Which grammar yields highest retention/application: FLL or R&S?

[Annabel Lee]

We'll be done with FLL 2 soon and I've got to choose between FLL 3 and R&S 3 for grammar. There are things I like about them both, I have both on my shelves :tongue_smilie:, and I can see this child doing either one. No matter what, I will be incorporating the guided writing instruction (on paragraphs, etc.) from R&S 3. FLL goes slightly further in scope with grammar earlier in comparing the two - but that's not a huge deal since I'm sure it all comes out in the wash in the end.

 

What I'm concerned about is choosing something that will yield the best retention and ability to apply what he's learned into his writing. I really don't want to spend all this time on grammar only to turn around after level 4 & realize he hasn't retained much or can't apply it outside of grammar lessons. With that being the deciding factor, which of these would you choose?

 

ETA: I did do a search comparing the two before asking, but I still had this question. :)

 

Or, to throw another wrench into it, I've just read that Shurley is great for retention & application. I'd never considered it since it doesn't have traditional diagramming. Anyone? :bigear:

 

Thanks!

[Rhondabee]

I have only used R&S for grammar (well, other than the first year of hs when we used ABeka). But, that year of Abeka is what taught me what I was going to post. No matter the subject - retention comes from review. At least with my kids. (I know - all kids are different - YMMV - your kids may read it once and be done with it forever.) My kids needed the daily oral & written reviews in R&S. Now that they are older (6th and 9th grade), they do remember from prior years - and they don't need it every day, which is indeed a blessing.

 

I don't know what FLL has in it for review, so I can't compare. If it has review, and you like it, then do it. I *really* like Abeka better than R&S for the grammar instruction, to be honest. But, without that daily review, it was wasted.

 

Best wishes!

 

ETA: And, no, I don't make them write out every problem.

 

And, yes, we actually find ways to make Rod & Staff fun - truly, Laugh-Out-Loud - OK - Please-Stop-Laughing-So-We-Can-Go-On Fun! (Try reading all their incorrectly worded sentences about farming in your most red-necky voice. Well...maybe it won't remind your kids of their distant relatives, and not be quite *so* funny...but you get the drift.)

Edited May 4, 2010 by Rhondabee

[Annabel Lee]

Does anyone else have any thoughts/experience to add to this? Since posting this I've only come up w/ this: I like FLL's way of memorizing lists parts of speech; I'll have to check R&S to see if it gets it done just as well. If so, I think it would be simplest to just use R&S and not mess w/ 2 sets of grammar books. If not... well then we're back to square 1. I'm not going to try to use both, meshing the 2 where they overlap. (I must keep my resolve strong or else this is what will end up happening).

[momto5blessings]

Anyway, in mo the R & S is the best. I really like the way they teach concepts, the daily review, ease of use and being able to spend a reasonable amount of time.

 

Abeka doesn't have enough constant review, and the writing lessons aren't that great.

 

Shurley is good, but it is really time consuming for the teacher, and teaches in not as natural a way.

 

You can always just make index cards for memory work, that is what we do, rather than doing two curriculums.

 

Hope that helps.

[Cinder]

And, yes, we actually find ways to make Rod & Staff fun - truly, Laugh-Out-Loud - OK - Please-Stop-Laughing-So-We-Can-Go-On Fun! (Try reading all their incorrectly worded sentences about farming in your most red-necky voice. Well...maybe it won't remind your kids of their distant relatives, and not be quite *so* funny...but you get the drift.)

 

:lol:

And I thought we were the only ones who did this!

 

 

To the OP: I used Abeka with ds1. With ds2 I used FLL 1/2 and R&S starting in 3rd. He's on R&S 6 now. He has much better understanding of grammar than ds1. (But ds1 has a better "natural" grasp of language.) The constant review has really helped ds2. I have no experience with the upper levels of FLL.

