| Author | |
Angel
Forum All-Star
Joined: April 22 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2293
|
| Posted: March 04 2010 at 4:53pm | IP Logged
|
 |
|
I wonder if we could start a thread about *how* to do high school science without a textbook -- the nuts and bolts of it.
A few links for resources:
Tentative High School Science Plan
Theresa's Fieldwork blog
Macbeth's Opinion: High School Science
MODG: Natural History
Ideas for topics to discuss:
How to plan?
Can this be done in a large family?
What does it look like on a transcript?
How to do labs/hands-on work?
How much structure?
I think what *I* really need is a tutorial... 
__________________
Angela
Mom to 9, 7 boys and 2 girls
Three Plus Two
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Angel
Forum All-Star
Joined: April 22 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2293
|
| Posted: March 04 2010 at 8:22pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Um... I think I'll go ahead and post a little bit about our experience thus far (which isn't too much at the teen level)...
We've basically unschooled science to this point. I think my 13 yo ds has gained quite a bit of scientific knowledge along the way, although this approach has left us a few holes. We've always tried for a good mix of living books, hands-on exploration, travel and field trips, and video/audio studies. Technically speaking my ds is finishing up 7th grade right now, and science has not been high on his list of interests for the majority of this year. Looking ahead to high school, I tried to introduce more consistency into his studies this year... and also I was (am) looking at state requirements of 108 hours/year for 7th and 8th grade to earn two "units" of science. (The 108 hour requirement holds for English, history, and math, too. He'll end up the year with the equivalent of 2 NY units of English, but science I've been sort of groping around for stuff to include on the quarterly reports.)
Anyway, the introduction of consistency has not worked very well. This is a personality issue - on both my part and my son's part, I believe, and less a problem with the kinds of books I provided or the kinds of projects I proposed. We started out with a focus on evolutionary biology, followed a brief interest in genetics, and then... a big lull. My ds completed the requirements for the Boy Scout Geology and Forestry badges, which counted for quite a bit of his science time, and he also has spent a fair amount of time caring for poultry (chickens and turkeys.) In an attempt to break through the lull, I wrote him a sort of space science unit (using the way Theresa did her marine biology as a sort of template), and I have no idea why this bombed, but it did. (Fortunately, though, it's all written down so I have it for later. I really thought that keeping a photographic record of the moon for a month would be interesting, but I think my timing was off -- it was just too cold.) In the meantime, we keep watching NOVA.
So now he has to fit in 30 hours of science by the end of the year and our unschooling ways are not entirely conducive to this. I got out a textbook (Prentice Hall Physical Science) to use as a test run, and... I just don't think he's ready for this textbook, plus (I must agree with this assessment) "it's boring". After talking it over with my dh and my ds, I just ordered Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything, after scaring up an online reading guide.
I think this will end up being, in essence, "General Science". I am glad I started thinking about how to do this in 7th grade because it has given us some time to experiment without the pressure of "this is really high school". What I foresee for us in the years ahead is a mix of textbook and non-textbook learning. I like to have textbooks around for reference. And I am finding that we do need a spine to follow. But I am not sure that textbooks will work as the sole means of science education.
As I've observed my ds this year and experimented with the science "curriculum" (I use that term loosely), I've learned a few things. One thing I've learned is that my ds works well with structured curricula -- even texts -- but those texts/curricula must not be ordinary, garden-variety texts. In other subjects, the One Year Adventure Novel curriculum is working well for us, a text in "Teach Yourself Old English" is working well, and his grammar textbook, Our Mother Tongue (by Nancy Wilson), has also been successful. I have not found anything comparable for science. This indicates to me that we may have to find our own way through "living books" for science, but I have to do a few things:
1. I have to make my expectations clear.
2. I have to make sure that he can use whatever resources we put together fairly independently.
3. While I need to allow him some freedom and input, he's the kind of kid easily overwhelmed/paralyzed by too much freedom. When there are too many choices, he generally ends up choosing not to do any of them.
So I'll be using the discoveries of this year to plan in the future.
__________________
Angela
Mom to 9, 7 boys and 2 girls
Three Plus Two
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Erin
Forum Moderator
Joined: Feb 23 2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5814
|
| Posted: March 05 2010 at 4:21am | IP Logged
|
|
|
So essentially your conclusions bring you to looking for 'living textbooks.' Yes?
