i hope it's ok for me to cut and paste a question from someone who was on the hsr forums. i was interested in the answers you all would have to give her.
thanks!
I'm planning on using Heart of Dakota next year, However, I am a bit concerned about the science. As I look at the Bigger program, I like the set-up of the science with the readings, science notebook, experiments, etc. but I'm concerned that the topics will not be in-depth enough or entirely accurate. We've been using KONOS and have explored a variety of science topics very in-depth. I'm amazed at what the kids have picked up about the science of sound, flight, buoyancy, etc. --much more than just basic surface knowledge. We're looking to try something a little different next year though to spend some time concentrating on American history in prep for a possible trip to D.C. (And I want something a little more laid out than KONOS as much as we love it--we'll go back to it I'm sure!)
However, when I look at the Bigger science, it seems to go a step lower than what we've been doing. For example, on Day 3 of the Week 1 samples, the Key Idea is : "When an item is placed in the water it pushes down on the water, but the water is pushing the item back up. Heavier items sink, and lighter items float." Well, this concerns me, because this isn't true. A heavy ship will float, while a light penny will sink. There's so much to it than just weight. We went into quite a bit more detail about why things float and sink this year, and doing a lesson like the HOD lesson without additional experiments or additional explanation is misleading for the kids. Maybe in coming weeks it goes into more explanation?
Perhaps I'll just need to get the program and see for myself, since it's hard to assess a program from just seeing one week. I am so impressed with the rest of the curiculum that we'll be using HOD no matter what I'm almost certain. I may possibly use another science program (Noeo perhaps? I'd like it to tie in to the history somewhat like HOD does.) I'd like to get some more info. though about whether, in the above example, is the concept of buoyancy touched on and expanded upon anymore? Have others found science lessons that they were concerned with as far as accuracy or depth of information?
I really hate to even cast any doubts on the curriculum for others who are considering it because everything else looks WONDERFUL, and I don't want to make any assumptions based on just one week. That's why I'd love to hear from some of you!
post from hsr
-
annegirl1919
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:20 pm
post from hsr
wife to jaret '98
foster mom to andie '93
mom to aviah '01
mom to smith '04
mom to faye '08
foster mom to andie '93
mom to aviah '01
mom to smith '04
mom to faye '08
-
dolphingirl
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 10:54 pm
Hi,
This is actually my post. I had posted here a couple days ago about whether I should do LHFHG and BHFHG or combine my 5 and 8 year olds into Beyond. Anyways, as you can see, another one of my concerns is the science and how accurate it is as well as how in-depth it is. Seeing the science lesson about floating got me concerned, but I felt uncomfortable posting about it here (that's just me!) Also, I figured everyone here loves HOD (since you're all using it!) and if someone did have a concern about something like this and decided not to use it for that reason, I'd be more likely to find opinions about it on another board.
Of course, since the post is now here, I'd be glad to hear from all of you! Thanks!
This is actually my post. I had posted here a couple days ago about whether I should do LHFHG and BHFHG or combine my 5 and 8 year olds into Beyond. Anyways, as you can see, another one of my concerns is the science and how accurate it is as well as how in-depth it is. Seeing the science lesson about floating got me concerned, but I felt uncomfortable posting about it here (that's just me!) Also, I figured everyone here loves HOD (since you're all using it!) and if someone did have a concern about something like this and decided not to use it for that reason, I'd be more likely to find opinions about it on another board.
Of course, since the post is now here, I'd be glad to hear from all of you! Thanks!
