If you really needed to learn grammar along with your children, which of these...

[1GirlTwinBoys]

programs would you use? If you REALLY wanted something easy to understand.:001_huh:

 

BJU online English

Rod & Staff

WWE & FLL

 

Any other suggestions?

Edited September 1, 2010 by 1GirlTwinBoys

[plain jane]

MCT. :D

[Firestar Academy]

we are using Shurley English. (level 2 and 5) I know very little beyond basics and this is all scripted out. and if you have trouble, you can contact them to help you.

Robin in NJ

[Hedgehog]

:bigear:

[Rosie_0801]

Not FLL. I have that, will use it with my kids, but bought AG for me to learn it first. FLL was so easy it was hard. That makes sense, I promise :D

 

 

Rosie

[Chris in VA]

Rod and Staff and FLL for me. (Haven't seen beyond FLL1/2)

I got as high as Rod and Staff 6. :001_smile:

[Cinder]

Rod and Staff and FLL for me. (Haven't seen beyond FLL1/2)

I got as high as Rod and Staff 6. :001_smile:

 

That's what worked for me, too. Doing the work orally really helped me learn grammar as I was teaching it. We did most of the work orally through R&S 4, and I had ds start writing answers for 5 and 6. I have no experience above R&S 6.

 

Cinder

[Molly]

We are only just starting with FLL because up to now I have completely ignored the grammar side of things because I don't know it all. I have started my 7 yr old on FLL2 this week and I am learning too. Next week we will be starting my 9 yr old on FLL4. She does have some idea but not a great deal. I am hoping to learn alongside her.

 

The other thing I have got to help is the Grammar Songs CD and book. I doubt we will use the book a lot but the songs playing in the car are helping and even DH has started picking up on things he didn't know (or chose to forget).

[radiobrain]

MCT. :D

:iagree:

 

 

:leaving:

[MyLittleWonders]

I have learned some with FLL (mostly with FLL 3 as I never knew how to diagram a sentence) but I agree with others - Michael Clay Thompson's series have taught me so much, and we are only in the Island level. I love the way he presents grammar.

[1GirlTwinBoys]

I thought I had read here that MCT was hard or difficult to teach.

[Crimson Wife]

I thought I had read here that MCT was hard or difficult to teach.

 

It's not hard at all IMHO to teach but it *is* very teacher-intensive. It's not something that you can just hand off to the child to work independently while you do something else. You need to be sitting there going through it with your student.

[ChemMommy]

FLL3 was a delightful introduction to grammar and diagramming. My two dds, 4th and 5th (this year), started it last year and have had no trouble learning parts or speech, direct objects, or subject complements (both kinds). Painless way to learn.

[JaneGrey]

MCT's grammar is wonderful. I love it for the big picture it gives. I've always enjoyed grammar, but I had quite a time trying to tutor a junior higher (when I was in college). I was using my Warriner's! It was just too much information. I think that's the problem with a lot of grammar programs.

 

When I first saw MCT, I thought it was too simple. You know the feeling: I want lots of information for the price I'm going to pay. However, the simplicity is what makes it so great for teaching.

 

Now, I do supplement with R&S. I'm pretty sure MCT (at least at the elementary level) isn't going to cover things like punctuation, commonly misused words, and tenses: the types of things you'll find in something like Warriner's. For example, I think that after MCT (again, at least at the elementary level), kids could still have trouble when using conjugations of the verbs "to lie" and "to lay." (Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. I haven't yet seen the Voyage level.)

 

I don't think it would be bad to delay learning those things. However, you should learn the proper usage of those words at some point. I wonder if he covers that in the junior high books. Also, R&S covers diagramming while MCT doesn't. I'll have to go back to my R&S and see it through your eyes (about thoroughness and clarity of teaching), but I think it would work.

 

To sum it up:

 

 

• It might be worth it to purchase MCT's last grammar book to see his approach. His stuff is really great.
  
• If you want a textbook to use year after year, you might like R&S. I think SWB recommends using it for 3rd grade and up. I have a friend who tried both R&S and Shurley. When I was researching, I asked her what the difference was (besides price). She said that Shurley did a better job teaching her grammar. I've also other friends mention that it's a bit of a trick setting up the use of Shurley. R&S is very simple to use.
  
• I know friends with older kids who have liked the results they've seen with Abeka.
  
• I found FLL incredibly dry.
  

 

[daughterofsarah77]

I am looking forward to refreshing my grammar with R&S next year.

 

R&S also has this English Guidebook that looks like a good tool:

http://www.rodandstaffbooks.com/item/1-12931-3/?list=Building_Christian_English_Series

 

We will also be using WWE for writing, and I'm sure I can benefit from that as well : )

[Caitilin]

MCT is lovely to use, clear, and not hard to teach. It does (briefly) cover tenses, but assumes the student will grasp this readily. It covers punctuation only insofar as it's a function of grammar; that is, he spends time on the proper use of the semicolon and the comma, but none on the period and the question mark. :)

 

If you love the look of R&S, though, MCT is probably not for you. They are about as different in approach as you can imagine. :D