We found books to fit this bill as our introduction to more formal science. Like you our primary years were totally interest led, with a couple of panic led units by mum.  These were the History of Medicine, Chemistry, Physics and Biology by John Hudson Tiner but they are written from a Creation Science worldview.
I think it's wonderful you have worked this all out now, I'm a few years ahead of you with my oldest and have only just got there.
__________________
Erin
Faith Filled Days
Seven Little Australians
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Angel
Forum All-Star
Joined: April 22 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2293
|
| Posted: March 05 2010 at 6:53am | IP Logged
|
|
|
A "living textbook" would be nice! There are things about textbooks that I like. For one, they are laid out in such a way that it makes it easy to just "do the next thing" and also there are (usually, often) answer keys so kids can check their own work. Considering the fact that we are looking at adding our 5th child age 7 and under in June, ease of use and independence are high on my list of good things right now.
But after looking at the physical science textbooks available -- ugh!  I wonder, is physical science even necessary? Can you get enough basis to begin high school physics and chemistry in a more general science course? It has always been our intention to farm out chemistry -- don't want to deal with chemicals + lots of small children. We want to provide a solid science background for our children, but we realize that their interests and career goals will vary.
(ETA: For the record, and not wanting to start an argument, what I most desire in a science book lies between the creationist/Protestant viewpoint and the secular evolutionist viewpoint -- a more Catholic viewpoint. Why don't Catholics write science textbooks???)
It does seem like there are a lot of questions to answer when thinking about high school. Ask one and ten more come along on its heels!
__________________
Angela
Mom to 9, 7 boys and 2 girls
Three Plus Two
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Mackfam
Board Moderator
Non Nobis
Joined: April 24 2006
Location: Alabama
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 14656
|
| Posted: March 05 2010 at 8:44am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Hi Angela.
I'm on a similar road. I'm looking at a high school science plan that is
A) content adequate (in other words, I'm not looking to build a science genius in my home...just someone that LOVES learning and asking questions and is equipped with basic knowledge and tools to take that further.)
B) hands-on so that content is solidified in practice - labs!!
C) primarily literature rich
This kind of program doesn't exist to my knowledge, so I'll be building as I go. Nothing new there.  I'm just starting to pull together some thoughts and ideas in my head with the help of my dad (scientist) and some other science professionals/educators within the Catholic community that are being very generous with their time and insights to me. These are random, not mature thoughts and ideas. They're just starting to form into something cohesive really. But, I'll share them if they are helpful or spark an idea.
** In general, I prefer secular texts, but like you, I wish there was something from a Catholic viewpoint. I see a text as useful in my home insofar as it provides a scope and sequence and a sense of general vocabulary. It will not be the primary tool we use in high school science, so my needs aren't like yours. I'm not searching for a living text. I'm looking for good enough. I will probably pull a test or two out of them just to offer practice skills in test taking and to use them to look for any holes we might have.
** High school chemistry will be strong. One of the observations I'm hearing is that in general students are not entering college level science courses with a basic understanding of chemistry. Professors are having to remediate basic chem just to start a college level A&P. I don't want to skimp there.
** Flip the Biology first-Physics last approach. Possibly. I'm giving serious thought to approaching Physics first. Still looking into it, but there have been some compelling arguments for this approach. I was first introduced to the idea when I heard of a very good Catholic high school as using this approach. I began reading about it. It's called *Physics First*. I'm intrigued and still turning it over in my head. I know...I know...the math thing. I think with a fairly good grounding in basic Algebra (Algebra I) that other concepts could be taught on an as needed basis, but it's a point I'm researching more.
** General look of our high school plan as it is (still) emerging in my head:
:: Literature rich - we'll continue our living book approach and use a science journal/notebook to connect dots and journal results and information.
:: Content will supplement literature (this will be an area for a text as a reference, not as a primary or even a spine.)
:: Labs and practical applications are essential in "making real" a skill or an idea/theory/scientific fact that has been introduced through literature.
:: For chemistry, I'll be flipping this at times to introduce a lab first and then offering the concept - this is apparently a very successful way for introducing a concept in chemistry - "here is the *result* --> chemical reaction" and here's why this worked the way it did. From there, what were the variables? What could we have done to change the outcome? Why?
