How are you teaching science at home? Need suggestions! - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 40 Old 02-08-2013, 03:47 PM - Thread Starter
Administrator
 
Melanie Mayo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Oregon Coast
Posts: 247
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)

Mothering is putting together a new guide on great options for teaching science education at home. 

 

Please share your favorite curricula, kits, online and offline resources, books and methods. 

 

Also, any reviews of science products left in our education reviews section in the next couple of weeks will be included in the guide. This is your chance to share your faves!! Leave your reviews HERE or just tell us about them in this thread. 

 

Thanks so much for your help!

Melanie Mayo is offline  
#2 of 40 Old 02-08-2013, 04:42 PM
 
littlest birds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: a dream-filled fixer-upper
Posts: 2,952
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I am happy with Oak Meadow's science curriculum, and we have several kits from Thames and Kosmos including physics and solar power and others that have all gotten heavy use in our home.

 

Do you also want reviews/recommendations for books that are not marketed as curriculum?  We have encountered some good books on our journey.


ME&treehugger.gifHE... loving our: wild.gifdd(18) ~~violin.gifds(13) read.gifdd(13)~~ peace.gifdd(10)
 
 

littlest birds is offline  
#3 of 40 Old 02-08-2013, 04:52 PM
 
IncompetentHousewife's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: In the farmhouse at the maple woods
Posts: 201
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
While we have used formal curricula over the years, I think my young kids learn best by simply observing nature. We own many nature field guides, and I also purchased field guide apps for use on my phone that are even more portable (Audubon Birds, Mammals, Butterflies). Inevitably they'll ask what's happening and why, which gives us a chance to learn.

I keep a pretty large home library of books picked up at yard sales and used book sales. I shelve science books together. If the kids see a tadpole and wonder what it eats, chances are I have a picture book about it. I have many Magic School Bus books, which are accurate and loved by the kids. I also like the older Let's-Read-and-Find-Out-About-Science series because the books are short picture books to hod little ones' attention, yet they explain complicated concepts in ways kids can understand.

A favorite activity that gets kids paying attention to their environment is a nature scavenger hunt. There are so many ways to do it, it never gets old. I've printed some found online or made up my own. Sometimes I just make dots with different colored markers in the bottom of an egg carton and they have to find something that matches that color.

We take advantage of free workshops at nature centers and earth fairs when we can. We've learned from experts about bats, snakes, salamanders, how Native Americans used earth materials in daily living and lots more.

Our family makes maple syrup in the spring, which gets us out in the woods a lot. My parents are farmers, so we get lots of chances to watch life cycles in the real world -- from seeds to crops, from a calf being born to a mother cow.

I try to have the kids involved in at least one hands-on project with something living each year. We might catch and raise tadpoles, then release them, or try to hatch butterfly eggs we've found. One year I bought a butterfly kit with caterpillars and feed. This year we hatched ducklings in an incubator.

Our kids participate in 4-H, which gives them opportunities to share what they learn. Last year one daughter took photos of five types of habitat around our home and listed which birds she had seen in each. This year another daughter is working on a wildflower exhibit.

Sometimes I do worry they aren't hearing the terminology used in a science textbook (mitosis and meiosis, anyone?), but they are absorbing what they learn because it's so real. I recently overheard my 10-year-old explaining to my older brother how bats echolocate. treehugger.gif

Raising and educating free-range kids in our farmhouse at the maple woods. In March, find us in the sugarbush making pure maple syrup.

1 me + 1 hubby + 4 kids + 5 goats + 3 pigs + 3 dozen chickens + 6 ducks = 1 crazy place
IncompetentHousewife is offline  
#4 of 40 Old 02-09-2013, 09:51 AM
 
Fillyjonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 825
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)

Probably this isn't that helpful, but by talking, answering questions, getting out in nature, gardening, cooking, doing experiments, life. 

 

My kids are 9, 7 and 5 and we are a highly science orientated family, both myself and my partner have studied maths/science at university/graduate level and he works in a science career. Its enormously important to us that our kids know and love and feel excited by science-in fact we homeschool partly to keep this alive.

