Why do we study grammar...

[Guest]

for ~12 yrs? My kids are asking this. Beyond knowing the basics, they want to know why they need to know 6 types of pronouns, etc? They feel they only need enough to write well for technical things as those are the areas they both wnat to head into.

 

What would you tell them? I was stumped because I have no ideas.

[FlockOfSillies]

Will their 30-year-old selves want to be stuck writing like their 12-year-old selves?

[mammaofbean]

because a classical education is not just vocational training, and a child really can't decide that they are NEVER going to write a novel or a sonnet.

 

if my child knew she was going to go into glass blowing professionally i would think that was wonderful but still require algebra and grammar. maybe because i am mean, but really because i am not going to allow my juvenile child to close doors that my future adult child would have to struggle to reopen.

[Jamee]

Because it's better than not learning any grammar at all.:tongue_smilie: They just don't seem to teach it in the schools the way I learned it and I've been having a heck of a time the past year trying to teach it to DS. It's been awful and from what I've heard from DH, a middle school teacher, it's not any better at that level. I may not have appreciated all my grammar instruction at the time, but I sure appreciate it now--and when I was in college and able to write papers for my professors while many classmates weren't doing too well.

[bugs]

Technical proposals need to be written well to get funding. Maintenance manuals, whether for airplanes or dvd players, can really mess up the user if not written well.

[EKS]

We study grammar because educated people study grammar. Period.

 

(I highly recommend MCT.)

 

ETA: The most useful thing I've found regarding grammar study is that I'm able to talk to my kids about their writing using the vocabulary of language. "You need to put commas around this appositive phrase" or "the subject and verb are not in agreement here." A strong writer understands grammar, and educated people are strong writers. In our family, being an educated person is non-negotiable.

Edited November 13, 2010 by EKS

[Crimson Wife]

I don't think that every student needs to study grammar formally every single year. But I do think that every student needs to master it. Whether that requires studying grammar for 12 years is highly individual. Some kids will, others won't.

[Guest]

I'll be a renegade here and say I agree that 12 years of formal grammar is overkill. I certainly don't think the repeated study of formal grammar constitutes the only road to writing well, for every kid. If a child is exposed to good books from a young age, does dictation a la WTM from some of those good books, plays around with MadLibs to learn basic parts of speech, I think that's plenty for most young children. Dd and I approached grammar informally (and sporadically) for a number of years. A lot of what we did when dd was young was what we called "noticing" -- and this held true for science, reading, writing, etc. For grammar, we'd point out sentences that stood out to us in books we read and talk about why, talk about what it was about sentences that made them sound especially nice, compare opening sentences of favorite books (long vs. short, descriptive vs. action-oriented, one independent clause vs. more complex sentences which we didn't diagram or dissect formally). There are also some fun games dealing with sentence construction in books such as Peggy Kaye's Games For Writing; I think there's even a board game called Silly Sentences. For some kids, particularly ones who resist the structure of formal programs, this kind of learning through games, noticing, discussing, and playing is a good alternative.

 

The real benefit of grammatical knowledge comes when kids begin to write more complicated essays on more complicated topics. As anyone grapples with new and difficult ideas, sentence structure and clarity tend to be compromised; I saw this with high school students, again with college kids taking upper division classes for the first time, and most strikingly, for myself and my friends in grad school. At this point even good writers will produce the occasional fragment or comma splice or dangling participle but just won't see it because they're so concerned with content. They may also fall into repetitious sentence structure, or on the other hand, overly long and complex sentence structure as they try desperately to find out what it is they're wanting to say and wrestle it to the page. There's a lot of verbal roadkill.

 

It's at these points that more advanced grammar can be useful. So to my mind, high school is a good time to begin more pointed studies of grammar and rhetoric, to look at how sentences can be varied, what types of errors are most common in general and what type the student tends to fall into. Sometimes precise terminology can be highly useful in these discussions; sometimes it's perfectly possible to see that something is wrong and fix it without the formal terms. Just as there are "natural" spellers vs. kids who really need to work, learn rules, know more phonics, study word families, etc., there are also "natural" writers who only make real grammatical errors in times of great pressure to produce on a complex topic, there are people who have trouble seeing their own mistakes but who are fantastic editors of others' work, and then there are people who just have more difficulty and repeatedly fall into grammatical errors.

 

I don't think all these types of students need the same amount and formality of grammatical study. I also think SWB would agree with this. Although she is a proponent of formal curriculum in elementary school, I think she's more relaxed than TWTM sometimes sounds (as people have noted about her lectures and the youtube videos), and she recommends that grammar fade out in high school. She's coming at it from a different angle than I am: she wants kids to learn formal grammar before they "need" it in high school, while I think that's exactly when it will make most sense to them and seem relevant to what they're doing. Probably as with just about everything else, either approach will work well for some and not as well for others -- and by this I include the homeschooling parents as well as the kids.

[kalanamak]

ETA: The most useful thing I've found regarding grammar study is that I'm able to talk to my kids about their writing using the vocabulary of language. "You need to put commas around this appositive phrase" or "the subject and verb are not in agreement here."

 

:iagree: One big chunk of why I teach what I teach, now, is so kiddo can understand me when he is older.

 

(Speaking of being educated, today I was in a nurses station and the topic was Boston Terriers. Someone was dogsitting another one, and I asked how they got along. "Well," she said, "for two unfixed females." I replied that perhaps they had a Boston marriage, which went over everyone's head but one woman, who I thought would get it. I talk to everyone at work, from the janitor up, but there is something eyes-meeting-across-a-crowded-room-ish about the rare person who knows what your references are all about.)

[Kates]

Personally, I don't think most kids need ~12 years worth. I think that they need a basic foundation of it in elementary, a couple of years of it in middle school, and a year or two in high school.

 

In elementary, it's mostly about introduction. Very few kids under the age of 9 or 10 have the abstract thinking necessary to successfully navigate intermediate to upper grammar...they simply need to be aware of what's out there. What's a noun, what's a verb, what's a prepositional phrase, subject, direct object, pronoun. Play some games with them, point them out in books, and that's about it.

 

In middle school, I think they should have two years of it - perhaps one in 5th and one in 7th, or something similar. The 6th and 8th grade years should be spent USING the grammar in their writing, foreign language exploration, and reading. I think the thing that irks me the most about how grammar currics are set up, is that it's a separate subject to be taught and then put away. It's not. It's a foundational skill necessary for written and spoken communication, and it's the key that unlocks studying a foreign language. Hit it hard, then use it. Rinse, repeat. ;)

 

In high school, kids should have a strong enough understanding, through both study and application, to not need another 4 years of formal grammar. I believe that two years (three at the outside) is easily enough. By this time, they should be focusing on refining their grammar understanding and putting it into use in analytical writing - lit analysis, research projects, more advanced creative writing - and more advanced study of foreign languages. This is the stage that they've been working toward, when they can truly fly with their skills. If you notice things they need to focus on, take a bit and review them, then move on.

 

IMO, it's similar to phonics - you hit it in the early years to teach them to read, but you don't keep going with it once they've got the skills down. After that point, it becomes really redundant - and kind of useless.

 

I think grammar is a necessary skill, but something that I've noticed with a lot of kids in my Latin & Greek classes that are made to study it as a separate subject each year is that actually applying it often doesn't cross their minds. Still work on it and require it, but take it out of the workbook and show them how it applies to their lives. During the non-formal-grammar years, teach it through editing their papers for grammar, through having them pick out grammatical structures in their reading (analysis of how different authors use mechanics to enhance their writing), and through seeing how their English grammar study allows them to better understand their foreign language studies. They're still learning it, but in ways that they can really use.

 

JMHO...I know others will disagree, but this is what I think.

[Aubrey]

When I was in school, the grammar we learned was exactly the same every yr until AP English. Finally, something new.

 

I think grammar could be taught a LOT less than it is, & I think most of the really high-brow technical stuff should be saved for PhD work. It's not taught at the undergraduate level, & I have not seen it taught at the grad level, either. The only person I've met who *deeply* cares about grammar is the highschool English teacher I did my student teaching under, & frankly, when you get up to your knees in the details, you're only going to get frustrated: the apparent "rules" of grammar break down, & people start debating what's right & what's not.

 

I met a brand new hs mom the other day, & when she heard that I was using a "fun" grammar program w/ my kids (MCT), she quickly cut me off & said that since her son had apparently had NO grammar in ps, she didn't have time for anything fun. He had a LOT of ground to cover. (He was 8th or 9th g.)

 

I tried to laugh it off a little, telling her that I was a high school English teacher & there's often a lot of difference in students' grammar backgrounds, but the differences can quickly be made up because *very little new information is taught from year to year anyway.*

 

She insisted that I had the leisure to use a fun program because my kids were little & that she had to use something medieval with which to torture her son, to make up for lost time.

 

Honestly. I taught at the college level, too. *Lots* of people don't know the basics. Don't get me wrong--I'm not aiming for that *at all.* But if 12 yrs of grammar produces people who still don't know what a noun is, I wouldn't count on that being the best method OR that more = better.

 

I'll use MCT through whatever level it's offered, because I think it's that good, but it's *far* more than grammar, imo. I can't remember how far MCT goes, but if it stops in 8th g, for ex, I can't imagine feeling the need to find another grammar prog for highschool. I'd think my kids would have learned enough grammar that further discussions would be in the context of writing.

 

After several years of trying different grammar programs, I've also begun to wonder why we teach grammar at such a young age. Mine did FLL for a couple of years, & they could do the chants & the assignments, but application was still too difficult. I get the idea of having them memorize information to use it later, but in this case, the information is *easy* to memorize, so...I guess I really just don't see the advantage in memorizing what nouns & verbs are before you're ready to parse a sentence.

 

Ds didn't mind FLL at first; dd loved it. But last spring, I printed out a few pp of KISS grammar (pre-MCT for us), & ds was just fascinated. He'd never been able to *see* the structure of language before (engineering mind), & he was at an age or stage or something where it *excited* him. So *now* is really the prime time for *him* to really start learning grammar. Why on earth did I torture him before? And, fwiw, I'm NOT a "better late than early" proponent.

 

Sorry--I'm no help at all w/ the OP's kids! ;)

[Joyofsixreboot]

Grammar is important so that when you convey thoughts they can be understood and respected by those reading/hearing them. I think it probably depends on the child how it is best taught. I managed to get my master's degree without once studying grammar. I did however read and write voraciously as a child (and adult, lol). My ds likes neither reading nor writing. I teach him grammar so that he can internalize some rules and thus have his opinions respected.