This is as far as I've gotten, but I'm still having conversations (with myself ) and with others whose opinions I value.
My goals in high school science:
** to convey a basic understanding of science concepts
** offer skills in researching, exploring, and understanding/making real the concepts introduced
** foster an awe for the way in which God's Creation is ordered and designed and the way we are "fearfully and wonderfully made."
** inspire a confidence and ability in my child to research, understand, logically reason - beyond the text - beyond the words - as it applies to life.
** to do all of this in a way that continues to express itself within our educational philosophy which is literature rich and invites exploration.
In general I see this translating into:
** outlines/scope and sequence of material to be covered in high school courses.
** booklists based on those outlines
** good labs coordinated with literature (there are many that have been designed to work in a homeschool high school home.) I'm also looking at gaining access to a few labs in a *real* laboratory as I think this kind of exposure is valuable.
** a supplemental and minimal use of texts within the course itself. (I may use a text to skim/study from/build understanding/be able to speak from, but they won't be the primary vehicle of science or even the secondary vehicle for my students...however, I reserve the right to be fickle, panic, and change my mind at any time )
*********************************************************
In general, my thoughts are still forming, but here's where I'm heading with regard to your questions:
I'll be starting big picture first - overall high school sequence of material covered. From there, I'll do it one year at a time. I'm starting to plan in detail the 9th grade year. Set a general outline. Build booklists. Locate lab resources. My 9th grader will be in charge of time management and completion. That's a skill I think very important. I don't mind helping out or being a sounding board, but it's time to convey independence here.
Angel wrote:
| Can this be done in a large family? |
|
|
I think so, but my family isn't what I would characterize as large. I do have a toddler into everything and other little people that need me. In general, I see this plan working if I can organize a basic plan and make it clear. My dd will be involved and take ownership of the plan. Living it out (labs) will require creativity - naptime, liberal use of gates .
Angel wrote:
| What does it look like on a transcript? |
|
|
Very simply and not necessarily in this order:
Physics with lab
Chemistry with lab
Biology I with lab
Biology II with lab
Angela wrote:
| How to do labs/hands-on work? |
|
|
I've found a number of labs that look great for the home. Though I'll probably order directly from Carolina Biological so I can have more flexiblity of choices, a couple of resources I've found have the "click this button to order everything you need for a Biology lab". Tempting. In addition, I'm fortunate in that I have access to a working lab, but other ways to get labs in are through local high school tutoring services, local community colleges.
I see value in exposure to a working laboratory and all the resources one offers. But, for the most part, labs and hands on will be done in our home lab - the kitchen! I'll share some resources I've found later. I'm still narrowing down myself.
Enough to convey concepts but with plenty of margin to explore and dig into rabbit trails. Clear as mud?
I have no idea if any of this helps, Angela, and I hope it wasn't so random that it just compounded confusion - really, my thoughts are still coming together. I REALLY HOPE with all my verbosity I have not conveyed myself as any sort of authority!!!!! I'm just a home educating mom (that loves science) that hopes to continue to home educate using our familiar educational philosophy in high school science - just going a little wider and a little deeper. Gotta hit post and get on with the day.
__________________
Jen Mackintosh
Wife to Rob, mom to dd 19 , ds 16, ds 11, dd 8, and dd 3
Wildflowers and Marbles
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
jdostalik
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 15 2005
Location: Texas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2935
|
| Posted: March 05 2010 at 8:58am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I think you could skip a Physical Science course or if that bothers you, wait until 9th grade to do it. My dd took Apologia's Physical Science course last year and did well as she is strong in math, but even she struggled a bit with all the math work needed and boy was the subject matter DRY!
Another friend of mine had a child who was struggling with the math work in her Physical Science course (so many take this in 8th grade and the math needed to succeed appears to be beyond the typical 8th grade math level)...Anyway, they decided to stop Physical Science, do some nature study for the rest of the year and focus on math skills.
I am most likely going to skip Physical Science with my next dd (not a strong science or math child) and just begin with a Biology course in 9th grade, then Chemistry ( we farm out our science in high school) and after that depending on the requirements, Botany or Astronomy to finish out her coursework.
Chris Baglow has a new book out with a Catholic perspective on science.
Just my .02!!
__________________
God Bless,
Jennifer in TX
wife to Bill, mom to six here on earth and eight in heaven.
