 3x a week life science.

[Farrar]

The programs for elementary school that focus on "one topic" are typically topics like "biology" or "earth science." Those aren't one topic. They're a million topics. Elementary biology has so many aspects of exploration that I think it's hard to fit all in one year. So, sure, I think you can absolutely do a "single" topic all year and not get bored of it.

 

On the other hand, there are many good reasons to mix it up. For one thing, a first grader doing biology can only go so far while a fourth or fifth grader has the capacity to understand a lot more. If you break the topic up, you can spend time covering really basic little kid question stuff in first grade like, say, why do leaves change color, and cover things that are more abstract in upper elementary school, like how cells divide. And it can just help to be a little bit spiral with science. If a kid studies no chemistry for three years, no matter how well you taught it the first go around, there's a chance they won't remember basic terms that might help them build more science knowledge as they read and explore and so forth.

 

But I don't think there's one right way to do it. It's elementary science. As long as you do something - read books, go on nature walks, watch documentaries, have an experiment day, do a full curriculum, go interest led, whatever - then you can't get it wrong.

[sweetpea3829]

Honestly, I think it's a mistake to focus on one narrow topic in the early to mid (and even later) elementary years.  Take Apologia, for example....the level of information is, imo, far too detailed for your average elementary-aged kid.  The elementary level books struck me as more appropriate for middle school.  But you wouldn't really be able to cover, say, Flying Creatures for an ENTIRE year, without going into quite a bit of detail.  

 

For elementary science, I prefer more of an interest-led, whole books approach.  This is our second year implementing such an approach and the kids enjoy it so much more.  

[Petrichor]

We gave the suggestions for WTM a try for first and second grade. We were getting into too much detail, and it wasn't holding DS's attention. We're going to give BFSU a try. It seems like it's easy to change main topics (eg. biology to chemistry) when necessary.

[Targhee]

For k-8? No, definitely no.

 

In high school, you might be able to make a good argument against but also a good argument for a single subject in a year. But as you posted this on the K-8 curriculum board I don't think that's what you're looking at.

[MinivanMom]

The programs for elementary school that focus on "one topic" are typically topics like "biology" or "earth science." Those aren't one topic. They're a million topics. Elementary biology has so many aspects of exploration that I think it's hard to fit all in one year. So, sure, I think you can absolutely do a "single" topic all year and not get bored of it.

 

On the other hand, there are many good reasons to mix it up. For one thing, a first grader doing biology can only go so far while a fourth or fifth grader has the capacity to understand a lot more. If you break the topic up, you can spend time covering really basic little kid question stuff in first grade like, say, why do leaves change color, and cover things that are more abstract in upper elementary school, like how cells divide. And it can just help to be a little bit spiral with science. If a kid studies no chemistry for three years, no matter how well you taught it the first go around, there's a chance they won't remember basic terms that might help them build more science knowledge as they read and explore and so forth.

 

But I don't think there's one right way to do it. It's elementary science. As long as you do something - read books, go on nature walks, watch documentaries, have an experiment day, do a full curriculum, go interest led, whatever - then you can't get it wrong.

 

I completely agree. 

 

Personally, we have done one topic a year, because I'm not a science person; I find that covering a single topic a year is manageable, but the idea of having to cover multiple topics feels too overwhelming. So I focus on one topic, but there are definitely a million topics to cover within that topic. I also like focusing on one, because it makes it easier for me to plan field trips and projects and other special science experiences around that topic.

 

But the other things still come up. We don't stop taking trips to the zoo and the aquarium just because we're studying chemistry. Stars and eclipses and meteor showers don't stop happening just because we're studying biology. So we sit outside at night and look at the stars. And I maybe even pull out the telescope if dh is around to help with it. And hopefully I am instilling some interest and curiosity that will stay with them later.

[EKS]

No, it is not better.  Especially for K-5, I prefer to do several topics that are developmentally appropriate rather than, say, all biology where some of the material needs to be dumbed down for young children.