[Matryoshka]

I had exactly one year of English grammar in school, in 7th grade. I did have many more years of grammar in German and Spanish, though, and I'd say that's where I really learned to use and apply grammar.

 

I love grammar and think it's very important, but honestly, English grammar is not rocket science. Compared to most other languages' grammar, it's a piece of cake.

 

When my kids were little, we didn't do much formal grammar - pretty much Grammar Rock and Mad Libs. In 3rd grade I added Editor in Chief - one page a week. In 5th we did Easy Grammar 6, and in 6th I started MCT. My kids are also learning German and Spanish, and the grammar concepts they're learning there are already far more tricky than what they have to deal with in English - cases in German, how to distinguish between the two simple past tenses in Spanish. It has been helpful for them to have the vocabulary of grammar in English to tackle these things, though - it's hard to understand "put verbs at the end of a subordinate clause in German" if you've never learned what a subordinate clause is.

 

One thing I love about MCT is that it doesn't waste any time bashing bascially simple concepts into a kid for years - it moves right to the application. It gives you the definitions, and then you have to apply everything you know in every sentence. Grammar really only makes sense in context - memorizing lists of prepositions, or identifying one part of speech at a time in isolation - not only do I think those can be a waste of time, I think they can be potentially harmful to true grammatical understanding. Almost all English words can be used as multiple parts of speech - the former method gives the false sense that a word "is" a part of speech when in reality context is everything.

 

Whoops, seem to have rambled - I think I have a point in there somewhere. Haven't had coffee yet. :tongue_smilie:

[Haiku]

I'm in the "study grammar until it's mastered" camp. If it takes 12 years, so be it. If it takes seven, cool.

 

Tara

[Penelope]

I think only 1 or 2 years is not enough. BUt 12 years is overkill.

 

Now in 3rd grade, I keep thinking, did we really need to do FLL for first and second? I'm sure it helps, I plan to do it again, but I also believe for many children it probably isn't necessary.

 

And I think by high school, it should only be applied grammar. If grammar is covered thoroughly through 9th grade, I don't understand why one would need to continue a formal grammar course through 12th. At that point it can be practiced through writing, and focused on via trouble spots, if need be.

 

But I'm not there yet so we'll see.

[SailorMom]

I believe basic grammar and sentence structure are absolutely critical to a good education. However, other than the basics - I can't remember anything from all those years. Seriously. I learned more from extensive reading (just seeing proper formatting and usage) than I ever did from actual "grammar" instruction. I just "know" what looks right/sounds right.

BTW - I've been told I write exceptionally well by my graduate school professors (I don't try very hard here.....), and I have yet have any sort of corrections regarding grammar and usage.

[Haiku]

and I have yet have any sort of corrections regarding grammar and usage.

 

I'm sure that you are a good writer, and I'm not trying to denigrate that, but I do have to say that teachers are not always the most reliable grammarians. I used to work as a textbook editor, and my dd16's language arts teacher last year used to send home the most abysmally edited papers I have ever seen. I would have to re-edit her edits, including citations from the AP style manual that she insisted that the kids used. I was appalled to see that she did things like change correct subject-verb agreement to incorrect, misuse commas, and misuse objective pronouns. :o

 

Tara

[Testimony]

The Charlotte Mason approach is you learn it at an older age and only one or two years of good solid grammar. This is just my opinion, not any idea or philosophy.

 

I think that grammar is a great way to teach logic. Diagramming for my son is more like math puzzles. We enjoy trying to find what the word means in its place and solving where it goes in the diagram. We like grammar more for the sake of diagramming. I feel my brain cells clicking when we try to solve the diagrams. It is neat contemplate a word or a phrase. Does it describe the noun or the verb? Is it adjective or adverb?

 

The eight parts of speech is really cratching the surface of grammar. Learning grammar is a vacuum because you are not learning the information in context. But, we learned about gerunds and how they can be used as nouns, adjectives, etc. You need to know how to do that some time in the writing career.

 

Blessings in your homeschooling journey!

 

Sincerely,

Karen

http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/testimony

[Guest]

But, we learned about gerunds and how they can be used as nouns, adjectives, etc. You need to know how to do that some time in the writing career.

 

 

i guess the issue is: do you need to study formal grammar in order to learn how to do that, or is it something that many kids can pick up through extensive reading, writing, discussion, and dictation? If you have a child who seems to be a "natural" grammarian, is your time together best spent pursuing formal grammar programs, or could you simply address problems, formally or otherwise, as they cropped up in the student's own work?

 

Also, for those with older kids, it's usually overlooked that there are a lot of really good trade books on language usage, the history of English, comparative linguistics, and grammar out there for people who are interested in how language works -- books which end up covering many of the same topics as formal grammar programs, but without the exercises or diagrams. There are book by linguists, stylists, editors, writers, historians, journalists, and ordinary people who just like language a lot. You don't necessarily have to get your grammar through a curriculum or textbook.

[LizzyBee]

Will their 30-year-old selves want to be stuck writing like their 12-year-old selves?

 

I like that answer!

 

High school grammar is more about complex sentence construction than parts of speech. Early grammar sets a foundation, but the advanced levels teach elegant writing.

[LizzyBee]

I'm sure that you are a good writer, and I'm not trying to denigrate that, but I do have to say that teachers are not always the most reliable grammarians. I used to work as a textbook editor, and my dd16's language arts teacher last year used to send home the most abysmally edited papers I have ever seen. I would have to re-edit her edits, including citations from the AP style manual that she insisted that the kids used. I was appalled to see that she did things like change correct subject-verb agreement to incorrect, misuse commas, and misuse objective pronouns. :o

 

Tara

 

:D My 9th grader's English teacher "corrected" dd's use of the subjunctive mood. I'd really like to send the paper back with a note that says dd used "were" instead of "was" because we thought the clause was written in the subjunctive mood, and could you please explain why it isn't? I wonder if she'd have to google to find out what the subjunctive mood is?

[Matryoshka]

i guess the issue is: do you need to study formal grammar in order to learn how to do that, or is it something that many kids can pick up through extensive reading, writing, discussion, and dictation? If you have a child who seems to be a "natural" grammarian, is your time together best spent pursuing formal grammar programs, or could you simply address problems, formally or otherwise, as they cropped up in the student's own work?

 

Absolutely you need to study formal grammar, even if you write grammatically correctly intuitively - it's impossible to talk about something if you have no vocabulary for it. I've been teaching a bunch of kids Spanish, and it's been difficult with one kid whose English grammar is "intuitive" but looks at me blankly when we talk about definite articles and participles. It's so much easier to talk about a subject when things have names.

[patchfire]

if my child knew she was going to go into glass blowing professionally i would think that was wonderful but still require algebra and grammar.

 

:lol:

 

Thank you for that laugh! You see...

 

My SIL really is a glassblower, but she's never regretted her very rigorous K-12 education at some pretty high-faultin' private schools, to my knowledge. In fact, I think she's been quite glad to have it, since for awhile, it was those skills in math, grammar, and foreign language that were putting money in the bank, so she could rent studio time. :D

[Jamee]

Absolutely you need to study formal grammar, even if you write grammatically correctly intuitively - it's impossible to talk about something if you have no vocabulary for it. I've been teaching a bunch of kids Spanish, and it's been difficult with one kid whose English grammar is "intuitive" but looks at me blankly when we talk about definite articles and participles. It's so much easier to talk about a subject when things have names.

 

My understanding of grammar really didn't take off until I started studying a foreign language. It was like getting a fresh start and with specific words for specific usages, it just started making more sense. . .so that's what an indirect object is!

[Guest]

Absolutely you need to study formal grammar, even if you write grammatically correctly intuitively - it's impossible to talk about something if you have no vocabulary for it. I've been teaching a bunch of kids Spanish, and it's been difficult with one kid whose English grammar is "intuitive" but looks at me blankly when we talk about definite articles and participles. It's so much easier to talk about a subject when things have names.

 

I wasn't talking about grammar for foreign language purposes, but for teaching writing to someone who is naturally a correct writer. I mentioned that grammar could be taught on an as-needed basis, addressing specifically the kinds of errors that the student makes (if any). I don't think it takes years of formal, textbook-based study to acquire the vocabulary or knowledge needed to fix the few errors a naturally correct writer may make. It's not an either-or situation of no grammatical instruction vs. a full-fledged formal curriculum; it's more an issue of whether all kids, always, need a that formal program to accomplish the ends (correct writing, being able to discuss writing, dealing with a foreign language).

 

I also think that if you grow up learning a second (living) language, hearing and using it all the time as well as being exposed to its written aspects, you have less need of a textbook-based, grammar-based language program than we do in the US. People learn second and third languages informally in other, smaller countries all the time, including grammatical conventions, including knowledge of the written languages. They may add a grammar component in advanced studies, but if you're hearing, speaking, and reading from a young age, you can pick up the grammar of that second language, too, informally. This doesn't necessarily mean you never hear the words "definite article" or "participle." It might, for a number of kids, mean there is no need for years of a formal grammar curriculum.

 

I think all of us formulate much of our theories about what is needed based on our own experiences; while I had grammar instruction as part of learning Spanish in high school, it did nothing whatever but confuse the heck out of me. It was only when I was a foreign exchange student in Paraguay, immersed in the language, that it began to untangle -- with no instruction or grammatical explanations, just practice and familiarity; I did not think in terms of grammar at all as it came together in my mind. I then went through several more years of college level literature courses in Spanish and a stint of research in the medieval archives in Avila, Spain, and seriously, grammar never appeared on the radar in any of these contexts, at least for me; I just don't think that way about language.

 

Also, I have a dd who has the most clear "wired-in" correct grammar I've ever known; she thinks very differently than I do. When you work with someone whose mind operates in this way it becomes apparent that this is one kid who is not going to thrive under or even need the kind of repetitive, incremental, parts-to-whole grammar instruction that characterizes most curricula.

 

Because of these experiences, I was trying to introduce the idea that there are many ways to acquire a knowledge of the vocabulary, structure, purpose, and conventions of grammar OTHER than a formal, textbook-based program. This is why I added a note about all the other resources that are available out there, particularly for older kids and adults. People learn in so many different ways; great writers and translators are going to emerge from all different educational backgrounds and histories, some of which lay enormous emphasis on long-term, formal grammar instruction and some of which do not.

