Why is elementary science such a struggle??? *sigh*

[Momto6inIN]

I don't know if this is a JAWM or a vent or sincerely asking for ideas ... I'm just really really frustrated. We've tried so many different curricula for 3rd-6th grade science. I like using Magic School Bus for 1st and 2nd and I like Apologia for 7th thru 12th, so I feel like we're set there, but nothing really fits what I want for middle elementary. We started with Apologia but only made it through about half a lesson before being bored out of our minds and wanting to *do* science, not just read about it. So we switched to Science in the Beginning, which I really liked, but when we moved on to the next books in the series that revolve around history we didn't like it as much. We wanted to do science by topic, not time period. So we switched to God's Design for Science, which was ok, but I felt like the vocab was very challenging for a 3rd grader and while I appreciate a Christian creationist perspective, I didn't like it being so in your face and judgmental about people who believe differently. So I switched to Mr. Q and while I really liked the earth science I am not loving the chemistry AT ALL.

I've looked at Noeo and Elemental Science and while there are aspects of them that appeal to me, I don't want to have only 1 experiment a week and then just read from science books and notebook. My kids already read from a lot of science books for fun, and we do better with having a program where all the pieces are in one place.

So now I'm sitting her wondering what to do next ... I'm thinking doing Exploration Education next year for physical science for DD who will be in 6th grade. My next DD will be in 2nd so I'll still do Magic School Bus for her. But what should I be looking at in the future for her when she gets to 3rd-6th? As I type that out, I realize I'm borrowing trouble from the future and I have no way of knowing what will be right for her a year and a half from now. But I like having a plan and knowing that I haven't found anything I really like to stick with is bothering me.

Does anybody else struggle like this for elementary science? If so, what do you do about it???

[HomeAgain]

The only programs we have really, really liked are Mystery Science and BFSU.  They're both easy enough for me to implement and get them done without much fuss.

Before those, I think we bounced through every program we possibly could in the time we've had.  It's just ridiculous.

[Ellie]

I like Rod and Staff Publishers' elementary science (beginning with 3rd).

[Farrar]

I think it's a struggle because people what something that not only doesn't exist, but possibly shouldn't. In general, it's a subject where either you just watch videos and read books - which doesn't seem all that satisfying to a lot of people. Or you do worksheets - which also doesn't feel very satisfying. Or you have to really be hands on with it - which is just plain hard.

I wouldn't worry about it. You have a plan for 7th grade. I'd just let science happen where it happens, read some books, do some nature workshops if they come up, and just let it go.

[Amateur Actress]

Try the Christian Kids Explore series by Bright Ideas Press.

https://www.brightideaspress.com/product-category/science/

[MeaganS]

I consider myself a fairly rigorous homeschooler, academically, and I've come to the same conclusion as Farrar. I think reading books, watching videos, doing hands on science kits and Lego's and things is more than enough. My girls also watch/do a lot of Mystery Science on their own. But while their science exposure is very informal, it is very deliberate and so far seems to be working very well. Elementary science should be about exposure to science concepts and the scientific world. Worksheets and things just aren't the best format for that exposure.

All that to say that I like informal science in elementary. All the regular programs I've seen seem like a waste of time. If you really want a curriculum then I'd suggest Mystery Science as the best I've found. 😊

[MerryAtHope]

I felt much the same way about science for elementary! I don't think you would like NOEO any better, either! What I liked best was when I turned science over to my youngest in 5th grade. We chose some books together and she had the freedom to do anything she wanted for science each day. I told her to do science for 30 minutes and she could read, go outside & nature journal, do an experiment or project, work on something for the science fair, draw diagrams or illustrations (her own or copied from a book), or write in her journal about what she was exploring. I asked her to do something in her notebook weekly, and to check in with me on Fridays to say what she had been doing. She loved being set free to just explore science. Have fun with it!

[hollyhock2]

2 minutes ago, MerryAtHope said:

I felt much the same way about science for elementary! I don't think you would like NOEO any better, either! What I liked best was when I turned science over to my youngest in 5th grade. We chose some books together and she had the freedom to do anything she wanted for science each day. I told her to do science for 30 minutes and she could read, go outside & nature journal, do an experiment or project, work on something for the science fair, draw diagrams or illustrations (her own or copied from a book), or write in her journal about what she was exploring. I asked her to do something in her notebook weekly, and to check in with me on Fridays to say what she had been doing. She loved being set free to just explore science. Have fun with it!

I love this idea and I've done something somewhat similar. With all the science books I've collected over the years, I just let my kids that age pick books and read them, keeping a notebook of drawings and narrations. They do experiments if they want to. I really enjoy the freedom in letting them choose.

