Strict grammar or learning grammar through lit? Thoughts?

[StaceyinLA]

My niece posted some stuff published by John Hattie (I swear I have posted about this before, but I canNOT find the post), that rated various methods to show how little or how much they actually contributed to learning a particular subject. Standalone grammar scored very low.

 

How important is a strict grammar program (such a R&S) versus using a program (such as LLATL) that incorporates the learning of grammar/writing through actual works of literature?

Edited September 24, 2017 by StaceyinLA

[HomeAgain]

I think they each depend on the quality of the program and the child involved. :)

 

Example: my oldest used LLATL and retained nothing.  NOTHING.  It was honestly a really, really bad program for him.  It was disjointed and poorly planned.  A while later he did Harvey's Grammar/The First Whole Book of Diagrams and the information stuck.  He needed the explicit teaching with simple exercises outside of writing class.

 

However, my youngest started with FLL.  It was.......meh.  What it taught was orderly, but it didn't work for him.  He switched to Grammarland with a Montessori bent added and is now doing ELTL, which uses pieces of the current literature selection to reinforce grammar concepts.  It's working so well for him.  He can diagram easily, form coherent sentences for his narration, and can use the grammar concepts in his other languages.

 

One kid needed the explicit teaching, the other needed a chance to play with it all.  I really like that ELTL seems to combine the best of both worlds: it teaches concepts and builds steadily, but everything is integrated.  There's a lot of copywork, a lot of exposure to different styles of writing, and daily narration to get used to telling a story in order.

[rose]

My two older dc really needed solid intentional grammar instruction. I jumped around until landing on R&S and haven't looked back. I just couldn't get them to grasp when to use a comma, for instance, without solid, systematic instruction into the order of English. To me it's like trying to take a whole language approach to reading or maybe a better example would be only presenting math through word problems without any of the symbols as tools.

[StaceyinLA]

My two older dc really needed solid intentional grammar instruction. I jumped around until landing on R&S and haven't looked back. I just couldn't get them to grasp when to use a comma, for instance, without solid, systematic instruction into the order of English. To me it's like trying to take a whole language approach to reading or maybe a better example would be only presenting math through word problems without any of the symbols as tools.

I never really thought of it that way, but you’re right; it does seem like a similar thing. I guess if it isn’t broken, it doesn’t need to be fixed. Just as phonics has worked for a very long time (for most children), so has grammar. There will always be kids who are the exceptions with the way they learn, and that’s okay (it’s also what I love about home schooling and all the options), but why not go with something tried and true?

[nixpix5]

Double post. Sorry!

Edited September 25, 2017 by nixpix5

[nixpix5]

Sometimes too, kids just need to hear it a bunch of times. I did FLL1 last year with DD and while she loved it, I feel like she retained next to nothing except the poems :) This year, because we are doing ELTL for copywork and narration and TG&TB 2 for phonics along with R&S 2 she is getting alot of reinforcement. It is sticking really well! We started our formal school year August 1st so we have been schooling almost 2 months and her understanding of grammar is coming along nicely.

 

I would say though it is probably due to R&S and not the little bit she gets in the other programs. R&S 2 is so logical, gentle but repetitive. We do some oral and some written but it is really effective. Atleast for DD. We will see when the boys get there next year ;)

[Ellie]

My niece posted some stuff published by John Hattie (I swear I have posted about this before, but I canNOT find the post), that rated various methods to show how little or how much they actually contributed to learning a particular subject. Standalone grammar scored very low.

 

How important is a strict grammar program (such a R&S) versus using a program (such as LLATL) that incorporates the learning of grammar/writing through actual works of literature?

 

Rod and Staff's English series is not just grammar, though. It's a thorough grammar and composition series, which is why you can compare it to LLATL. :-) Easy Grammar and Analytical Grammar are grammar-only, for example, and wouldn't be comparable to LLATL.

 

I've always thought that LLATL looked sort of weak in grammar and writing and literature, but I have friends who used it all the way, all the levels, and their children turned out to be literate and well-written. I would *not* expect that after using just one level.

 

I think a year of good grammar instruction with something like EG or AG is good, followed by lots of writing and literature, correcting writing (in all written work) as needed.

[fourisenough]

I haven't seen the research you're referring to, but, intuitively, I believe that grammar instruction does not necessarily translate into improved writing skills. That doesn't mean I don't teach grammar because I do, but I don't stop there. I view grammar as one tool in the kit; vocabulary acquisition, development of a voice, and development of thinking skills are other important tools. Together, these can be used to create a good writer, but in isolation they're not worth much.

 

With older three DDs, grammar was finished by middle school, so we could move on to writing to learn, using that grammar to think about their writing. DD12 has finished AG and is now just doing the HS reinforcement book. It is just enough to keep all her grammar knowledge fresh so that it can be used to help her writing.

[Zoo Keeper]

I believe that consistent, layered, systematic grammar teaching works very well.  There is a lot of wiggle room in that sentence. :)

 

 

Some children need less grammar instruction, some need more.

 

It's kind of like math...some children *need* more explicit, isolated teaching of concepts.  Then lots of practice to help it stick.

 

Other kids are more "conceptual," and can easily see the patterns and how to apply them.

 

I have some of both kinds of grammar learners;  I  use more traditional grammar programs, and edit as needed for each. 

[PineFarmMom]

Each of my older kids have done at least 3 years of R&S. I've been hopping around a lot lately because the CM approach has appealed to me so much. I switched my 6th and 8th grade boys to EIW this year, just to lighten my load. We really like it. But I see how having all of that grammar behind them makes it a breeze for them.

 

I'm presently doing Cottage Press with my 2nd grader, and I will likely go back to R&S for 3rd and up. I may start alternating with FLL since I own it. We can do copy work and dictation and just use R&S. It's just my bent and I have to own it. Lol. What was so alluring about CP was that it incorporated picture study and nature study. I already do picture study, and the nature study is so basic I can easily do that too.

[ScoutTN]

dp

Edited September 25, 2017 by ScoutTN

[ScoutTN]

Both/and, not either/or.

My kids benefit from both kinds on instruction.

I do the in context grammar teaching all the time. It's just part of how I think, so it doesn't require curriculum. Ymmv.

Edited September 25, 2017 by ScoutTN