How are you teaching science at home? Need suggestions! - Page 2

[Fillyjonk]

Ah, I think I see where our disagreement lies daffodil. You say "Cooking, gardening, and worms alone won't necessarily guarantee any science learning.". Now I think actually I would disagree with that to some extent-because I honestly don't see how you could cook or garden without some basic science knowledge and to be honest, that knowledge would certainly be more than was taught in schools to around age 8 in my country. So a child who was actively involved in cooking or gardening, I would say, would be of necessity covering some of the the basics of science. 

But I think our main point of disagreement is more fundamental. See I don't see how any kid could be working directly with an adult, gardening or cooking, and not ask these very fundamental questions. And these are not questions that you need science training to answer. I mean, if you are stumped by them there's an entire internet out there waiting to answer such questions, often with videos and so on. So I'm coming from a sense that it is almost inevitable that these questions will be asked, regardless of how sciency or otherwise the parents, and once they are asked, you just don't then need a comprehensive science background to answer them. I'm not saying that you will never need this to homeschool. My son finds physics and astronomy really fascinating and I have been grateful for the physics/chemistry/maths I and my partner have studied: with us able to give him a lot of help plus Khan academy, ScienceJim, MITOpen, he's managing to work through a basic physics primer which gives him the systematic overview he's after. But he's nine and very in control of his own work. I should also mention that he's done nothing science wise really aside from cooking, gardening, some electronics and occasionally the odd chemistry experiment.

I also think that this is another point of disagreement. "Why start early?  Well, the earlier you start hearing some of the important facts, the sooner you can really understand and use them.  You need to hear or read or think about a science concept multiple times before you really get it and it gets permanently lodged in your brain as an easily-accessible bit of information.  The sooner you understand the basics, the sooner you can start seeing connections between different ideas and asking the deeper, more complicated questions that you once didn't even know enough to wonder about. "

I'd actually interpret what is going on very differently. I'd say that if children aren't grasping these facts it is because they are really too young for them. Kids will often ask things they can't understand the answer to and sometimes therefore they need to ask the same question repeatedly as they get older, to get a more and more detailed answer. I've studied a lot of science as an adult and I would not say that I necessarily needed repeated exposure to science facts to understand them.  I also think that kids are, inevitably thinking about a lot of these concepts. This may be a difference in how we view cognitive stages. I do tend to broadly follow Piaget etcs ideas about different stages of cognitive abstraction ability and so I think that the ability of a fourteen year old to understand something like photosynthesis cold is just exponentially greater than that of a four year old, its got nothing to do (IMO) with that ten extra years of talking about plants but rather about brain maturity and processing ability. So that's a difference of opinion.

Interesting discussion! And living in Wales where our patron flower (!) is a daffodil, I love your username!

ETA just wanted to add something else. I'm not coming at this from an unschooling perspective, though I have huge respect for that viewpoint. I do see the value in systematic, progressive study in certain areas (in our house this is maths and music). I just don't see its value in science for younger kids.

[Daffodil]

Originally Posted by Fillyjonk 

But I think our main point of disagreement is more fundamental. See I don't see how any kid could be working directly with an adult, gardening or cooking, and not ask these very fundamental questions. And these are not questions that you need science training to answer. I mean, if you are stumped by them there's an entire internet out there waiting to answer such questions, often with videos and so on. So I'm coming from a sense that it is almost inevitable that these questions will be asked, regardless of how sciency or otherwise the parents, and once they are asked, you just don't then need a comprehensive science background to answer them.

Yes, this is definitely a point of disagreement.  I just don't think it's true that kids are automatically going ask a lot of fundamental questions about science or that the average adult is going to provide good answers to them.  (Just to take one example, over 40% of Americans don't even believe in evolution.  How good a job do you think they're going to do explaining it to their kids?  Maybe that's not a fair example because it's so tied up with religious beliefs.  But I think it does illustrate a widespread lack of scientific thinking.)