 

We have used various curricula in the past but have never found anything as good as just chatting away.

 

All that said, my kids have liked ScienceJim's online lectures a lot. The only issue is that they are maths-light and as kids get older/are more into maths, it would be nice to have a maths-heavy alternative.


Raising Geek_Generation_2.0 :LET ds= 10 ; LET dd1= ds - 2; LET dd2=dd-2; IF month=0.67 THEN LET ds = ds+1; 
Fillyjonk is offline  
#5 of 40 Old 02-09-2013, 10:56 AM
 
moominmamma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In the middle of nowhere, at the centre of everything.
Posts: 5,615
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)

I really like what IncompetentHousewife and Fillyjonk have said about science learning in their homes, as it's quite similar to what we have done. Exploring and experiencing the real world with enthusiasm and a questioning mind is really the foundation of science. Book learning and what passes for "hands-on science" so often gets it backwards, because it poses either answers or questions for the student. In real science the questions come from the learner. The kid who notices that the car windows fog up in the winter but not in the summer and wonders why is on his way to being a scientist. A kid who labels a diagram to show the water and nutrient transport system of a plant is only learning about science. Obviously both are important, but I think nurturing scientific thinking is all too easily overlooked in favour of gathering the knowledge of other scientists. If you nurture being a scientist, the knowledge about science will naturally follow.

 

Fillyjonk's family culture with respect to science has been ours. Dh and I are trained in scientific fields as well. And this has made us confident that a scientific attitude towards the world that surrounds us is more important that any specific bits of scientific knowledge. The knowledge itself follows naturally if children's observant and questioning habits of mind are nurtured. The early years (up to age 10 or so) were almost entirely about living, working and playing with scientific-thinking radar up. As the kids got older (and mostly to deal with winter cabin fever) we also watched a lot of nature and science documentaries -- including of course the great BBC/Discovery series like Blue Planet, Planet Earth and so on. We especially liked the James Burke "Connections" videos from the 1980s, because they are so evocative of the scientific process, showing how events conspired to create the conditions necessary for scientific observations, questions and innovations that propelled history and science forward, resulting in new conditions that led to new discoveries, and so on and so on. 

 

We have kept lots of nature guides around and spent a lot of time outdoors. We are also DIY'ers by nature, and dh and I both greet the idea of making or building things 'from scratch' with genuine enthusiasm (growing dye plants, making soap, building a forge, making a cob oven, building websites, rebuilding bicycles, hatching and raising laying hens, growing a kitchen garden, building a simple walking bridge, etc. etc.). Figuring out how to do things from scratch necessitates really understanding the science behind how things work, and that has been an excellent model for the kids. They usually get swept up in whatever it is we're doing. We have a few decent scientific tools around that we've gathered gradually over 19 years of being home-educating parents: a microscope, a digital IR thermometer, a telescope, some nice binoculars, a digital scale, etc.. But there was no rush for any of that, as simple senses were enough for most exploration. For a year we had a Science Club, an informal science-based co-op learning group we organized with one other family. We did it one morning every two weeks. We'd choose a theme for the session: the solar system, plant reproduction, playground physics, snow science, human anatomy and physiology, whatever appealed to the parent who took on the planning, and we'd do some activities together (crafts, experimental demonstrations, field trips, problem-solving challenges, etc.). It was kind of fun as an enrichment thing, and socially, though with just the two families and an insane age- and interest-range amongst the nine kids it made for a huge amount of work falling on each parent, so we just did it for a year. 

 

My ds (now 16) did no formal science curriculum at all until age 15 when he started school. He is currently acing his school's most advanced biology course (cellular bio and biochemistry). My other kids have transitioned to school-style curricular easily and precociously without any systematic curriculum. 

