| Author | |
Mackfam
Board Moderator
Non Nobis
Joined: April 24 2006
Location: Alabama
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 14656
|
| Posted: March 08 2010 at 7:36pm | IP Logged
|
 |
|
Lindsay, I'm glad you linked that here! Thanks!
Re. the Physics First issue... I had some of the same concerns expressed, and I do have some questions I haven't worked through yet. I'm really NOT sold on this idea, but I'm going to keep digging into this a bit more. I am VERY grateful to all of you for sharing your thoughts!! I'm tucking it all away as I consider. I'll be taking notes if you share more ideas/insights! 
Angela,
I looked quite a bit at Bryson's book this weekend (online - I don't have it) and have some questions.
Can this book go beyond a general science/natural history spine? Would it be able to serve as a spine or a portion of a study of another high school science course?
__________________
Jen Mackintosh
Wife to Rob, mom to dd 19 , ds 16, ds 11, dd 8, and dd 3
Wildflowers and Marbles
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Kristie 4
Forum All-Star
Joined: June 20 2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1508
|
| Posted: March 08 2010 at 7:51pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
We also studied bio/chem/physics alongside each other for 11th, 12th, and 13th (yes, in Ontario we had 13 years). Grades 9 and 10 were general science courses.
I didn't take physics in 13 as I fasttracked my 5 years in 4 years but was lucky as the U. I went to allowed me to take an intro. physics course that if you scored at least and eighty percent in allowed it to count as your first year course (and I was majoring in the sciences).
__________________
Kristie in Canada
Mom to 3 boys and one spunky princess!!
A Walk in the Woods
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Angel
Forum All-Star
Joined: April 22 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2293
|
| Posted: March 09 2010 at 8:57am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Mackfam wrote:
I looked quite a bit at Bryson's book this weekend (online - I don't have it) and have some questions.
Can this book go beyond a general science/natural history spine? Would it be able to serve as a spine or a portion of a study of another high school science course? |
|
|
Well, Theresa probably has a more well-formed opinion because she's actually used the book, but after sort of skimming it, I would say YES, BUT.
(This is helpful, right?  )
Bill Bryson is funny and his writing is lucid. It is definitely written for adults, so yes -- high school level. (You can actually get the book as an audio download, though.) In skimming I noted one use of bad language and he does mention the affairs of some scientists, although he doesn't go into any detail. So -- just a heads up. (I'm not terribly worried about using it with my oldest, but everybody has a different comfort level.) It is definitely a secular book, written from an evolutionary viewpoint. Personally, though, I think I am really going to enjoy reading it myself.
The evolutionary/historical framework is why I said, YES, BUT, though. Not because the framework is a *bad* thing -- in fact, I like it -- but it isn't always conducive to breaking up information into traditional high school courses. The information itself is definitely appropriate to high school science courses and, as Theresa said, offers a wealth of ideas for rabbit trails and deeper study (that's apparent just from a quick skim), but taking the first part of the book as an example... The first chapter starts with the Big Bang and how radio astronomers in the 20th century picked up the white noise predicted as its result. The second chapter goes on to Newton and Galileo and gravitation as people tried to figure out how big the earth was. Then there's a foray into geology as people tried to figure out the *age* of the earth (with a mention of Charles Darwin, although biology doesn't appear for the most part until the second half of the book.) After the age of the earth question, it's back to physics and atomic structure, and of course atomic structure leads to chemistry and on to radioactivity, but then it's back to physics again with quarks, etc. By the time you get to biology the situation is similar: in talking about the first appearance of life, he brings up structure of the earth, volcanoes, earthquakes (or maybe that's a little earlier), Earth's place in space, and the magnetic field. All that stuff is paleontology, really, and a good indication of how complex the biological sciences can be. But if you're looking for nice, neat divisions... this book does not really have them.
On the other hand, it looks like a really interesting, well-written book which portrays much more about the realities of science and how it is done than your average physics, chemistry, or biology book, and could easily be a companion to a variety of history courses as well. I do think it would be a decent "Physics First" text, or Physical Science text, or a spine for a biology course, or a supplementary text for pretty much any science you want to teach. It introduces math as needed, often in footnotes.