Edited November 14, 2010 by Guest

[angela in ohio]

We study grammar because educated people study grammar. Period.

 

(I highly recommend MCT.)

 

ETA: The most useful thing I've found regarding grammar study is that I'm able to talk to my kids about their writing using the vocabulary of language. "You need to put commas around this appositive phrase" or "the subject and verb are not in agreement here." A strong writer understands grammar, and educated people are strong writers. In our family, being an educated person is non-negotiable.

 

:iagree:

 

I don't think that every student needs to study grammar formally every single year. But I do think that every student needs to master it. Whether that requires studying grammar for 12 years is highly individual. Some kids will, others won't.

 

:iagree: I think 12 years is a bit much. We start in 3rd and are done except for review by 8th or 9th.

 

I'm in the "study grammar until it's mastered" camp. If it takes 12 years, so be it. If it takes seven, cool.

 

Tara

 

:iagree:

 

I'm sure that you are a good writer, and I'm not trying to denigrate that, but I do have to say that teachers are not always the most reliable grammarians. I used to work as a textbook editor, and my dd16's language arts teacher last year used to send home the most abysmally edited papers I have ever seen. I would have to re-edit her edits, including citations from the AP style manual that she insisted that the kids used. I was appalled to see that she did things like change correct subject-verb agreement to incorrect, misuse commas, and misuse objective pronouns. :o

 

Tara

 

I am in an online education class (regular university, just an online class,) and many of the other students are secondary English majors. I can't even begin to believe the lack of grammar competency evident in their work in the class. Most of an English teacher's training will be in literature, not grammar.

[Mommybostic]

One of the greatest skills lacking in our graduates today is the ability to effectively and appropriately use the English language. Just because you are a highly intelligent, educated person does not necessarily mean you have mastered this abilty. Show me a leader, and I will show you a master of language. It really is that simple, at least to my mind. I am a grammar nerd from way back, and I am in a transitional phase with my son's education right now. We are "afterschooling" for the remainder of this year, and it looks like I will home school him from that point forward. A major component of both programs with be the study of grammar.

 

At what point do we say that we have "mastered" anything? To my way of thinking, you always have room to improve and learn. Writing can always be polished. The skills of proofreading and objectively judging your own work are very difficult and take much practice. I would imagine it is a skill we are all still developing, and hopefully will continue to develop throughout our lives.

 

A well written letter, presentation, article or proposal may be the key element that separates us (or our child) from their contenders. It makes people take us seriously, and demands both attention and respect.

 

In a nutshell, I love language and grammar, as well as literature, and I agree with the statement from above that said well educated people study grammar. Period.

[Guest]

Most of an English teacher's training will be in literature, not grammar.

 

Would you believe it can be none at all even so much as MENTIONING grammar? I have a California credential for K-12 English, and never had one single hour in one single class that dealt with grammar in any of my undergraduate major classes or the teaching courses.

[Mom0012]

Well, I'm probably not going to be doing it for 12 years. Maybe 6 - 8, depending on the kid. I have read that studies show that studying grammar does not improve writing, but I am encouraged to continue because I read in Laura Berquist's book, Creating Your Own Classical Curriculum , (or similar title) that she uses it in place of a logic program and that made sense to me.

 

Lisa

[Guest]

I have read that studies show that studying grammar does not improve writing...

 

I have read similar studies and certainly found that to be the case for myself. Certainly I can readily understand that studying grammar formally in isolation would not improve writing. That's why I lean towards the freedom we have as homeschoolers to focus on the types of errors a particular child consistently makes and work on those in the context of the writing that child does, whether you like to do so formally (with a program/curriculum) or informally (rewriting sentences together, discussing with appropriate vocabulary etc. what needs to be addressed, reading trade books on language history and usage, noticing how other writers use sentences).

 

I have not read the book you mention and now you've got me curious, so I'm off to have a peek.

[Annabel Lee]

Well, I'm probably not going to be doing it for 12 years. Maybe 6 - 8, depending on the kid. I have read that studies show that studying grammar does not improve writing, but I am encouraged to continue because I read in Laura Berquist's book, Creating Your Own Classical Curriculum , (or similar title) that she uses it in place of a logic program and that made sense to me.

 

Lisa

 

ColleenNS (or is it "...inNS"?) on this forum has posted about how she's already using grammar as a writing tool for her sons. I think they're logic stage; maybe 1 is in 9th. She's using it just as SWB described; to discern if something in their writing is truly correct or not, and if there's a better way to word it. I agree that not all kids are wired the same way and thus should not be subjected to a cookie-cutter education, but I think a firm grasp on grammer - enough to be useful for writing - is essential.

ETA: The discussion Colleen chimed in about was specifically about diagramming, as was SWB's description I referenced above.

[8filltheheart]

Absolutely you need to study formal grammar, even if you write grammatically correctly intuitively - it's impossible to talk about something if you have no vocabulary for it. I've been teaching a bunch of kids Spanish, and it's been difficult with one kid whose English grammar is "intuitive" but looks at me blankly when we talk about definite articles and participles. It's so much easier to talk about a subject when things have names.

 

I didn't read all of the replies, but :iagree: with this comment. It is OUR language. We should understand how it works and why. We should know the language of our language......take ownership of how we can structure our words/punctuate, etc in order to make sentences more effective/stronger, etc.