Let the Little Ones Come
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Angel
Forum All-Star
Joined: April 22 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2293
|
| Posted: March 05 2010 at 11:03am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Jennifer in TX -- THANK YOU for the link to that text. It looks like something I need on my shelf (for me to read if nothing else.)
Making lunch right now, but more thoughts later...
__________________
Angela
Mom to 9, 7 boys and 2 girls
Three Plus Two
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
lapazfarm
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 21 2005
Location: Alaska
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6082
|
| Posted: March 05 2010 at 11:25am | IP Logged
|
|
|
We are headed out to the Raptor rehab center for our weekly volunteer duties, so I don't have time to address this fully right now, but I am excited to see this topic pop up and I'll be back with some thoughts later.
For now I just want to add that the Bill Bryson book you mentioned makes an awesome "spine" for a general science course and offers infinite possibilities for rabbit trails. I also think it includes enough history to count as a full history course in addition to science. It is very meaty. I'll be glad to share my notes (if I can find them ) from when we did the first half a few years ago.They are not organized in any way except as notes in the margins about what rabbit trails and activities we took off on, but they might be useful to someone. (And some day when we get around to doing the second half I may organize them a bit more.)
__________________
Theresa
us-schooling in beautiful Fairbanks, Alaska.
LaPaz Home Learning
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Angel
Forum All-Star
Joined: April 22 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2293
|
| Posted: March 06 2010 at 7:05am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Theresa -- I'd love to have your notes on the Bryson book. If you have the time to share them, that is. (Also, we are all horribly jealous of your ability to volunteer at the Raptor Rehab Center. Horribly jealous. )
Yesterday I spent some time looking through some of the science books on my shelf (including a few college-level textbooks I have picked up here and there) and thinking about a long-range plan, which I wish I had thought about last year when I was also thinking about a long-range rotation for history. I mean, I have always known the "colleges want Biology, Chemistry, Physics" axiom (although in reading about unschoolers who have gone on to college, it seems like the definitions of "biology, chemistry, and physics" do not necessarily have to be the traditional ones)... but it seems like there are at least 2 more years to work with, as a lot of people work on high school science in 8th grade.
Anyway, I started thinking backwards, and I wondered if maybe the "biology, chemistry, physics" -- in other words, the more specialized sciences -- are better saved until 10th, 11th, and 12th, and 7th, 8th, and 9th should be more focused on interdisciplinary science... not as in "earth science", "physical science", those sorts of traditional categories... but as maybe a survey of science course (like the Bryson book, which I bought because I think it will appeal to my ds who really likes history) and a focus on Natural History... but "natural history" as it used to be defined, which included paleontology and geology, soil science, etc. In looking around it seems like the emphasis in "natural history" these days is usually on animal and plant life and the art of nature journals. But I'm thinking of museums like the Smithsonian's Museum of Natural History.
Not that we haven't been *doing* natural history for a long time now, but it's all been informal. 7th/8th/9th grade may be the time for more formal "natural history studies", with papers, notebooks, etc. -- and really delving into the history of an environment, a place.
I think we have a good opportunity to do this when we move this fall.
So this sort of science program would look like this:
7th-9th:
Survey of science, introduction to disciplines and history
Formal Natural History
10th -12th: biology, chemistry, physics, and I think with us, chemistry may come last.
I'm intrigued by the physics before biology thing. What's the reason behind that? How do you deal with the math? What about the potential for taking AP tests?
Of course, if you wait until 10th grade rather than 9th, the math might not be as much of an issue.
__________________
Angela
Mom to 9, 7 boys and 2 girls
Three Plus Two
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Angel
Forum All-Star
Joined: April 22 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2293
|
| Posted: March 06 2010 at 8:02am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Angel wrote:
So this sort of science program would look like this:
7th-9th:
Survey of science, introduction to disciplines and history
Formal Natural History
10th -12th: biology, chemistry, physics, and I think with us, chemistry may come last.
|
|
|
Ok, so this looks a little self-centered... I'm quoting myself. I realized after I walked away from the computer and started doing other things that this breakdown probably isn't terribly helpful to anybody but me, because I have skipped some of my reasoning (something I tend to do a lot.  )
What I meant by only using the 7th-9th category was that maybe a survey course and a natural history course could be done concurrently, taking 2-3 years, and using a chronological framework. For instance, the Bryson book (which I do not have in my hands yet, but should be arriving Monday!) starts off talking about the formation of the universe, and so a natural history emphasis might begin with the lay of the land, geology, and the geologic history of the place. That's all very important stuff which I think a lot of nature study often glosses in order to get to the animals and plants -- kind of losing the forest for the trees maybe? The physical environment, climate, etc. really does form the basis for everything that lives there.