I also ordered
Science Mattersat the same time, and I'm glad I did. I think it will make a good companion for the Bryson book. It's set up in concise chapters that explain various concepts in understandable terms with minimal use of math. (Actually, I could wish for the equations the authors do mention to be expressed as equations instead of only in words. But they're trying not to intimidate anyone with math.) So, for example, the first chapter of Science Matters explains Newton's Laws, which goes along nicely with ch. 2 of the Bryson book, a chapter that also deals with Newton and his laws but focuses mainly on gravitation (I think) and is full of interesting anecdotes.
These are just very first impressions, though... I'm hoping Theresa will chime in and let me know if I'm completely off base. 
(ETA: After looking at the book a little more this afternoon, I realize my chapter numbers are off! But the general point is still the same.)
__________________
Angela
Mom to 9, 7 boys and 2 girls
Three Plus Two
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Kristie 4
Forum All-Star
Joined: June 20 2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1508
|
| Posted: March 09 2010 at 9:44am | IP Logged
|
|
|
For the slightly younger set the Paul Fleishman books are good as well- Understanding the Universal Laws of Physics is the title I believe....
__________________
Kristie in Canada
Mom to 3 boys and one spunky princess!!
A Walk in the Woods
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
lapazfarm
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 21 2005
Location: Alaska
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6082
|
| Posted: March 09 2010 at 7:31pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Angela, I think your assessment was spot on. It is a VERY rich (deep and broad) book.
When I used it my son was only in 7th grade and it was too meaty for him to do on his own. I did it as a read-aloud with lots and lots of stops for explanations (and skipping a few choice sentences involving extra-marital affairs). Then life got complicated and we moved on to other things and I decided we would revisit the second half in high school, though I think we may indeed start over from the beginning as we won't have to take it quite so slowly. I think it will be even better the second time around as it really is written to a more mature audience.
I think if you thoroughly explored the rabbit trails, added lots of labs and hands-on projects, and used additional reference books like Angela has mentioned, it could really provide a stellar high school science education.
Oh, and btw, did you notice he also has a book out for younger kids called, I believe "A Really Short History of Nearly Everything" ? I intend on getting that eventually to see how the chapters align with the original.Might be a good way to add the little ones into the mix.
__________________
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 10 2010 at 5:40am | IP Logged
|
|
|
lapazfarm wrote:
Oh, and btw, did you notice he also has a book out for younger kids called, I believe "A Really Short History of Nearly Everything" ? I intend on getting that eventually to see how the chapters align with the original.Might be a good way to add the little ones into the mix. |
|
|
That's what I was thinking, too. Unfortunately I have to wait a while before I can buy anymore books!
__________________
Angela
Mom to 9, 7 boys and 2 girls
Three Plus Two
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
SallyT
Forum All-Star
Joined: Aug 08 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2489
|
| Posted: March 10 2010 at 7:36am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Wow, this is fascinating. Science has been a huge weakness of ours, as I'm increasingly realizing with my soon-to-be senior. Yet another item I wish I'd known to think more about sooner . . .
We have done biology without a standard text, relying heavily on a good -- don't laugh -- biology coloring book for a spine, plus some outside reading (Fabre's Insects, Lorenz's King Solomon's Ring, both of which my 12-year-old is now reading) and a dissection kit from Home Science Tools. The book which comes with their deluxe kit is a great read in itself.
We actually did this course over a couple of years, and at the suggestion of the counselor at our then-umbrella school, simply called the 9th-grade year of it "Life Science." It included a serious human-anatomy rabbit trail, involving another coloring book (from Dover, I think, and definitely NOT a children's coloring book) and a research project in fetal development using some resources from CHC's High School of Your Dreams (at the time she was interested in their midwivery elective, so we rolled the research she did down that road into our course).