Originally Posted by Fillyjonk 

I also think that this is another point of disagreement. "Why start early?  Well, the earlier you start hearing some of the important facts, the sooner you can really understand and use them.  You need to hear or read or think about a science concept multiple times before you really get it and it gets permanently lodged in your brain as an easily-accessible bit of information.  The sooner you understand the basics, the sooner you can start seeing connections between different ideas and asking the deeper, more complicated questions that you once didn't even know enough to wonder about. "

I'd actually interpret what is going on very differently. I'd say that if children aren't grasping these facts it is because they are really too young for them. Kids will often ask things they can't understand the answer to and sometimes therefore they need to ask the same question repeatedly as they get older, to get a more and more detailed answer. I've studied a lot of science as an adult and I would not say that I necessarily needed repeated exposure to science facts to understand them.  I also think that kids are, inevitably thinking about a lot of these concepts. This may be a difference in how we view cognitive stages. I do tend to broadly follow Piaget etcs ideas about different stages of cognitive abstraction ability and so I think that the ability of a fourteen year old to understand something like photosynthesis cold is just exponentially greater than that of a four year old, its got nothing to do (IMO) with that ten extra years of talking about plants but rather about brain maturity and processing ability. So that's a difference of opinion.

Yep, definite difference of opinion.  I've seen in myself (as an adult) that I do usually need repeated exposure to facts to fully understand and remember them.  Of course I agree that a 14 year old is going to understand photosynthesis a lot more quickly and easily than a 4 year old.  But I think a 14 year old who's been hearing about photosynthesis since she was 4 is going to come out of a high school biology class understanding photosynthesis a lot better than a 14 year old who knew nothing about it before that class.  The first kid will find a lot of the information familiar, so she can focus on the bits she didn't know or had forgotten, while the second kid has to try to learn it all.

Originally Posted by Fillyjonk 
Interesting discussion! And living in Wales where our patron flower (!) is a daffodil, I love your username!

ETA just wanted to add something else. I'm not coming at this from an unschooling perspective, though I have huge respect for that viewpoint. I do see the value in systematic, progressive study in certain areas (in our house this is maths and music). I just don't see its value in science for younger kids.

I'm not advocating systematic, progressive study of science for young kids.  I totally agree that ad hoc conversations here and there, along with random books and science activities, are probably the best approach.  But for parents who aren't sure what fundamental science knowledge consists of and aren't sure how to connect their everyday activities to that knowledge, maybe a systematic approach could be helpful.

I like your username too, since I love the Moomin books so much. That makes 3 of us, with Moominmamma.  Maybe I should change my username to Little My.

[abbiandboys]

I use Building Foundations of Scientific Understanding (Nebel) with my 4 sons.  We all LOVE these books. Soon after starting this book my oldest told me he wants to be a scientist when he's an adult. They all start jumping up and down with excitement whenever we pull out the book. It is amazing to see the concepts they can grasp at a young age! My six year old understands that Sound is particles bumping like dominoes because of movement energy, and why sound becomes quieter with distance or going through glass. My four year old keeps talking about the table salt being made of particles!

We're all moving through these books together, in the general order that the flow chart lays it out. The first book is labeled for K-2 but it doesn't really matter, it's more about building an understanding, from the ground up (foundations!), of how the world works.  We all enjoy it!  

 

I really appreciate the way it covers all areas of science at once, without being overwhelming whatsoever. It makes so much sense because so many things are tied together. 

 

Another thing I like is it doesn't give you a script to read to the kids. Instead it explains what the lesson is about, so you can engage in DISCUSSION with the kids. I DO NOT want to just relay a bunch of information to them that they'll forget later. I want to have conversation, ask questions and help them EXPLORE and EXPERIENCE things to find answers to their questions, which this book provides opportunity for. THIS is how they come to understand the concept and remember it!