Anyway, I have a lot of half-baked ideas.
I also wasn't sure I wanted to assign years to biology, chemistry, and physics because I'm interested in this Physics First idea that Jen mentioned.
I do notice that this doesn't leave anybody space to pursue more in depth study into areas like Astronomy or- Anatomy/Physiology, etc. etc.
Hmmm...
__________________
Angela
Mom to 9, 7 boys and 2 girls
Three Plus Two
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Mackfam
Board Moderator
Non Nobis
Joined: April 24 2006
Location: Alabama
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 14656
|
| Posted: March 06 2010 at 8:45am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I loved your idea, Angela!! It was where I had landed as well. My big picture plan had a 2 year focus (8th and 9th grade) surveying general science through natural history. Our 8th grade year has been really exciting and fruitful studying science this way. It's sort of been a transition from pretty much exclusively *unschooling* science into a bit more structure (not sure that's the right word, but it's all I can think of...maybe more expectation, more connecting the dots?) in terms of science. It's familiar, because it's Natural History, but it's also broad enough to give some great *big picture* elements. Granted, our focus has been through a more feminine lens, making use of the works of Edith Holden and Beatrix Potter.
I'm still trying to decide how I want to juggle the order of high school science. I have thought a possibility might be to continue with my plan of allowing 9th grade science to be the continuation of my Natural History/General Science approach and move into Physics in 10th grade. I'm very interested in the John Hudson Tiner books Erin mentioned as well as taking a look at the Bryson book you've got coming. And, I've always been especially drawn to the Bernd Heinrich books. I've still got some thinking to do and some conversations I want to have before I get this more nailed down.
I was thinking of deleting/editing my post because it bothered me ALL.DAY.YESTERDAY. It sounds so smug, and "I've got it all figured out."  And, I don't.
Like you, I'm trying to stay true to my core educational philosophy.
Briefly, here are some links to get you started with the Physics First idea. I'm not hanging my hat on it, but it is very interesting and I'll admit it has me thinking. I'm familiar with a Catholic high school that has done this and have been having a conversation with their science faculty. The idea:
Article by Julia Steiny wrote:
| Physics First orders the sciences in their evolutionary sequence: physics, chemistry and then biology. From the atom to the molecule to the cell, kids build their understanding of science with the sequence in which nature built our world. |
|
|
Another benefit according to those I've spoken with is that it allows Biology to come later, when a student is older and able to grasp/understand/question/investigate some of the cognitive concepts more readily. The idea of the Physics First program is that it is meant to be very hands-on and to engage and promote questions.
Physics First - this is a publication from the American Association of Physics Teachers. There's an interesting pdf at the bottom of the article to download that has some good nuts and bolts of how it would look.
Nobel Laureate says we should put physics first
Suddenly kids find physics a magnetic field to study - this article speaks to some of the results on AP testing in context of schools using the Physics First approach.
Very much enjoying some of the resources linked on this thread!!! Thank you ladies!
I'm glad you started this conversation, Angela! Will your oldest be in 9th grade next year? I thought so, but I was getting the idea from some of your posts that maybe it's 8th grade.
__________________
Jen Mackintosh
Wife to Rob, mom to dd 19, ds 16, ds 11, dd 8, and dd 3
Wildflowers and Marbles
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
mary
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 17 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 691
|
| Posted: March 06 2010 at 9:56am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Angel wrote:
So this sort of science program would look like this:
7th-9th:
Survey of science, introduction to disciplines and history
Formal Natural History
|
|
|
this is a really interesting idea. i currently have a 6th grader and am not sure if we will be sending him to high school or home-schooling, so i'm particularly interested in this plan.