Kristin
-
annegirl1919
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:20 pm
i actually feel the same way, but since this wasn't my question origionally, i felt more free to post it. 
i love hod. i used lhth a year ago, am using it again this year, and am also going to be using beyond this year, but there are some things that i wonder about as well. i, too, have posted in a more general forum for other's thoughts. so know you are not alone here!
obviously, though, many of the people with the most experience are here, so i just hope they don't mind my questions and concerns.
i love hod. i used lhth a year ago, am using it again this year, and am also going to be using beyond this year, but there are some things that i wonder about as well. i, too, have posted in a more general forum for other's thoughts. so know you are not alone here!
obviously, though, many of the people with the most experience are here, so i just hope they don't mind my questions and concerns.
wife to jaret '98
foster mom to andie '93
mom to aviah '01
mom to smith '04
mom to faye '08
foster mom to andie '93
mom to aviah '01
mom to smith '04
mom to faye '08
WOW! This shows a broad spectrum! I looked at Bigger and felt that it was too MUCH Science for our family. We will be using it for third grade next year and I have already decided that I will do one week of Science, one week of Poetry. Neither my son, or I, are science-minded and I don't feel like we need to do 180 day of science just yet.
I am interested to see the responses of people who have used Bigger this year.
I am interested to see the responses of people who have used Bigger this year.
Fall 2015
DS 17 -gr.12 full time college student
DS 15- gr. 10 favorites from World Geo and World Hx.
DD 13- gr. 8 Rev to Rev
DD 11- gr. 6 CTC
DD 7 - gr. 2 Beyond
DD 4 - pre-K Rod & Staff and Phonics Pathways
Since I haven't actually held and looked at ANY of the HOD curriculum guides, I can't speak to "how much" science there is in any given program. However, a couple of things come to mind:
1. I *am* concerned about accuracy (and accurate terminology), even if they don't completely understand it. Sometimes that means I say NOTHING (and ONLY answer their questions) and sometimes it means I explain things, but they don't REALLY completely understand it. However, as you add pieces to the puzzle, it all fits together. So, I too would be concerned about "inaccurate" information (but I don't know if the information in the books is accurate or not since I haven't used them).
2. The amount of science isn't a big deal to me one way or the other. This is coming from someone with a degree in biochemistry and a minor in biology. My husband has a math/computer science degree and a physics minor. So, we LIKE our science around here! But, at the ages we are talking about, science is NOT a big deal. Actually, Dr. Jay Wile (who writes the Apologia science curriculum for Jr. and Sr. High), used to recommend NO science until then. He doesn't really think it is necessary. Now that his company sells Jeannie Fulbright's Elementary Curriculum, I'm not sure what he would say. My point is, I think accuracy is important if you DO science, but whether or not you do it in the first place in elementary school is only a big deal if the state says you must. Kids WILL learn scientific principles if you talk to them and give them opportunities to learn and look up things they have questions about.
My kids (especially my son) DEVOUR science books at all levels (including some that are almost over my head). Does that mean he understands it all? I doubt it. But it IS adding to his store of knowledge and the understanding of what science is, what you do with it and how you do it. (One of his favorite things to read are some of the more technical Answers in Genesis and Institute for Creation Research books.)
This year for "official science", we did NO experiments and my kids read an A Beka textbook that someone had passed down to me. It is NOT at all what I would plan or desire. I am not a "textbook" Mommy. But, it's what I could do at the stage we were at. If Heart of Dakota helps me do a little bit more in an easier way, I'm all for it! Of course, we may have to talk about density vs. weight or buoyancy or other issues and how even textbooks make mistakes and that is why we need to be sure of where we get our information
, but I will be thankful for something that helps me "get it all done" a little easier.
1. I *am* concerned about accuracy (and accurate terminology), even if they don't completely understand it. Sometimes that means I say NOTHING (and ONLY answer their questions) and sometimes it means I explain things, but they don't REALLY completely understand it. However, as you add pieces to the puzzle, it all fits together. So, I too would be concerned about "inaccurate" information (but I don't know if the information in the books is accurate or not since I haven't used them).