[J-rap]

We loved the Scientist's Apprentice for those ages, and you can mix ages and choose your level of projects.  It felt mostly just fun, but kids did learn too.  I don't think the curriculum is being published anymore, but you can still find it in random places.

https://www.brightideaspress.com/shop/the-scientists-apprentice-clearance/

I see that their description says through 4th grade, although I think the book itself says it can be used through 6th.  I'm pretty sure I used it for a variety of ages, the oldest maybe being in 6th.  (You can always supplement for older kids!)

 

 

[KeriJ]

This may sound crazy, but we are enjoying A Beka books 3 and 4, spread out over a few years. I know it's not a beloved choice. But we use it the way Merry and Erin described. Twice a week, they read a little, write a little,  and draw a little. They can do the activities if they choose, some of them have been fun. Then in between, as a family,  we are reading Find The Constellations and drawing constellations.  I also check out random science and nature books from the library and keep them in a basket. With a few videos from time to time, it's been working well. I've even given them some other choices, and they picked A Beka.

[Momto6inIN]

2 hours ago, Farrar said:

I think it's a struggle because people what something that not only doesn't exist, but possibly shouldn't. In general, it's a subject where either you just watch videos and read books - which doesn't seem all that satisfying to a lot of people. Or you do worksheets - which also doesn't feel very satisfying. Or you have to really be hands on with it - which is just plain hard.

I wouldn't worry about it. You have a plan for 7th grade. I'd just let science happen where it happens, read some books, do some nature workshops if they come up, and just let it go.

 

2 hours ago, MeaganS said:

I consider myself a fairly rigorous homeschooler, academically, and I've come to the same conclusion as Farrar. I think reading books, watching videos, doing hands on science kits and Lego's and things is more than enough. My girls also watch/do a lot of Mystery Science on their own. But while their science exposure is very informal, it is very deliberate and so far seems to be working very well. Elementary science should be about exposure to science concepts and the scientific world. Worksheets and things just aren't the best format for that exposure.

All that to say that I like informal science in elementary. All the regular programs I've seen seem like a waste of time. If you really want a curriculum then I'd suggest Mystery Science as the best I've found. 😊

 

1 hour ago, MerryAtHope said:

I felt much the same way about science for elementary! I don't think you would like NOEO any better, either! What I liked best was when I turned science over to my youngest in 5th grade. We chose some books together and she had the freedom to do anything she wanted for science each day. I told her to do science for 30 minutes and she could read, go outside & nature journal, do an experiment or project, work on something for the science fair, draw diagrams or illustrations (her own or copied from a book), or write in her journal about what she was exploring. I asked her to do something in her notebook weekly, and to check in with me on Fridays to say what she had been doing. She loved being set free to just explore science. Have fun with it!

 

1 hour ago, hollyhock2 said:

I love this idea and I've done something somewhat similar. With all the science books I've collected over the years, I just let my kids that age pick books and read them, keeping a notebook of drawings and narrations. They do experiments if they want to. I really enjoy the freedom in letting them choose.

 

20 minutes ago, kand said:

I did formal science in elementary with my oldest, but with none of the others since. We read tons of books and I keep a large book basket of library books,many of which are on science subjects. We talk about a lot of science stuff in everyday life, outside, over dinner, in the car, things in the news, etc.  So far it’s looking like my younger kids who did not get the formal science in elementary are just as prepared for it by the time they hit middle school and high school as the one who had formal programs in elementary. 

 

This approach is very appealing, and DD10 is already a science lover so she already reads lots of books and does experiments from them on her own in her free time. But it scares me at the same time ... what if she decides to only read/learn more about sharks (her current passion) and doesn't know a thing about matter or basic physics or ecosystems other than the ocean? Is that a real concern or not? 

[hollyhock2]

1 minute ago, Momto5inIN said:

This approach is very appealing, and DD10 is already a science lover so she already reads lots of books and does experiments from them on her own in her free time. But it scares me at the same time ... what if she decides to only read/learn more about sharks (her current passion) and doesn't know a thing about matter or basic physics or ecosystems other than the ocean? Is that a real concern or not? 

 

I say no, it's not a concern, because she will hit all the typical topics like physics and such in high school. That's enough, especially if she isn't that interested in those things. I have one who has been obsessed with birds, and has done biology topics almost exclusively for the past 3 or 4 years. I'm not overly concerned, because he's going to do biology, physical science, chemistry, etc. in high school yet.

[EKS]

9 hours ago, Momto5inIN said:

We started with Apologia but only made it through about half a lesson before being bored out of our minds and wanting to *do* science, not just read about it.

...

Does anybody else struggle like this for elementary science? If so, what do you do about it???

There is no such thing as "doing" science at the elementary level.  There is making random guesses and playing with materials.  It requires years of acquiring background knowledge to actually do science.  And, unfortunately, that requires a lot of book learning.

