PLL, diagramming, etc. - need some thoughts!

[Sue G in PA]

Okay, so I've been reading more on PLL (both here and on the MFW boards b/c PLL is MFW's recommended grammar text for 2-6th). FLL is good, but it bombed here and honestly...the scriptedness didn't "fit" my style. So...here are a few questions for anyone who has a few moments to answer!:

 

1. PLL is more CM-esque. I like what I see in the samples. I notice it does not cover diagramming, though, or even parts of speech. Does ILL?

 

2. What do you think about NOT teaching diagramming in the early grades? FLL3 covers diagramming as does R&S3 (both of which I have). Why would I want to go with PLL?

 

3. If you don't teach diagramming until later (late elem./middle), how has your dc done? Have they picked it up pretty quickly? I realize that the older and more mature they are, the quicker they'll pick things up, KWIM?

 

 

I'm just a bit confused about the approach, I guess. I always thought teaching grammar meant diagramming, parts of speech, definitions along with application...not just the application w/out the definitions, terms, etc. If you have any thoughts on this issue, please advice. Part of me is drawn to CM way of teaching...part of me wants the structure and rigor of FLL/R&S, KWIM?

[TexasTea]

I can relate to what you are saying. I feel the same way. I'm drawn to both CM style and to traditional grammar that includes diagramming.

 

My children are ages 7,9,13 and 16. I have done both methods.

 

I do not teach diagramming in the younger years at all. If flopped with my older kids so I just decided to let it go. I have a huge family with lots of nieces and nephews and did an informal survey of my own. I asked all the kids I knew in highschool and beyond how much diagramming they did in school, when it was taught, if it was helpful etc. Then I asked one additional question: What was the most helpful thing you learned to help you in college.

 

The response by all was similar. They all said that diagramming was taught in 7th or 8th grade and then they never saw it again: not on CLEP or AP tests etc. the answer to my last question was always the same too. The most helpful thing for all was the be well read and learn to write well.

 

Okay, that is not big surprise to homeschoolers! ha ;)

 

I found the information about diagramming interesting and it just confirmed what I thought about doing in my homeschool already. I am not trying to do as the public school does but did want to know about how useful it may or may not be in the future.

 

I found that when I taught it in 8th and 9th using Analytical Grammar it was picked up easily and understood. I plan to keep reviewing it until graduation.

 

HTH

 

Debbie

[TexasTea]

I just wanted to add that I have used both PLL and ILL with my children and like them both. Also, I would still use something that teaches diagramming in the younger years if that is the program I wanted (I want to use FLL 3 next year). I plan to introduce the diagraming part and see how its received. If its not received well, we can skim or skip that part of the program.

 

Debbie

[Trivium Academy]

 

1. PLL is more CM-esque. I like what I see in the samples. I notice it does not cover diagramming, though, or even parts of speech. Does ILL?

 

PLL does cover parts of speech, it's just not "A noun is a person, place, thing or idea" scripted. I'm using Margot Davidson's version so I can only speak about that edition of PLL. Today, dd is on Lesson 42 which covers Seasons and Months of the Year. I reviewed with her that January, February, and all the other months are proper nouns and they need to be capitalized. In the PLL lesson it asks, "With what kind of letter does the name of each month begin? Each season?"

 

ILL goes into more detail in the lessons and focuses on parts of speech more than PLL does. Again this is the Margot Davidson edition. Lesson 8, The Sentence

 

A group of words that tells something is a statement.

A group of words that asks something is a question.

A group of words that orders something is a command.

A group of words that tells, asks, or commands is a sentence.

 

and then there is an exercise.

 

That seems very elementary but ILL is not early elementary in its scope. Lesson 9 is a picture study, then Lesson 10 is a composition exercise. Lesson 11 is about using the dictionary.

 

2. What do you think about NOT teaching diagramming in the early grades? FLL3 covers diagramming as does R&S3 (both of which I have). Why would I want to go with PLL?

Completely up to you and your desired approach as well as what level your children are ready for. I don't want to go on about what I think is appropriate and at what age, it's what is best for your kids at their stage. I would read up on it from different sources and find your comfort zone.

 

3. If you don't teach diagramming until later (late elem./middle), how has your dc done? Have they picked it up pretty quickly? I realize that the older and more mature they are, the quicker they'll pick things up, KWIM?

Of course I can't answer this but I have faith that Analytical Grammar will provide the rigor, scope and depth we want at that time.