2. The amount of science isn't a big deal to me one way or the other. This is coming from someone with a degree in biochemistry and a minor in biology. My husband has a math/computer science degree and a physics minor. So, we LIKE our science around here! But, at the ages we are talking about, science is NOT a big deal. Actually, Dr. Jay Wile (who writes the Apologia science curriculum for Jr. and Sr. High), used to recommend NO science until then. He doesn't really think it is necessary. Now that his company sells Jeannie Fulbright's Elementary Curriculum, I'm not sure what he would say. My point is, I think accuracy is important if you DO science, but whether or not you do it in the first place in elementary school is only a big deal if the state says you must. Kids WILL learn scientific principles if you talk to them and give them opportunities to learn and look up things they have questions about.
My kids (especially my son) DEVOUR science books at all levels (including some that are almost over my head). Does that mean he understands it all? I doubt it. But it IS adding to his store of knowledge and the understanding of what science is, what you do with it and how you do it. (One of his favorite things to read are some of the more technical Answers in Genesis and Institute for Creation Research books.)
This year for "official science", we did NO experiments and my kids read an A Beka textbook that someone had passed down to me. It is NOT at all what I would plan or desire. I am not a "textbook" Mommy. But, it's what I could do at the stage we were at. If Heart of Dakota helps me do a little bit more in an easier way, I'm all for it! Of course, we may have to talk about density vs. weight or buoyancy or other issues and how even textbooks make mistakes and that is why we need to be sure of where we get our information
, but I will be thankful for something that helps me "get it all done" a little easier.
Last edited by MommyMc on Fri May 23, 2008 2:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Anita
Wife to a hard-working hubby
Mom to five great kiddos (4/98, 2/00, 3/05, 11/06 and 3/09)
Wife to a hard-working hubby
Mom to five great kiddos (4/98, 2/00, 3/05, 11/06 and 3/09)
I just finished Bigger... today, and Bigger's... science is more than enough IMO. I have found it to be accurate, though I'm not going to get into the buoyancy topic here. Carrie is attending a convention this week in Winston/Salem, or she would answer your questions in great detail with kindness and grace, as she always does.
My son just took the science portion of his standardized test this week, and he passed it with flying colors. He has only done the science in HOD. I don't believe testing is the "end-all" by any means, but since that is a common ground across states, that is the best information I can share.
The science experiments are based on the science living books. If you enjoy the books, you'll be happy with the experiments. Other bio/chem majors that are HOD users on this board have commented on how pleased they are with the science. I think that's a good indicator too.
As momof2n2 said so well,
"WOW! This shows a broad spectrum! I looked at Bigger and felt that it was too MUCH Science for our family. We will be using it for third grade next year and I have already decided that I will do one week of Science, one week of Poetry. Neither my son, or I, are science-minded and I don't feel like we need to do 180 day of science just yet."
Well said! If you have a passion for science, then by all means, add more! HOD is flexible enough to do that. Otherwise, I believe the science is right on track - and I am basing this on not only my experience with HOD, but also on my experience serving on multiple committees for science textbook/materials selection when I was teaching and when I did my master's. HTH!
In Christ,
Julie
My son just took the science portion of his standardized test this week, and he passed it with flying colors. He has only done the science in HOD. I don't believe testing is the "end-all" by any means, but since that is a common ground across states, that is the best information I can share.
The science experiments are based on the science living books. If you enjoy the books, you'll be happy with the experiments. Other bio/chem majors that are HOD users on this board have commented on how pleased they are with the science. I think that's a good indicator too.
As momof2n2 said so well,
"WOW! This shows a broad spectrum! I looked at Bigger and felt that it was too MUCH Science for our family. We will be using it for third grade next year and I have already decided that I will do one week of Science, one week of Poetry. Neither my son, or I, are science-minded and I don't feel like we need to do 180 day of science just yet."
Well said! If you have a passion for science, then by all means, add more! HOD is flexible enough to do that. Otherwise, I believe the science is right on track - and I am basing this on not only my experience with HOD, but also on my experience serving on multiple committees for science textbook/materials selection when I was teaching and when I did my master's. HTH!
In Christ,
Julie
Enjoyed LHTH to USII
Currently using USI
Wife to Rich for 28 years
Mother to 3 sons, ages 23, 20, and 16
Sister to Carrie
Currently using USI
Wife to Rich for 28 years
Mother to 3 sons, ages 23, 20, and 16
Sister to Carrie
-
inHistiming
- Posts: 1301
- Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 2:30 pm
- Location: Central VA
- Contact:
I'm wondering if the statement is more simplistic because Bigger...is written for children aged 8-10? Maybe if it is discussed in later guides there would be more details, and more discussion about what would make a ship float, etc.
I just want to add that I am not science-minded either. Dad is the engineer/science parent, so if there is something I do not understand then I defer to him for a better explanation!
However, my kids absolutely LOVE science; dd loves anything to do with animals and can spout off details about them that I certainly never taught her; ds devours space books and adores science experiments. On their SAT's last year, guess what their highest scores were in? Science!! We have read quite a bit of 'scienc' type books this year, but have only done a couple of experiments (until we went back to Beyond...). But I fully expect their scores to be high in that subject area, simply because they search out that information...the rest of us who are not so science-oriented learn what we need to and move on; you probably won't find me reading about space on my own, or really even looking up information on many animals. I do, however, love words! I will read almost any book I can get my hands on, I love to play word games, I love and do my own copywork, etc. As a result, my scores are highest in Language. All that to say...even if HOD seems a little 'light' in Science, it's still great stuff. The dc who are most interested in that(any subject) will ask for more...and you can get great books to read about ANY topic at the library. So, though the Science is important, it's not the most important, and I think all of the guides do a great job of covering what is needed! I haven't used them all....this is just based on what I have used, and the samples/guides I've seen.
I just want to add that I am not science-minded either. Dad is the engineer/science parent, so if there is something I do not understand then I defer to him for a better explanation!
However, my kids absolutely LOVE science; dd loves anything to do with animals and can spout off details about them that I certainly never taught her; ds devours space books and adores science experiments. On their SAT's last year, guess what their highest scores were in? Science!! We have read quite a bit of 'scienc' type books this year, but have only done a couple of experiments (until we went back to Beyond...). But I fully expect their scores to be high in that subject area, simply because they search out that information...the rest of us who are not so science-oriented learn what we need to and move on; you probably won't find me reading about space on my own, or really even looking up information on many animals. I do, however, love words! I will read almost any book I can get my hands on, I love to play word games, I love and do my own copywork, etc. As a result, my scores are highest in Language. All that to say...even if HOD seems a little 'light' in Science, it's still great stuff. The dc who are most interested in that(any subject) will ask for more...and you can get great books to read about ANY topic at the library. So, though the Science is important, it's not the most important, and I think all of the guides do a great job of covering what is needed! I haven't used them all....this is just based on what I have used, and the samples/guides I've seen.dd 6 & dd (almost) 5 starting LHFHG
http://www.wendywoerner.com
http://www.wendywoerner.arbonne.com
http://www.jaminmom.com
http://www.wendywoerner.com
http://www.wendywoerner.arbonne.com
http://www.jaminmom.com
-
water2wine
- Posts: 2743
- Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:24 pm
- Location: GA
I am removing my post because I did not mean to offend anyone in my passion and certainly would not want to hurt HOD with my opinion. 
I will just leave that I think HOD does a wonderful job in its area of science and appreciate the teaching my children have gotten from it.
I will just leave that I think HOD does a wonderful job in its area of science and appreciate the teaching my children have gotten from it.
Last edited by water2wine on Sat May 24, 2008 11:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
All your children shall be taught by the LORD, and great shall be the peace of your children. Isaiah 54:13
~Six lovies from God~4 by blessing of adoption
-MTMM (HS), Rev to Rev, CTC, DITHR
We LOVED LHFHG/Beyond/Bigger/Preparing/CTC/RTR/Rev to Rev (HS)
~Six lovies from God~4 by blessing of adoption
-MTMM (HS), Rev to Rev, CTC, DITHR
We LOVED LHFHG/Beyond/Bigger/Preparing/CTC/RTR/Rev to Rev (HS)
Sheesh! Mel is standing and clapping and I don't know what you said W2w? Now I feel like I missed out! (such a Betty answer) For the record, I doubt anything you could ever say would be hurtful to anyone. Your love for your Lord and your character are overwhelming sweet friend.
Ok, back to the original question...,
I thought this was a good one! It *is* a little scary to go from using textbooks to living books. I love science. Ok "love" is a little extreme, I enjoy science. My background is the nursing field and I find myself amazed at all I am still learning, still have to learn.
Let me just say we started off this year with Bigger and I found it to be incredibly deep. Because Carrie brings in so many aspects.., discussion, notebooking, reading, researching, etc.
I have to agree with Julie, the wonderful part of this program is that you could easily add to science and still use HOD successfully. I'll keep checking the feedback.
Ok, back to the original question...,
I thought this was a good one! It *is* a little scary to go from using textbooks to living books. I love science. Ok "love" is a little extreme, I enjoy science. My background is the nursing field and I find myself amazed at all I am still learning, still have to learn.
Let me just say we started off this year with Bigger and I found it to be incredibly deep. Because Carrie brings in so many aspects.., discussion, notebooking, reading, researching, etc.
I have to agree with Julie, the wonderful part of this program is that you could easily add to science and still use HOD successfully. I'll keep checking the feedback.
Mary, Mama to 4 amazing sons and wife to one incredible husband! Come check us out on the blog: http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/MamaMary/
Ooh Ladies,
I'm thinking this might be the post that started the thread on appropriate topics for the board? If so, then I'll link my response to that thread here:
http://www.heartofdakota.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=1238
Next, I will say that we have never removed a post from the HOD board so far, and while I don't mind answering questions, I'm having a little trouble with the tone of this particular post. I am sincerely hoping I am just misreading the tone of it?
I am wondering what the measuring stick is here for the term "accuracy"? Without more than the free sample week of our guide in hand and without reading the material for that day to which the science experiment is tied ... lacking accuracy and depth are both pretty broad (and not very positive) assumptions to make.
When looking closely at the box being referred to in the plans, I can see that the main thing being differed with is the wording of the key idea in this one day's science box. While the key idea is not inaccurate for that day's experiment, I certainly agree that it is only one small part of the study of buoyancy. This one particular experiment is certainly not meant to be an overall study of buoyany.
In "Bigger..." there are 10 boxes on each day of plans. Each of these boxes has a key idea. We include 170 days of instruction, which means there are 1,700 key ideas written in "Bigger..." alone. It is a given that there will be some wording in some of those 1700 key ideas that you may personally like to see worded differently. That is where your teaching job comes in! Just reword it to suit your preference! While the key idea is meant to be a teaching help for you, it is not always the only idea derived or discussed from any given lesson. Your personal areas of expertise can easily shine through by the way you present each concept.
If you wanted to illustrate the particular point made in your post about buoyancy, you could just add some other things to test and float as well. This type of experiment has already been done several different times and ways in both "Little Hearts..." and "Beyond...".
It is also not intended to give them all of the facts on each topic or to be an exhaustive treatment of each science concept. If that is the approach you desire, there are numerous science textbooks or fact books that would suit your preference better than the science in HOD. Variance in personal preference is one of the reasons why we do not make our science a required part of our programs at HOD.
I would hope that each of you would realize that your words on this board (or any other) directly affect how others view HOD. I struggle quite a bit with this particular post because it makes a judgement based on a service we offer for free (the sample week) that is used against us in this situation to cast doubt on our guides. We have considered pulling the Sample Weeks from the website so that customers would need to have the entire guide in hand to be able to make an accurate assessment of our programs.
