Still mulling over teaching outlining in logic stage (SWB, are you able to help?)

[Colleen in NS]

First question: Has anyone here successfully taught outlining, using KF history as a resource? If so, how did you do it? How did you deal with the difficulties that people here talk about (compressed text, etc..)?

 

Next musings: I have read over and over the WTM (2004 version) logic stage history section on outlining, and I've listened to and taken lots of notes on teaching outlining, from SWB's writing CD, as well as read her essay from her new upcoming writing book. I've also read here that she does not recommend using KF for outlining practice anymore, because of compressed text - but rather, using another non-fiction history book that supplements that week's chapter of a history spine.

 

After thinking about this for awhile tonight, it seems to me that between WTM and the writing CD, there are two different purposes to outlining! ???? Can anyone help me think this through? Verify? Steer me in another direction? Point out something I'm missing? This whole outlining business has been resisting being connected in my mind for months, but I want to nail down (and start practicing myself) what I want to do when ds starts 5th grade in July (outline KF? SOTW1? organize myself to keep up with reserving/ordering ahead library books every week? I already have all the SOTW books and KF and they are all so fun to read......)

 

According to the CD and the WTM, here are what I see as two different purposes for outlining:

 

1. To analyze a well-written piece of non-fiction writing to see how that writer puts ideas into logical order (I concluded this from the CD and writing book essay), so that you can learn to put your own ideas into logical order for your own original writing

 

2. To analyze a piece of non-fiction writing to find and rank for yourself the ideas put forth by that writer - even if the writing isn't great - to find the argument of the writer among any rhetorical "smoke and mirrors."

 

Number 2 seems to be what is demonstrated in WTM logic history section with KF and I'm wondering if that's why KF is said to be too hard to outline - because of the difficulty in ranking the ideas in order because sometimes they are not in order, and because you have to do so much changing around/combining/splitting apart of the ideas in each paragraph (esp. with the two and three level outlines demonstrated in WTM). It seems to be a 1000 piece puzzle, which you have to juggle to organize into a coherent outline. ???? What do you think? Am I on the right track, or do I need more help in learning about outlining?

 

So, if there are two different purposes to this type of outlining, which do I use?

 

OR, for number 2, will our future study of logic better teach this skill (to find a writer's argument) than trying to juggle some not-so-great writing into a coherent outline?

 

It seems like number 1 is better (in which case I better either use SOTW for outlining or superorganize myself to reserve those library books each week) and number 2 is better served by studying logic.

 

What do the hive-teachers-of-outlining think?

 

Edit: if you make a suggestion for me, would you mind telling me the reason for your suggestion?

 

Also, if you have used SOTW 1 (or 2-4) for outlining, can you tell me how you did it? Some of the sections are things like myths which seem like they'd be harder to outline than a non-fiction section. Also, if you did this, can you tell me how you organized the history study for the week? Such as, read SOTW, outline, read the x-ref from KF, pick topics to read and write narrations about.......I just hate the thought of KF going to waste....

 

Thanks so much!

[mcconnellboys]

It seems to me that what you say in your first premise and your second are really the same things, or are at least corallaries; putting in order the ideas of others is really how you learn to put together your own ideas, whether you're using a writing text to do it or outlining. Writing texts start you out writing sentences, then putting them together into cohesive paragraphs, etc.

 

I believe that when SWB first published WTM, she was referring to the older, now OOP edition of Kingfisher, which was still written in a paragraph format, so I don't think that she ever had in mind trying to outline from the compressed text of the newer version of Kingfisher, which came out about the time WTM did.

 

I think you can easily outline from SOTW, which is written in paragraph format. Some folks here have also used the intro sections of the Reader's Digest science books for outlining. You could outline from any good book, really......