 

I'm just a bit confused about the approach, I guess. I always thought teaching grammar meant diagramming, parts of speech, definitions along with application...not just the application w/out the definitions, terms, etc. If you have any thoughts on this issue, please advice. Part of me is drawn to CM way of teaching...part of me wants the structure and rigor of FLL/R&S, KWIM?

ILL is better with the teacher helps and Hillside has a teacher's manual that they are releasing very soon or it's out now, I have to check their website... But you can teach the definitions and terms with PLL, again it's not hard to identify what to teach with each lesson. Just like Lesson 42 above, dd knew what a proper noun was because I taught her, she knows to capitalize proper nouns because I taught her.

 

I hope this helps,

[Sue G in PA]

So, I'm thinking that I could easily use PLL and "parts" of FLL3 or R&S 3. Perhaps just the diagramming parts of FLL3 and skip the copywork/dictation/narration? I have the FLL3 TM, haven't bought the student book yet. I'll have to look through...perhaps I can teach the diagramming part on my own using the FLL3/R&S 3 sentences as models. Ds8 also uses LLATL now and will do WT1 next year. Ugh. Somebody just tell me to STOP looking at curriculum, that I can't do it all (correction: THEY can't do it all!) in one year!

[Linda in NM]

We use the CM way of teaching; I did not teach my son diagramming (although we dabbled with Jr. Analytical Grammar)...I was once enrolled in a linguistics Ph.D. program, so I really do enjoy diagramming, but, as a college professor, I frequently teach communications classes. All I care about is that someone--ANYONE--knows where to put a comma...My son usually does. He's watched Cozy Grammar and Cozy Punctuation...we use IEW for writing now (he's 13), and we use Language Lessons for the Secondary Child (daily practice). We also use Word Roots and Editor in Chief (weekly) (for fun and practice).

[Donna A.]

I'm a strong advocate for diagramming, but don't see a need for it in the younger years. I think that once a student learns how to diagram, they can practice and do as much as of it as they want or need. There's no reason (IMHO) to get bogged down with it when they're 8 years old. My oldest dd loves it... she's a visual learner, very artsy, and refers to diagramming as "organizing words". ;) I haven't introduced it yet to my 9yo, but I'm not worried about it yet.

 

You'll notice that MFW recommends Applications of Grammar in 7th grade, and that's where they'll get to an extensive use of formal grammar, terminology, and diagramming sentences. Prior to that, they recommend the All-in-One book as an overview of the names of the parts of speech, which would've been used in context for many years already with PLL and ILL. It all works together. :)

[...................]

I transferred from public school to Catholic school in 7th grade and immediately got straight A's in diagramming though I didn't even know what a verb was let alone 8th grade diagramming constructs. They were doing some really serious stuff, as advanced as you can get.

 

With a basic refresher that took my new (nun) teacher all of a few days of taking me aside, I was up to the rest of the class and soon got the best scores of all.

 

I certainly think skipping diagramming in 3rd grade won't hurt your dc, as long as you later use a textbook that reviews all those concepts.

 

I am not even going to bother with that with my kids. If they decide they are considering a job as a linguist or need more grammar for whatever reason, then I will pick up a 9th grade Abeka English book and go through that with a fine-tooth comb.

 

Personally I don't feel kids need to review these concepts for so many years.

[Another Lynn]

I can't really answer you very well. But, I will say that I am liking FLL 3 better than FLL 1/2 so far. Truthfully we're not very far into it, but I do feel like it is the right thing for us now. With FLL 1/2 we kept starting it and dropping it, omitting parts, etc. I'm a little torn whether to try it again with second ds or use something else and bring him into FLL3 afterwards.

 

I bet you could combine PLL with the diagramming alone in FLL3 - but you might drive yourself nuts and be tempted to keep adding in more. If it were *me* I think I would be better off with one or the other.

 

I am far from figuring out what I think is the best approach for "language arts," but FLL3 seems to fit where we are right now.

[LindaOz]

My 7th grader has started AG this year after doing very little in the way of diagramming and she has picked it up easily. If fact, after doing her lesson the other day she informed me that she likes diagramming because it is like drawing pictures of the sentence. OK, I'm impressed! Laura Berquist (who wrote Designing Your Own Classical Curriculum) talks about diagramming being a more logic stage activity because it requires analysis of the sentence. Anyway, I have found that to be good, so far.

 

I also agree with Jessica that PLL does teach the concepts of parts of speech etc, but they do it in a 'usage' way so the child is familiar with how the words work in a sentence. I think you could add more definition if you wanted to. ILL goes a lot more in depth with grammar.

 

HTH