That said, here are some things (that I originally posted in this thread) you can do to help your children develop skills that will facilitate the doing of science down the road:

• Model curiosity and encourage it in your children
• Allow your children to immerse themselves in the natural world on a regular basis
• Cultivate observation skills
• Devote time to puzzle solving
• Encourage persistence

Edited January 10, 2019 by EKS

[8filltheheart]

1 hour ago, Momto5inIN said:

This approach is very appealing, and DD10 is already a science lover so she already reads lots of books and does experiments from them on her own in her free time. But it scares me at the same time ... what if she decides to only read/learn more about sharks (her current passion) and doesn't know a thing about matter or basic physics or ecosystems other than the ocean? Is that a real concern or not? 

Not a real concern.  THis conversation has taken place on these forums 100s of times over the yrs.  I remember one time that I posted an entire thread about interest-led education for science and history and a younger mom adamantly disagreed.  She posted an alternative thread about how we needed to take our responsibilities as homeschoolers seriously and it was our obligation to provide an appropriate science education (whatever that is) for our younger kids. One thing I can say is absolutely true---I take my responsibilities as a homeschooling mom very seriously. Sometimes, letting go of traditional brick and mortar approaches actually does provide them with more even if it doesn't seem like it is at all possible to be be true.  🙂  

I have always taken the read books approach for science until high school.  My kids have gone on to pursue chemE, physics, and Allied health.  Not a problem and no difficulties with high school science.

Edited January 9, 2019 by 8FillTheHeart

[8filltheheart]

1 minute ago, happysmileylady said:

I kind of disagree with this, but I suppose that it depends on what your definition of "doing" science" is.  For example, I considered watching the eclipsein  2017 "doing" science.  I consider planting some plants and documenting how they grow "doing" science.  Making drawn models of the human body systems, baking soda volcanoes, growing rock crystals, I think all of that is "doing" science.  That book learning you mention does provide quite a bit of background knowledge but that background knowledge was first gained by doing and I think there's value in doing those same things for our elementary kids too.

That is observing and immersing themselves in nature and their surroundings.  All of the "experiments" kids do during the elementary yrs are unnecessary for building scientific understanding.

[AmandaVT]

Have you looked at Uzinggo? DS loves it and I've learned a bunch too. For middle school science, they have lessons in Life Science, Physical Science and Earth and Space Science. It's really well done and they offer a free trial so you could get a feel for it. We do this and reading about whatever interesting topics he wants to learn about.

[Momto6inIN]

51 minutes ago, EKS said:

There is no such thing as "doing" science at the elementary level.  There is making random guesses and playing with materials.  It requires years of acquiring background knowledge to actually do science.  And, unfortunately, that requires a lot of book learning.

That said, some things (that I originally posted in this thread) you can do to help your children develop skills that will facilitate the doing of science down the road:

• Model curiosity and encourage it in your children
• Allow your children to immerse themselves in the natural world on a regular basis
• Cultivate observation skills
• Devote time to puzzle solving
• Encourage persistence

 

I hear you, and that's mostly what I meant by "doing" science. I meant they want to do hands-on activities in addition to reading about the topic, not just read and notebook. Reading for background knowledge and notebooking to retain the info is important, but that's not all they wanted to do and call it their science time, iykwim. I understand the activities they do at the elementary level are not really "experiments" per se but demonstrations of concepts and playing with stuff. 🙂

Edited January 9, 2019 by Momto5inIN
ETA: I really want to do the hands-on stuff she loves because science is her favorite subject and I want to encourage that! But it's exhausting trying to research and come up with all the hands-on stuff myself, which is why I'm looking for a unicorn

[8filltheheart]

14 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I think that observing and immersing in nature IS part of "doing" science.  After all, observing and thinking about what you are observing is step one of the scientific method.  And sure the experiements are "unnecessary" in that the knowledge can be easily accessed in other ways.  But that doesn't mean that doing experiments is worthless.  It gives kids experience with the processes, the documentation, the equipment, etc.  

Documentation, equipment,etc are exactly what I am saying is completely unnecessary.  There is absolutely nothing about those that kids need to experience prior to high school science labs.  Everything about high school science is taught at a completely introductory level.  And, it is taught again at an introductory level again at the college level.  A student can walk into college level courses, even for in major requirements, and still master the content (not saying it would be easy b/c there would be a lot to master, but it is doable. It doesn't take elementary science, plus middle school science, plus high school science to prepare a student for an introductory college level science course.)  Anything prior to high school is for exposure and fostering interest, not long term mastery of content.  

That isn't saying science is unimportant.  It is.  It is saying that formal science via textbooks, labs, worksheets, etc......that is not what defines great science experiences for young kids.