I have used 3 of Tiner's books this year (Mathematics, Planet Earth and HIstory of Medicine.) There are really very good. I was thinking of using his Chemistry book and a Chem kit from Thames and Cosmos for Chemistry next year. Now you have me thinking about how well Natural History/Science would work with Sonlight's Core 6 (which he will be doing next year.)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Angel
Forum All-Star
Joined: April 22 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2293
|
| Posted: March 06 2010 at 11:49am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Jen -- technically he'll be in 8th grade. This is basically to allow him an extra year of maturity, which he needs because a)he's a boy and b)he's got some special needs which affect things like social skills/maturity/etc. His birthday is in October, so 8th grade is actually where he'd be in a brick and mortar school.
But... intellectually/academically -- he needs challenging/high school level work. In some cases, he needs much *more* than what the typical high school program provides. (And in others, we're still remediating skills. Sigh. That's the challenge of "twice exceptional.")
So I pretty much throw grade levels out the window on a practical, day-to-day basis and just know that he'll turn 18 before he graduates.
looking forward to perusing those links when I get home from my dd's Marian Aides program tonight!
__________________
Angela
Mom to 9, 7 boys and 2 girls
Three Plus Two
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
lapazfarm
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 21 2005
Location: Alaska
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6082
|
| Posted: March 06 2010 at 1:25pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
The Physics First stuff is interesting. I find myself only in partial agreement for a few reasons.
Firstly, I agree that a solid understanding of basic chemistry and physics should precede biology. No way can you understand much of what is going on in biology without that. This is why you'll find the first part of any biology course is a review of chemistry and how it applies to biological systems.
But, I do not think an entire course in each is necessary to move on in biology, just a solid understanding of basic principles. Just like the math, which the Physics First article say can be introduced on a "need to know basis," so can more advanced chem and physics.
Second, I totally agree with this statement:
Quote:
The maturity level and cognitive development of
typical ninth-grade students require adjustments in
the approach to teaching the concepts. Ninth graders
are more likely to be “concrete thinkers”...
|
|
|
but totally disagree with this assessment:
Quote:
and physics is more concrete than either chemistry or
biology.
|
|
|
What??? I suppose my definition of concrete is different than theirs, but I think studying something you can touch, pick up, and dissect is much more concrete than trying to learn about something as abstract as wave/particle motion, atomic structure and magnetism, which you cannot actually see but have to conceptualize only by observing the results of those forces on other things. This is the whole reason for leaving physics last in the first place. Sorry, but physics IS more abstract, and thus more appropriate for a more mature mind.
Sure they try to cover this by saying "instruction needs to change to be more hands-on" but really, how hands on can quantum mechanics be??LOL!
But I think the root of my problem lies in these next two statements:
Quote:
Possible topics for Physics First might include vectors,
kinematics, dynamics, work and energy, momentum
and collisions, circular motion, electric forces,
electric potential, magnetism, electromagnetic waves,
geometric optics, vibrations and waves, relativity,
photons, quantum mechanics, and atomic structure.
|
|
|
Sounds like a solid, if a bit basic course.
Quote:
Most Physics First schools list motion, energy,
Newton’s Laws and forces, optics, sound and wave
motion, and electricity and magnetism as the topics
that are included in a basic physics curriculum.
|
|
|
Pardon me, but aren't these middle school topics? Really, arent they just taking middle school physical science and calling it physics? Is this really just another attempt to dumb down science in disguise? I am skeptical. Very skeptical.
I think a solid middle school understanding of physics and chem, paired with a good review of the topics as a first section of biology is still the best solution. And I think you idea, Angela, of a solid survey/natural history course in middle school is the very best way to go about that.
Ok, I guess that turned into a bit of a rant, which was not my intention, because I do agree with a few points of the article.Namely, that a kid needs to understand physics (really, more chemistry) before moving into biology. I just think it needs to be accomplished in middle school, not by bumping it up to high school.
__________________
Theresa
us-schooling in beautiful Fairbanks, Alaska.