 

Besides the "Connections" videos that I've already mentioned, a couple of lesser-known resources that we've liked: "How Stuff Works" podcasts, "RadioLab" podcasts, "The Story of Science" in 3 volumes by Joy Hakim, and Howard McGee's "On Food and Cooking: The Science and Lore of the Kitchen." 

 

Miranda


Mountain mama to three great kids and one great grown-up

moominmamma is online now  
#6 of 40 Old 02-10-2013, 05:45 PM
 
GPTwins08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Winter Park, Florida
Posts: 64
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I focus on Science quite often with my twin boys. I would love to share a blog post I wrote about the science activities I do with my twins. Note my blog is NOT a commercial blog. I just blog about homeschooling my twins

http://graham-and-parker.blogspot.com/2012/11/fun-preschool-science.html

.









~Kristen~ Mom to:
lol.gif Haley(16), treehugger.gif Cameron(14), joy.gif Mackenna(12), upsidedown.gif Graham & biggrinbounce.gif Parker (4 / Twins)
Pinterest - http://pinterest.com/twinsrock/
Blog - http://graham-and-parker.blogspot.com/
GPTwins08 is offline  
#7 of 40 Old 02-11-2013, 03:36 PM - Thread Starter
Administrator
 
Melanie Mayo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Oregon Coast
Posts: 247
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)

Thanks everyone for your replies!

 

Littlest birds -- yes, I am looking for reviews of any science related items for kids--kits and other hands-on learning opportunities especially. Anything that makes science fun for kids and simple for parents. Thanks! 

 

GPTwins08 -  LOVE what I am seeing on your blog. Perhaps you want to share something from your site in our upcoming guide. Write me at melaniem@mothering.com if you're interested. 

Melanie Mayo is offline  
#8 of 40 Old 02-11-2013, 04:19 PM
 
GPTwins08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Winter Park, Florida
Posts: 64
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melanie Mayo View Post

Thanks everyone for your replies!

Littlest birds -- yes, I am looking for reviews of any science related items for kids--kits and other hands-on learning opportunities especially. Anything that makes science fun for kids and simple for parents. Thanks! 

GPTwins08 -  LOVE what I am seeing on your blog. Perhaps you want to share something from your site in our upcoming guide. Write me at melaniem@mothering.com if you're interested. 

Thank you!! I sent you an email!

~Kristen~ Mom to:
lol.gif Haley(16), treehugger.gif Cameron(14), joy.gif Mackenna(12), upsidedown.gif Graham & biggrinbounce.gif Parker (4 / Twins)
Pinterest - http://pinterest.com/twinsrock/
Blog - http://graham-and-parker.blogspot.com/
GPTwins08 is offline  
#9 of 40 Old 02-13-2013, 12:26 PM
 
always there's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 30
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Hi there,

We use a lot of art projects to introduce the themes of science with our 1, 3 and 6 year olds. It's amazing the resources available for science related crafts for kids. I particularly like Redted and The Imagination Tree blogs for great ideas.

Also www.mightygirl.com has a great selection of both toys and books relating to science that can get the girls more involved too - and as I have two girls I'm always interested in ways to get them motivated!

Sara
always there is offline  
#10 of 40 Old 02-13-2013, 01:30 PM
 
Fillyjonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 825
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)

It is quite interesting to me really in some ways that there would be a concern with young kids learning science. Seriously, growing up in the UK in the 70/80s this was so not an issue at school. We did various bits and pieces I guess, mainly life stuff. We grew plants for the school garden, had a nature table and shelves with interesting things that could be drawn for art, did various open ended feats where the outcome but not the method was specified (get a 2p coin across a bathtub, which, amazingly, we had in my school). But we never did anything called Science. We never had any equipment more specialist than a garden trowel (for the teacher-the rest of us had to use spoons) . And it was very slow, very experiential, and never ever about learning anything in particular. This was, incidentally, considered to be a very good school indeed, and a high percentage of us kids got in, often on scholarships, to various famous public (private) schools for secondary.

 

I totally agree with Miranda/Moominmamma about this business of teaching little kids facts. It just seems completely the wrong way round. I have literally never met a little kid who does not love science, that door is incredibly open.