Edited January 9, 2019 by 8FillTheHeart

[8filltheheart]

8 minutes ago, Momto5inIN said:

 

I hear you, and that's mostly what I meant by "doing" science. I meant they want to do hands-on activities in addition to reading about the topic, not just read and notebook. Reading for background knowledge and notebooking to retain the info is important, but that's not all they wanted to do and call it their science time, iykwim. I understand the activities they do at the elementary level are not really "experiments" per se but demonstrations of concepts and playing with stuff. 🙂

I don't do ANY of that with my kids and I never have.  We love to hike and go on nature hikes a lot.  My kids naturally collect, explore, design, build for play.  But, mom-directed anything prior to high school labs does not exist.  They don't happen.  That has not negatively impacted them at all or their ability to master science topics when they reach the point that that is what they need to do.

[blendergal]

We used Mystery Science last year (2nd grade) and I loved the format. Engaging presentation of background information + a truly easy hands-on activity for each lesson. DS wanted to study physics this year, so we are using RSO Physics 1. There aren’t any videos but it has a lot of the qualities I loved about Mystery Science. If you haven’t, you should check RSO out!

[EKS]

1 hour ago, happysmileylady said:

I kind of disagree with this, but I suppose that it depends on what your definition of "doing" science" is.  For example, I considered watching the eclipsein  2017 "doing" science.  I consider planting some plants and documenting how they grow "doing" science.  Making drawn models of the human body systems, baking soda volcanoes, growing rock crystals, I think all of that is "doing" science.  That book learning you mention does provide quite a bit of background knowledge but that background knowledge was first gained by doing and I think there's value in doing those same things for our elementary kids too.

I use the term "doing" science to refer to hands-on activities--for example, things that people call "experiments" that are actually, at best, demonstrations.  The real work of scientists is intellectual--that is, minds-on rather than hands-on.  There is this pervasive idea that the best K-12 science education includes hands-on activities in spades, but I believe, both as someone who has homeschooled for many years and as a scientist myself, that the best science education for kids in K-12 focuses on general science literacy while cultivating the habits of mind that scientists use every day.  This approach is valuable for all kids, not just STEM focused ones.

I agree with you that kids should have experiences that allow them to connect the information they're learning in books to what they have observed in the world, and doing demonstrations can be one way to help this along.  My issue with the whole "doing" science thing is that people think that participating in demonstrations is somehow equivalent to what scientists actually do, and nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[MerryAtHope]

3 hours ago, Momto5inIN said:

This approach is very appealing, and DD10 is already a science lover so she already reads lots of books and does experiments from them on her own in her free time. But it scares me at the same time ... what if she decides to only read/learn more about sharks (her current passion) and doesn't know a thing about matter or basic physics or ecosystems other than the ocean? Is that a real concern or not? 

 

Not only not a concern, but I would say beneficial for her to gain expertise about a topic. She'll build all kinds of skills as she learns about sharks, and she'll have the joy of being more of an "expert" in a topic than many around her and getting to share what she knows--there are lots of benefits to that. And in the meantime, she may gain an interest in other marine life and other topics as well. A lot of the science my dd did in 5th-8th grade was delving deep into one topic of interest for science fairs. She learned about hot air balloons, human cells, solar power, hydroplanes, how the human voice works, etc... 

The most important thing though, is that you would be encouraging a love for science and a natural curiosity. A lot of curriculum seem to work against that. What makes the things listed in a curriculum more important than learning about what your daughter is interested in? Really--nothing. 

[Farrar]

I think kids can get a good bit out of documentation for the same reason that they get something out of any written work or narration. But I don't think it's a requirement either. And the balance is often way off in science programs that I've looked at. It's pages and pages of documentation for a tiny amount of hands on experience or learning. It's way off for elementary schoolers. If the purpose of the hands on and observational experiences is to get kids excited about learning and engaged, then you're just turning around and killing it for the vast majority of kids.

I also think kids do get something out of the hands on demos and "experiments" that are typically included in elementary science programs. But I think this stuff is not a major requirement either. And families have to weigh what it costs them to do it with what it actually provides. Setting up a great science demo can take ages for a few minutes and a tiny bit of learning. Or can take money or just energy that's not in proportion for what kids get out of it. I enjoyed doing that sort of stuff for my kids when they were little and they enjoyed it. But I've really come to think that most families should look at easy ways to provide it by doing things when they come up and not spending a ton of time setting stuff up. Like, when your local science center or nature center is doing a homeschool day and letting kids get messy with materials and science, that's a great use of your time. Someone else put in the grunt work and your kid just gets the benefits.

[8filltheheart]

41 minutes ago, EKS said:

My issue with the whole "doing" science thing is that people think that participating in demonstrations is somehow equivalent to what scientists actually do, and nothing could be further from the truth.

And then disillusioned when they are young adults in college thinking that what they wanted to pursue isn't actually what that actually is.  My ds spends more time writing computer program models than just about anything else in terms of research.  

