Does learning to write "classically" really produce better writers?

[Kris in Wis]

There are many products on the market which teach "classical" writing, especially the progymnasmata. Is there any statistical evidence that this form of instruction is any better than traditional writing curricula, such as Writing Strands, Wordsmith, WriteShop, and other programs?

 

Just curious!

[Tabrett]

:lurk5:

[amtmcm]

Great Question!

[angela in ohio]

I don't see how there could be statistical evidence, since public schools seem to be the only ones with money for studies, and they tend not to use classical methods. :)

[Amy from WT]

Well, I can answer this from my own experience so far with my two oldest children.

 

First, a little background. My oldest daughter was homeschooled primarily from 4th through 9th grade (with a jump start homeschooling for K and 1st grade.) And then, as a child whose greatest pleasure in life is arguing, she went to public highschool. During those homeschooling years, we tried several writing programs, including Writing Strands and others that escape my memory. However, I can say with certainty that none of them were classical and several of them WERE creative. I had not yet discovered the classical method at that time. When she entered public school in 10th grade, their primary emphasis was on essay writing and preparing the students for the SAT Writing portion. But again, the method was not classical.

 

My oldest is now a college sophomore. I can say with pride that she is a wonderful writer! But I will say with excruciating honesty that she was NOT a wonderful writer until just this past year. Oh, she began to pull things together and figure them out during her senior year of highschool, and she scored well enough on that stupid SAT writing test, but she really blossomed as a writer in just the past six months. Before this point, she hated writing. Putting essays together and coming up with ideas was like pulling teeth for her. She wants to be an archaeologist, but the other day I was shocked to hear her list journalism as an alternate career path.

 

My middle is now a highschool sophomore. He is now and always has been homeschooled. I discovered the classical method at the beginning of his 5th grade year when he began a co-op Classical Writing Homer class. He has had classical writing classes for five years now. He is already a wonderful writer. Is it his favorite thing to do? No way. Was he a wonderful writer from the beginning of the process? No way. There definitely needed to be some cognitive development along the way for him. But just in the past year or two he's begun to pull together all that he has learned, and now he can really put together a wonderful, well-structured, well-thought out essay. I'm incredibly pleased. And I think I can say that there is no comparison between what he has been able to do as a highschool freshman and what my daughter could do at the same age.

 

Will they end up at the same place? Yes, I think so. Oh, honestly, I don't know. It's possible my son will be able to write circles around my daughter when he is an adult - but I hope not - I hope they will be on an even terrain in that regard. But I can say one thing for sure in regards to these two children: the path in getting there has been much much easier with my classically-trained son.

 

I hope this helps just a little. There's no question that this can't be applied to all children. If I've learned one thing at all on this homeschooling path, it is that there is no right answer for all children. Just as each one is unique and different, there is a unique educational answer for each child. Just as public school in highschool was the right answer for my oldest, homeschooling in high school is the right answer for my middle. I am gradually solving the puzzle for each child, and can only share my experiences! I do know one thing - I am sold on the classical method, and my youngest has no choice in how she is learning to write!

[Country Girl]

:lurk5:

[LanaTron]

I am assuming you are talking about the use of the progymnasmata as found in a curriculum like Classical Writing.

 

If the teacher is not comfortable teaching the "classical" methodology, she may have difficulty getting the student's best.

 

If the teacher uses a methodology that speaks to her, she will probably get more out of the student in the long run.

 

Okay, so that doesn't directly answer your question, but I don't know if there could ever really be a definitive answer. There are so many factors that go into a student's writing abilities (i.e. the teacher, the student's innate abilities, the student's other linguistic inputs, etc.), just like with math or any other skill set.

[Peela]

I have considered this myself.

Of course, there is no definitive answer.

I suspect a program that matches the child may produce better writing from that child than another. So many factors involved.

I agree also that it depends on the teacher too. CW involves a lot from the parent. I think it would produce good writers, but for me, other things would have suffered (my sanity for one). It is time consuming. i think it was great for exercising writing muscles though, and i havent seen anything else that is equivalent. I have a lot of respect for CW.

However, I had to let myself off the hook and allow myself to revert to more "normal" writing programs because "I" wasnt up to the classical writing challenge with 2 kids on two different levels.

[8filltheheart]

In a truly classical sense, the progymnasmata's goal was mastering rhetoric for oration. So, I guess a more appropriate question is does working through writing exercises in a classical way create better rhetorical arguments?

 

I personally do not believe that teaching children to be effective writers is all that difficult. A valid rhetorical argument is harder to achieve. I think that kids are better served mastering the fundamentals of writing in the younger yrs and introducing the art of rhetoric when they are older.

 

Do I think that programs like CW will produce good writers? Yes, I do. But do I think that is the only route there? No. Will it produce better rhetorical arguments? That isn't as easy to answer. A lot more went into teaching/creating the master orators than can be duplicated in a writing program. I think the answer lies in the the entire educational philosophy surrounding the student, not simply how they are taught to write.

[LanaTron]

You said that so much better than I.

[angela in ohio]

I'm thinking about this now WRT the parent/teacher. I really think writing is one of those area where the parent is more influential than the program. I have had many, many parents tell me how relieved they were to find IEW, because it tells them concrete steps to teach writing and how to evaluate the writing once completed. I suspect that for a parent who does not feel comfortable teaching writing, a classical program, which will tend to be more formulaic, may be a good fit.

 

For a parent who can already teach writing well, it doesn't really matter what they use. :)

 

As far as rhetorical skills, I agree with momof7 that this will depend on other factors. I personally think the largest factor in this is whether the foundational work of building dialectic skills has been done.

