Why didn't you choose BFSU?

[Lisa in the UP of MI]

If you looked at BFSU and decided not to use it why did you make that decision? As I mentioned in another post I have chosen to use this book and will be prepping so I can use it in the fall. As I'm doing that I'd like to try to address some of the problems others have had with the curriculum so that maybe more people can use this gem. Can you tell I'm a science geek? :tongue_smilie:

[Lisa in the UP of MI]

Anyone?

[Rosie_0801]

Those following the WTM style of science wouldn't buy BFSU. I'm not sure what other people who don't want to do WTM style sequencing use other than BFSU.

 

Rosie

[Guest Alte Veste Academy]

Alright, I'll bite.

 

I'm undecided about the extent to which I'll use BFSU, or if I'll just sell it and move on.

 

I think there are probably two distinct groups of homeschoolers when it come to science, those who want pick up and go and those who love science so much that they're willing to to go above and beyond to do it intensively (those with kids who love science may fall into the last category). I feel like this book doesn't serve either type very well. To me, BFSU is kind of pick up and pick through and plan out. Frankly, the text is cumbersome and not user friendly. I dislike the format a great deal. Every time I pick it up I want to put it right back down. There's good stuff in there but...argh.

 

Also, while the flow (his concept of simultaneously studying the different disciplines) is wonderful, there is a lot of science that is left out. The book is supposed to cover K-2 but I know that for us there are not enough lessons to last for three grades. He does offer book suggestions so you could stretch out the plans that way but, again, there is a lot of content that just isn't there that is in some of the other programs (R.E.A.L. Science from Pandia Press comes to mind). Nebel is going to offer a book for 3-5 but my feeling is that the first book would serve us for one year and the second book would probably do the same. Then what? I have to choose from the other sciences out there or just come up with my own, which invariably leads to the inner dialogue for me of why not just go with something else or come up with my own from the start. If I have to do a ton of tweaking to make it work AND I still have to come up more science to fill the gaps when we're done, I might as well just work hard in the beginning to come up with what will be the perfect science program for my family's needs.

 

Having said all that, I will say I love the basic concept of teaching science in a way that reveals how very interrelated the different fields actually are. I think there, Nebel is spot on. I also like the experiential and experimental nature of the lesson plans. Unfortunately, as I said, I do not feel like the book could be a stand alone for us. Respecting his concept isn't enough for me.

 

Honestly, I think most of the programs out there have some great aspects and some areas where they are lacking. So, my plan right now is to pick what I love from everything out there and come up with my own curriculum for our little homeschool. I will use the flow concept from BFSU but not limit myself to his reduced content. I will use the lesson plans from R.E.A.L. Science because they are heavy on experimentation and the most conducive to being reworked for inquiry science. I will incorporate the texts from RS4K because I find those explanations wonderfully not dumbed down. I will use living books as NOEO does. OK, I'm about to get weepy because why, oh why couldn't someone have done this all for me! :lol:

 

So, my mantra is... I love science. I love science. I love science. It is worth the work. On the bright side, I've made some less Mom-intensive selections for the other subjects so I have the time to dedicate myself to starting from scratch in this area.

 

That was probably more than you wanted to know. Oopsie. :) I do think there is value in BFSU and could be a strong candidate for people who aren't as science-obsessed as I am.

 

Kristina

[Jenny in Florida]

BSFU?

[sagira]

BFSU: Building Foundations of Scientific Understanding by Dr. Bernard Nebel. Here's a great review.

Edited January 13, 2009 by sagira

[Jenny in Florida]

BFSU: Building Foundations of Scientific Understanding by Dr. Bernard Nebel.

 

Ah. Thanks!

[materursa]

Also, while the flow (his concept of simultaneously studying the different disciplines) is wonderful, there is a lot of science that is left out. The book is supposed to cover K-2 but I know that for us there are not enough lessons to last for three grades.

 

:iagree: Kristina said what I was thinking. I actually felt a little bad when I realized that I just wasn't going to be able to use BSFU as a main science program. I knew I wasn't going to be able to devote a ton of time to creating my own science program, so I went with REAL Science by Pandia Press, supplemented by some science books we have.