[EKS]

14 hours ago, 8FillTheHeart said:

And then disillusioned when they are young adults in college thinking that what they wanted to pursue isn't actually what that actually is.  My ds spends more time writing computer program models than just about anything else in terms of research.  

This.

There is this big push to get everyone excited about STEM.  But there is a reason that most people aren't scientists (or engineers or mathematicians).  It takes a combination of qualities and skills that aren't--frankly--normal in the general population.  Further, all of the hoopla surrounding STEM is, frankly, a crock.  Yes, it pays well--but that's because most people aren't able or willing to go through what it takes to do STEM stuff.  And yes, it can be tremendously rewarding, but it is also incredibly difficult and tedious.

And I'm saying this as a STEM person who loves science and math and who raised an engineer/computer scientist.

Edited January 10, 2019 by EKS

[EKS]

16 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

I think that observing and immersing in nature IS part of "doing" science.  After all, observing and thinking about what you are observing is step one of the scientific method.  And sure the experiements are "unnecessary" in that the knowledge can be easily accessed in other ways.  But that doesn't mean that doing experiments is worthless.  It gives kids experience with the processes, the documentation, the equipment, etc.  

It's not a part of actually doing science, but it is a part of learning about the world in a way that is critical to understanding science.

And unless you can get kids to really engage in scientific thinking, "doing experiments" is worthless.  It actually gives a completely erroneous idea of what science is about.

Edited January 10, 2019 by EKS

[EKS]

3 hours ago, 8FillTheHeart said:

Documentation, equipment,etc are exactly what I am saying is completely unnecessary.  There is absolutely nothing about those that kids need to experience prior to high school science labs.  Everything about high school science is taught at a completely introductory level.  And, it is taught again at an introductory level again at the college level.  A student can walk into college level courses, even for in major requirements, and still master the content (not saying it would be easy b/c there would be a lot to master, but it is doable. It doesn't take elementary science, plus middle school science, plus high school science to prepare a student for an introductory college level science course.)  Anything prior to high school is for exposure and fostering interest, not long term mastery of content.  

That isn't saying science is unimportant.  It is.  It is saying that formal science via textbooks, labs, worksheets, etc......that is not what defines great science experiences for young kids.

This.  Absolutely.  

[cintinative]

Responding to OP's first post . . .

I can definitely relate to what you are describing. One of my friends and I joke that when we are done homeschooling we should write an elementary science curriculum.

Our first year we did library books for topics in life science and then supplemented with a bit of Mr. Q Life Science and Magic School Bus. A good year overall.

2nd year we did Christian Kids Explore Earth Science and had a good year. There are other books you can use to supplement and they are listed in the text.  It was not as outspoken on the faith issues as the AIG books were (see below).

3rd year we started with Mr.Q Chemistry and *hated* it. My thought at the time was that it was just too much for 3rd and 2nd grade. I also hated the font and felt the worksheets were not helping comprehension.  We ended up doing The Elements the second part of the year and enjoyed it.

4th year we did a hodge podge of books and videos for Physics and we did Teaching Physics with Toys at co-op (really, it was sort of a lab). I would say that was a good year.

5th we did AIG's God's Design for Life for Life Science and I found it ho-hum. It was okay. It wasn't excellent. It was a "light" science year for us on a year when we ramped up for history.

6th we did CPO's Middle school Earth Science. The text was nice, the experiments were "okay"--many needed pretty significant modifications to work at home. 

This year we did Middle school Chemistry by ACS (free)--I recommend it. Right now we are doing Carbon Chemistry by Ellen J. McHenry. I think this second semester will be "easier" than the first. We shall see.

For elementary, I would consider ACS' Inquiry in Action (also free) for Chemistry. I have heard great things about it, and if Middle School Chemistry is any indication, the concepts will be well-presented. 

[Lori D.]

On 1/9/2019 at 10:08 AM, Momto5inIN said:

...Does anybody else struggle like this for elementary science? If so, what do you do about it???

Well no, I never did struggle with Science in the elementary grades, but perhaps it's *because* we didn't do any formal Science curriculum here until 9th grade, and just enjoyed Science throughout. Similar to previous posters, we ran with living books, documentaries/educational videos, and loads of hands-on (kits and demonstrations/activities). There's so much to know about Science, we just ran with our interests and tried to keep the love of learning alive.
 

... I like having a plan...

Perhaps setting yourself up with a "master overview" of Science topics and resources would help YOU feel more organized and as though you have a "plan" to know that you're being somewhat methodical in exposure to the various Science areas. It also helps keep you organized for making sure you have materials each week for *doing* something Science related -- whether reading a book, watching a video, or doing an activity.

To make a master list, pick one of the 4 major Science subjects to cover that year, and then look at the table of contents of several curricula and science encyclopedias to figure out what the major topics of that Science subject are. These will be your "units" throughout the year. Then list the sub-topics under each major topic, which will be the weekly topics to cover in each "unit".

4 major Earth Science Areas:
Geology -- study of Earth's composition/materials, structures, and processes
Meteorology -- study of the atmosphere, weather, climate
Oceanography -- study of the oceans' composition, movement, organisms, and processes
Astronomy -- study of the universe

sub-topics of Earth Science:
Geology = rocks / rock testing; minerals, gemstones, fossils; plate tectonics; volcanoes; earthquakes; landforms / erosion (glaciers, wind, water) / soil
Meteorology = atmosphere, atmosphere layers; seasons; sun, wind, water; water cycle; rainbow; clouds; rain, hurricane, snow, blizzard, tornado; weather forecasting
Oceanography -- mapping of oceans; tides, waves, currents; beach; coral reef; ocean zones (sunlit zone, twilight zone, midnight zone, abyss, hadal zone); life forms and their environments
Astronomy -- solar system, sun, moon, planets, asteroids; stars, black holes; studying space, space exploration, telescopes, astronauts, probes

additional topics that fit in with Earth Science:
Biomes -- cave; marine; coral reef; freshwater; mountain; desert; arctic; grasslands; savanna; tundra; forest; jungle/rainforest
Geography -- mapping of Earth; exploration of Earth
Environmental Science -- interactions between living things and the landscape, atmosphere, water
Ecology/Eco-systems -- life forms and their environments

So now you can make a rough schedule. And give yourself permission to take more time, follow bunny trails, drop topics, or go do a complete different non-Earth Science topic for awhile as opportunities arise or students become interested in learning about something else; when that interest fades or the special opportunity is over, then you can pick back up where you left off in the Master list, so that you're still doing something with Science. Example of a possible Earth Science year:

Earth Science
unit 1 (9 weeks) = Geology
week 1 = Earth structure / layers
week 2 = plate tectonics
week 3-4 = volcanoes; earthquakes
week 5-6 = rocks / rock testing
week 7 = minerals, gemstones, fossils
week 8 = landforms
week 9 = erosion (glaciers, wind, water) / soil

unit 2 (9 weeks) = Meteorology
week 1-2 = elements that create weather: sun, wind, water; water cycle
week 3 = clouds
week 4-5 = weather forecasting
week 6 = types of weather/phenomenon: rain, snow, wind, rainbows, etc.
week 7 = extreme weather: blizzard, tornado, hurricane
week 8 = seasons
week 9 = atmosphere, atmosphere layers

unit 3 (9 weeks) = Oceanography
week 1 = mapping of oceans
week 2 = tides, waves, currents
week 3 = ocean zones (sunlit zone, twilight zone, midnight zone, abyss, hadal zone)
week 4 = beach
week 5 = coral reef
week 6-9 = life forms and their environments (zones)

unit 4 = Astronomy
week 1 = universe / galaxy / solar system
week 2-3 = sun, moon
week 4-6 = planets, asteroids
week 7 = life cycle of a star, black holes, etc.
week 8-9 = studying space, space exploration, telescopes, astronauts, probes

BEST of luck in finding what works for you and your family! Warmest regards, Lori D.

[Lori D.]

21 hours ago, Momto5inIN said:

... they want to do hands-on activities in addition to reading about the topic, not just read and notebook.... I understand the activities they do at the elementary level are not really "experiments" per se but demonstrations of concepts and playing with stuff. 🙂

You know your DC best, Momto5inIN -- if Science hands-on activities alongside the reading and documentaries / educational videos in the elementary / middle school years help your DC keep alive a love of learning and an interest in Science, then go for it, and enjoy. Warmest regards, Lori D.

[Zoo Keeper]

OP, around those ages that you are having trouble finding something is when *most* of my kids have really liked doing TOPS. It was something different, and was especially good for learning to how set things up, follow a process, problem solve, and other skills that generally help across the board.  One or two books a year was plenty.

We also did nature study, took lots of walks, and watched boatloads of NOVA.  All good stuff in different doses at different times for different kids.

[carrierocha]

We have enjoyed Real Science Odyssey. I tried Elemental and find it to be too much book and too little hands on.

I prefer a structured curriculum for science. I love science and we talk about it all the time. Just yesterday we were on an airplane and I started thinking about Bernoulli's principle. My 6th grader and I started talking about it and imagining what it would have been like to be an early pioneer in aviation. Structured curriculum helps me introduce ideas and topics that are like seeds that come up in conversation over time.

I did use Ellen McHenry for Chemistry along with experiments I pulled together myself from the Royal Chemistry Society website.

I do think of science as being about exposure to concepts and ideas and experience doing labs and making observations.

Edited January 11, 2019 by carrierocha

[MeaganS]

46 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

So, I thought of this thread as I was walking DD10 through making dinner tonight.  