LaPaz Home Learning
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Angel
Forum All-Star
Joined: April 22 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2293
|
| Posted: March 08 2010 at 7:22am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Ok, so yesterday night I sat down and typed up a bunch of notes from what I'd been thinking about all weekend as far as a survey course goes. To be honest, it makes me a little nervous to plan like this because I have a long track record of planning out courses, units, etc. that look really nice on paper, but completely fail on execution. On the other hand, my husband and I agree that the teen years ought to be a bit more organized. And in this case, I really don't see my ds organizing himself. This is actually where the tension of textbook-based vs. non-textbook comes in... I *do* think non-textbook science can work in a large family, but I also think it probably needs to be somewhat streamlined in the set up. It's not that he'll never get any help for me, but if I'm spending a lot of time helping him with math (for example), then I'll want him to be able to pick up his science and know exactly what he should be doing next... *and* I'll want him to be able to do a lot of his labwork independently. I'll probably have to devote more time to discussion with him without using a textbook, which is not a bad thing but I worry I can keep up with at least skimming the books. I'll also have a lot more front-end work to do.
Are these reasonable assumptions?
I also read the Physics First articles and Theresa's reply yesterday and have chewed on it a bit. Interesting stuff. It seems to me that what they are doing is ditching the standard "Physical Science" course offered in some high school rotations in 9th grade (I think we took Earth Science instead) -- or rather, restructuring it so that they eliminate the chemistry and focus only on physics. They take out most of the math that would be included in a regular, senior-year physics class (so it's easier) *and* they make it hands-on... which makes me wonder if *that* (the hands-on, little math component) makes it more of a success than where it occurs in the curriculum. But I think that at home, like Theresa says, I could probably cover conceptual physics in a survey course. And of course, our goal *would* be to cover it in a hands-on way. I think our goal would be basic literacy in physics (with math-as-necessary), so then I could make upper level, more advanced physics optional, and that would give the kids some freedom to go deeper into another science (if they wanted to.) I also think there ought to be some flexibility with upper-level sequence, because a)these kids are older and ought to have a say in their education and b)my own personal experience is that when you take a science just because it "ought" to be taken before another... but you really hate it... it can really wreck any future aspirations you have toward science in general. My mother talked me into taking chemistry my first year in college because it was a prereq for basically every other science I thought I might be interested in... but having had a terrible chemistry teacher in high school, I couldn't stand chemistry. I still couldn't stand chemistry after a year long lecture class with 300 people in it, and moreover, I decided that I would go the social science/artsy creative writing route instead. If I had taken biology or zoology first, I might actually have attempted a major and then been able to grin and bear it when it came to chemistry.
But back to homeschool science. The only problem with covering conceptual physics in a survey class is that then the transcript wouldn't say "Physics". (And I kind of got the idea that the "Physics First" people were cheating a bit, if they just put "Physics" on the the transcript?) It would only say "Physical Science"... even though it wasn't traditional Physical Science. (Looking over the Prentice Hall textbook, I understand the frustration of the Physics First people... atomic structure is included in the chemistry section, which is placed first in the book. So you're studying nuclear chemistry before you even get to Newton's Laws. )
It does seems that if you're not using a textbook approach, an additional course description/book list ought to be included along with the transcript?
__________________
Angela
Mom to 9, 7 boys and 2 girls
Three Plus Two
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
CrunchyMom
Forum Moderator
Joined: Sept 03 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6385
|
| Posted: March 08 2010 at 9:00am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I have only skimmed this thread, and I haven't read the book I am about to recommend, but just throwing this out there:
Student's Guide to Natural Science
The author is a faithful, orthodox Catholic. Again, I haven't read this particular student's guide, but all of them are written with the idea that it provides a booklist and overview that would enable you to educate yourself in a given subject. The emphasis is on the college level, but I imagine it to be helpful for high school as well.
__________________
Lindsay
Five Boys(6/04) (6/06) (9/08)(3/11),(7/13), and 1 girl (5/16)
My Symphony
[URL=http://mysymphonygarden.blogspot.com/]Lost in the Cosmos[/UR
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Betsy
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 02 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
|
| Posted: March 08 2010 at 1:39pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Angel wrote:
I also read the Physics First articles and Theresa's reply yesterday and have chewed on it a bit. Interesting stuff. It seems to me that what they are doing is ditching the standard "Physical Science" course offered in some high school rotations in 9th grade (I think we took Earth Science instead) -- or rather, restructuring it so that they eliminate the chemistry and focus only on physics. They take out most of the math that would be included in a regular, senior-year physics class (so it's easier) *and* they make it hands-on... which makes me wonder if *that* (the hands-on, little math component) makes it more of a success than where it occurs in the curriculum.
|
|
|
I didn't read the above article, but I would suspect that this is the reason that Physics is more successful. Marketing it everything!!! (On a side note, we did sort of pre-chemistry in 8th grade which involved a lot of experiments and very little math...not one person complained about class. It was fun. However, only a small percentage of students in my school signed up for Chemistry in High School.)