 

Regena

[Colleen in NS]

Regena said: It seems to me that what you say in your first premise and your second are really the same things, or are at least corallaries; putting in order the ideas of others is really how you learn to put together your own ideas

Colleen said: Hmmmm....OK, this makes sense. But I guess I'm still wondering if SWB stopped recommending KF, because it might be BETTER for the student to learn to properly order ideas, by outlining a logically laid out text. In other words, why not analyze a well-written piece, to see how it's properly done, rather than using a bad (or compressed) piece of writing and having to juggle the ideas? It seems to me that trying to order jumbled ideas (which is why I asked if it was more of a separate logic skill to learn) would conflict with trying to learn what good idea-ordering looks like. Kind of like, you wouldn't do copywork or dictation from a sloppy piece of writing, because you want the child to imitate good writing, not bad writing. Imitate something good when you are first learning.

 

Regena said: I believe that when SWB first published WTM, she was referring to the older, now OOP edition of Kingfisher, which was still written in a paragraph format, so I don't think that she ever had in mind trying to outline from the compressed text of the newer version of Kingfisher, which came out about the time WTM did.

Colleen said: This is what I still don't get - I have the 2004 version of KF, and the 2004 WTM - which, on page 301, recommends the 1999 version of KF - which I assume is the OOP one? Yet, the KF text examples in my 2004 WTM book are exactly the same as in my 2004 KF book. Could she have put examples from the 2004 KF into the 2004 WTM, yet still listed the 1999 KF on page 301? I've never seen the 1999 KF, so I can't compare. (if you're still with me, I thank you - I HAVE to know the whys of things so I can understand and sometimes it takes me awhile! :))

 

Regena said: I think you can easily outline from SOTW, which is written in paragraph format. Some folks here have also used the intro sections of the Reader's Digest science books for outlining. You could outline from any good book, really......

 

Colleen said: Would you outline the myths and legends in SOTW 1? Why or why not? I've heard it said to only outline non-fiction sections. I suppose I could just have ds outline the non-fiction parts of SOTW1......Oh, and yes, I plan to somehow implement outlining with those RD books - I was so excited to finally find them all a few months ago!

 

Regena

 

 

Thanks Regena!

[mcconnellboys]

Okay, let me see if I can address these things properly:

 

When I start reading through some of the Kingfisher spreads in the new book, they appear to me to really almost be in outline form already. It's not that things seem muddled or out of order, they're just already cut down into more of an outline format, which is what I mean when I say "compressed text". So it's really sort of impossible to pick what to choose. For an outline, you're generally choosing the topic sentence, or main point. If every sentence you read is another main point, then you're just copying text and not really outlining.

 

I don't know about the examples that are given in the book, but the old Kingfisher is earlier than 1999 (maybe 1994?), since my copy is 1999 and it is also compressed. That might be why both yours and that one read the same. They are both compressed, newer versions and there probably aren't that many changes in them.

 

I don't have the older Kingfisher version, but I do have The Kingfisher Book of the Ancient World, which is like just the ancients section of that other encyclopedia. This is back in print now, by the way, as I just saw it in paperback at Half Price Books a couple of weeks ago. It is still written in paragraph format.

 

For the section entitled "First Farmers and First Cities" in this ancients book, the opening two paragraphs read:

 

"The first people in the fertile crescent hunted wild animals for meat and gathered nuts, seeds, fruit, and grain to complete their diet. In time, farming developed from this way of life.

 

Dogs were tamed from wolves and used in hunting and herding wild animals. Gradually, goats, sheep, and pigs were also domesticated, as were wild cattle. These were probably from a breed called aurochs. Fierce, dangerous, and much bigger than cattle today, they were probably kept for meat rather than milk."

 

By contrast, the first couple of sections (not paragraphs, now) from Kingfisher's "The First Farmers" section read:

 

"The earliest farmers settled nearly 10,000 years ago in the Fertile Crescent in the Middle East. Here people grew wheat and barley. They kept goats, sheep, pigs, and cattle that they used for meat, milk, hides, wool, and to carry things. The improvement in the design of simple tools allowed people to clear land more effectively, build villages, and stay in one place. Later, agriculture developed in fertile areas in China, northwest India, Iran, Egypt, southern Europe, and Mexico. (If I outlined this, I'd want to include some version of every sentence!)