There's no reason for me to work on her cooking.  She can really master cooking at any time, much like I was able to *actually* learn knife skills from watching Food Network as an adult.  And it really doesn't take much at all, through a class or through self learning, to learn how to do things like make rice, scrambled eggs, pasta, etc.

BUT, there are some things about cooking I WANT my kids to know about.  I WANT my kids to be able to boil a pot of pasta and heat up a jarred spaghetti sauce before they hit high school age.  My 6yr old son is learning how to make scrambled eggs, because it's his favorite healthy food and I want him to be able to make that favorite healthy food as fast as possible, even though, sure, he doesn't need to know how and could certainly learn at the age of 20.  It won't help him master a college class, and if he eventually decided to enter a culinary school, I am sure they would start at a pretty basic level.  

 

My kids might not NEED to melt and refreeze an ice cube and then boil it in order to learn about the different states of matter, and they might not need to know about the different states of matter before high school, but I *personally* consider those concepts pretty elementary and want my kids to have an understanding of them before they reach high school.  And sure, they can learn those things watching Magic School Bus and reading about that sort of stuff, but if it's more fun for them to check in on a melting ice cube and to then boil that water on the stove....why wouldn't I do that?  

 

On a more general level, it's certainly true that a lot of "doing" science in the real adult world  involves boring data collection and analysis.   I am not personally a scientist, but I have a sister who is and a kid who majored in it (though she changed to GIS....is that still considered a science?)  My sister has a doctorate in geology (I think the actual wording is geothermal dynamics.)  Her current job is to basically sit at home, overnight, monitoring data from oil wells/rigs from her laptop.  But that doesn't mean that field work like taking data measurements at volcanoes in Iceland was worthless to her, or that "doing" elementary science like picking up rocks and sorting them into sedimentary, metamorphic and igneous categories wasn't fun or without learning for her.  

 

The fact that something can be learned or mastered later doesn't mean it is worthless to learn earlier.  That doesn't mean it's NECESSARY to learn later, but if a person wants their kids to learn it in elementary or middle school there's no reason to discourage them from teaching their kids that stuff.  

 

I think you're misunderstanding what some of us are saying. I, in no way, am advocating not exposing children to science and scientific principles before high school. I am much more a "better early than late" kind of homeschooler, so I agree about exposing children to concepts and ideas when they are young. I'm just suggesting that a formal elementary and possibly middle school curriculum are not the way to do that. Using your example: My kids know all about states of matter. We haven't melted an ice cube to watch it because that would be redundant. They see states of matter in their every day life (we live in Minnesota and get tons of snow). They've read books I've borrowed from the library specifically on states of matter, they've watched videos about it. But they've never done a worksheet and I've never taught a lesson, although possibly I've discussed it with them in every day conversation because I look for opportunities like that. That's the difference I think most of us are talking about. The FORMALITY is unimportant until high school, not the content. 

My kids discuss simple machines, cause and effect, gravity, photosynthesis, metamorphosis, states of matter, genetics, planetary rotation. etc. all the time. They have learned those concepts because they've been exposed to them. But we've never done a single science worksheet or actual curriculum. And they think science is amazing, so I think it must be working. But I'm fairly certain they could hold their own with other kids their age when it comes to scientific knowledge. I'd wager they'd even come out on top a lot of the time. It's just the presentation that's different. 

Edited January 11, 2019 by MeaganS

[MeaganS]

52 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I think you might be right that I might be misunderstanding because it seems that some folks might think (and I am not saying they do, only that the general idea comes across with a blend of posts....) that there are no scientific concepts that are necessary to know before high school or college.  I think there are concepts, but I think there are also a HUGE variety of ways teach kids these things.  No one NEEDs to melt an ice cube to learn that solid melts to liquid.  Books, videos,discussion "doing" it's all a *variety* of learning, not a specific requirement.  If my kids best get the concept by "doing" it, then that's how I want to teach them.  If my kids learn the concept best by reading about it, then thats how I want to do it.  If my kids learn it best by watching a video, then that's how I want to do it.  

 

Some of what you describe could be reasonably described as "unschooling" I think.  I have often described my science (and history) "philosophy" as unschooly.  

 

I think there are some concepts that I WANT my kids to understand in elementary school.  States of matter, life cycles, planets orbit the sun, etc etc etc.  I think there are a million ways to teach these things and that unlike stuff like math which generally requires a lot of concept building, much of the elementary science concepts can be taught however you want, vs following a specific curriculum, sequence, etc.  

 

 

 

I totally agree with everything you just said. 😊

[moonflower]

We used TOPScience for those ages, with almost no input from me except buying the materials and making impressed sounds occasionally.  We didn't do it in any sort of sequence.

[8filltheheart]

8 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

I think there are some concepts that I WANT my kids to understand in elementary school.  States of matter, life cycles, planets orbit the sun, etc etc etc.  I think there are a million ways to teach these things and that unlike stuff like math which generally requires a lot of concept building, much of the elementary science concepts can be taught however you want, vs following a specific curriculum, sequence, etc.  