 

Study the masters of prose. They know that even the word selection for the poetry within a sentence makes an impact.

 

Does one HAVE to know the distinction between gerunds and participles? No. Neither does one need to read Shakespeare, listen to a symphony, or appreciate art.

 

However, if the purpose of education is to form minds that delve beyond the common slang/informal application/pseudo understanding of the words that control the world around them, then yes, grammar needs to not only be studied but mastered. Grammar is the foundation of oration; grammar is the tool of the rhetorician; knowledge of grammar is the basis for control of the language......reality is very simple in that he who controls the words, controls the argument.

 

Effective arguments are weakened when improper grammar shocks the listener/reader into mentally mocking the orator/writer. ;)

[Guest]

 

Effective arguments are weakened when improper grammar shocks the listener/reader into mentally mocking the orator/writer. ;)

 

This is absolutely true. But I think the OP was questioning whether year after year after year of a formal grammar curriculum is necessary to acquire and understand the grammatical workings of English and/or to avoid ineffective writing. The aspect of this I am interested in is whether a formal, packaged grammar curriculum is necessarily the only or even the best way to go about this for each and every child, at each and every stage.

 

I find it interesting and somewhat perplexing that so many people seem to feel there are two options: either you do a formal purchased program and you "know" grammar, or you have kids who don't know what a gerund is, can't discuss or correct their own writing, and are doomed to illiteracy about the workings of their own language. I do not think these are the only two options, particularly for kids who seem to pick up correct writing easily and naturally (and there are some around); as in so many subjects and disciplines, there is a huge middle ground that seems to be abandoned territory in many people's minds.

[angela in ohio]

The aspect of this I am interested in is whether a formal, packaged grammar curriculum is necessarily the only or even the best way to go about this for each and every child, at each and every stage.

 

It's not, imho. The best way is to have the child taught be a person very proficient in grammar, one who can naturally teach the child in the context of literature and writing, in daily discussion, and in one-on-one instruction. However, as most teachers and homeschool parents are not masters of grammar, a packaged curriculum ends up being the best next choice. I would still consider this teaching to be within the scope of what the OP was asking, just not utilizing a formal, packaged curriculum.

[angela in ohio]

Absolutely you need to study formal grammar, even if you write grammatically correctly intuitively - it's impossible to talk about something if you have no vocabulary for it. I've been teaching a bunch of kids Spanish, and it's been difficult with one kid whose English grammar is "intuitive" but looks at me blankly when we talk about definite articles and participles. It's so much easier to talk about a subject when things have names.

 

I was teaching Latin to a co-op group of 7th-9th graders, and I kept going over which case was the direct object, indirect object, etc. They were still having trouble choosing a case to translate, and it finally dawned on me that they had NO idea what an indirect object, predicate nominative, direct object, or preposition was. :glare: Those are not finer points of grammar, but very basic concepts.

 

I ended up teaching much less Latin, because I had to explain the grammar concepts behind each and every chapter before I could teach the Latin. It wa a wonderful grammar opportunity, of course, but it was a wasted chance for Latin instruction.

 

It's similar to spelling bees. The "natural spellers" who have learned no rules or phonics do very well for a few rounds, but then they are just blank stares when the words become more complex and unknown.

[ColoradoMom]

She insisted that I had the leisure to use a fun program because my kids were little & that she had to use something medieval with which to torture her son, to make up for lost time.

 

Honestly. I taught at the college level, too. *Lots* of people don't know the basics. Don't get me wrong--I'm not aiming for that *at all.* But if 12 yrs of grammar produces people who still don't know what a noun is, I wouldn't count on that being the best method OR that more = better.

 

....

 

So *now* is really the prime time for *him* to really start learning grammar. Why on earth did I torture him before? And, fwiw, I'm NOT a "better late than early" proponent.

 

Sorry--I'm no help at all w/ the OP's kids! ;)

 

:D I think you are my long lost sister. Grammar for us is a complete afterthought. Yes, we do it and yes I have even forced my oldest to do Analytical Grammar (which she did for a year and then said NO WAY, NEVER AGAIN!) and finally I only do the grammar included with other programs.

 

I might have a slanted POV because I was a science major in undergrad and grad school and the only thing I learned about grammar and writing was that no one gives a crap if you can write very well in undergrad as long as you can get your point across and in grad school your PI is going to re-edit everything you publish anyway.

 

If I had to do it all over again, which I don't because my oldest is now 13, I would refuse to teach writing and grammar until 8th grade and save us all the aggravation.

[8filltheheart]

This is absolutely true. But I think the OP was questioning whether year after year after year of a formal grammar curriculum is necessary to acquire and understand the grammatical workings of English and/or to avoid ineffective writing. The aspect of this I am interested in is whether a formal, packaged grammar curriculum is necessarily the only or even the best way to go about this for each and every child, at each and every stage.

 

I find it interesting and somewhat perplexing that so many people seem to feel there are two options: either you do a formal purchased program and you "know" grammar, or you have kids who don't know what a gerund is, can't discuss or correct their own writing, and are doomed to illiteracy about the workings of their own language. I do not think these are the only two options, particularly for kids who seem to pick up correct writing easily and naturally (and there are some around); as in so many subjects and disciplines, there is a huge middle ground that seems to be abandoned territory in many people's minds.