[Colleen in NS]

mastering the fundamentals of writing in the younger yrs

 

foundational work of building dialectic skills has been done.

 

I liked what both of you had to say. Just for clarification, can you be more specific in what you mean by "fundamentals" and "foundation work?" What do you think are the fundamentals and foundations before starting rhetoric/progym work?

[angela in ohio]

I liked what both of you had to say. Just for clarification, can you be more specific in what you mean by "fundamentals" and "foundation work?" What do you think are the fundamentals and foundations before starting rhetoric/progym work?

 

The two bits you quoted are the two sides you are building that ultimately provide the foundation in the later years. You are teaching the mechanics of writing. You are also teaching what makes an intelligent thought or argument. When a young person enters high school and has a great foundation in both sides, they will be both have something to say and know how to say it.

 

Everyone's list of what they think the components of those two sides are is going to be a bit different.

[Jill- OK]

In a truly classical sense, the progymnasmata's goal was mastering rhetoric for oration. So, I guess a more appropriate question is does working through writing exercises in a classical way create better rhetorical arguments?

I personally do not believe that teaching children to be effective writers is all that difficult. A valid rhetorical argument is harder to achieve. I think that kids are better served mastering the fundamentals of writing in the younger yrs and introducing the art of rhetoric when they are older.

 

Do I think that programs like CW will produce good writers? Yes, I do. But do I think that is the only route there? No. Will it produce better rhetorical arguments? That isn't as easy to answer. A lot more went into teaching/creating the master orators than can be duplicated in a writing program. I think the answer lies in the the entire educational philosophy surrounding the student, not simply how they are taught to write.

 

Great post, and I agree.

 

I'll only add that I believe that teaching logic and rhetoric does make for clearer thinking, and if the tools have been given to a child in the early years for good basic writing (spelling, grammar, basic composition skills), then that can lead to really awesome expression, on the page.

 

There are many ways to skin a cat, as they say, and teaching children basic rhetorical skills doesn't have to be done through a "classical" method like the progymnasmata.

 

For me, it comes down to a matter of reinventing the wheel, so to speak. That format has already been laid out, and served many people well for many years (centuries, lol), so...I'll use it. (Echoing those who suggest it's better for high school years, though. Our format is basic writing in early years, then more of a "classical" focus later.)

Edited June 18, 2009 by Jill, OK

[Guest Lene in CO]

There are many products on the market which teach "classical" writing, especially the progymnasmata. Is there any statistical evidence that this form of instruction is any better than traditional writing curricula, such as Writing Strands, Wordsmith, WriteShop, and other programs?

 

Just curious!

 

 

Kris in WI,

 

You ask why an education in the progymnasmata writing methodology is better. Or rather you ask if there is evidence to show that students using that method on the whole come out as better writers. There is none to be given. I don't believe anyone has conducted such a study. Nor is it likely to happen.

 

What if I asked you to compare one student's rigorous year of piano lessons with a demanding teacher with 2 hours practice required per day, intensive instruction in all aspects of musical theory and technique vs. a simple Suzuki method with a non-demanding teacher where the student plinks for 10 minutes per day just to get by?

 

Who would likely be the better player at the end of the year?

 

So also with a serious writing program covering the progymnasmata. It's more demanding, it requires a higher reading level, it asks more time of the student to practice writing, it requires more teacher involvement, it's likely to produce a better writer. (I say "likely to" because outcomes are never guaranteed. Highly probable is the best we can guess for.)

 

Assuming that the progymnasmata program you choose is truly classical, that is, it teaches rigorous language arts, based on great literature, it works towards a high reading level (including older English texts), high vocabulary, mastery of complex syntactical structures, intricate argumentation, as well as stylistic devices--in other words a complete rhetoric course--it should not be hard to believe that it would likely be able to crank out better writers than a simpler writing curriculum which markets itself mostly on being 'fast and easy to use', 'no preparation for mom', just 'pick up and go'.

 

One caveat: no program, however wonderful, can rise above the attitude of the teacher who uses it. Teacher involvement, enthusiasm, and eagerness to learn are easily 50% if not more of the path to success. If mom either doesn't have the energy or time or the enthusiasm to learn along with the kids, if mom hates "Writing-that-is-so-easy-you-don't-even-have-to-think", it won't help the student, no matter how good, no matter how easy to use, how ingeniously written and easy to implement. If mom hates it, the kids will grow to hate it too. Mom is the most important part of that education, in attitude, in wisdom, in instruction, in eagerness to learn with the kids. No program can supersede Mom's attitude or energy for the project.

 

Note, that just because progymnasmata when followed rigorously, are likely to crank out better writers, it's not to say that everyone can or should use it. The "ideally best" (in terms of long-term academic results) may easily be trumped by more pragmatic considerations such as student interest, student ability, mom's energy, patience, ability, follow-through, money, other siblings... the list is endless.

 

But I do believe for those who have received a comprehensive education in rhetoric (which is what the progymnasmata of Antiquity offered their students) from an enthusiastic teacher who either knew the material or was able to learn along with the students, there is a good chance that their writing skills would trump the writing skills of the graduates of the modern "traditional" programs that you mentioned.

 

Look at graduates from Thomas Aquinas College, from University of Dallas, from Patrick Henry and other esteemed classical institutions. Compare them to your average writer from a state university or from a junior college. Who do you think is likely to crank out the better writers?

 

Lene in Co

[iwka]

1. Depends what you call "classical"

2. Kids can't write well, because they are not thought how to think well. If you take care of teaching grammar, then dialectic and rhetoric, then writing will come along.