This was all very make-it-up-as-you-go -- it's only in retrospect that I've sorted out the various things she's done into academic categories and put course labels on them. Next year we are going to do an actual textbook Chemistry course, just to get through a third science credit. She's far more motivated just to suck it up and work through something to get to graduation than she was three years ago! But boy, the next time around, I really want to do a better job of this, especially as my next child (the 12-year-old) is far more scientifically inclined and would happily devour as many lively science-themed books as I could throw at him.
Thanks for all the food for thought.
Sally
__________________
Castle in the Sea
Abandon Hopefully
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Kristie 4
Forum All-Star
Joined: June 20 2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1508
|
| Posted: March 10 2010 at 1:01pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Sallly, that sounds like a great Bio course. Those coloring books are loaded (we are using one now)...
__________________
Kristie in Canada
Mom to 3 boys and one spunky princess!!
A Walk in the Woods
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Angel
Forum All-Star
Joined: April 22 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2293
|
| Posted: March 10 2010 at 7:10pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I've been poking around the Well-Trained Mind forums today. They are apparently big on the physics/chemistry/biology sequence over there. For 9th grade physics it seems that many of them use a text called Conceptual Physics. Because the course is apparently light on math, many of them seem to do an advanced course in physics in 12th grade.
(If I'm not breaking any rules, here's a link to the 9th grade physics thread over there.)
I have also been poking around in a few curriculum-ish books today, and reviewed the recommendations in the Latin-Centered Curriculum (1st edition). I knew he advocated using the book Science Matters in 8th grade, but I had forgotten what he recommended for 9th-12th. His recommendations are interesting, since he advocates (at least in the first edition) that the high schooler choose at least 2 areas of focus in which he/she can do an in-depth research project.
(Edited to remove some of the erroneous information I posted initially. Corrected in the next post.)
__________________
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 11 2010 at 7:19am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Ok, I goofed. What Drew Campbell says in the Latin-Centered Curriculum is that the 9th-12th grader chooses two scientific topics to investigate each year. I think I should have had a Charlotte Mason education; I need more help with narration.
Here's a quote, now that I'm sitting here with the book:
"One topic should involve direct collection of data by experiment; the other, the reading and assessment of studies conducted by others. Research materials will include seminal historical works ("Great Books") as well as more recent articles and studies, and should tie the subject to larger, philosophical concerns, such as ethics. The results of these inquiries are written up in the form of a research paper or lab report."
He gives two examples of projects for a 9th grader: "a special study of the Eastern lowland gorilla" as a biology/zoology project, which involves lots of reading not only about the Eastern lowland gorilla, but also about Dian Fossey, the political climate of the gorilla's environment, wildlife rescue and poaching (etc.), and also (he suggests) observation of gorillas at the zoo. Then the student writes a paper incorporating all this research.
The next example he gives is for the 2nd, data collection project the theoretical 9th grader might undertake in the same year -- again, focusing on biology. This example is a study of "the effects of soil pH on tomato crop yield." So -- lots of hands on experiments, some study of chemistry, maybe reading about other studies in botany -- etc.
I have to admit that this approach sounds appealing to me -- we do use various aspects of a "project-approach" in younger years -- but it seems as if the student might have to be motivated in order to do projects of this length. Campbell is basing this approach on a survey course based on the book Science Matters in the 8th grade, so he's assuming that the high school student has a "basic scientific literacy" -- according to that particular book anyway. But I wonder -- is this approach enough to give somebody a solid enough grounding in something like chemistry? Or would it be confusing to try to gain a lot of math (as in physics) on the job, so to speak?
I'm sure that all my decisions would be much easier if I weren't scrambling to try to finish out this year and looking at lots of changes in the next several months.  Oh well - life, right?
__________________
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 11 2010 at 11:51am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I think what you describe sounds really cool. It's more of a deep rather than broad approach and most of the time I favor that. Some of these high school science courses try to shove in so much info that none of it really gets learned well.
Since it is two projects each year, you could easily determine that year 9 would be 2 bio/natural history-based projects, year 10 two chemistry-based projects, etc, etc, and of course there would be plenty of overlap, but that would lend to more breadth over the years and also more depth within each year.
I actually think it is a better way to learn science (although I am not sure wrapping it up in a research paper is necessarily the best choice. Sometimes a lab report would be more appropriate or perhaps an invention or other product).