[Jess4879]

We have done it both ways.  When my youngest started we covered the topics outlined by our school board - it was stuff like sink/float, color mixing, etc.  We had fun with it.  Then we used Mr. Q's Life Science (liked it ok) and then tried Mr.Q's Earth Science (dumped it - it was over the kids head).  Then we moved to Real Science 4 Kids and their units are quite short (like 10 weeks) and we have liked that much, much better.  We cover a "formal" unit and then the rest of the year is interest led.  I love being able to immerse ourselves in a topic, but I also love to add in random stuff...

 

All that being said...we are trying Apologia Zoology 3 for next year.  What was I thinking??  lol

[boscopup]

I'm not crazy about the Apologia Elementary books as a curriculum for the year, but I do like them for reference. My kids can read them when they want, and I think they have read all of them.

 

I don't mind doing one major topic like biology or chemistry of whatever in a year, but the breakdown of Apologia is a bit much for me. This year we did life science via Creek Edge Press task cards, and that basically meant reading a lot of library books, science encyclopedias, etc. We did life science the whole year, but it was different animals, human body, etc.

 

My oldest did random library books from 1st-5th grade, and he has done very well with Apologia General Science this year. Speaking of books by Dr. Wile... I like his elementary series much better than the Apologia elementary series. And he does various topics throughout the year. I have Science in the Beginning and really like it.

 

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

[freesia]

It's not better or worse. Do what feels right to you and works for your child. We've done it all kinds of ways and it was all good. Honestly.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Not better or worse IMO. 

[TracyP]

Yep, no better or worse. We do interest led science which has sometimes meant one topic in depth and sometimes a very broad overview of several branches of science. It has worked great so far.

 

Specifically to Apologia, I have one kid who adores the depth in those books. He used/will use Zoology 1-3 in 3rd, 4th, and next year in 5th. They don't take quite a full year so I'll add a human anatomy study to the end of the year. Now with that said, I couldn't do it. I'd be bored out of my mind. This only works because he is able to use them independently. YMMV, of course.

[KrissiK]

Like Apologia for instance? Right off the bat, I think it would get very boring very fast. But I keep hearing voices in my head that immersion is really the only way for it to sink deep. Other programs that touch on several different topics are just scratching the surface.

 

Can you really focus on one thing all year long and stay sane?

We did Apologia "Flying Things" this year and loved it. We had a great time studying birds in the fall, then bats, the flying dinosaurs and then insects. It didn't get boring at all. And like someone else said, you study a discipline of science... like biology or geology or astronomy.

[Guest]

Yes, it did get boring real fast. Every time we tried it! ;)

 

Much, much preferred interest led. And, fwiw, my kids both scored extremely high in science on a recent standardized test, so the interest led route hasn't hurt us at all.

[reign]

I think it's just a personal preference.

[SilverMoon]

.

Edited January 17, 2023 by SilverMoon

[KarenNC]

In terms of scratching the surface vs sinking deep, honestly, I see elementary as the ideal time to generally do a fairly wide (and necessarily fairly surface) exploration of disciplines, then somewhat deeper in middle, deeper still in high school, and then specializing in college.  Elementary is for creating the hooks on which to hang later information and experience. This is an overall approach, with the realization that a child may well pull you to sink more deeply into areas of specific interest at various times. I've come to realize that, at least in my daughter's case, she has more of an impression of things from much of her elementary education and experiences than detailed recall, so revisiting the various science disciplines each year in somewhat increasing depth worked better for her at that stage.

 

We mixed up disciplines in PK-5th along with exploring things like FIRST Lego League, Science Olympiad, workshops and activities at the nature center or local science museum, summer camps or GS activities with a science bent, science-related field trips, etc. In middle school we then went to the standard one discipline a year-- life, earth/space, physical--and she elected not to do the science competitions or most science-related extra activities at a higher level in order to focus on art and theater (still participated in some field trips that had a science focus). Now in high school, it's one discipline a year more narrowly focused--bio, chem, then she'll do one more in dual enrollment, likely either geology or descriptive astronomy--and extracurriculars are things like writing and theater. A caveat---as you may gather, my daughter is not science or math oriented, definitely a humanities/liberal arts kid.

Edited May 24, 2016 by KarenNC

[kristin0713]

I can't do apologia. It is just too much for too long.

 

I aim for exposure, exposure, and more exposure, and then digging deep into topics that interest them for a longer period of time but certainly not a year.