 

Cinder

 

ETA: the memory work in FLL for grammar (definitions of parts of speech, helping verbs) really worked for ds2. He still remembers those to this day. Except for the prepositions. Wish we'd spent more time memorizing those, because they still cause him confusion sometimes.

Edited May 5, 2010 by Cinder
more info

[SilverMoon]

I think they're both strong in retention and full of their own merit. *shrug* With these two it boils down to personal preference IMO. Compare the styles of the two and start with the one that sounds more like you and your student.

 

I start my kids with FLL, then move to R&S. Best of both worlds IMO. R&S can be done nearly all orally, so the transition was practically seamless for my kids. The 2nd-4th grade R&S books may well be as gentle and fun as FLL, I haven't used those levels. We started with FLL and loved it. I've enjoyed doing FLL 1/2 over again with my younger kids, and my older two both have fond memories of that book. When the younger kids hit the bigger kids' favorite lessons everyone jumps in and does them. When my current first grader hit the acting out the action verbs lesson, even my oldest was barking, swinging and climbing right along with him.

 

If you start with R&S you can add the memory work yourself. Just write it on an index card and go over it once a day.

[BlsdMama]

I've used both extensively. I used R&S through 6th grade for dd1. I've used FLL 1/2 for two children and am in the middle of it with two more, I've used FLL 3 once, and I'm currently using FLL 4 with one child. I prefer FLL. R&S *might* (emphasis can't be strong enough IMO) be more thorough, but that doesn't capture the full story.

 

When I was first homeschooling, I wanted to use the "best" curriculum. Was it the most thorough, the most challenging, the most advanced out there? Then THAT was what I wanted. After several years of experience I still like strong, challenging, thorough curriculum. But I've found that I can use an ENJOYABLE strong curriculum. Is R & S possibly on a more difficult level? Yes. But, I can honestly say my children enjoyed FLL much more. Beyond enjoyment, it got the material into them! We not only covered it, but they retained it. I think, with R & S, they had very little choice but to retain it, lol! The sheer volume of work made sure they retained it. With FLL, they also retained the same material... It was just a far more enjoyable experience for them.

 

To the mama who can make R & S laugh out loud fun, my hat is off to you. I can say it's teachable. I can say it's a GOOD curriculum. I can say there is no shame at all using it. I'd even call myself a fan, but I can't call it enjoyable. :)

[ABQmom]

Both are great programs. We got VERY tired of the review in FLL 4 after having gone through FLL 1-3. So we switched back over to Rod and Staff for grade 4. My oldest 2 did FLL 1/2, and since 3 and 4 weren't available went in to Rod and Staff at grade 3. I think the 2 programs mesh very well. I would never not use FLL 1 and 2 because the learning of the definitions was so good and carried over to Rod and Staff. When we would get to nouns or verbs, I would say, "Remember what you learned? What is the definition of a noun/verb?" And they could still do it from what they learned in grade 1 and 2. So, for us, 3 and 4 were too much review. I did like the poetry presented in both for memorization. Really, you can't go wrong with whichever you choose.

[Annabel Lee]

Thank you ladies! I've sat & read through lessons here & there in both R&S3 and FLL3. We're finishing up FLL2 now. The memorization I spoke of in FLL is the little chants for helping verbs, pronouns, state of being verbs, etc. I just figured if I continued w/ the same program then that review would be continued. I can add poems for memorization to anything - I wish the decision were that clear.

 

What's funny is that usually when trying to decide on curriculum, I feel angst and anxiety about making sure I'm choosing the BEST (like BlsdMama described). On this, it's a coin-toss. I know they're both solid programs and have gotten the job done for many people. I guess I have to read through them even more and see if I pick up a definitely good/bad feel for either (haven't so far). It's not an earth-shattering decision (like math, of course ;) ), so I'll just have to figure it out. I may have to just start one with the thought that if any major speedbumps come up I can just switch.

 

As always, I appreciate the experience & BTDT knowledge here. It's nice to have other perspectives to take into consideration.