 

Amanda

[sagira]

Ah, great post, Kristina. I can see why some would not want to use BFSU as their sole program. I come from it from a different angle, though. I had my whole Natural Science all planned out from K-6 (well, sort of :tongue_smilie:) with all nature studies and studying birds, trees, weather & climate, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, flowering plants, etc. etc. following the Tanglewood science schedule (CM/Classical).

 

This was all wonderful but I needed something else. Something that encouraged the scientific thinking, and stretched us. And this is where BFSU fits in perfectly. It was exactly what I was looking for, and we will be using this in conjunction with the aforementioned nature studies for a well-rounded science program for the elementary years.

[Country Girl]

Kristina,

 

You really did a great job of verbalizing so much of what I've been feeling about this program. I love science and so do my kids. I really want them to see how science is connected and that is why I thought I'd love BFSU. However, when I got it, it just wasn't what I was longing for. I was hoping to base our studies on it this year but haven't. For one, I've personally discovered I need something a bit more mapped out. While I love science, I just don't have the time to plan it completely and if I don't have a more mapped out plan... it doesn't get done (which isn't acceptable around here). I too agree that BFSU could easily be done in a year, again leaving me wondering what is next. I definitely wouldn't call it enough to be comprehensive K-3. I did just pull it out again last week and did a bit with my pre-k'er (with my 7yo tagging along). They both enjoyed it and I liked the way the lessons were covered but I don't see us using it a lot. It is just too much to try to plan and fill in what is missing. I may try using it a bit more with my pre-k'er and next year when he is K....more on a "as we get to it" basis.

 

I used REAL science from Pandia Press when my oldest was in K and liked that quite a bit. I'm looking forward to the release of their Chem and Physics programs. I don't think I'll get a chance to use them with my oldest (I think he is just too far past them already but we'll see) but I definitely think I'll go through that entire series with my younger two. We've been doing a mish-mash of stuff with my 7yo this year but the basis has been the God's Design Physics and Chemistry books.

[Guest Alte Veste Academy]

Well, I'm glad I made sense at all. I have since posted on the other BFSU thread that I think the book could be put to very good use as a one year introduction to science. After reading Sagira's comments, I can also see the point of using it as a supplement to another scientific program for the purpose of encouraging scientific thinking, as Sagira is using it.

 

Again, I fully acknowledge that I'm obsessive and that this might work well for those who are not. Obviously some people just love it and there are reasons for that. I kind of hated to break up the pattern of warm fuzzies for BFSU. Every time I saw glowing references to it, I was somewhat surprised that another OCD science person didn't tear it down a bit. I hate to be that person. As with everything homeschool, however, one size does not fit all.

 

Kristina

[Lisa in the UP of MI]

That was probably more than you wanted to know. Oopsie. :) I do think there is value in BFSU and could be a strong candidate for people who aren't as science-obsessed as I am.

 

Kristina

 

No, this is exactly what I wanted to hear! Thanks.

[Jumping In Puddles]

I have said this before in another thread, but I think BFSU could benefit from an editor for more clarity and make the text and lessons tighter.

 

I don't think it is necessarily "fun" which I think is important for kids to be excited about science. I try to make science fun, so we have done some kits which may not teach science as well but does make it more fun.

 

I think it is a good concept but difficult to implement.

 

If a great science teacher was going to teach with this method, I think it would work like a charm. An average homeschool mom, otoh, I think will be frustrated.

 

I am glad that I bought the book, because it gives me an overview of K-3 science which I like, and we do some lessons and my son likes science so I think the frustration is more on me as the teacher.

Edited January 13, 2009 by Jumping In Puddles

[Lisa in the UP of MI]

I knew that BFSU didn't follow the WTM sequence. I had actually planned on sticking to it myself. None of the already done programs were quite what I wanted though so I was going to come up with my own science using living books, lots of hands-on experiments, and nature studies. But when I saw BFSU I fell in love with the integrated study focusing on scientific reasoning and learning the topics in an order where each lesson built upon the info learned in those before it. I can understand why some wouldn't like it. I did figure some would say they wanted something more ready-to-go. And the layout of the book is kind of intimidating too. It didn't really bother me too much because I was already going to create my own science. This book will now give me a framework to use. When I mentioned in the other post that I wanted to plan out BFSU that was what I had in mind.

 

Kristina,

I haven't gotten a chance to fully look through the lessons but what content in particular did you feel was missing? I'm actually trying to find an elementary science scope and sequence. It's kind of hard because I'm at my parents' house right now and they have dial-up. Ugh.

 

So that's another question, does anyone have a scope and sequene for elementary science?

[Lisa in the UP of MI]

I have said this before in another thread, but I think BFSU could benefit from an editor for more clarity and make the text and lessons tighter.

 

I don't think it is necessarily "fun" which I think is important for kids to be excited about science. I try to make science fun, so we have done some kits which may not teach science as well but does make it more fun.

 

I think it is a good concept but difficult to implement.

 

If a great science teacher was going to teach with this method, I think it would work like a charm. An average homeschool mom, otoh, I think will be frustrated.

 

I am glad that I bought the book, because it gives me an overview of K-3 science which I like, and we do some lessons and my son likes science so I think the frustration is more on me as the teacher.

 

This is exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for. What changes would be necessary to make BFSU into a curriuculum that the average homeschooling mom would want to use it?

[Jumping In Puddles]

This is exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for. What changes would be necessary to make BFSU into a curriuculum that the average homeschooling mom would want to use it?

 

I think a lab book would help tremendously!

 

I think a definite sequence with a note to parents on chapters that correlate, ideas to go deeper instead of leaving the sequence for the teacher to figure out.

[AuntPol]

My main problem with it is that it came out too late for me to use it at appropriate age!! I am using it for review -my kids are in grades 3-4 and have covered most of the material already but the connections were just too good for me to pass up.

 

I would prefer it to be already sequenced as it took me an hour to write out a sequence and I really didn't think there was much variation if you go by prequisites.

 

My main issue is that I want to use the next level with my kids and I am concerned it won't be out in time lol. I also don't know how deep to go with the extensions because I don't know if it will just be covered in the next book.

 

Anyway, because we are older and it looks like the next level won't be ready for next year, I am stuck trying to figure out what to do for science next year.

[Guest Alte Veste Academy]

Kristina,

I haven't gotten a chance to fully look through the lessons but what content in particular did you feel was missing? I'm actually trying to find an elementary science scope and sequence. It's kind of hard because I'm at my parents' house right now and they have dial-up. Ugh.

 

So that's another question, does anyone have a scope and sequene for elementary science?

 

The most glaring examples of omissions for me were weather and simple machines. True, there is discussion of the water cycle, forces, and other potentially relatable ideas, but these elementary concepts really aren't covered well. There were others but those are the ones I remember.

 

For scope and sequence, I like this book:

 

The Really Useful Science Book: A Framework of Knowledge for Primary Teachers by Steve Farrow

http://www.amazon.com/Really-Useful-Science-Book-Framework/dp/0415385938/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231866449&sr=8-1

 

For me, its usefulness is two-fold. I can plan our studies with it, confident that I'm hitting all the high points. In addition, reading it gave me a fabulous refresher course in the concepts of elementary science. Because we do inquiry science, maintaining a firm knowledge base is very important to me. It makes me feel more confident in my ability to teach science but, more imortantly, it can help me guide them to discover answers for themselves. I highly recommend Nurturing Inquiry by Charles Pearce to learn about this method of instruction. It's teacher intensive and requires me to know a lot of science but, again, this is my pet subject so it's OK.

 

Kristina

[Lisa in the UP of MI]

The most glaring examples of omissions for me were weather and simple machines. True, there is discussion of the water cycle, forces, and other potentially relatable ideas, but these elementary concepts really aren't covered well. There were others but those are the ones I remember.

 

 

I know the author mentioned that he didn't include weather because the basics are generally discussed in everyday life. It sounded like he would be adding the not-so-basic stuff to his 3-5 book. I think we'll be adding in a little more formal study though.