I would love to approach science this way,(actually, I kind of do in a way) but I wonder how it will translate for someone who has to take subject tests and such? How will we deal with the inevitable gaps that will be left by taking the deep not broad approach? I am not necessarily opposed to gaps if it means that the areas covered are more solid.
I would love to hear others' thoughts on this aspect.
__________________
Theresa
us-schooling in beautiful Fairbanks, Alaska.
LaPaz Home Learning
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Kristie 4
Forum All-Star
Joined: June 20 2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1508
|
| Posted: March 11 2010 at 2:12pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I think the 'deep' approach is also better. I was a science major in a good University and I can't tell you how many times I get an aha moment in a kids science book!
My problem, it all seems to be there these days, is how you would help your student arrange the time for the indepth project type of science course- this is where all my best laid plans fail (Oh, and also because I am so tired these days!).
__________________
Kristie in Canada
Mom to 3 boys and one spunky princess!!
A Walk in the Woods
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
lapazfarm
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 21 2005
Location: Alaska
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6082
|
| Posted: March 11 2010 at 2:28pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Yea, one problem I see is if Mom doesn't have a solid science background, then it is going to be really hard to help guide their kid through this type of study. I feel very confident I can do this because my science background is pretty solid. I can see the big picture and help my kid pick research topics that will explore the important questions in each of the subject areas, making sure all of the really big stuff is covered. I wonder how less scientifically literate moms will do that, though I suppose finding mentors in the community would be a great thing in that situation.
__________________
Theresa
us-schooling in beautiful Fairbanks, Alaska.
LaPaz Home Learning
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
lapazfarm
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 21 2005
Location: Alaska
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6082
|
| Posted: March 11 2010 at 2:29pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Kristie 4 wrote:
My problem, it all seems to be there these days, is how you would help your student arrange the time for the indepth project type of science course- this is where all my best laid plans fail (Oh, and also because I am so tired these days!).
|
|
|
That's always the way it is, isn't it? If only we had more time, more arms, and more energy, right? LOL!
__________________
Theresa
us-schooling in beautiful Fairbanks, Alaska.
LaPaz Home Learning
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Erin
Forum Moderator
Joined: Feb 23 2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5814
|
| Posted: March 11 2010 at 3:14pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I've been following this thread with interest. Funnily enough just after Angela wrote my ds13 has shared his dissatisfaction with his new text book so it looks like I'll be doing something similar.
I'm thinking of taking his text book, getting him to pick the chapters of interest and then delving further in areas of interest. Using it as a spine perhaps, a diving board.
On a side note in relation to labs; in Australia, hardly any experiments are undertaken in schools anymore due to "Health and Safety" Codes. The teacher demonstrates at the front of the class whilst the students watch.
lapazfarm wrote:
I think what you describe sounds really cool. It's more of a deep rather than broad approach and most of the time I favor that. Some of these high school science courses try to shove in so much info that none of it really gets learned well.
..........
I would love to approach science this way,(actually, I kind of do in a way) but I wonder how it will translate for someone who has to take subject tests and such? How will we deal with the inevitable gaps that will be left by taking the deep not broad approach? I am not necessarily opposed to gaps if it means that the areas covered are more solid.
I would love to hear others' thoughts on this aspect. |
|
|
I have been pondering this for a long time. I take this approach with History, accepting Charlotte Mason's thoughts about how we are educated by our intimacies, how it is far better to have depth than breadth. So shouldn't I also apply this to science? All that is holding my back is my own lack of knowledge and confidence. But I need to move past that.
Furthermore if I take the following quote to heart (which I do) then I really have answered myself as to which direction to take, when my science loving boy told me yesterday, not only doesn't he like his science textbook but he doesn't like science anymore.