 

The first animal to be domesticated was the dog, as early as 10,000 B.C. Dogs were used for herding and as night guards. The horse, goat, and sheep were also domesticated. Farmers learned how to breed animals in order to change their characteristics. A number of species spread as well - chickens and pheasants, for example, originated in the Far East. Meanwhile, some animals, such as aurochs, were hunted to extinction."

 

Now, the ancients book does provide this same info, eventually, over the course of two pages of fuller text, versus 3 small sections on one page, but in a format much simpler to outline. When I look at the second example, I want to write down every sentence, practically, as something important - not so with the first example. I hope that helped make things a little clearer, rather than murkier for you, LOL.....

 

I would only outline the non-fiction sections from SOTW (and that's what I plan on having my son do for fifth grade, this upcoming school year).

 

Glad you found the RD books! I really do like them and we'll be outlining from them this year, as well.

 

Good luck to you,

 

Regena

[KIN]

Would some of the other spines that Biblioplan uses work for outlining? Such as the Famous Men series or Cultural Atlas for Young People? They list several. I've just been thinking I would use the Kingfisher when I get to this stage, so this is good information to have!

[Colleen in NS]

When I start reading through some of the Kingfisher spreads in the new book, they appear to me to really almost be in outline form already. It's not that things seem muddled or out of order, they're just already cut down into more of an outline format, which is what I mean when I say "compressed text". So it's really sort of impossible to pick what to choose. For an outline, you're generally choosing the topic sentence, or main point. If every sentence you read is another main point, then you're just copying text and not really outlining.

 

I don't know about the examples that are given in the book, but the old Kingfisher is earlier than 1999 (maybe 1994?), since my copy is 1999 and it is also compressed. That might be why both yours and that one read the same. They are both compressed, newer versions and there probably aren't that many changes in them.

 

Now, the ancients book does provide this same info, eventually, over the course of two pages of fuller text, versus 3 small sections on one page, but in a format much simpler to outline. When I look at the second example, I want to write down every sentence, practically, as something important - not so with the first example. I hope that helped make things a little clearer, rather than murkier for you, LOL.....

 

I would only outline the non-fiction sections from SOTW (and that's what I plan on having my son do for fifth grade, this upcoming school year).

 

Your first paragraph puts into words what I could not express. Thank you.

 

Your second paragraph clarifies one thing that confused me. Thank you again.

 

I have reserved the 1993 ed. of KF from the library (a white book, apparently) so I can see more of what you mean - though once again, I thank you for putting some examples/comparisons in your reply - it's so helpful!! I also thought of searching for the OOP KF book, but I realized this morning, "It's 15 years old already, and will be 19 years old by the time my oldest is done logic stage.....then I have another child coming up" so we'll see. At least I have a better idea of what the other boardies have been talking about with KF old vs. new.

 

The third paragraph (of what I left in your quote) - the part about wanting to write down every sentence - helps clarify my thinking, too. I tried to outline KF found this to be the case, too. Then I think, "maybe I just don't get outlining" but it seems like it shouldn't be so hard to pick out a main idea and subpoints. And if I'm having a hard time, how much harder will it be to explain it to a 10 year old? I'm not stupid - I just need to see some hope that it could be a little easier to learn! :lol:

 

Now - you seem to understand what I said about outlining to find how ideas in a good piece of writing are logically laid out. I think you understand, because of how you kept explaining about how outlining paragraphs in the 1993 KF is easier. But what do you think about my second dilemma? I can see why analyzing, ranking ideas in order, and creating an outline from something like the newer KF could be **useful** in logic stage (kind of like comparing two science encyclopedias to see how different writers express their ideas on one subject). But as the main method for studying history, I'm still not too sure. I wonder if people combine these two skills somehow in history study.

 

I guess I'm just looking for a pattern with one spine book to settle into instead of jumping around from one skill to another in an unorganized fashion.

 

I'm thinking outlining SOTW should be done for only the non-fiction sections, too.