I know I personally would never question the accuracy and depth of the content of any curriculum without having the courtesy of thoroughly researching the guide myself first or at the very least having it in hand.
Blessings,
Carrie
I'm thinking this might be the post that started the thread on appropriate topics for the board? If so, then I'll link my response to that thread here:
http://www.heartofdakota.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=1238
Next, I will say that we have never removed a post from the HOD board so far, and while I don't mind answering questions, I'm having a little trouble with the tone of this particular post. I am sincerely hoping I am just misreading the tone of it?
but I'm concerned that the topics will not be in-depth enough or entirely accurate.
I am wondering what the measuring stick is here for the term "accuracy"? Without more than the free sample week of our guide in hand and without reading the material for that day to which the science experiment is tied ... lacking accuracy and depth are both pretty broad (and not very positive) assumptions to make.
When looking closely at the box being referred to in the plans, I can see that the main thing being differed with is the wording of the key idea in this one day's science box. While the key idea is not inaccurate for that day's experiment, I certainly agree that it is only one small part of the study of buoyancy. This one particular experiment is certainly not meant to be an overall study of buoyany.
In "Bigger..." there are 10 boxes on each day of plans. Each of these boxes has a key idea. We include 170 days of instruction, which means there are 1,700 key ideas written in "Bigger..." alone. It is a given that there will be some wording in some of those 1700 key ideas that you may personally like to see worded differently. That is where your teaching job comes in! Just reword it to suit your preference! While the key idea is meant to be a teaching help for you, it is not always the only idea derived or discussed from any given lesson. Your personal areas of expertise can easily shine through by the way you present each concept.
If you wanted to illustrate the particular point made in your post about buoyancy, you could just add some other things to test and float as well. This type of experiment has already been done several different times and ways in both "Little Hearts..." and "Beyond...".
It appears from your quote here that you are looking for a full treatment of each science concept as it comes up. That is not the way we approach science at HOD. A living books approach to science is meant to be inquiry based, allowing the child to think and reason through scientific ideas based on their readings and experiments. It is meant to spark their interest on a wide variety of topics so that they may be inspired to investigate further any of those things that interest them personally.I'd like to get some more info. though about whether, in the above example, is the concept of buoyancy touched on and expanded upon anymore?
It is also not intended to give them all of the facts on each topic or to be an exhaustive treatment of each science concept. If that is the approach you desire, there are numerous science textbooks or fact books that would suit your preference better than the science in HOD. Variance in personal preference is one of the reasons why we do not make our science a required part of our programs at HOD.
This particular part is where my difficulty with the thread lies, as it asks people to spend time searching for and listing anything that they might perceive as inaccurate or not deep enough from the "Bigger...". This would be much like quoting only one verse from the Bible without reading the passage that surrounds it. Taken out of context, anything can be misconstrued. When our science is described as having accuracy concerns or lacking depth of information, it is not helpful or encouraging and only serves to cast doubts on the curriculum for others who are considering it! In order to check for whether the guide meets your personal standards for accuracy and depth, you would need to go through it yourself.Have others found science lessons that they were concerned with as far as accuracy or depth of information? I really hate to even cast any doubts on the curriculum for others who are considering it because everything else looks WONDERFUL, and I don't want to make any assumptions based on just one week. That's why I'd love to hear from some of you!
I would hope that each of you would realize that your words on this board (or any other) directly affect how others view HOD. I struggle quite a bit with this particular post because it makes a judgement based on a service we offer for free (the sample week) that is used against us in this situation to cast doubt on our guides. We have considered pulling the Sample Weeks from the website so that customers would need to have the entire guide in hand to be able to make an accurate assessment of our programs.
I know I personally would never question the accuracy and depth of the content of any curriculum without having the courtesy of thoroughly researching the guide myself first or at the very least having it in hand.
Blessings,
Carrie