In this way: give your a child a single valuable idea, and you have done more for his education than if you had laid upon his mind the burden of bushels of information. (Vol 1, Part V Lessons As Instruments Of Education, p.174)
__________________
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 11 2010 at 4:06pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
lapazfarm wrote:
I would love to approach science this way,(actually, I kind of do in a way) but I wonder how it will translate for someone who has to take subject tests and such? How will we deal with the inevitable gaps that will be left by taking the deep not broad approach? I am not necessarily opposed to gaps if it means that the areas covered are more solid.
|
|
|
Me either. I think you could probably navigate the gaps in terms of test-taking just by getting study guides for the tests (a study guide for AP Biology or -- they must make study guides for the SAT II tests, too, right?) I bet if you had a solid survey course for basic literacy, that would take care of the ACT.
I think that a really good survey/general science course becomes that much more important if you're going to take a project approach in later years, though. You'd have to have a good grasp on the basics just to come up with appropriate research questions in the first place. And then in order to keep going for a semester's span...
I think you're right; unless the parent has a really good background in science, it's going to take up a lot of parental time just figuring out what sort of guidance to provide, unless your child is really independent and science oriented. (I may actually have a kid like that, though, but she's only about 11 right now.)
That may be the reason that the science recommendations in the 2nd edition have been revised to include only standard textbooks for each level. I found the project recommendations a lot more thought-provoking. After all, won't a kid be more willing to go into a science if he/she knows that it is actually about the real world? That it can be used to discover the answers to real problems?
So the parental time may be worth it... or maybe a modified project approach woould work, where you use a more standard approach for grades 9-11, leaving 12th grade as a "project year". Or maybe cutting it down to one big project a year + decent, "living" science books and other hands-on experiences. There's always a tension there for me, between my ideals and the reality of having a bunch of kids of different ages to care for.
But I think it's important for kids to actually *do* science. Even labs often don't get at that -- I mean, even if the kids are the ones doing them (instead of watching their teachers do them -- ack!  Seems like many lab activities aren't set up to be real "experiments" but to be more like "demonstrations". I wonder how many people know that science is really about trying to find an answer to a problem when you don't know what the answer is going to be?
__________________
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 11 2010 at 4:29pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
So true, Angela!
The vast majority of science labs are not experiments but demonstration labs (which do serve a certain, limited purpose)where the outcome is already known or is so readily available that it begs the question of why you are bothering to do the lab to begin with.It's a pet peeve of mine, actually.
Science should be about inquiry, asking real questions about the real world, but that rarely happens in science courses.
I used to know a teacher who excused this by saying that his students were too young to come up with anything new to ask, so they just had to learn what others had already asked and answered and that was that. I call bs on that. Children are capable of asking fascinating real-life questions, but in order to do that the child has to "be" in the real world to begin with.
This is why we do so many trips outdoors. It's also why I encourage my son's volunteerism at the raptor center, the aquarium, and the salmon hatchery. These are places where he will see real science being done, and be able to take at least some small part in the work. He will see problem-solving in action, and be a part of that process. Then he can take what he learns from that process and begin to ask his own questions, having the model in his mind of how to find the answers.
Erin, you know you really spoke to me when you said "this (deep not broad)is how we do history, etc, so why not science." Indeed, why not?
__________________
Theresa
us-schooling in beautiful Fairbanks, Alaska.
LaPaz Home Learning
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Mackfam
Board Moderator
Non Nobis
Joined: April 24 2006
Location: Alabama
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 14656
|
| Posted: March 11 2010 at 5:01pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Erin wrote:
| I take this approach with History, accepting Charlotte Mason's thoughts about how we are educated by our intimacies, how it is far better to have depth than breadth. So shouldn't I also apply this to science? All that is holding my back is my own lack of knowledge and confidence. But I need to move past that. |
|
|
I can identify with this statement so much, Erin. I'm glad you shared it. It is freeing to think about, isn't it? (LOVED the CM quote, btw!!!) We don't suddenly change the way we've been approaching history at this point by skimming for breadth, we continue on, just a little wider and a little deeper. There is no need to discontinue that in high school science! It should be rich and engaging, deep and satisfying!
I've found a couple of things that have helped pull some ideas of mine together that I thought I'd share. They're tools really, not necessary at all, but they've been helping me in connecting some dots and overcoming my own sense of insecurity in approaching high school science in this way.