 

However I also feel a bit uneasy about giving kids the idea that science is something special, that requires special equipment, coloured lights, prisms, what have you. That is something your parents set up for you rather than just part of life. And there are so many routes into science it is crazy! In science, most paths interconnect at some point so a passion for geology can easily generate knowledge and interest in biology, physics, chemistry not to mention the softer sciences and engineering. For me its passion, interest and motivation that's pretty much what we need to be communicating to our kids in the 5-11 type age range. Science is one of those subjects you just don't need to learn facts in at a young age, it lends itself quite well to specialist niche knowledge so if you want to end up with a scientist I'd say let your kid find their passion and then give them the space and whatever else they need to pursue it.


Raising Geek_Generation_2.0 :LET ds= 10 ; LET dd1= ds - 2; LET dd2=dd-2; IF month=0.67 THEN LET ds = ds+1; 
Fillyjonk is offline  
#11 of 40 Old 02-13-2013, 03:16 PM
 
BellinghamCrunchie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Alpha Centauri
Posts: 4,293
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

We're using Building Foundations for Scientific Understanding (http://www.amazon.com/Building-Foundations-Scientific-Understanding-Curriculum/dp/1432706101/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1360797206&sr=8-1&keywords=building+foundations+of+scientific+understanding) which we chose because it was recommended here on Mothering.

 

Its a great text that teaches how to look at things critically, along with learning the basics about matter, energy, etc. In addition, there is email group support for the text so that you can post questions and the author will assist, and you can also see how other parents are implementing the text, and share ideas.

BellinghamCrunchie is offline  
#12 of 40 Old 02-13-2013, 03:27 PM
 
momadancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 24
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

We LOVE Building Foundations of Scientific Understanding by  Bernard Nebel.  It is great!  I teach a first grader and a kindergartener right now and we like to notebook and read real books so this curriculum is right up our alley.  It is affordable and the most complete science resource we have found.  Most of the real book recommendations that go along with the lessons can be found at our library.  The book is organized into 4 threads: Nature of Matter, Life Science, Physical Science, and Earth and Space Science.  There is a flow chart so you can follow your family's interests but still continue to build on info learned.  There is a yahoo group for support and the author is a frequent contributor,

 

We also nature journal.

 

Initially we followed Elizabeth Foss's Alphabet path and did storybook science when we were very young but now we are six (average age) ha ha!  and wanted to dive a little deeper.

 

We like poetry too :)

momadancer is offline  
#13 of 40 Old 02-13-2013, 04:17 PM
 
youknowwhatmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Building Foundations of Scientific Understanding is an Excellent Science Curriculum!!!!!!!!!!!

So much elementary level "science" curricula is a smattering of disjointed factoids and "science experiments" that are just a list of things to do, watch, be entertained, move on and not know why anything happened. 

This curriculum gives you a strong, scientific and comprehensive FOUNDATION in scientific ideas and thinking.  Dr. Nebel's goal of getting kids to Love the science in the world is evident and active.  We especially love to keep our flora and fauna logs of our neighborhood. 

It's all hands on and lends itself to living and flowing discussions. The girls really concretely understand the theories and Big Ideas underlying each lesson. Their questions are sometimes lessons in themselves. It is ALIVE and INSPIRED.

The lessons are fully contained information pages. Ideas at the end of what to do with your children. I've come up with an easy way to use and prepare the lessons so that I don't miss anything I want to hit upon but am not continuously reading the book and, instead, am having a living conversation with my kids.
 
We LOVE this curriculum.

youknowwhatmama is offline  
#14 of 40 Old 02-13-2013, 06:20 PM
 
daijobu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I have been homeschooling for 6 years now (since the kids left preschool), and I also want to chime on behalf of BFSU (Building Foundations for Scientific Understanding).  

 

BFSU arrived with a big splash and is all over the internet homeschooling community now, and with good reason.  Dr. Nebel's socratic approach to teaching and learning science is such a breath of fresh air compared with the more school-y worksheet-y approach to science.  