 

For scope and sequence, I like this book:

 

The Really Useful Science Book: A Framework of Knowledge for Primary Teachers by Steve Farrow

http://www.amazon.com/Really-Useful-Science-Book-Framework/dp/0415385938/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231866449&sr=8-1

 

For me, its usefulness is two-fold. I can plan our studies with it, confident that I'm hitting all the high points. In addition, reading it gave me a fabulous refresher course in the concepts of elementary science. Because we do inquiry science, maintaining a firm knowledge base is very important to me. It makes me feel more confident in my ability to teach science but, more imortantly, it can help me guide them to discover answers for themselves. I highly recommend Nurturing Inquiry by Charles Pearce to learn about this method of instruction. It's teacher intensive and requires me to know a lot of science but, again, this is my pet subject so it's OK.

 

Kristina

 

I'll have to check out these books. Science is definitely my pet subject too (though I can't seem to leave any curricula alone completely). As I'm planning science I'll use BFSU as a spine and add in ideas from other programs, books, and people. Thanks for getting into this discussion with me. That's why I posted. To get more ideas to plan my science study.

Edited January 13, 2009 by Lisa in the UP of MI

[Rosie_0801]

This has been interesting reading! My kiddies are too little yet, so I'm hoping there'll be a second edition out before we are ready to start. I'm very glad to hear the negatives, because there aren't many, if any negative reviews around and you don't get that type of discussion on his yahoo group. I think the other mums are a smidge intimidated. I think it's just the informal Aussie in me, but I find someone signing themselves "Dr Nebel" on a yahoo group to be off putting... Even after reading all this, I still like his theory, so I'm making a mental note to buy it sooner than I thought so I have time to collect suitable supplementary resources. I sort of had the idea already that it was more of a guide than a curriculum. That's ok though, there are so many funky books and kits around that I'd have been very sad not to have a reason to buy them!

 

:)

Rosie- who can't resist a book called "Geology Rocks!"

[Jumping In Puddles]

I think it's just the informal Aussie in me, but I find someone signing themselves "Dr Nebel" on a yahoo group to be off putting...

 

Actually, I know it's just the formality that is off putting, but one of things I like about the curriculum is the yahoo group and Dr. Nebel's accessibility. When I joined the group, I got a personal email from Dr. Nebel addressing my situation directly and a generic welcome to the group email.

[jenadina]

This is exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for. What changes would be necessary to make BFSU into a curriuculum that the average homeschooling mom would want to use it?

 

I think having a sort of script would be really, really helpful, especially for non-science moms who have science-oriented kids! Right now, I basically skim the lesson quickly and paraphrase it for DS, but it would be *so* much easier if I could read it directly to him.

 

I do really like the recommended reading lists; my son learns a ton from reading the library books because they are written at his level. I so wish BFSU was!

 

I agree that the format of the book makes it difficult to use, though there *are* several sequence-of-use posts on the yahoo group now.

 

I would really love to have a version of BFSU written for the child rather than the parent and I wish I knew how to go about writing something like that using BFSU as the framework. Actually, I've thought several times about purchasing all the NOEO stuff and rearranging it to follow BFSU order. Something like that would be ideal for me. Too bad it would be so expensive!

 

I really love how accessible Dr. Nebel makes himself; my kiddo has had questions that I couldn't answer and Dr. Nebel was very helpful!

 

As far as completeness, I asked a scientist friend to take a look at BFSU and he though it was WONDERFUL, which is why I decided to stick with it instead of switching to NOEO or REAL Science.

 

I think it's just the informal Aussie in me, but I find someone signing themselves "Dr Nebel" on a yahoo group to be off putting

 

I think he does it because it sort of gives a person with a question confidence that he will know the answer. I happen to belong to another yahoo group that Dr. Nebel is part of where he regularly signs off as "Bernie," so I'm pretty sure that he's not trying to be conceited or stuffy, just garner confidence.

Edited January 13, 2009 by jenadina

[Jumping In Puddles]

I think having a sort of script would be really, really helpful, especially for non-science moms who have science-oriented kids! Right now, I basically skim the lesson quickly and paraphrase it for DS, but it would be *so* much easier if I could read it directly to him.

 

I do really like the recommended reading lists; my son learns a ton from reading the library books because they are written at his level. I so wish BFSU was!

 

I agree that the format of the book makes it difficult to use, though there *are* several sequence-of-use posts on the yahoo group now.