It is very easy to use. Most of the experiments require items you're likely to have at home, or that are inexpensive. I take pictures of them while they're doing the experiments (or dramatizing the concept, like how different states of matter behave), then put them into a binder. When they see the pictures it helps to remember the lessons even more. They also draw pictures of what we learned and put them in the binder.  It is recommended (and we are starting it) to make little booklets and later on learn how to take notes, starting with simple pictures and letters then to more words.  It really helps retain the info and build necessary skills for many things later in life.

 

Even when it's not our scheduled science lesson time, my kids ask me questions and we are able to look for the answers in this book, just as it is designed. When you find a lesson topic you want to discuss, you can also see a list of things they should learn first, as a basis, or to learn along with it. After we go through a lesson, they will continue to think about it and ask more questions or discuss it throughout the day. I am learning right along with the kids.

 

I feel like my review doesn't do it justice -- I will simply say, I HIGHLY recommend this book!!

[anabelneri]

We're also homeschooling... I have a 4th grader and a preschooler.  We've tried a couple different things, but the best has been Building Foundations of Scientific Understanding by Bernard Nebel.  We started it when my elder daughter was in 1st grade, and I've been impressed with how age-appropriate the activities and explanations have been.  There are some concepts that I hadn't picked up in my own education (and I was a science major briefly), but he explains them so clearly that my young kids "got" them right away and have them built into their basic understanding of the world.  

I also should add that I have a friend who is a molecular biologist and her husband is an astrophysicist (yes, really).  They discuss science for fun, and I passed Dr. Nebel's books to them to see what they had to say about the quality of the material.  When they were done, they told me that it does a good job teaching science like scientists think it ought to be taught, which is unusual to see in a science curriculum.  They haven't looked at a very wide range of homeschooling curricula, but they are familiar with the standard material generally used by schools.

Thanks!

Anabel

[Fillyjonk]

okay opinion differences are cool. Dialectic in action right there And of course it does come down to experience. 

I'm just going to make two small points, over the idea that repeated exposure to an idea over a period of time results in superior final understanding (have I got that right?). Now I think that there might be something in that, but I'd say that that knowledge does not have to be formalised. I think what often stops knowledge from "taking" is actually a difficulty in conceptualising.  That experience of reading and reading a sentence and not getting it and when you break it down you realise you just can't visualise what is being said. My guess would be that a child who had a lot of play experience would be in the best position to later understand these concepts because they would be the most likely to be able to visualise what was being said. I have a lot of problems with the Waldorf approach to science but I do feel that the experiences my kids had in Waldorf kindy, playing in mud and water over and over, rolling stones down planks over and over, varying the tilt, trying a rounder stone-and with other curious children, in all weathers, for hours at a time-has had lasting benefit to them. Its never been my experience with my kids that they needed an idea presented repeatedly-if they are ready for an idea, and especially if they are interested, they will assimilate it. I don't think a discussion is even necessary in a lot of cases. I see kids as having a lot of concepts, a lot of hypotheses, hanging around in their heads, and as they grow older some of these will be less useful than others. But these mainly develop through getting their hands dirty, through play, not through instruction. I still see experience, coupled with discussion where appropriate, as the gold standard.

The second point is that, certainly in my country, it was the norm not to teach stuff like photosynthesis until around, actually, 15 or so when I was that age. It changed a while back, but until around the mid 90s that was the deal. I can't say without comparing the photosynthetic knowledge of young adults educated in the last 20 years (when a standardised curriculum was introduced including science) with those of us educated prior to this, but I'd be surprised if it made a massive difference: if anything our universities are saying that undergrads are less well prepared for the sciences than 20 years ago.

And a quick point re creationists. Yeah, to me creationism suggests a lack of rigour in thinking. However to be totally fair there is nothing preventing a creationist actually being a very effective scientist and in fact many are. A creationist could provide all parts of your initial "model answer" above except for the bit about evolution. But I'm not sure this discussion necessarily applies to them anyway-they would use a young earth/neutral curriculum and teach science in a faith-slanted way. I don't think your average creationist would be happy not to use a curriculum, or certainly that's been my experience.