 

We are now using his 3rd book in the series, and all along he has been careful to make sure we have a big picture view of science.  We don't memorize the organelles of a cell and their functions.  We think about the unity of life, how glucose and ATP are consistently found in all organisms, from mushrooms to butterflies to humans.  We don't just learn that proteins are a chain of amino acids; we constantly bring it back to how the particular proteins a cell makes determines its function and differentiation.  He is careful to include the history of science in his approach.  These aren't just facts to be memorized, these were discoveries that were unknown to science not long ago, and we discover them along with the actual scientists.  

 

Read the Amazon reviews and join some homeschooling online discussion groups and you'll find plenty of BFSU fans like me.  

daijobu is offline  
#15 of 40 Old 02-13-2013, 07:05 PM
 
Mrs Twain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I have been using Dr. Nebel's Building Foundations of Scientific Understanding for the last three years.  I agree with the previous posters comments, so I won't repeat them except to say that BFSU is an outstanding program and that there are good descriptions of the program on Amazon.

 

My husband and I both have careers in the science field, and we wanted to find an excellent science program with which to educate our children.  BFSU has exceeded my expectations, being the most rigorous, in-depth program that I have found. 

Mrs Twain is offline  
#16 of 40 Old 02-14-2013, 06:23 AM
 
Daffodil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Vermont
Posts: 3,607
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fillyjonk View Post
For me its passion, interest and motivation that's pretty much what we need to be communicating to our kids in the 5-11 type age range. Science is one of those subjects you just don't need to learn facts in at a young age, it lends itself quite well to specialist niche knowledge so if you want to end up with a scientist I'd say let your kid find their passion and then give them the space and whatever else they need to pursue it.

 

What sort of facts are you talking about when you say young kids don't need to learn science facts?  I agree that there's no need to memorize a lot of detail, but I tend to think there are some basic facts everyone ought to learn, and the sooner the better.  For instance: 

 

The Earth is a sphere and it orbits the sun, along with a bunch of other planets.  Stars are other suns that are very far away. The Earth rotates and that's why we have night and day - because sometimes our part of the Earth is facing the sun and sometimes it's facing away.

 

Life on Earth depends (with a few exceptions) on energy from the sun.  Green plants can capture that energy and store it as food and everything else has to get its energy from plants, so everything we eat comes either from a plant or from something that ate plants.

 

There was once no life on Earth.  Then simple living organisms appeared, and gradually, over a very long time, more complicated organisms evolved.  The species that live on Earth now evolved from previous species.

 

I could go on, but you get the idea.  I guess there's no real harm done if a kid doesn't learn any of that until she's a teenager, as long as she does end up learning it.  But it seems better to me for kids to start building a basic understanding of the world pretty early on.  I expect in your house, as in mine, those concepts all come up very naturally and your kids couldn't help learning them.  But I wouldn't want to give less science-y parents the idea that cooking and gardening and picking up worms is really all the science kids need.

Daffodil is online now  
#17 of 40 Old 02-14-2013, 08:57 AM
 
Fillyjonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 825
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)

" I wouldn't want to give less science-y parents the idea that cooking and gardening and picking up worms is really all the science kids need."

 

Why? I'm genuinely curious as to why you wouldn't consider that to be a good science curriculum for a youngish child. Cooking = basic chemistry (really) gardening = biology. Why not  to pick up worms with your fingers also = biology. Its also worth pointing out that a ten minute discussion in the garden in the spring might well easily cover all the facts you mention in your post, in a memorable way. I cannot think of a single gardener I know, including your flowery wellies arty type weekend gardeners,  including devotees to all sorts of interesting world views, who have not worked out that you need the sun to grow a plant. 

 

Also what do you see as the advantage of starting early? Or to put it another way, and assuming that the alternative is not Oprah, what do you see as the disadvantage of waiting until a child finds their own route into science and then running with that? 