 

Thanks so much for your time.:)

[WABeth]

I don't have the older Kingfisher version, but I do have The Kingfisher Book of the Ancient World, which is like just the ancients section of that other encyclopedia. This is back in print now, by the way, as I just saw it in paperback at Half Price Books a couple of weeks ago. It is still written in paragraph format.

 

Regena, do you know if Kingfisher has similar books for the Middle Ages and for Modern times? I just looked through the sample for the Book of the Ancient World on Amazon and really like the looks of it. If they do not, have you thought yet about other books you will use for the other time periods in the logic stage? Thanks

[Susan Wise Bauer]

Colleen,

 

I actually think you've solved this for yourself: there ARE two different purposes in outlining. Purpose #1: to see how a good writer develops an argument. Purpose #2: to list facts in logical order as an aid to remembering them.

 

It's great if you can find a text which allows you to do both of those things simultaneously, but that isn't always possible. The Kingfisher text lends itself to #2 but not #1.

 

If your student outlines from a history book twice a week (getting a grasp on the flow of facts) and outlines from a good book of essays or other quality nonfiction twice a week (seeing how the writer develops the argument), you're covering both bases.

 

Does that help?

 

Susan

[Rhondabee]

But as the main method for studying history, I'm still not too sure. I wonder if people combine these two skills somehow in history study.

 

I guess I'm just looking for a pattern with one spine book to settle into instead of jumping around from one skill to another in an unorganized fashion.

 

I'm thinking outlining SOTW should be done for only the non-fiction sections, too.

 

Thanks so much for your time.:)

 

I'm trying not to post, but yes, you are right in thinking that outlining is NOT the "main method" for studying history.

 

Yes, we outline. (Yes, I still help my 7th grader ALOT!!!!) Yes, I will start my 5th grader next year with finding the topic sentence in each paragraph.

 

(And, as a side note, the outlining has helped my 7th grader's writing. He reached a point in his last book report where he was able to take a point supporting his third paragraph, and move it to the end of his second paragraph and use it as a wonderful transition (after much prompting from me, but, ya know, we're gettin' there!).)

 

BUT, BUT, BUT - outlining is maybe a 10- *maybe* 20 minute assignment out of a whole week's worth of history! It's a great over-view, and sprinkles names and places and events into their minds, and helps them enjoy the stories since they already have a sense of what's coming. But, it's only *one* small piece of the puzzle.

 

Please don't forget the map work, looking through the Atlas (one day maybe we'll actually READ the atlas instead of just looking at the pictures - LOL!), and the Timeline. ALL those things help place these little, disconnected pieces of information into a bigger picture, and eventually they begin to see the inter-connectedness of all these people and events.

 

And, we use SOTW for our "extra" reading. I wish I had the temperament - or the whatever-it-is-I don't-seem-to-have - to do the research it seems like WTM advocates.

 

Like today, studying Jose de San Martin and how he marched his troops across the Andes mountains, my 10yo ds asked if he carried the "leaky cargo ships" mentioned in SOTW all the way across the mountains to Chili, and why didn't he just set sail from Argentina and sail around the Cape instead? I mean, THAT's how we *ought* to be learning history - by going and finding the answers to those types of questions. I *think* (don't know) that would be so empowering for a child, and if I could figure out how to do THAT, well....hmmm.....I may not drop outlining, BUT I'd be *forever* grateful to the person who could teach me that!!!! :D

 

I do also do a lot of historical fiction as Read Alouds (ala Sonlight), and this has been invaluable as well in making history really come alive!

 

So, as the book says, "Don't sweat the small stuff!" I know that's easy to say and not so easy to do. You want to know exactly what to do each week (esp. w/o reading every book published before deciding!), and I do appreciate that. There's just so many variations, so many ways to do it, and no one way is right. Probably every week you'll do something different. For 5th grade, you could even go with the Usborne Internet-Linked Encyclopedia and pick out the main idea of each blurb if you wanted.

 

I do think I wouldn't bother outlining myths, etc. since you will have quite a bit of overlap with your literature and SOTW there anyway.

 

Do hope you find something that gives you peace! I'm still stewing about next year, too!