 

Well, maybe I'm slower than the avg Joe, but I can tell you that I have been studying formal grammar along with my kids now for 14 yrs. My first go through with my oldest I was lost much of the time. I never learned grammar in school ,so I was learning along side him. Even after teaching grammar as many times as I have, I am still learning and discovering more concepts all the time.

 

FWIW.....I do not use textbooks with my younger kids at all, though I do for review with my older kids. Grammar is a constant "in context" discipline for my kids b/c all writing is evaluated together. I can tell them simply that they can't use a pronoun there b/c it lacks a clear antecedent; or no, that verb is incorrect b/c the gerund phrase is the subject and your verb is matching the obj of the prep; or rewrite that sentence in active voice; or why do you have a comma when the dependent clause is following the independent clause, etc.

 

My sister is a professional author with several published books. She writes and punctuates intuitively. It absolutely drives me crazy, though. I can read something that she wrote, and I know the whys about what she should or shouldn't be doing. She relies on how it "sounds." I sort of see it as doing anything (math, science, etc where you plug and chug) w/o really understanding what you are doing. Yes, you can do it, but I find it more interesting and enjoyable when I actually know why.

 

Does it take 12 yrs? Well, my kids still aren't grammar masters and they start grammar in copywork in 2nd grade. We love it here, though, so it's no biggie for us. We like to take apart sentences just like mental puzzles in math. :D

[Ester Maria]

Twelve years of grammar study does not necessarily mean twelve years of day-to-day going over the same concepts ad nauseam. Even though I do find it important to go over the basic things several times throughout one's education, there is so much one can learn about a language and about the language.

 

Even though people usually, when speaking of "grammar", refer only to morphology and syntax as well as some general orthography, that's only a fraction of the discipline. For elementary and middle school, that's fine; in high school, however, there is plenty to learn for one's refinement of the use of any language.

 

One of the Italian grammars that I use with my daughters starts with, well, anatomy: the study of phonology, of the sounds of the language, where and how they're formed, with a precise division of the sounds by groups and the study of phonological changes which occur in some cases and which have historically developed from Latin. Then they continue with the matters of general orthography, and only then reach the study of morphology (each of the parts of speech in-depth) and syntax (the combination of those parts of speech in all sorts of sentences and paragraphs; the logical analysis of a period rather than the grammatical analysis). But, that's not the end - after that, they go on with the matters of lexicology and semantics: the formation of the words, aspects of historical linguistics (Latin to Italian), the study of semantic camps of the words, of foreign words in Italian and the "layers" of the language as well as present-day Italian, its status among dialects and the relationship with them, etc. And even that is not everything - they include figures of speech in rhetoric and a whole chapter on metrics of the language in poetry.

The other grammar that we use consists of the same parts plus notions in linguistics, i.e. the study of the Italian language in the context of general linguistics.

 

By the time my daughters graduate, they will have studied far more than diagramming sentences - all of those topics, from regional differences to general linguistics to the history of one's language, are quite important to be truly literate in one's native language. I expect them to study the grammars of foreign languages that way too, though of course with far lesser intensity and breadth than Italian.

 

Grammar is not studied exclusively as an aid for writing, even children who are naturally good writers and rarely make mistakes can profit from a systematic analytical study of a/the language and become aware of its subtleties, as well as able to think about it in analytical terms, not only "intuitively". Far from it that grammar should be studied every day for twelve years, but I do find it important to have a continuity during all those years, even if one dedicates it no more than an hour or two weekly in the upper years.

[Guest]

This is fascinating....

[Guest]

My sister is a professional author with several published books. She writes and punctuates intuitively. It absolutely drives me crazy, though. I can read something that she wrote, and I know the whys about what she should or shouldn't be doing. She relies on how it "sounds." I sort of see it as doing anything (math, science, etc where you plug and chug) w/o really understanding what you are doing. Yes, you can do it, but I find it more interesting and enjoyable when I actually know why.

 

 

If you read a bit into the history of punctuation, it seems that the first punctuation in medieval manuscripts had everything to do with "how it sounds" -- early punctuation marks were meant as breath guidance for readers (primarily in churches). Punctuation evolved in really interesting ways over the course of the centuries, and the real work rule-making and codification was mostly done in the 18th century: the age of ordering and consolidation, of the first comprehensive English dictionary among other things. More squabbling and debating over particulars of syntax and allowable word order and punctuation came in the early 1900s. The way that grammatical rules and rationales evolved during these periods had as much to do with cultural politics as it did with an ideal, separate realm of language and writing. I guess my historical take on things has led me to see "grammar" as something not fixed but as evolving, linked to politics, history, trade, etc. This means I'm equally as interested in how it got to its current status as in the mechanics of syntax and the rules of punctuation -- particularly since I learned to write primarily by reading and writing, not through grammatical instruction, and dd is following the same path.

 

I can see grammar as being approached both ways -- as a set of "logical" rules with historically specific stories behind them, and also as a more sensory, sound-based system that some people might think about and learn primarily, but not exclusively, in a way that is non-incremental, non-logical, more Gestalt. There are a lot of people on these boards who clearly have a very orderly and logical way of thinking and learning, and who thrive on both teaching and learning grammar in a systematic, formal, disciplinary way; there are a lot of others both on these boards and off who process and learn differently.