Edited by Fillyjonk - 2/16/13 at 1:04am

[pek64]

Science in the summer at the library.

Science centers throughout the area.

Magic School Bus picture and chapter books.

Andrew Lost books.

There's even a few Cat in the Hat science books.

All of these introduce topics and provide information in fun ways.

Then there's kits and science in the kitchen books. The Everything book series has a science book, maybe more than one. Use your library and bookstore! Use the Internet.

Science is everywhere! There's even a cookbook about Einstein in the kitchen.

[Melanie Mayo]

Wow! Great suggestions everyone! Keep them coming!

GBTwins--I will email you back early next week. Thanks so much for your offer to take part. 

[cmac2]

Our favorite science is BSFU, Building Foundations of Scientific Understanding.   I am using it with my third grader. I tried it after reading numerous reviews on its thoroughness.  I liked that it didn't present science in bits and pieces, but it gave the full picture.  I don't know what I'd use if it wasn't available.  It has definitely filled a need in our homeschool.  Even if I didn't homeschool, I would want to supplement my childs science education with this Science program.
 

[moominmamma]

An interesting and topical article on the relationship between child's play and scientific exploration. 

"Another recent experiment explored the value of offering lessons versus allowing children to explore on their own. In that study, Schulz found that children who were shown how to make a toy squeak were less likely to discover the toy’s other features than children who were simply given the toy with no instruction.

“There’s a tradeoff of instruction versus exploration,” she says. “If I instruct you more, you will explore less, because you assume that if other things were true, I would have demonstrated them.”

Anecdotally my experience with science learning has been similar to Fillyjonk's: when my kids are truly ready and interested in particular science learning, they get it and retain it at a first pass. They don't need repeated exposure. It makes sense to me that if concepts and information are introduced earlier, before the learner is truly ready and inspired by his own curiosity and drive, it will probably take several exposures before it's truly mastered.

To draw a silly parallel by way of illustration, what if we decided "walking lessons" should start at 6 months in babies because it's best to get an early start on this crucial gross-motor skill, and we instructed our child for a full 8 months before he was finally able to walk well, and we used that success as affirmation of the early-start approach. "Good thing we started early: it takes a lot of instruction and practice to learn to walk!"

Miranda

[pek64]

Originally Posted by moominmamma 

An interesting and topical article on the relationship between child's play and scientific exploration. 

"Another recent experiment explored the value of offering lessons versus allowing children to explore on their own. In that study, Schulz found that children who were shown how to make a toy squeak were less likely to discover the toy’s other features than children who were simply given the toy with no instruction.



“There’s a tradeoff of instruction versus exploration,” she says. “If I instruct you more, you will explore less, because you assume that if other things were true, I would have demonstrated them.”


Anecdotally my experience with science learning has been similar to Fillyjonk's: when my kids are truly ready and interested in particular science learning, they get it and retain it at a first pass. They don't need repeated exposure. It makes sense to me that if concepts and information are introduced earlier, before the learner is truly ready and inspired by his own curiosity and drive, it will probably take several exposures before it's truly mastered.


To draw a silly parallel by way of illustration, what if we decided "walking lessons" should start at 6 months in babies because it's best to get an early start on this crucial gross-motor skill, and we instructed our child for a full 8 months before he was finally able to walk well, and we used that success as affirmation of the early-start approach. "Good thing we started early: it takes a lot of instruction and practice to learn to walk!"


Miranda

I sort of disagree with the first part of what you said, though agree with the second.

It is true that you may need to repeat something if you introduce it before the child is interested. Or you may capture the child's interest. And even if you have to repeat it, the depth of the knowledge may be deeper. Perhaps not. You see, there's really no way to test it.

I think exposing our children to various topics (math, science, history, art, music) is all part of a homeschooling parent's job. And when I'm excited about something, the attitude generally rubs off.


About the walking thing, I totally agree!!

Is it necessary to start early? Maybe. Maybe not.

