<p>I am exploring the possibility of teaching a science class for a home school group in my area. The kids in this group are from middle-middle class families with many of the dads being blue collar workers. They typically go on to the community college rather than to a 4 year university. </p>
<p>I want to do a class for 7th-10th graders that would foster in them a love of science. I had the idea to do a course based on researching and preparing for a science fair project. When S2 did a science fair project in 7th grade, he learned more than he has in any science class before or since.</p>
<p>I have a friend whose home schooled D has been wildly successful with science fair (and I do mean wildly successful). She says that the science needs to come first, then preparing for a science fair. She thinks by studying in depth science they will come to love it. Then they will be ready to present their research at a science fair.</p>
<p>But these kids won't study in-depth science on their own accord. In fact, I was lined up to teach a chemistry class, but only 2 kids signed up (we had hoped for 8), so the class won't make. To be fair, sometimes the parents decide they'd rather have the kids do their science classes dual-credit at the cc since they'll have better lab facilities. But taking a science class at the cc doesn't tend to stir up a love for science in most kids, as far as I've seen.</p>
<p>So, which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Do you think it's possible to spark an interest in science by introducing these kids to research leading up to a science fair?</p>
<p>It didn’t work for me. The “gifted”/“accelerated”/whatever you want to call it program in my school district mandated that we do science projects leading up to a science fair every year of middle school (as opposed to just 8th grade for all students), and if anything it made me dislike science more. I found it terribly painful and was constantly trying to figure out a topic that would not bore me to tears/be beyond my abilities (no lab scientist parents to bail me out!). I basically just did it to do it and then begged off going to the actual science fair (my parents had to write a note to acknowledge that they were aware of the science fair and were okay with me not going–they knew it would just be torture for me). In the interest of full disclosure, I did not care for my science teacher and do not feel that she did a very good job overseeing the project, so I’m sure that it could have been less painful and more useful under the jurisdiction of a better teacher. But still, I was so relieved when I knew that I would never have to do another science fair project again.</p>
<p>I’m not a proponent of science fairs. I did everything I could to avoid them (and still became an engineer). My (now) physicist son also only participated only under duress.</p>
<p>One thing that I have seen excite kids is a robotics program. Google the FIRST program and see if that is interesting.</p>
<p>Doing a science project is a bit like teaching math through the problem-solving method. The problem needs to be appealing and get the students to learn some new math in order to solve it. Similarly, the science project needs to be appealing enough to get the students to learn the science. My S learned ton of science when he was on the science team of his high school. Some years ago, I looked up the website of the National Science Teachers Association and saw some really neat projects I don’t know if the website is still open to the general public. But there should be lots of resources about science projects available online or in books. Good luck!</p>
<p>Re post above: Robotics is indeed a great way for kids to learn science.
besides FIRST, there is also the ROV competition. S’s hs team once beat an MIT team at it.</p>
<p>The Lawrence Hall of Science in Berkeley has a phenomenal program called Great Explorations in Math and Science (GEMS) with a variety of age-appropriate activities that might be useful. For instance (and this is a younger-skewing version), they have an activity called “Oobleck” where the kids are told that their teacher has found some bizarre material that appears to be alien in nature: their job is to investigate its properties and report to the class. The “oobleck” is a cornstarch-water mixture, dyed something suitably lurid, and if you’ve never played with cornstarch with water then you are really missing something fun (warning: do not pour this down your plumbing!!!).</p>
<p>My personal favorite alternative to Science Fair is Invention Convention. This is science applied to a problem. The process is not Hypothesis-Eperiment, but more like identifying a problem, followed by inventing something to solve it. Problems range from picking up dog poop more easily to reversing global warming. Our school has tried both Science Fair and Invention Convention, and MUCH prefer IC. Sorry, OP, I’m a scientist in favor of kids exploring science.</p>
<p>Just went back to your first post, and I can say that IC with blue collar families can be fantastic because often the dads have some amazing skills to share with their kids in the constructing of inventions. We allowed a fair amount of parental involvement with the building of things, as long as the inventor journaled the help received. This can be very affirming for dads who may not be able to help with higher math, but can create something beautiful and functional out of junk.</p>
<p>Invention Convention sounds exactly like what I have in mind when discussing problem-solving. Identify a problem, learn the science then invent something to solve the problem</p>
<p>Bravo for the “home schooled” kids parents who have their kids take science at a cc with well equipped labs. There are so many more interesting things to do that would be too dangerous in the hands of amateurs. I don’t think you could afford to equip a science lab setting with many of the fun toys even public high schools on tight budgets can. Your group of “blue collar” families is more likely to be interested in the technical aspects of science, taking classes that get them ahead in a future job sounds very reasonable. You can’t be all things to all people- even all colleges can’t be all things to all people- especially when you are talking about equipping very expensive labs.</p>
<p>As a chemistry major, and later medical student I can’t say that doing a science fair was the way to get me interested in science. Messing around in lab certainly was- hands on with things not found at home. Who would be the available expert to answer their questions? Unless you are much more well educated in science than most people how can you intrigue them with uncommon knowledge? Kids want the whistles and bells. Just thought of one resource to try. Look at the science education for HS students done by Prof Shakishiri of UW-Madison, he has had a Christmas time demonstration for many years that is wildly popular and there is even a journal put out about HS science education.</p>
<p>I majored in chemistry and worked as a bench chemist for over 20 years in the pharmaceutical industry. Add me to the chorus of those who loathed science fairs. To me, they’re more about competition (and how much help you can get from adults) than they are about science.</p>
<p>To me, if you want to instill that love of science, you need to aim earlier - say, the fourth or fifth grade. I used to do a lot of chemistry and biology demonstrations in elementary schools, mainly for 4th and 5th graders, and their enthusiasm was inspiring. If you can capture that excitement and stoke it through middle school, then I think you can really make an impact. </p>
<p>Actually, if you talk to a lot of working chemists of a certain generation, the thing that REALLY turned us into scientists was a good old-fashioned chemistry set! (You know - the kind they probably don’t sell any more, with all the really dangerous chemicals.) We’ve had a lot of lab conversations that began “So, I was in the basement, and I just poured everything together to see what would happen…”</p>
<p>Sorry if this isn’t what you wanted to hear!</p>
<p>timely:
I was never much of a fan of competitions so I tend to think more in terms of projects as a way to learn about science rather than as an entry in a fair. Some years ago, I was in touch with a math/science prof who had a Ph.D. in physics and tried to teach his students (I think they were 7th and 8th graders) math and science through projects. He said the greatest kick he had was when, toward the end of one such project, one student said this was fun and the class was not doing any math (which in fact it was!). Anyway, two projects I remember his organizing was building a catapult capable of throwing x to y distance. Another one was to build a musical instrument (if I remember correctly, it was based on some Asian string instrument). In Science Team competitions, there’s the perennial bottle rocket, the mission possible (building a Rube Goldberg contraption) and other projects that might excite your students. Many of them could make use of the collective talents of the blue-collar dads, and it would be great to get the dads involved.</p>
<p>marite’s descriptions sound a lot like the projects part of science olympiad. I agree that might be a better approach to start with than the traditional science fair project.</p>
<p>That said, my kids learned an enormous amount from the science fair projects they did. Only one required lab stuff. They were mostly fun to do.</p>
<p>There were:</p>
<p>What shape paper airplane flies the farthest? (My son discovered that wings fly in circles and darts in straight lines leading to the question - should it be longest time in the air.)</p>
<p>What’s the best combination of slinglength and ball weight for a trebuchet? (this turned out to be really too complicated a question to answer easily)</p>
<p>Is it worth it to wash your hands with soap, and what soap works best? (We concur with a med school study dishsoap works best.)</p>
<p>Do two ears work better than one? (We had some surprising answers here, a yes but only if situation.)</p>
<p>How much smaller do things appear has they get further away?</p>
<p>How much slower is it to name colors words are written in if the words are the names of other colors? (Stroop effect)</p>
<p>My S’s Science Team built a trebuchet. It was indeed for a Science Olympiad. He also used to do tons of origami, including, of course, airplanes.</p>
So, how do you make the leap from kids who are stoked about science to them going really in depth into serious science while they are still in high school?</p>
<p>HS science classes have to sufficiently prepare kids who are planning to go to science oriented fields. For example, Physics has to be based on a solid knowledge of Calculus, otherwise, it is not going to be enough. Chemistry should also be based on solid math background. I believe that teaching any HS science requires a person who had this major in college (Physics or Chimistry or Bio major). If you possess this qualifications, your class should be a success. Kids like class when they understand it and feel confident about subject in college. My D. had great HS science teachers and actually was hired at college as Supplemental Instructor in chemistry (fansy name for paid tutor) after her Freshman year. I know that she has hated all science fairs that she ever participated (none in HS, thank goodness). She considered them a waste of time and big turn off for the class. She is pre-med, schience is very important for her.</p>
<p>The advantage you have at the early stage is that this is a homeschool group; therefore, you do not need to adhere slavishly to a curriculum. You can also combine different subjects to do a single project. Eventually, the students should take standardized tests and therefore they should cover the materials that will appear on the tests.</p>
<p>While my S was taking a science class in the high school, his fellow 8th graders were taught by a long-term substitute who had actually been an English major in college. He confessed openly that he did not know much science (mucho groans from parents at curriculum night). But he was fascinated by tornadoes. From what I learned through the grapevine (since S wasn’t in the class), his students spent a lot of time learning about the weather. His enthusiasm proved to be infectious and the students later said they’d been turned on to science by him far more than the permanent teacher he’d replaced (a regular science teacher). In his case, it appears that enthusiasm plus solid knowledge of one particular subject (one that was wide enough to allow exploration of various topics) was key.</p>
<p>The previous year, when S was still with his class, the capstone project was a research paper on a topic of the student’s choice. The teacher helped students look up sources, asked them questions to help them formulate their research topic, read drafts, etc… S learned a great deal from it.</p>
<p>Miami, I agree there is no substitute for solid math and science education from K-12.</p>
<p>The point of a GOOD science fair, robotics competition, invention convention, and so on, is to lead students to APPLY science and math. This is the proper response when children ask, “but WHY do we have to do this math (physics, chemistry, biology). I’ll never use it!” </p>
<p>This is not to say that every kid is going to be a scientist, but to find and encourage young scientists, the connection between learning math/science and creating or understanding something in the world needs to be made at an early age, and supported throughout high school and college learning.</p>
<p>It would be like teaching children grammar and spelling, and never expecting them to write a story or persuasive paragraph. The fun and love for the subject comes with application of the tools.</p>
<p>Bad science fairs (following directions for a project they don’t like and/or didn’t think of themselves) can be boring and a net loss. Carefully designed project based events or assignments can be empowering.</p>