 

As I have said before, I don't think that people who are an intuitive or natural grammarians necessarily remain ignorant of grammatical codes or any other aspect of grammar. Dd and I spend relatively little time on the aspects of grammar and language covered in most schoolbooks; but we spend a great deal of time on the historical evolution of English; manuscript and print conventions and how they impacted rules of spelling and grammar and punctuation; dialects and accents; language transformations not only across time but across geography; how languages are transcribed (Navajo is the classic one); processes of word acquisition and borrowing that have made English what it is; even grammatical debates. These things in turn loop back on our discussions of particular sentences or conventions, as we notice them. We talk a lot about sentences in books, but not necessarily in grammatical terms; we tend to look at them more in the way that Francine Prose does in her book Reading Like a Writer.

 

This works for us; I'm not suggesting that anyone dump their workbooks or programs and shift over to My Way. I'm suggesting that people process their thoughts about language, as they do about math and science and art and everything else, differently, far more differently than is usually acknowledged; and I'm suggesting that because of these differences, different methods, different emphases, different amounts of time spent on the topic, different attitudes about how to think about written language, might be just as valid FOR SOME PEOPLE.

 

I respect how everybody on these boards works so hard to teach their kids; I respect different approaches and I'm trying to represent one of them as something equally deserving of respect.

 

It's not meant to be questioning the validity of the usual approach, but just to open up thinking about it.

[Crimson Wife]

I might have a slanted POV because I was a science major in undergrad and grad school and the only thing I learned about grammar and writing was that no one gives a crap if you can write very well in undergrad as long as you can get your point across and in grad school your PI is going to re-edit everything you publish anyway.

 

I studied science in college as well, but I have to respectfully disagree with this. Even in scientific fields, effective communication skills are very important.

 

If I had to do it all over again, which I don't because my oldest is now 13, I would refuse to teach writing and grammar until 8th grade and save us all the aggravation.

 

Your prerogative, but classical education is not about doing what is easy or fun; rather it's about building mental discipline. I may not enjoy teaching my DD how to diagram sentences but I do it anyways because I believe it is a valuable skill.

[kalanamak]

I studied science in college as well, but I have to respectfully disagree with this. Even in scientific fields, effective communication skills are very important.

 

 

 

Your prerogative, but classical education is not about doing what is easy or fun; rather it's about building mental discipline. I may not enjoy teaching my DD how to diagram sentences but I do it anyways because I believe it is a valuable skill.

 

Well, she did say no one cares as long as you wrote well. Perhaps "effective communication" and "writing well" are at least somewhat similar.

 

I'm not waiting to 13. A wise old professor of mine said "changing the way you write is like changing the way to talk to your father: not easy". I think it would even more aggravating to try and correct entrenched errors in a 13 year old, but I've not BTDT, yet.

 

I've never really studied writing. I find it a terrible burden, and hope teaching kiddo will help me. As it is, I write as I speak. People who know me say they can hear my voice as they read what I write. But writing shouldn't be transcribed speech (I don't think so). (So I have my fingers crossed I'll improve as he learns.....math is going that way, why not writing, too?!?)

[NicoleJ]

Personally, I don't think most kids need ~12 years worth. I think that they need a basic foundation of it in elementary, a couple of years of it in middle school, and a year or two in high school.

 

In elementary, it's mostly about introduction. Very few kids under the age of 9 or 10 have the abstract thinking necessary to successfully navigate intermediate to upper grammar...they simply need to be aware of what's out there. What's a noun, what's a verb, what's a prepositional phrase, subject, direct object, pronoun. Play some games with them, point them out in books, and that's about it.

 

In middle school, I think they should have two years of it - perhaps one in 5th and one in 7th, or something similar. The 6th and 8th grade years should be spent USING the grammar in their writing, foreign language exploration, and reading. I think the thing that irks me the most about how grammar currics are set up, is that it's a separate subject to be taught and then put away. It's not. It's a foundational skill necessary for written and spoken communication, and it's the key that unlocks studying a foreign language. Hit it hard, then use it. Rinse, repeat. ;)

 

In high school, kids should have a strong enough understanding, through both study and application, to not need another 4 years of formal grammar. I believe that two years (three at the outside) is easily enough. By this time, they should be focusing on refining their grammar understanding and putting it into use in analytical writing - lit analysis, research projects, more advanced creative writing - and more advanced study of foreign languages. This is the stage that they've been working toward, when they can truly fly with their skills. If you notice things they need to focus on, take a bit and review them, then move on.

 

IMO, it's similar to phonics - you hit it in the early years to teach them to read, but you don't keep going with it once they've got the skills down. After that point, it becomes really redundant - and kind of useless.

 

I think grammar is a necessary skill, but something that I've noticed with a lot of kids in my Latin & Greek classes that are made to study it as a separate subject each year is that actually applying it often doesn't cross their minds. Still work on it and require it, but take it out of the workbook and show them how it applies to their lives. During the non-formal-grammar years, teach it through editing their papers for grammar, through having them pick out grammatical structures in their reading (analysis of how different authors use mechanics to enhance their writing), and through seeing how their English grammar study allows them to better understand their foreign language studies. They're still learning it, but in ways that they can really use.

 

JMHO...I know others will disagree, but this is what I think.

 

:iagree: