I love this. Period. I can't even speak I love this so much. You guys should check it out. We are using the Physical Science CD for Middle School Physics this year (in addition to our hands on stuff) and I'm stunned. I just checked out the brand new virtual biology lab and when I saw primers and taq polymerase next to a PCR machine on the virtual tour I about died with excitement. Ok - I'm a nerd, but this is so great I can't even explain it - the sophistication of these types of experiments could never be replicated even in some of the best private schools in the country - the stuff is just too expensive. Not only the equipment, but the primers and DNA. And the microscopes! How we drool over those $1000 microscopes and they don't even get the kids close to what they can do in a university. I mean, how many of us can afford incubators, shakers, electrophoresis, PCR machines etc etc (no one!). PLUS - they come with a workbook with the answers in the back and they have pretty good directions on how to do each experiment. This goes so far beyond anything I've ever seen in a wet lab for homeschool there is almost no comparison. Of course - we still do the wet lab stuff because it is fun to gets your hands dirty, but this is the serious side to science -the stuff they WILL do in college and the stuff that real scientists do everyday. We have done 4 of the physical science labs that go along with the Middle School Physics course and even though there was a lot of graphing, my son actually learned SO much! And, he asked questions like crazy - "Why does the balloon pop if I change the number of moles inside it but not the pressure inside the chamber?" I was like - "Who are you?" The chemistry lab is so relaistic you can even blow things up if the kids add the wrong chemical. We have 3 more labs planned for Friday and I can't wait! I highly recommend this program (Y Science from Brigham Young University) to anyone who wants to make sure their teen is prepared for college level science. http://chemlab.byu.edu/
okay am I not clicking the right thing? I only saw words and uh ads for stuff to buy? The virtual tour froze on methough so maybe I missed muchh?
Ido like that you can get a 191 page lab book though download .. saved? I saw mention of installing but didnt see where the price for the cd is? It does sound good so far though from the lab book
TM - I don't know what you're seeing? I don't see any ads? Here is the biology tour: http://chemlab.byu.edu/tour/Biology It is a little pricey at $100 for home use and you have to buy it from Pearson, but I had no problems ordering and it came in just a few days. I will get some screen shots of the labs we are doing on forces so you guys can see what the experiments look like.
I think I found it, its just how my lap top was set up. I did not find the cost though so thanks. I thought you had said 1000 before and I was stressing. It realy does look good. The tour was slow on my computer last night we had three or four of us on computer at a time with ds college doing his and me checkng things and dh doing his work Lol I am really enjoying science with ds, like I did with older ds, dd was not so into it but wants Physics too... so we may look into doing some on the side or signing her up at the cc in the winter trimester. she is only 15 but they have that high schoolers can go for free stuff? Just have to find otu how that works and maybe her home school friend can go too and they can work together?
The Brigham Young online program has one significant problem: it's a simulation. Ok, simulations are fine for learning concepts, and BYU appears to have one of the better produced simulation programs. However, no simulation provides exposure to the real world. Is your student looking at real electrophoresis or a drawing of one? Which would be preferable? If you put in the same values, does the balloon pop at the same moment? Would real balloons do that? What's important in science is the learning, not the gee-whiz factor. You can Google "America's Lab Report" and read it for free. It explains (very long-winded) what science labs are for and which sorts of experiences qualify. The cheapest and simplest experiments can result in great learning, better than any simulation no matter how fancy the simulated (meaning fake) equipment may be. The reason for this difference is that your student will get to design experiments and will be exposed to real-world data, data that's not perfect. As a result of repeated exposure to this sort of activity, your student will come to understand the nature of science, will develop scientific reasoning skills, and will begin to appreciate the complexity and ambiguity of the work that scientists do. Of course, you can misuse wet lab experiments just as any tool can be misused. However, when done properly, without giving away the answer ahead of time and without focusing on the procedure, the experience of working with the real world pays great dividends. Western Washington University has been experimenting with a program that allows students to use really expensive equipment from anywhere at any time. They might have taken the BYU approach but didn't. Even MIT has its iLabs program, similar to WWU. Certainly, they have the resources and brainpower to build the world's best simulations. However, they chose to use the real-world approach. I'm simply advocating that you use simulations with your eyes wide open. They can help learning. A comic book of a great classic can introduce a child to that wonderful book but is not a true substitute for reading it. Simulations are similar. They use animations (cartoons) and predetermined formulas (output from a programmer's keyboard instead of the real world) to introduce students to science. Tell your student in no uncertain terms that the simulation is NOT the real world. If you do these experiments for real, the results may be different, in some cases quite different. Tell them that what they see is someone's conception of what the experiments ought to look like and that people are fallible. As long as you both understand the limitations of simulations as both a learning tool and a real-world representation, you're ready to use them well and enjoy them.