 

I actually see two real disadvantages of starting early. First off,  I think information overload, teaching a kid when they are not interested, or cognitively ready for the levels of abstraction of some parts of science, can be a surefire way of turning a kid off science, giving them the idea that Science Is Hard. And if a kid IS interested, why would you use a curriculum rather than letting them lead? Teaching a motivated, interested kid who is racing ahead of you vs plodding through a curriculum? No contest in my book.

 

I think there's a place for structured and systematic aquisition of scientific knowledge by the way-all scientists have done this in their chosen field at some point. At some point, if my kids want to be employed as chemists, physicists, geologists then they will probably need to head to university (online or bricks and mortar) and follow a fairly standardised course in their chosen field. There's a reason these courses are quite standardised, because all chemists, physicists etc do need to know certain basics to specialise further. You need to learn the common language and the current state of knowledge in your field in order for things to move forward. What I just do not agree with is that you need to start doing this at 4, or 7, or 10. This is exactly the kind of knowledge that can be gained much, much more efficiently when you have a. had years of pondering stuff over, experimenting and so on and b. when you are cognitively ready, which I'd dispute most 9 year olds are relative to their 14 year old self.  


Raising Geek_Generation_2.0 :LET ds= 10 ; LET dd1= ds - 2; LET dd2=dd-2; IF month=0.67 THEN LET ds = ds+1; 
Fillyjonk is offline  
#18 of 40 Old 02-14-2013, 09:20 AM
 
moominmamma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In the middle of nowhere, at the centre of everything.
Posts: 5,615
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
I agree with Fillyjonk. When a kid is picking worms, they're liable to ask at some point "where do worms come from?" which will lead to incredible wide-ranging discussions about life, reproduction, the origins of life and evolution. That sort of natural learning will be so much more meaningful and well-retained than something that comes out of a textbook on some adult's schedule. Sure, it's not systematic, and some kids might not ask some questions until age 11 or something, but I see no big issues with that. At some point there may be a need for a systematic curriculum to ensure gaps are filled before moving to higher study. For my kids that came at age 13 or 14 or so, and it was very easily accomplished in very little time.

MIranda

Mountain mama to three great kids and one great grown-up

moominmamma is online now  
#19 of 40 Old 02-14-2013, 07:48 PM
 
Daffodil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Vermont
Posts: 3,607
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fillyjonk View Post

" I wouldn't want to give less science-y parents the idea that cooking and gardening and picking up worms is really all the science kids need."

 

Why? I'm genuinely curious as to why you wouldn't consider that to be a good science curriculum for a youngish child. Cooking = basic chemistry (really) gardening = biology. Why not  to pick up worms with your fingers also = biology. Its also worth pointing out that a ten minute discussion in the garden in the spring might well easily cover all the facts you mention in your post, in a memorable way. I cannot think of a single gardener I know, including your flowery wellies arty type weekend gardeners,  including devotees to all sorts of interesting world views, who have not worked out that you need the sun to grow a plant. 

 

Sure, a kid can learn a lot from a 10 minute discussion in the garden.  But the discussion is a key part of the learning.  Just being in the garden without the discussion may or may not be a learning experience.  Cooking, gardening, and worms plus introduction of relevant facts and discussion sounds like a fine science curriculum for a young kid.  Cooking, gardening, and worms alone won't necessarily guarantee any science learning. 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fillyjonk View Post

 

Also what do you see as the advantage of starting early? Or to put it another way, and assuming that the alternative is not Oprah, what do you see as the disadvantage of waiting until a child finds their own route into science and then running with that? 

 

I actually see two real disadvantages of starting early. First off,  I think information overload, teaching a kid when they are not interested, or cognitively ready for the levels of abstraction of some parts of science, can be a surefire way of turning a kid off science, giving them the idea that Science Is Hard. And if a kid IS interested, why would you use a curriculum rather than letting them lead? Teaching a motivated, interested kid who is racing ahead of you vs plodding through a curriculum? No contest in my book.

 

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. 

 

But when I talk about starting early, I'm certainly not thinking of trying to cram facts into a kid who's not interested or can't understand.  And I'm not thinking of plodding through a curriculum, or even using a curriculum.  I don't think I'm really talking about anything very different from what you're talking about by "waiting until a child finds their own route into science and then running with that."  I'm thinking of the kind of thing it sounds like you do: 10 minute conversations in the garden and so forth, maybe talking about something the kid is already interested in, or maybe bringing up some interesting fact the kid might like to hear about.

 

I didn't have to buy a curriculum or plan anything out in order to ensure that my kids got a good introduction to basic science facts from an early age.  It just happened naturally.  It sounds like it worked the same way in your family and in Moominmamma's.  But if we were to say, oh, we didn't do anything special, just got out into nature and talked about what we saw, we'd be leaving out a big part of what was actually going on.  Those discussions that just happened naturally were fueled by knowledge and interest not everyone has.

 

To bring this back to the original thread topic, I guess the question is how parents who don't have a scientific background can best ensure their kids learn the basics of science.  I'm not talking about systematic study of chemistry or physics, just basic concepts like what makes day and night, why plants need sunlight, why we can't live without plants, what air is made of, etc.  Going through a curriculum doesn't seem like the best way.  But what's the alternative?  If you knew someone who wasn't actually interested in learning more science herself but wanted her kid to learn the basics, what resources would you advise her to use?  That's the kind of person who really needs this thread.  I have no idea what would work well for that person, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be the same approach that works well for us science-loving parents.

Daffodil is online now  
#20 of 40 Old 02-15-2013, 09:01 AM
 
sagira's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: The Florida Keys
Posts: 1,316
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
We enjoy using Building Foundations of Scientific Understanding, because it fits with our Charlotte Mason way of exploring in nature, learning from books and things. Nature Studies and this book together with living books are our ideal way of learning Science.
sagira is offline  
#21 of 40 Old 02-15-2013, 09:41 AM
 
Fillyjonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 825
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)

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.


Raising Geek_Generation_2.0 :LET ds= 10 ; LET dd1= ds - 2; LET dd2=dd-2; IF month=0.67 THEN LET ds = ds+1; 
Fillyjonk is offline  
#22 of 40 Old 02-15-2013, 10:49 AM
 
Daffodil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Vermont
Posts: 3,607
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Fillyjonk View Post

 

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.)

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fillyjonk View Post

 

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.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fillyjonk View Post
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.

Daffodil is online now  
#23 of 40 Old 02-15-2013, 12:21 PM
 
abbiandboys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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!!
abbiandboys is offline  
#24 of 40 Old 02-15-2013, 12:22 PM
 
anabelneri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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

anabelneri is offline  
#25 of 40 Old 02-15-2013, 02:17 PM
 
Fillyjonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 825
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)

okay opinion differences are cool. Dialectic in action right there ROTFLMAO.gifAnd 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.


Raising Geek_Generation_2.0 :LET ds= 10 ; LET dd1= ds - 2; LET dd2=dd-2; IF month=0.67 THEN LET ds = ds+1; 
Fillyjonk is offline  
#26 of 40 Old 02-15-2013, 02:40 PM
 
pek64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
pek64 is offline  
#27 of 40 Old 02-15-2013, 04:08 PM - Thread Starter
Administrator
 
Melanie Mayo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Oregon Coast
Posts: 247
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)

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. 

Melanie Mayo is offline  
#28 of 40 Old 02-15-2013, 07:17 PM
 
cmac2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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.
 

cmac2 is offline  
#29 of 40 Old 02-15-2013, 08:32 PM
 
moominmamma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In the middle of nowhere, at the centre of everything.
Posts: 5,615
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)

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


Mountain mama to three great kids and one great grown-up

moominmamma is online now  
#30 of 40 Old 02-15-2013, 11:05 PM
 
pek64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by moominmamma View Post

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.
pek64 is offline  
Reply

Tags
Homeschooling , Education , Learning Resources , Unschooling

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off