 

:grouphug:

Rhonda

 

PS - And, Yes, I *started* this post *before* SWB posted, so feel free to ignore it!!!!! (Oh, my, now I think we're not outlining nearly enough!)

 

and, PSS - And, don't forget primary sources, like I always do! OH, sometimes I find them in advance and print them out and everything... but they hardly ever get done. (sigh!)

[Colleen in NS]

Hi Rhonda!

 

Please always feel free to chime in - I like hearing from you!

 

Well, I wasn't forgetting the mapwork, or the timeline, or the primary sources - that WTM book is holding my hand again for the next phase! My problem was that I **thought** I was "seeing" these two skills, and had never seen any posts here before talking about two separate skills, and couldn't figure out if my thinking about it was straight or not. But do I know how to ask about those things concisely? Nope. So I type, edit, type again, cut things out - and try really hard to make it so people can understand what I'm asking. It's so frustrating for me sometimes that I have to work so hard (dig with my hands instead of sending in the backhoe) to communicate clearly. So, I plug away with slowly teaching myself skills.

 

Anyway, I DO want to have a set pattern to use each week for history study, even if I have to skip something every so often because of some "life" event. I find it's easier to conduct school if I know what to do, and the kids find it easier to know what to expect each week.

 

But sometimes, the path to figuring out a new pattern each year is strewn with me digging out all my books and articles, posting millions of questions on here, and analyzing it all to death, so that I can come to a clear understanding of what I need to accomplish and how to go about doing that (the weekly pattern, hee hee!). Part of the problem is that I don't have easy access to most of the materials recommended in WTM - and I do MUCH better with understanding something if I can SEE it and see how it all works and fits together. It's work for me to post questions on the board about, say, Mind Benders (as I did a few months ago), because I have to stop and think it all through so I can communicate clearly (see digging with hands comment, LOL!). But, hey, it's good practice for me.

 

And most of the time, I just go with what is recommended in WTM, in blind faith, because it all has made sense so far. But when a glitch comes up (like KF is no longer recommended and people don't like it for various reasons) I start asking "why?" instead of jumping into the process and trusting that it will become clear as I go along.

 

So now I'm totally rambling off the topic!

 

Glad to hear your kids are doing well with the writing.

 

Colleen

[Colleen in NS]

Colleen,

 

I actually think you've solved this for yourself: there ARE two different purposes in outlining. Purpose #1: to see how a good writer develops an argument. Purpose #2: to list facts in logical order as an aid to remembering them.

 

It's great if you can find a text which allows you to do both of those things simultaneously, but that isn't always possible. The Kingfisher text lends itself to #2 but not #1.

 

If your student outlines from a history book twice a week (getting a grasp on the flow of facts) and outlines from a good book of essays or other quality nonfiction twice a week (seeing how the writer develops the argument), you're covering both bases.

 

Does that help?

 

Susan

 

Thanks for the confirmation of my thinking - I couldn't get past that mental block!! Now I can look at books more confidently, with a better idea of what to look for, for each purpose.

[mcconnellboys]

I've been looking around online to see if they have those, but I'm not finding them, so I think the answer is 'no'.

 

I've not definitely decided what I'll use next, but I have Greenleaf Press' Famous Men of the Middle Ages and Famous Men of the Renaissance/Reformation and those are written in paragraph format. I don't know if the newer ones by Memoria Press are the same. I have looked at them, but I just can't recall right now.....

 

Also, Genevieve Foster's The World of Columbus and Sons is written in a paragraph format. So those are some possibilities for those time periods,

 

Regena

[Colleen in NS]

Glad you found the RD books! I really do like them and we'll be outlining from them this year, as well.

 

Good luck to you,

 

Regena

 

Now that I've got some of my thinking straightened out, this has caught my attention. :)

 

How will you go about organizing your outlining from the RD science books? I saw that you mentioned elsewhere that some people outline from the introductions. Would you do this too? Or would you outline from the two page spreads (or are we talking about another KF-style outlining problem here, LOL)?

 

I'd love to hear about this.