This is a good point. In fact, many of the great discoveries in science came from someone noticing a small anomaly when everyone else thought the matter was closed. Michael Faraday, for example, noticed a small flicker on a galvanometer when he moved a magnet near a wire. Everyone in the world believed that magnetism could not create electrical current, but Faraday suddenly realized that it's the movement of a magnetic field that induces a current. If he hadn't been alert and repeated an experiment in person that many others had performed, he would not be renowned for being the inventor of the electric motor and, by extrapolation, all the electrically powered devices we use today. It's not that simulations and virtual experiments don't have their place, but it's also important to engender a sense of the excitement that comes from discovering something for yourself.
Well guys, I hate to burst your bubble, but the number of highschool kids that are doing actual "experiments for discovery" in high school chemistry (or any other class) is not significant. They are running simulations, preplanned activities, where the outcome is known to teach a concept. The same thing as a virtual lab, only the "real" labs use glassware and hoods. And instead of being allowed to experiment to see the consequences, they are watched over for fear of injury. Pesonally, my son likes to blow things up in the lab, who doesn't. Y Science is one way to "experiment", get a life-like reaction, and remain 100% safe while they do it. There is no diminishing of realization on a simulation - they same "ah ha" moments still happen, only they happen on the screen. The data in the Y Science is not perfect. The variables are still there and they change accordingly, perhaps you haven't used it enough to see that part? I've worked in the (real) lab enough to know what a great learning tool Y Science is - and believe me it is WAY beyond the "Gee-Wiz" factor. And I don't know how much homeschool you've taught ScienceGuy, but these virtual labs are one of the best things I've ever seen in educational science - and I've seen a lot of science education products. The WWU sounds cool, but it is not fully functional nor is it available according to the website. Two pretty big points of contention. And the MITiLabs looks exactly like BYU Y Science. Not to mention, this is for kids, at home, being taught by their moms, not university kids with access to multimillion dollar equipment. HUGE difference.
Well, I agree with everybody! We have used both wet labs and virtual labs and really, I think if you are going to get a complete lab experience, you need both. Here's why: Hands-on, wet labs are important for building confidence in lab work and for just dealing with the randomness of the real world. Also, there is a power in actually feeling the beaker heat up in an exothermic reaction - makes it very plain that energy is being released. Doing things yourself increases learning. I think this is particularly true of dissections. On the other hand, there is no way homeschoolers, or even most private schools could do all of the required labs for AP Biology or Chemistry without virtual labs. The equipment is just too expensive. Virtual labs pick up the slack. While using virtual labs like Virtual Chem Lab and Biology Labs Online to meet the requirements for AP Bio and AP Chem, I discovered another advantage of them. Repeatability. Because the time for a simulation is so reduced compared to the time for a real world experiment, you can run many simulations, changing variables each time. When I compared my children's experience in the fruit fly lab to my experience breeding fruit flies in Genetics class in college (my degree is in Biology with enough Chemistry for another degree), they came out with a *much* greater understanding than I had because they were able to run so many crosses. As a result, their virtual lab experiences gave them a better understanding of experimental design than the wet labs. I think you need both. Melanie Young
Ok - I can't get the sites to come up at all..... now I want to play in a virtual chem lab and blow stuff up!!!!
Maybe I shouldn't admit this, but I really did blow up a chemistry lab during my PhD research. Some rather well-known chemists and physicists ran for cover, and it was more than a little embarrassing. Let me tell you what happened. My physics research was in the field of fine particle magnetism, assessing the impact of inter-particle interactions on the properties of what are termed magnetic fluids. We used to make fluids based on cobalt particles suspended in toluene, with attached "surfactant" molecules on the particles to act as cushions so they wouldn't coalesce. There was a little tension between the chemistry and physics departments, but I was eventually given a small fume cupboard in the corner of a very large chemistry research lab. Making these fluids was reasonably straightforward: (i) Find a round-bottomed flask; (ii) Add a cobalt complex (which was a black powder); (iii) Add the surfactant chemical (which was a clear liquid); (iv) Add the solvent (initially this was toluene); (v) Heat over a bunsen burner for a couple of hours. I'd analyze the resulting fluid by viewing a sample under an electron microscope. Great fun! I had this idea that the strength of inter-particle interactions depended on the average size of the particles, so I tried to think how to change particle size. What if I used xylene as the solvent instead of toluene? I tried it out, and the particle size was different. Fantastic! So then I got a chemical directory and looked for molecules that are slightly larger than toluene. First, I found one with a CH3 group added to the benzene ring. Next, I found one with a C2H5 group added; and so on. The research was going like a charm. Each time, I'd add the black powder, add the clear liquid, add the new solvent, give the mixture a swill in the flask, and then leave it over the burner to "brew". Well, one day I entered the lab with a new solvent to try. I put in the black powder, then the clear liquid, and then added this solvent. As I started to shake the flask, I heard this loud hissing noise like steam coming from a kettle. All of the sudden, the solvent rushed out of the neck of the flask (as a vapor), hit the ceiling, and spread out all over the lab. Everyone started coughing and then running away. Meanwhile, this is a round bottomed flask, and I didn't know where to put the stupid thing! Vapor is still pouring out of it, and I looked rather like a steam train. A professor eventually ran over, grabbed the flask, dropped it in the fume cupboard (why didn't I think of that?), and pulled me out of the lab. Suffice it to say, that was the end of that series of experiments. About a year later, I had another idea. What if I could turn a magnetic fluid into a solid while a magnetic field is applied? Then I'd be able to view particles as they appear under the influence of a magnetic field - because the particles would have been locked in place. Could I create a fluid based on styrene and convert the solvent into polystyrene (a clear plastic)? I tried it out, and again it worked like a charm! I took some thin slices and viewed them under the electron microscope and saw some really interesting particle alignments. The trouble is, the catalyst for the polymerization process is benzoyl peroxide. It's rather unstable and so comes in a hydrated form. You have to put some of the white powder on a metal spatula and hold it over a burner to remove the water from the molecule. The resulting powder is explosive, so you have to be careful. I did nothing wrong - but one day someone overheard a discussion in the staff room and realized that the person playing with benzoyl peroxide was the same person who had blown up the lab. I heard later from friends that they raced from the room and climbed four flights of steps in a great hurry. Once again, my hopes of extensive experimental results came to an end - which is why my PhD thesis is mostly theoretical and endless pages of multidimensional integration of Bessel functions. Indeed, the results section is far more boring than it might have been. I could have done with a simulation program!
That's all right, ColoradoMom. You haven't burst my bubble at all. I have a Ph.D. in chemistry from Columbia University, was a professor of chemistry, and was the chair of the Northeastern Section of the American Chemical Society. My B.S. was from Caltech. As the science advisor for Newton North High School for six years, I worked with very many students to help them understand science. For the last ten years, I've been immersed deeply in the entire area of science education and have worked with very many teachers and students as well as having read what seems to be a library's worth of books on the subject. Now, please go back and reread my last paragraph. I know about typical science labs. The National Research Council wrote "America's Lab Report" in 2005 and called typical American high school lab experiences "poor." I was bored in my own high school science labs. As Carl Sagan pointed out, you were told the answer you were supposed to get and marked off if you didn't get it. He said, "Where's the soaring sense of wonder?" Just because the typical lab experience is poor doesn't mean it has to be. i thought that one reason for homeschooling is to overcome just such poor pedagogy. You can do great at-home labs with all of the excitement and wonder of science along with the discovery that makes such a difference. You do not have to have expensive equipment and dangerous materials to do science. Use your simulations with foreknowledge of their limitations. A simulation is a crude approximation of the real world. Depending on our knowledge and the skill of the programmer and the ability of the programming staff and the science staff to communicate, you can get simulations that match the real world to varying degrees of precision. I've seen simulations that were just plain wrong. In effect, a simulation is a form of video game. What happens when a student takes some simulated action depends entirely on what's been programmed. That's not so in the real world. Because of your forum's strict ban on any self-serving comments, I will not talk about my own work in this area. I just note that there are alternatives to hands-on and simulations. Those are not the sole approaches available. Real IS better than fake, all other factors being equal. I can't imagine any scientist disputing that simple fact.
Melanie Young mentions the fruit fly lab, both real and simulated versions, and contrasts them. Just suppose that you could have had someone run your real lab hundreds of times (in advance), both in different and similar ways, and record each experiment with images and videos. Then, you replace the cartoons of your simulation with the real stuff. Would the result be better? It would be better in some ways, at least. I'd be interested in seeing what everyone reading this thinks about that question. In what ways would setting the parameters (just as you do in a simulation) and seeing the results of a real experiment (instead of a computer programmed result) be better than a simulation and in what ways would it be worse? Ask the same question with respect to doing the experiment the old-fashioned way. Assume that you don't have to wait any longer than with a simulation. Then, you can go on and ask about what ways it could be better. Imagine a sort of time machine science robot that can do any science experiment you choose instantaneously, but you must use a computer to communicate with it and receive the results. How would you design it to make it the best possible for your specific use?
Cool. The only thing missing is actual homeschool experience, which in this case, counts for a lot. And here we get to the crux of the problem. This is why non-homeschoolers come to homeschool forums. To sell us things that have nothing to do with homeschool. "Science Guy" I DO appreciate constructive suggestions, however I can tell immediately when someone is pushing a product that is geared for "schools" and not "homeschools" because most of the time the two are not interchangable. Everything you talked about in your first post was geared towards "schools" and it was obvious that you've never actually completed an Apologia course or a Real Science 4 Kids course or any other homeschool science curriculum because your posts assumes homeschoolers have no idea what we real science in "school" is. Believe me - homeschoolers KNOW what kind of issues they face when they teach science. Most of it has to do with time and shopping for supplies, not the lack of good options. Most homeschool parents give their kids a rich science experience using hands-on labs, so MY only reason for posting my original comment was to give them an alternative that will expose kids to equipment and processes that they might never have heard of, in a virtually directed manner. I looked over the sites you mentioned and I posted my opinion in the last post. One wasn't even up and running for college students to take full advantage of, and the other looked just like BYU's project. So your main beef with BYU's project seems to be that you have a project that could be better. I look forward to evaluating it and giving it my review in the future. I have no relationship to BYU and I have no financial interest in this product. I just think it works, it works well, and it gives us (homeschoolers) something we didn't have before. And that's all I wanted to say. However I will post screen shots (for those of you who are interested in seeing how it works) perhaps even a video of us using the lab this week. We have been sick for a few weeks and I haven't had time to do that, even though I promised I would.
hmm, uhm, in regards to the actual lab stuff, my ds went to a prep school that taught him how to find the chemicals he needed in household products and won first place at his science fair by blowing up some things with HCL .. aka toilet uncloger lol . Actual hands on is awesome when you can do it! When you can't I thank God there are many colleges and universities out there doing online classes so we can' sit in ' and see what is supposed to happen as often things do not go as planned.. even a simple grade school celery project by the third child doing it can turn out different. Fun though! That is part of experimenting isnt it?
I really hope that my opinions have not offended anyone. My purpose here is not to sell. I do not market to homeschoolers, although that fact could change sometime in the future. I have a longstanding and passionate love of science -- since my childhood. I became very interested in science education when my children were in middle school and getting a rather poor science education. Finally, after years of observing and studying, I decided to attempt to do something about it. I have spent more than ten years now on this project. It is my life's work. I have read books on science education dating back to the nineteenth century and all modern works on this topic. I constantly seek new knowledge in this area. My original post was not intended to throw a wet blanket on your enthusiasm but simply to steer people away from using simulations, no matter how great, as substitutes for labs. Your post did not make this distinction, and I felt that I was adding to the dialog and contributing my long experience to the mix. To reiterate, you cannot buy my stuff. I don't sell to homeschoolers, although many have tried to buy from me. My business is too small and too focused on other markets. So, I am NOT pushing some product on you all. I am pushing a PHILOSOPHY, one that has deep roots. The first science labs in secondary education appeared around the middle of the nineteenth century. The first evidence that these would be used to learn the nature of science instead of rote technical skills appeared late in that century. Since that time, many people (such as John Dewey) have seen the potential in science education for helping our citizens become better participants in democracy. Good science labs are a key part of that quest. So, excuse my passion, but don't accuse me unjustly.
Well, I couldn't use the links they wouldn't work for me. But I was just wondering last week what the heck we are going to do when it comes time for labs. Right now, my oldest is in the 9th grade and taking an 8th grade physical science class because the admin's bullied the teacher into teaching at the 8th grade level, so she is now doing a physical science book as well. I might just send her to a local jc for a chem class because I believe that just might be my only option. I guess we will see though.
rhi that woudn't be such a bad idea. I wish I had done more with my dd, we did the video and the few lab things we could do and I am pretty sure she will do more lab work in College when she takes Physics.. though I don't know what all that details because I have not been there, one reason she will take it at CC here.