I asked my son about this. He's 17. For science, he feels early is better, as young children are using their imaginations for play, so imagining the structure of an atom is easy for the young. We did a lot of science when he was young. He was interested. But I have always loved science, and exposed my nephews and niece to things like capillary action when they were small. I did the same for my son.

Exposure without forcing is what I would recommend.

[Tjej]

FWIW, I think that the most important things you can do to foster development of young scientists is to encourage curiosity and exploration, while giving them a vocabulary to understand and express what they are exploring.  I don't think it needs to be systematic, and although this thread is seeming like a blatant advert for BFSU,  I will say I also like it and am loosely using it. 

Also, may I suggest you not presume to know what and how a creationist discusses science with their children.  I think there are many different types of creationists out there - both young Earth and old Earth.  I am one of the latter and find it somewhat offensive to be considered ignorant, uninterested in teaching real science, and too afraid to not use a cirric, purely because I believe things were created by a higher power.  If you are interested in how a creationist approaches teaching the origins of the world, Googling can work well (or opening a thread for discussion), but when it is not your own perspective, throwing in presumptions weakens your other interesting arguments.

As far as repeated exposure vs. waiting until they are ready, I think there is truth to both sides, although I lean towards repeats being less necessary if the topic is brought to light when they are ready to understand.

I think that true discussion and supplying of a rich vocabulary enable for growth and greater understanding whenever they are ready for it.   I really think that if a person does not have a scientific background, if they support and foster curiosity and allow a child to explore tangibly (and with books and the computer and whatever tools end up being most helpful), they will not keep a child from becoming an amazing scientist.

Tjej

[Daffodil]

Originally Posted by moominmamma 
 

Anecdotally my experience with science learning has been similar to Fillyjonk's: when my kids are truly ready and interested in particular science learning, they get it and retain it at a first pass. They don't need repeated exposure. It makes sense to me that if concepts and information are introduced earlier, before the learner is truly ready and inspired by his own curiosity and drive, it will probably take several exposures before it's truly mastered.

To draw a silly parallel by way of illustration, what if we decided "walking lessons" should start at 6 months in babies because it's best to get an early start on this crucial gross-motor skill, and we instructed our child for a full 8 months before he was finally able to walk well, and we used that success as affirmation of the early-start approach. "Good thing we started early: it takes a lot of instruction and practice to learn to walk!"

Miranda

I'm not sure I can think of anything I've ever in my life truly mastered without repeated exposure.  I suppose there are individual facts that I've remembered after only hearing them once (though I expect I'm actually misremembering some of them.)  But I think it's safe to say that almost all the things I know and understand really well are things I've been exposed to over and over again.  It seems true for my kids, too.  It seems like it would have to be true for everyone.

A lot of the examples I gave of basic science knowledge were really simple - things like "the earth orbits the sun."  I'm not really claiming that most kids need to hear that particular fact over and over again before they'll get it.  But I do think there are some other basic facts that aren't quite so easy to grasp, or at least not to really, completely grasp.  For instance, a 6 year old kid might totally understand what you mean when you say that the sun appears to set because our part of the earth is turning away from it, but might find himself at other times picturing the sun moving over the earth and then sinking down behind it.  If you asked him, "Why does the sun appear to set?" he would remember the correct answer, but if he read a description of the sun crossing the sky, he might forget that that's not really what happens.  And if you asked him what's happening when the moon sets, he might or might not realize that it must be just the same thing that happens with the sun.  If you waited until the kid was 12 or so before you ever explained sunrise and sunset to him, chances are better that he'd fully grasp the concept right away.  But then he would have missed out on a lot of years of having that knowledge and being able to build on it.  The kid who first heard about the concept at 6 or younger might spend a lot more time not fully understanding, but he'd still probably end up reaching full understanding before the kid who was introduced to it much later.