Yes, there are innumerable ways to teach subjects.  If you as a teacher want to take approach that you want to melt and refreeze an ice cube to teach your little one about the states of matter, then that is absolutely the approach you should take.  No question. No one was suggesting that if that was the approach a family wants to take that they shouldn't.

But, if a teacher is concerned that she is not providing an appropriate education that will adequately equip her student for upper level science b/c she is not taking the science is built around a hands-on approach,  then the question is does the concern reflect real world outcomes.  My perspective is that the assertion is false.  Elementary students can receive a solid science education that is not built around demonstrations.  Your list--states of matter, life cycles, planets orbit the sun--are basic science topics.  Not doing hands-on demonstrations is not the equivalent of not studying science.  That is really is the main point.  Demonstrations are often elevated to a level where they are thought of as science education.  Kids reading books/watching documentaries on states of matter, life cycles, orbitals of planets, etc are not being deprived of a solid science foundation. 

Edited January 11, 2019 by 8FillTheHeart

[Janeway]

I am loving MysteryScience. We are on a break from it right now just because if you wait until after January 15 to get the next membership, it is good through December. So we start back up next week. Plus, I have found that Magic School Bus at 3rd and 4th grade has a lot to offer that they likely did not get out of it when younger so it is worth revisiting all that. I also really like Considering God's Creation.

Edited January 11, 2019 by Janeway

[Farrar]

I think being involved and making a subject engaging and enjoyable is always going to make it better and have a better chance of it sinking in. That's not just science. My experience in these threads is that there's a bit of a pendulum going between "hands on" and "just watch/read/discuss." I would suggest that neither is inherently engaging - that making science engaging and relevant is beyond either of those questions and touches on what works for individual kids and how teachers approach it to make the "hands on" or the "reading books" feel engaging in the first place. Both can be engaging. Neither can be engaging.

I'm a real humanities person. I do feel like I was robbed to some extent of a decent STEM education early on. By the time I got to high school, when science classes were decent, I thought science was utterly dumb. It was never anything but vocabulary and how easy was that? No one had ever made it seem engaging to me - not through interesting texts or through significant hands on experiences. The closest was that in 7th grade I had a flicker of interest in science with a teacher who had us do a bajillion dissections. They were memorable. I learned a ton. I started to think biology might be interesting... but in some ways it was too late for me at that point. I had already decided that history and literature were my "thing" and much more challenging and interesting. It wasn't until post-college that I started reading books and watching documentaries about science and went, whoa, why was it never engaging when I was a student? I might have liked to study this stuff. So I do think there's some merit to  the whole "STEM thing" - it seeks to make science and technology engaging. As long as it's not coming at the expense of humanities (sometimes it is) or taking away focus from basic skills (again, sometimes) then it's a laudable goal and some of the methods are really positive.

There's another sort of axis with this question... how important is content education in general? Science is content, like history. You need to know a little and knowing some gives you a leg up later in secondary and college education for sure. But it's not the same as needing to know basic skills. Except, we can't do skills in a vacuum. I think... when we say to K-8 parents who are freaking out about "not enough science" or "not the right science" that it's okay to dial it back... it's not that we are valuing science less. It's that the vision of "science education" for K-8 tends to be very labor intensive without a significant enough payoff to justify it. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't seek out experiences that will be meaningful and engaging. Watching and discussing Attenborough nature documentaries can be super engaging and interesting and in depth. Going to the zoo or into nature and observing animals directly can be too, of course. Or reading a book. Or researching a paper or an oral report. Or making a model. But you have to pick and choose where to put your time and accept that you can't do it all and that's okay. Really, it's okay to cut yourself a break.

[My4arrows]

We have had the same struggle with Science.  I'm guessing it doesn't help in my case that I don't enjoy teaching it.  But since we all love literature we do a lot of reading to make up for the lack of science instruction in these years.  

[Bluegoat]

I agree with a lot of the others - elementary science is difficult because science is not really an elementary level topic.

Science is about a particular process for taking apart nature and making systematic examination of the parts.  It requires higher level thinking, and it also requires, or should require, some real experience and knowledge and love for the material world, in an immediate way, in order to be done well.  The intuitive insights and ability to synthesise required for good science - not just taking apart in a mechanistic sort of way - needs that kind of experience of the whole.

I think kids i elementary school, at the most basic level, should be doing nature study.  Also fruitful can be messing around in machine shops, building stuff with real tools, household maintenance, and making detailed observations of nature.  There is way more to be learned at that age from working in the garden in a somewhat serious way, or helping repair a pump or build a shed, than there is from studying biology or physics.

Beginning "science" can start in middle school, though if a student is really doing those other things I don't think anything is lost waiting until high school.