 

I would really love to have a version of BFSU written for the child rather than the parent and I wish I knew how to go about writing something like that using BFSU as the framework.

 

 

 

:iagree:

 

That is exactly what BFSU needs! Written for the child or scripted for the parent.

[Rosie_0801]

Just so you all know, I'm not sitting here sticking pins into a Nebel voodoo doll!

:)

Rosie

[MitchellMom]

Frankly, the text is cumbersome and not user friendly. I dislike the format a great deal. Every time I pick it up I want to put it right back down. There's good stuff in there but...argh.

 

:iagree:

 

That said: I have my copy of BFSU for sale if anyone is interested! :D

[sagira]

I think it is a good concept but difficult to implement.

 

If a great science teacher was going to teach with this method, I think it would work like a charm. An average homeschool mom, otoh, I think will be frustrated.

 

I have to respectfully disagree :) I'm a brand new homeschooling mom (K) and maybe that's the reason I wasn't expecting anything different, or new. I'm not particularly science oriented either, I'm a languages, history and geography person.

 

I just tackled the text right away, the introduction, and loved the whole idea from the start. So far we've had fun, and all in an easygoing manner yet thorough in thinking, manner. As soon as I saw the whole thing, I split it up. I created a fluid sequence that I could veer off of if I needed to -- and I have already. I like the fact that there is no prescribed sequence.

 

I'm using it for both reasons: as an introduction in Kindergarten (17 lessons planned out) and 12 each in 1st and 2nd. This way I feel ds gets an introduction to Science in K, and a follow-up and broadening of our Natural Science programs in First and Second Years. I for one am excited about BFSU 3-5. I like that Dr. Nebel takes suggestions, and has a whole group devoted to interacting with him and asking questions. He encourages feedback.

 

I've been lazy with my blog lately, all busy with holiday things and my mom visiting, and now I'm trying to get back in the habit. I have a post or two coming up on BFSU on my Keys Atheneum blog.

 

As far as the Dr. goes, there are a lot of years of study and sacrifice involved in getting a Ph.D., when and if I receive mine (my dream is to get one in Developmental Psychology), you'd better call me Dr.! :D :lol:

Edited January 14, 2009 by sagira

[Capt_Uhura]

I agree, I don't think Dr. Nebel is being stuffy or snooty using his title. Not to knock public school, but the teachers that are teaching science and math are not scientists or mathematicians. Dr. Nebel's BFSU is written from a scientists' perspective and using his title garners confidence in his work.

 

I recall once having the alleged dr. come in and introduce himself as "John" but wearing a Dr's coat etc. I was left wondering if he was in fact the Dr. Turns out he was not an MD but one of the other designations health care professionals can have these days. I prefer folks to use their title when in their professional capacity.

[sagira]

I agree, I don't think Dr. Nebel is being stuffy or snooty using his title. Not to knock public school, but the teachers that are teaching science and math are not scientists or mathematicians. Dr. Nebel's BFSU is written from a scientists' perspective and using his title garners confidence in his work.

 

I recall once having the alleged dr. come in and introduce himself as "John" but wearing a Dr's coat etc. I was left wondering if he was in fact the Dr. Turns out he was not an MD but one of the other designations health care professionals can have these days. I prefer folks to use their title when in their professional capacity.

 

:iagree:

 

Couldn't have said it better myself, Captain :)

[Jumping In Puddles]

I have to respectfully disagree :) I'm a brand new homeschooling mom (K) and maybe that's the reason I wasn't expecting anything different, or new. I'm not particularly science oriented either, I'm a languages, history and geography person.

 

I just tackled the text right away, the introduction, and loved the whole idea from the start. So far we've had fun, and all in an easygoing manner yet thorough in thinking, manner. As soon as I saw the whole thing, I split it up. I created a fluid sequence that I could veer off of if I needed to -- and I have already. I like the fact that there is no prescribed sequence.

 

 

 

 

I think we will just have to agree to disagree :) I also am a brand new homeschool mom (k) and I have a different experience with it BUT I am using it with my son with success. I just wish it were easier for me to implement. I'm sure I'm not the only one just as I'm sure you're not the only one who has no problem with it as is!