I wonder if teaching science is more like teaching music than like teaching walking.  Your kids started learning to play the violin when they were very young, right?  I'm not a music expert, but I'm guessing that it takes longer to teach a 4 year old some of the basics of violin playing than it would to teach them to a teenager.  But that doesn't mean the 4 year old is too young and it would be better to hold off on music instruction until the teenage years, does it?  And it isn't true, is it, that kids who start at 4 end up no better at playing the violin than kids who start as teenagers?  There must be some reason you felt it would be valuable for your kids to start learning music so young.  How is that different from learning science?  And how would you say learning to play an instrument fits in with what you're saying about repeated exposure not being necessary for mastery as long as kids are ready and interested?  It doesn't seem to fit in at all.  Is it different because playing an instrument is more of a physical than a mental skill?  (I'm not asking these questions in an argumentative way.  I'm really just curious about your thoughts.)

[moominmamma]

Originally Posted by Daffodil 

Your kids started learning to play the violin when they were very young, right?  I'm not a music expert, but I'm guessing that it takes longer to teach a 4 year old some of the basics of violin playing than it would to teach them to a teenager.  But that doesn't mean the 4 year old is too young and it would be better to hold off on music instruction until the teenage years, does it?  And it isn't true, is it, that kids who start at 4 end up no better at playing the violin than kids who start as teenagers?  There must be some reason you felt it would be valuable for your kids to start learning music so young.  How is that different from learning science?  And how would you say learning to play an instrument fits in with what you're saying about repeated exposure not being necessary for mastery as long as kids are ready and interested?  It doesn't seem to fit in at all.  Is it different because playing an instrument is more of a physical than a mental skill?  (I'm not asking these questions in an argumentative way.  I'm really just curious about your thoughts.)

String instrument music is very different because there's such a huge motor and emotive/creative component that needs to be learned and integrated with the intellectual. Kids who start as tweens or teens rarely get past the muscular tension and physical awkwardness that is a hallmark of the "late beginner," an awkwardness that comes from over-intellectualizing the tasks. The intuitive ease with the motor tasks comes fairly naturally to most kids who start before age 8 or 10. Also music isn't simply conceptual or intellectual. There are powerful emotional / creative overlays, plus all the intellectual stuff, plus the fine and gross motor learning that needs to be chunked down and then integrated and sped up. Music is an artistic discipline that requires real-time execution of many-faceted tasks involving disparate areas of the brain ... and that needs repetition for automaticity and fluidity. 

Miranda

[AAK]

We've done a bit of everything.  For curriculums we have enjoyed:

REAL Science Odyssey -- I really like this program because it is very hands-on and uses lots of library books

Ellen McHenry's Elements-- fun way to introduce the periodic table

The Middle School Chemistry from the American Chemical Society -- this is free (online) and covers chemistry at an introductory level.  Lots of experiments/demonstrations too.  This one also have "workbook" style pages for those that like that and it is also set up to be used easily with a small group/coop or classroom.  

Beyond curriculum, we have enjoyed:

Gardening

Museums

Rockets

Random experiments simply because the mood/interest strikes us

Lots of dissection (kits from Home Science Tools)

Nature walks, nature guide books, etc.

Mechanical type projects --not always strictly "science", but great for basic physics exploration

I don't think it is necessary to use a science program or curriculum.  My kids LOVE science though and can't get enough of it.  I don't have it all together (all the time) and can't just come up with more for them.  So I use the curriculums as a guide or to fill in gaps or when I just need it planned for me. 

We have also used BFSU, but I didn't like needing to do so much prep and I also used one more science program that seemed more schooly.  We didn't care for it as much as everything else and haven't ever gone back to it.  

Amy

[pek64]

Originally Posted by moominmamma 

String instrument music is very different because there's such a huge motor and emotive/creative component that needs to be learned and integrated with the intellectual. Kids who start as tweens or teens rarely get past the muscular tension and physical awkwardness that is a hallmark of the "late beginner," an awkwardness that comes from over-intellectualizing the tasks. The intuitive ease with the motor tasks comes fairly naturally to most kids who start before age 8 or 10. Also music isn't simply conceptual or intellectual. There are powerful emotional / creative overlays, plus all the intellectual stuff, plus the fine and gross motor learning that needs to be chunked down and then integrated and sped up. Music is an artistic discipline that requires real-time execution of many-faceted tasks involving disparate areas of the brain ... and that needs repetition for automaticity and fluidity. 


Miranda

I'll have to research this a bit. Ten years, or so, ago, I read that it was better to wait, because late beginners quickly caught up, but early beginners frequently burned out.

[Daffodil]

I recommend 3 terrific picture books by Molly Bang (2 of them co-authored by Penny Chisholm): My Light, Living Sunlight, and Ocean Sunlight.  They're short and easy to understand, but they cover a lot of really important ideas.  You could plan a whole year's science curriculum around them.  They're simple and entertaining enough to read to a kindergartener (well, some kindergarteners, anyway), but most adults could probably learn something new from them.

The Magic School Bus books are good, too.  You want to look for the originals by Joanna Cole and Bruce Degen, not the ones based on the TV show.  (The TV-show-based ones aren't totally worthless, but they're not nearly as good as the original books.)

We also like Zoobooks magazine.

The natural world has been our best resource.  Observing insects is a great thing to get into, because insects are everywhere.  There are a variety of citizen science projects involving insects: for instance, Monarch Watch, the Monarch Larva Monitoring Project, and the Lost Ladybug Project.)  My daughter has learned a tremendous amount from collecting and raising caterpillars. (And so have I.  Did you know most caterpillars grow into moths, not butterflies?  Did you know female caterpillars tend to grow larger than males?  Did you know there are wingless moths?)  I highly recommend looking for your own caterpillars outside rather than ordering a butterfly raising kit.  If you want to identify them, this field guide is excellent.  If you want a free online resource, this website is very helpful for identifying moth caterpillars. (Almost all the caterpillars you find will be moth larvae.)

[Tjej]

I should have mentioned before - the Let's Read and Find Out series has been a great resource in our household.  Lots of fun books.

http://www.rainbowresource.com/prodlist.php?1=1&subject=11&category=2871

[ihave7kids]

We have been homeschooling for 4 years now, and have tried a variety of things for my kids.  Our favorites have been anything about astronomy, messy kitchen experiments (think volcanoes!), and hatching butterflies and ladybugs.  My older children are doing textbook-type science that is recommended by the online school we use, but they are a little bored.  We will be trying a 2 day lab, where they get to do a whole year's worth of lab experiments in one weekend, with a group of other homeschoolers their age.  I believe it is run by Landry Academy, owned by a homeschool dad and science teacher. 

[zjande]

We adore the Apologia science textbook series. I have an extremely science minded 9th grader and Apologia's Biology course was right up his alley- very thorough, not dumbed down, challenging, and written in such an attention grabbing way. I've started my 1st grader in the Astronomy book this year and it is his favorite school subject. I plan to use them all the way through high school with my littles.

We also read a large number of books from the library, read a large variety of books in general, and live on a farm. There is a lot of food growing, animal breeding and butchering, death, birth, dirt and manure going on here at all times. I think those qualify as science at times. For example, we didn't need to purchase the dissection kit during that module of the biology course, because my son has witnessed our butchering of a variety of animals and watched the chickens run off with individual organs in their beaks to munch on. He can recognize whether a hen is running past with a liver or a trachea dangling from her mouth. That counts, right?

LOL

[Erinz]

Had to give a big thanks for helping me find BFSU -- I've tried several different science curriculums and all seemed so disjointed and breezy. Nothing has felt solid and interesting, this one is going straight into my cart.

We do The Magic Schoolbus just for the pure fun factor of them, but they really kind of drive me nuts with all the setup and how shallow the experiments are.
This year I tried R.E.A.L. science which is nice in theory and perhaps it could be better when my first grader is older and can read/write more than he can now.