I have a copy of Project Oriented Science: A Teacher's Guide and have found it helpful. To summarize, the author proposes that the project oriented approach can bring together the good of hands-on in science, wherein a child begins to take ownership of information because it's made real by doing, and she adds that we can avoid large gaps by using a text or a spine simply to check for holes or use as reference. Interesting thought -- projects punctuated by periods of concept checking and integration. (I liked Angela's idea of making use of study guides for AP classes/SAT study guides!!! GREAT IDEA!!!)
So, this thought led me to a general Science Scope which has been really helpful to me (the one I linked to offers enough skeletal information, broken down by grade level, that it could springboard booklists, projects, and ensure concept coverage). I see it as a sort of skeleton that we can use as a reference to check with as we dig deeply into project based inquiries and then come up for air...perhaps we fill in a few missing concepts allowing them to continue to assist with conclusions from labs/projects, and then we choose another focus to dig into. Lather, rinse, repeat. Thoughts?
This conversation is helping me gel some thoughts that have thus far been very random. Thank you ladies.
__________________
Jen Mackintosh
Wife to Rob, mom to dd 19, ds 16, ds 11, dd 8, and dd 3
Wildflowers and Marbles
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Angel
Forum All-Star
Joined: April 22 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2293
|
| Posted: March 11 2010 at 6:52pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Jen -- these two books say they're meant for K-8, but... still helpful at a high school level?
I have found that as we work on projects we do often check multiple books... actually, my dd recently requested more information on how biologists classify organisms, so I handed her a copy of the Apologia Biology textbook we have hanging around the house and she read about classification and did the biological key activity (with a little help from me). This answered her question, and she went happily back to The Amateur Naturalist.
Granted, this is not high school science, but... just an example of how we do occasionally make use of textbooks as reference around here. Last year my dd read a section in a Harcourt textbook about ecosystems, too, come to think of it. It was sort of a springboard for her, though; from there, the kids made up an ecosystem game, and she did a longish study of our field and wrote it up to satisfy a requirement for a Pilgrims of the Holy Family badge.
Erin does make a good point. If this is what has worked for us in the past, why change? My only problem is organization, especially for my oldest. How to keep a course going at the kind of depth and for the amount of time required to earn a high school credit (with lab)? Up till now, we've been rather flighty.
__________________
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 11 2010 at 7:30pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Angel wrote:
| Jen -- these two books say they're meant for K-8, but... still helpful at a high school level? |
|
|
The Project-Oriented Science book is meant for primary grades, but there's nothing really grade specific in there. In general, it just helped me organize my thoughts about how we might better direct, plan, organize, and journal project oriented science in high school.
I'm not sure why the Science Scope link description says K-8. My copy includes four classifications:
** primary (grades K-3)
** intermediate (grades 4-6)
** jr. high (grades 7-8)
** high school (grades 9-12)
Further on in the description it says K-12. My copy includes a scope and sequence of high school science topics.
Quote:
| The concepts and skills taught in grades K-12 science and health classes are arranged by topic and grade for an easy-to-use approach to teach students of all ages—including multi-levelly. Teaching tips include how to teach the scientific process and strategies in a manner that encourages children to think critically and get the most out of their explorations and experiences. By using this guide as a reference of what and how to teach, content can be covered with any resources that the student finds appealing. The teacher no longer needs to feel bound to one specific curriculum for fear of leaving educational gaps. A checklist allows convenient record keeping. Students in grades 6-12 can use this book as a working outline to find information on their own. |
|
|
I was envisioning some textbook based projects or uses similar to the ones you describe. Most of the science textbooks I have here are college level though. ETA: That sounded bad - I didn't mean they were superior because they were college level...I could see how they would be helpful, but I think I'd rather have a few high school level texts, really. And, I realize I don't have any high school level texts to pull off the shelf as a reference.
__________________
Jen Mackintosh
Wife to Rob, mom to dd 19, ds 16, ds 11, dd 8, and dd 3
Wildflowers and Marbles
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
4Real Forums : High School Years and Beyond
Topic: high school science without a textbook