 

In fact, I don't think it is terrible, just not easy to implement for me.

 

The no prescribed sequence throws me off because at the beginning of the book it says NOT to pick and choose but the lessons are meant to be done in tandem. My dictionary says tandem means "along side each other" or "one behind another" and I was a little confused right from the start. Was I suppose to do more than one lesson at a time or one after another?

 

On page one of the book, Dr. Nebel has a bolded selection:

DO NOT treat this volume as a smorgasbord for random selections. As in math, lessons are arranged and designed to impart knowledge, understanding, and kills in a logical, systematic order.

 

Then on page 8, it says threads A,B,C, and D are to be conducted in tandem. Does that mean one after another or along side?

 

I am not trying to tear the book, the method, or the author down. These are just my own experiences with it and I can understand how others might have a completely different experience. :)

[kellycbr]

I think we will just have to agree to disagree :) I also am a brand new homeschool mom (k) and I have a different experience with it BUT I am using it with my son with success. I just wish it were easier for me to implement. I'm sure I'm not the only one just as I'm sure you're not the only one who has no problem with it as is!

 

In fact, I don't think it is terrible, just not easy to implement for me.

 

The no prescribed sequence throws me off because at the beginning of the book it says NOT to pick and choose but the lessons are meant to be done in tandem. My dictionary says tandem means "along side each other" or "one behind another" and I was a little confused right from the start. Was I suppose to do more than one lesson at a time or one after another?

 

On page one of the book, Dr. Nebel has a bolded selection:

DO NOT treat this volume as a smorgasbord for random selections. As in math, lessons are arranged and designed to impart knowledge, understanding, and kills in a logical, systematic order.

 

Then on page 8, it says threads A,B,C, and D are to be conducted in tandem. Does that mean one after another or along side?

 

I am not trying to tear the book, the method, or the author down. These are just my own experiences with it and I can understand how others might have a completely different experience. :)

 

Oh, how I agree. I still haven't done any science with DS8. I open the book and feel lost. Ideally this would be arranged for a non-science mum like myself to use with totaly science son. I finally broke down and ordered RS4K pre-Chemistry to use. Hopefully this will work. I just love Dr. Nebels philosophy, so its very disapointing not to use it.

 

By the way, I love "Dr. Nebel." I know he's retired, so his kindly responses on his Yahoo page and his signature just remind me of a nice professor. I love it.

[Lisa in the UP of MI]

The no prescribed sequence throws me off because at the beginning of the book it says NOT to pick and choose but the lessons are meant to be done in tandem. My dictionary says tandem means "along side each other" or "one behind another" and I was a little confused right from the start. Was I suppose to do more than one lesson at a time or one after another?

 

On page one of the book, Dr. Nebel has a bolded selection:

DO NOT treat this volume as a smorgasbord for random selections. As in math, lessons are arranged and designed to impart knowledge, understanding, and kills in a logical, systematic order.

 

Then on page 8, it says threads A,B,C, and D are to be conducted in tandem. Does that mean one after another or along side?

 

By in tandem he means to do the threads A, B, C, and D at the same time. The earlier lessons from each thread are easier and will likely be done first and the later lessons when the student is older. I'm still looking through the book but I'm starting to feel like even some of the specific lessons should be done at the same time as other lessons, sort of woven together. A little more specifically, there are a few lessons early in the life sciences thread that remind me of nature study and are meant to continue and not just be a one-time lesson. What's great about the philosophy is that the basics are taught, then they are reviewed through later lessons and also during every day life.

[sagira]

By in tandem he means to do the threads A, B, C, and D at the same time.

 

That's right. Alongside and not A first, then B first, but more like A, then B, then maybe A again, then C, etc. We haven't touched on D yet.

[Rosie_0801]

I'm trying to organise the MOTL concept chart into a flow chart format. I suspect I'll be trying to do the same when the time comes to buy BFSU.

 

Rosie

[sagira]

What I did was make a sequence chart and as time goes by check what would go better next and feel free to jump forward in case a topic was more relevant, but always checking with BFSU's flowchart to make sure I have covered the threads prior.

 

Does that make sense?