What is Science Education?

My cousin Tim noted recently that my blog doesn’t say much about science.Is this is a weak area in our homeschool, he wondered? (It is true that many homeschooling parents are nervous about science, at least in the upper grades.) Anyway, it got me thinking about what really constitutes science education. If I know what my goals are, it’s much easier to decide if I am achieving them!

My goals in science education
are to give my kids the tools to learn about their world. I want them to be famili
ar with the scientific method—both as a way to make their own discoveries and as a way to evaluate others’ work. I w
ant to give my children at least an overview of many areas of science so that they know enough to choose what they enjoy most. But mainly, I want to leave my children with a sense of wonder and reverence for all of God’s creation—so that they want to keep learning.

I don’t think that textbooks do that very well. I had a K-8 series of science texts when I first started homeschooling. Each grade level skimmed over the same set of units without ever really digging deep enough to “get into it.” That wasn’t very appealing.

Instead, my kids and I spend many hours outside—in the yard, in the vegetable garden, in the forest, by the
river. We explore, we paint or draw, we collect. We have a small “nature shelf” at our house where we put our seasonal discoveries of rocks or acorns or flowers. (N has taken charge of this shelf and reorganizes it at least monthly.) My children know, from experience, about different kinds of rocks and where they’re found. They can identify most of the flowers and trees of the Pacific Northwest and all of the plants in our yard and garden. They’ve visited dozens of National and State Parks.

My children have pets—a dog, Guinea pigs, rabbits, and turtles at last count. The kids provide (and pay for) all of the care for these animals, and the kids also read and research just what constitutes the best care so they can make wise decisions. They become experts!

Each child in our family has a nature journal. Nothing is assigned in this notebook, but it is a place where we can draw pictures of an interesting caterpillar, take notes on the habits of a bird, write poetry about flowers, or philosophize about the seasons.

When we do have formal science classes, I like to read LIVING BOO
KS, or books that are interesting in their own rights and not just “educational.” For instance, we liked The Microbe Hunters when we studied bacteria and Phineas Gage—A Gruesome but True Story… when we were learning about the brain. When we do use textbooks, it’s after hands-on experience (whole to parts). There are lots of places to get science “stuff,” but one of my favorites is Tobin’s Lab.

Of course any family—homes
chooled or not—could do “real life” science this way, but I have the advantage of TIME. We can learn about science WHEN the science learning is relevant. Our science fits right in with our gnomes and fairies, because our science learning aims to instill wonder.

No, Tim, I don’t think we are weak in science. Over time, we do cover all the state learning objectives. But we definitely don’t do it the way they do in public school.

5 comments:

  1. I think it's worth noting that science was a lot more informal in the elementary years, but that in high school we did work with textbooks and take some classes via other sources (high school, college, correspondence, etc). I think that certain branches of science--like math--do benefit from bookwork. Blowing stuff up and knocking things over is great, but it's important to learn how to document what you did, and that takes some book time.

    ReplyDelete
  2. So...how did you address the whole dissecting bit? Because that I'm not as fond of. lol

    ReplyDelete
  3. We did do dissecting. (This is where Tobin's Lab was very helpful.) We eased into it by starting with a worm and a grasshopper. The cow eyeball and sheep's heart were a little harder, but really interesting. Some of my kids were squeamish and some were enthusiastic. I didn't push it. K liked it so much that she took an anatomy course at the public high school. They dissected a cat, which was too expensive for me.
    (I'll add a photo of worm dissection.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Worm and grasshoppers are great places to start, and I don't think more dissection is necessary (unless a student has an interest in it). I studied cadavers and took an animal dissection lab in college, but when I taught high school biology, the only thing we dissected were owl pellets. If the kids wanted more stuff to dissect, they could take anatomy or zoology courses at the high school.
    I agree that the most important thing to do is to interest your children in science, so that they will want to continue to learn, and it sounds like you're doing that.
    In my opinion, the most difficult parts of science to teach are the big concepts. In physics, these would be everything from the laws of gravity and motion to e=mc2. In chemistry, how atoms and molecules react towards one another based on their charges and shapes. In biology, how living organisms interact with themselves and with their environment, and how populations of living things change over time to adapt to changes in their environment.
    I think those big concepts (particularly the biology ones) are the ones that are most easily left out of a home school curriculum. They're complicated, most parents don't understand them, and they're difficult to teach. Oh, and some parents have political or religious reasons for not teach ecology or evolution. But they are also incredibly important--they describe how the physical world works.
    It sounds like you're doing a great job homeschooling. I'm sorry if I offended you. I guess previous experiences in my life have left me believing that home schoolers don't get an adequate science education, but, judging from what you're doing, it looks like that isn't always the case.

    ReplyDelete
  5. We love owl pellets! Thanks for reminding me about them, Tim.

    ReplyDelete