I am pondering right now some ideas that my High School Math and Physics teachers wanted to implement in school. The both felt that Science and upper level Math should be taught in the context of each other. For instance, you would study Physic, and when you got to math that you didn't know you would be taught that to solve the problems.
When I was 17-18 I thought that they were a bit crazy, how could you mix up our nice neat little classes!!!
But, fast forward to college. I got my degree in Mechanical Engineering. I had panic attacks when I took Calculus. I thought I was going to surly fail Differential equations. I was convinced that I was not good in math and couldn't do it as well as my peers. However, I managed to get A's and B's in classes like Vibrations and Controls, in which I did TONS of higher level math, but I didn't think of it as "MATH, the dreaded subject" it was a tool to solving some really neat and interesting problems...complete with lots of labs.
My point (if there is one) is that maybe combining some of the math and physics classes should be considered as well. Or even more general would be to study the sciences in concert with math as the tools to solving these problems.
Sorry if I high jacked this thread. This topic just got me reminiscing about the good 'ol days
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Angel
Forum All-Star
Joined: April 22 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2293
|
| Posted: March 08 2010 at 2:18pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Betsy, you didn't hijack the thread! You actually hit on some questions that have been in the back of my mind.
For instance, if you're not so much a math person (I was always good at math, but I never considered myself "a math person", kwim?), how do you teach (or facilitate) a mathematically heavy science (like an upper level physics course) without a textbook? Do you bring in a textbook for those reference moments when you need a formula? Or should a good lab manual provide you with the math?
(I've been looking at physics lab manuals/lab kits and trying to figure out how to evaluate them is pretty front and center for me right now.)
__________________
Angela
Mom to 9, 7 boys and 2 girls
Three Plus Two
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: March 08 2010 at 2:41pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
lapazfarm wrote:
but totally disagree with this assessment:
Quote:
and physics is more concrete than either chemistry or
biology.
|
|
|
What??? I suppose my definition of concrete is different than theirs, but I think studying something you can touch, pick up, and dissect is much more concrete than trying to learn about something as abstract as wave/particle motion, atomic structure and magnetism, which you cannot actually see but have to conceptualize only by observing the results of those forces on other things. |
|
|
Asimov says that physics is simpler than biology -- yes, and more abstract, but for that reason easier to get a mathematical grasp of it. It's easy to isolate one aspect of it and make a "model" and the model isn't as misleading as the kind of models they have to resort to with psychology and biology. Something like that.... he probably said it better.
Yes, but biology is more concrete -- accessible to the senses. I'm sure that is why schools use the order they do -- though in Europe I learned Biology/Chemistry/Physics alongside each other every year in high school -- they devoted a lot of the school hours to science.
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
lapazfarm
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 21 2005
Location: Alaska
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6082
|
| Posted: March 08 2010 at 2:55pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Willa wrote:
Asimov says that physics is simpler than biology -- yes, and more abstract, but for that reason easier to get a mathematical grasp of it. It's easy to isolate one aspect of it and make a "model" and the model isn't as misleading as the kind of models they have to resort to with psychology and biology. Something like that.... he probably said it better.
Yes, but biology is more concrete -- accessible to the senses. I'm sure that is why schools use the order they do -- though in Europe I learned Biology/Chemistry/Physics alongside each other every year in high school -- they devoted a lot of the school hours to science. |
|
|
Now that I can agree on. Biology is a much more complex science, seeing as it incorporates both chemistry and physics and builds upon them.
Many scientists see these subjects as sort of a hierarchy, with physics being the most "pure" (aka simple), then chemistry, then biology and geology.(biology incorporates those forces acting on living systems, while geology incorporates those forces acting on non-living systems.) Mathematicians would put math at the base of that pyramid, being the most pure of all.
I think most would also contend that the scale of abstract to concrete goes the same way.
More later, gotta run.
__________________
Theresa
us-schooling in beautiful Fairbanks, Alaska.
LaPaz Home Learning
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
Forum Locked) 
4Real Forums : High School Years and Beyond
Topic: high school science without a textbook
