Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To be a bit confused about DD's science homework?

32 replies

Nibledbyducks · 09/09/2016 00:53

DD has just started year 6 and came home with science homeork on classification. One of the fill in the blank questions ended up as "mammals give birth to live young but birds lay eggs". Ok I know they start with the basics but why not "mammals give milk to their young"? what about sharks? and monotremes? surely it's best to be accurate from the get go?

OP posts:
Soubriquet · 09/09/2016 09:11

The only thing that could cover every branch of mammal is that they feed them on their own milk

EmergentFaction · 09/09/2016 09:20

Just popping in to say nice thread. Interesting!

And nice post babybythesea

babybythesea · 09/09/2016 09:34

Tezza - yes, great. I found doing it with Year 1s though that the best stage was to let them actually do it. So heap up a massive pile of skins, feathers, snake sheds etc (as well as using real animals, just not in the pile!) and let them physically feel them all and then sort them out into different points in the classroom. If they then ask about dolphins etc, great, and you can mention it. But at that stage, I am just happy with them getting to grips with the basic principle - exceptions can come later (lie your Year 3s.)

Incidentally, it can get very complicated.
All mammals feed young on milk.
So what about doves and pigeons? They feed their young on the lining of the throat which they regurgitate - it's called crop milk. Does that make them mammals? No, clearly not. So is it that mammals feed on milk by the mammary glands? Because the monotremes don't have mammary glands - they ooze it from a bald patch near their groin. So are they now not mammals?
Ultimately classification is not a clear cut topic because the living world is not a clear cut place. Classification is an artificial attempt by us to make some sense of the world around us.
Try defining the word species, for example. We all know what a species is but there isn't a good definition that covers all options. So do we say that to kids? Nope. We give them a broad definition which is broadly accurate and then gradually introduce the anomalies to ponder on.

Same with classification. These big artificial lines we want so badly to be there, in the main, just aren't. They are in our heads. But there are things which annoyingly don't fit the patterns.

So let's discuss the broad patterns, because by and large the vast majority of mammals do have fur and do produce live young and do feed babies milk. And then let the kids process that idea, and get a handle on the whole concept, including why we do it, and make some sense out of it. And then if they are ahead enough to ask, or if they have pretty much got their heads around it, introduce the animals which don't fit nicely into the box, or provide information based on things they can't easily see or imagine.
Patterns are important even if there are exceptions but if you start with 'this is mostly true but this animal doesn't fit and neither does this one or this one' the kids will start to feel like nothing fits so why even bother!

glueandstick · 09/09/2016 09:42

Biology is just chemistry, chemistry is physics and physics is maths. The only certain thing is maths. Maths never lies. Oh. Wait.

Everything is a living lie!

Tezza1 · 09/09/2016 09:46

Babybythesea:
Yes, my 8 year olds were all quite bright and perceptive - the school was academically streamed and these were the top of six classes, so they were able to get their brains around a lot of things (as I said this was a fair while ago. I don't know if any schools in the system still stream children this young).

Additionally, because they are Australian, they were all very familiar with marsupials and monotremes, and completely appreciated the differences.

babybythesea · 09/09/2016 11:24

Yes that would make a difference (both being bright and being Australian!)
Because in the UK this comes into the curriculum with five and six year olds, some of whom won't be able to read properly, or who may have really limited contact with any kind of animal, it's a gentle starting point which can be taken further if the kids can cope.

Nibledbyducks · 09/09/2016 12:08

We talked about how the lesson they had built on the basics an how living things were originally classified in ways that we now know aren't quite right because of genetics and things we have learnt through the fossil record. We talked about why we classify living things. I totally understand that starting with the basics is the right thing. But in the same lesson they were given a list of animals and groups to put them in which included tadpoles but only sea creatures as an option to put them in, and then we got this homework. My daughter has been to a zoo and seen an echidna, and she's raised frog spawn from her first school pond, I'm sure there's plenty of children who have done the same, so she was just as confused as I was.
As for being elitist, I think it's more elitist to assume that science is such a difficult subject that you have to be highly intelligent to understand it.

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread