MCT and grammar questions

[JulieD]

:iagree:My kids are really learning to love language and express themselves in their writing. They are both likely better writers than I am, but I can spell better!

 

Julie D.

[JulieD]

"Standing ovation" is a participial phrase. There are 2 types of participial phrases. The first is when a prepositional phrase is added after the participle, as you did in your example. The second is when an object is used after a participle, as in the example in the test. "Standing" is the participle and "ovation" is the object of the participle.

 

Here's the whole sentence. We gave the actors a standing ovation. Ovation is the direct object of gave. If we leave standing out it still makes sense and means the same thing. We gave the actors an ovation. If we take out ovation, it changes the meaning. We gave the actors a standing.

 

I thought the main difference between a participial phrase and a gerund phrase was whether it was acting as an adjective or a noun. I don't see how "standing ovation" is an adjective. What noun does it modify?

 

Of the one hand, I kind of agree with a previous poster who wondered how knowing these things would make us better writers. On the other hand, I planned on making verbals the focus of our grammar this year. I really have to figure this out!

 

Julie D.

[Capt_Uhura]

Here's my take. "Standing ovation" is not the adjective. "Standing" is the adjective. It is modifying the noun "ovation." Standing is a verbal acting as an adjective ie participle. If it has an object (ovation) then it's a participle phrase. Oh so you're saying since ovation is the object of the verb gave, it can't also be the object of the participle? HHHmm. I think I see "standing ovation" as the direct object of the verb gave and standing is a participle modifying ovation. the whole phrase is the object of the verb.

 

Does this help? http://members.cox.net/lenco1/grammarpractice/participle/phrase.htm

Edited January 16, 2011 by Capt_Uhura

[8filltheheart]

Here's the whole sentence. We gave the actors a standing ovation. Ovation is the direct object of gave. If we leave standing out it still makes sense and means the same thing. We gave the actors an ovation. If we take out ovation, it changes the meaning. We gave the actors a standing.

 

I thought the main difference between a participial phrase and a gerund phrase was whether it was acting as an adjective or a noun. I don't see how "standing ovation" is an adjective. What noun does it modify?

 

Of the one hand, I kind of agree with a previous poster who wondered how knowing these things would make us better writers. On the other hand, I planned on making verbals the focus of our grammar this year. I really have to figure this out!

 

Julie D.

 

I agree with you that it is a participle acting as an adj.

 

For our family, studying grammar is 2 fold. First, it allows for intelligent conversation during revising and editing. They know what the mistakes actually are and why. Most punctuation rules are easy to learn if you know the grammar behind them.

 

For example:

What kind of punctuation do we need to use when participial phrases occur in different positions?

 

* When the participial phrase comes before a main clause, it is followed by a comma.

* When the participial phrase follows a main clause, a comma must come before the participial phrase.

* When the participial phrase occurs in mid-sentence position, we use two commas. One comma comes before the participial phrase and the other comes after it.

 

Sentences are composed of grammar. Grammar is the foundation of our expressing ourselves. It is our language. Shouldn't we want to understand how it works and why?

 

Second, it makes learning a foreign language much easier. The vocabulary of another language is often learned through the prism of grammar. (so shouldn't we at least want to understand our own? ;))

[Capt_Uhura]

Ok here's another website. http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/627/01/

 

This is for gerunds and not participles though.

 

The gerund phrase functions as the direct object of the verb appreciate.

 

I hope that you appreciate my offering you this opportunity.

 

my (possessive pronoun adjective form, modifying the gerund)

offering (gerund)

you (indirect object of action expressed in gerund)

this opportunity (direct object of action expressed in gerund)

[Guest Cheryl in SoCal]

Here's the whole sentence. We gave the actors a standing ovation. Ovation is the direct object of gave. If we leave standing out it still makes sense and means the same thing. We gave the actors an ovation. If we take out ovation, it changes the meaning. We gave the actors a standing.

 

I thought the main difference between a participial phrase and a gerund phrase was whether it was acting as an adjective or a noun. I don't see how "standing ovation" is an adjective. What noun does it modify?

 

Of the one hand, I kind of agree with a previous poster who wondered how knowing these things would make us better writers. On the other hand, I planned on making verbals the focus of our grammar this year. I really have to figure this out!

 

Julie D.

I agree, in that sentence "standing ovation" isn't a participial phrase. To me it looks like "standing" is a participle modifying "ovation." Now that I try to use it in a sentence instead of just looking at "standing ovation" in isolation I don't see how it could ever be used as a participial phrase. I can think of sentences where I could use "standing" in a participial phrase but not with "ovation."

 

I haven't looked at the test in question. What else does it say?

[Crimson Wife]

I agree, in that sentence "standing ovation" isn't a participial phrase. To me it looks like "standing" is a participle modifying "ovation." Now that I try to use it in a sentence instead of just looking at "standing ovation" in isolation I don't see how it could ever be used as a participial phrase. I can think of sentences where I could use "standing" in a participial phrase but not with "ovation."

 

I haven't looked at the test in question. What else does it say?

 

It's a multiple-choice test and the other 3 answers are not in any way, shape, or form participles.

 

A. Everyone had been dancing in the aisles

B. By the end of the show, everyone was singing.

C. We gave the actors a standing ovation.

D. The singers have practiced under the bright lights.

 

My DD got this question wrong. She chose (A). However, when I asked her to diagram the sentence, she correctly recognized "dancing" as part of the predicate.

[Guest Cheryl in SoCal]

It's a multiple-choice test and the other 3 answers are not in any way, shape, or form participles.

 

A. Everyone had been dancing in the aisles

B. By the end of the show, everyone was singing.

C. We gave the actors a standing ovation.

D. The singers have practiced under the bright lights.

 

My DD got this question wrong. She chose (A). However, when I asked her to diagram the sentence, she correctly recognized "dancing" as part of the predicate.

Thanks. That's the answer they are looking for but definitely isn't a participial phrase.

[swimmermom3]

Wow! Thank you for all of the thoughtful responses. A day at the pool keeping track of 10 swimmers and their number of turns and touches across a large expanse of water or validating around 1,000 swims leaves me rummy so I hope I am able to do justice to your posts. The following two hit some of the main points I have been considering in the odd spare moment.

 

Lisa,

 

Did you review which ones he missed? I followed the link and briefly skimmed some of the questions and wonder if part of it might simply be terminology. I used to teach only subjective complement, etc until I realized that some texts refer to them as pred. nom or pred adjs, etc. My kids knew whether they were adjs or nouns but that terminology was unfamiliar to them.

 

Ds took the online test so I have no hard copy of the questions or his answers, only results. The example you give concerning subject complement is perfect. Until a couple of weeks ago, that was the only term ds knew. Right before Christmas we covered pred.nom. and pred. adjective. The information covers one page. In a sense it is that simple. The more I look at this, the more I see my hand in the matter. Last year, I would have found a work page that had him identify the two terms to supplement what we were studying in MCT. But yes, back to variances in terminology, that is one issue.

 

Also, I noticed that the very first question was what I would consider a spelling question and not grammar. Whew......I have some bad spellers and I can't blame ANY curriculum on that. They come by it naturally.......dh is a horrible speller as well.

 

After skimming through that test, I think that you should step back and decide just how much weight it really holds.

 

Yes! I've decided it holds far less weight with me than Swimmer Dude's actual writing. I have the Language Handbook that K12 uses for 7th grade and trust me, it is nothing special. The work in The Magic Lens appears to be more sophisticated, which is part of why I was baffled by the test results.

 

We spent hrs cleaning this morning and are waiting for company to arrive right now. I mgiht have dd take the test a little later if she is not too tired and see how she does.

 

I feel guilty that there are poor children suffering on a Saturday because I asked a question. That seems so unfair.:tongue_smilie:

 

FWIW.......if there are any gaps from MCT and that test, my strongest inclination would be that it would show up in mechanics. I don't think he teaches the concepts well and the examples are questionable. This week on pg. 158 of Essay, he has these sentences marked as correct:

 

Washington said "I agree," and Jefferson nodded.

Washington said "I agree"

When Washington arrived, Jefferson said "Welcome."

 

As briefly as the topic is covered, attention should be made to make sure it is taught correctly.

 

I agree, but I do think that part of the beauty of MCT is that we don't have to do 300 workbook pages if we don't need to. I can add in a supplementary page here or there if necessary. Eight, that is where I fell down this year. I have been doing this on auto pilot instead of being actively engaged. I completely forgot that we did go over verb tenses in the 4th week. Not only that, we did cover the three degrees of adjectives. That was an information dense week and the boy obviously needed way more hands on practice. Not the fault of the curriculum. I can't believe I didn't remember covering it. How could I expect him to.:tongue_smilie: This is why we are making a few changes around here.

 

I still love the writing instruction even though some of the examples are wearing thin on my taste.:tongue_smilie:

 

I have yet to sell Paragraph Town even though we are nearly finished with Essay Voyage. I find that we refer back to the books.

Edited January 16, 2011 by swimmermom3

[swimmermom3]

Swimmermom - so the superlative and past perfect tenses are not things your DS has covered in MCT? Is that what you're saying? So it's not a retention issue but absence of a topic?

 

He covered them right before Christmas. It's the boy's mother that has a mind like a sieve these days.:tongue_smilie:

[swimmermom3]

I am still enjoying MCT, and I am finding that my dc are thriving with it. But I have a question here, and it's really, truly non-snarky. Isn't the point of all our grammar study to make us better writers, not to make us superlative grammarians? I don't mean at all that we should not learn grammar, and learn it thoroughly, but rather that we should keep in mind what we are aiming for. I can say honestly that I never had anything approaching the level of formal grammar instruction that is provided by MCTLA, but that my grammar USAGE in both speech and writing is extremely good. I would rather that my dc be able to appropriately USE grammar, even if they can't say why, than that they are simply extremely proficient grammarians. The thing which really struck me about MCTLA is that he really cares about beauty in expression. I have not seen this emphasized to the same degree in any other program, and it's for that emphasis that I plan to stick with MCT. :001_smile:

 

Caitlin, you have hit the exact reason why I will probably not to drop the MCT grammar. I will supplement a little more and be far more present as a teacher, but my son is a better writer for having used MCT. There is also more to it than that. One of my stated language arts goals is to instill a love for and appreciation of the beauty of the written word in my children. MCT has moved us steadily along in fulfilling that goal. I think I will look at this placement test as a hiccup in our plan and move on from there.

 

I think it makes more sense for us as a family to iron out some of the issues that kept me from giving the curriculum my focus than it does to go through the process of learning a new curriculum. This doesn't even take into consideration the resistance I would meet in removing MCT from the lesson plan.:tongue_smilie:

[Capt_Uhura]

I'm glad we were able to help out Swimmermom even though we took some side-roads .... I'm also happy to hear that superlative and verb tenses are covered. Is that in Magic Lens 1?

[PenKase]

I'm glad we were able to help out Swimmermom even though we took some side-roads .... I'm also happy to hear that superlative and verb tenses are covered. Is that in Magic Lens 1?

 

OMG!!! As an MCT user, I just read the entire thread and felt like I was on a roller coaster the whole time!!! As I type I have about 5 opened tabs all cued to different grammar programs! We love, love, love MCT and would really dislike to abandon ship to something else.

 

Then I read this:

I am still enjoying MCT, and I am finding that my dc are thriving with it. But I have a question here, and it's really, truly non-snarky.Isn't the point of all our grammar study to make us better writers, not to make us superlative grammarians? I don't mean at all that we should not learn grammar, and learn it thoroughly, but rather that we should keep in mind what we are aiming for. I can say honestly that I never had anything approaching the level of formal grammar instruction that is provided by MCTLA, but that my grammar USAGE in both speech and writing is extremely good. I would rather that my dc be able to appropriately USE grammar, even if they can't say why, than that they are simply extremely proficient grammarians. The thing which really struck me about MCTLA is that he really cares about beauty in expression. I have not seen this emphasized to the same degree in any other program, and it's for that emphasis that I plan to stick with MCT. :001_smile:

this:

I have definitely seen my boys writing improve. Both my 2nd and 5th grader use complex sentences and punctuate them properly (usually - my 5th grader missed the comma today in his dictation). They both delight when they find a good word that really reflects what they want to say rather than dressing it up w/ poor adjectives or adverbs. We look at literature differently....noticing the flow of the text, poetic elements. They picking out poetic elements in stories like Wind in the Willows. I think this ultimately will make them better writers. They are also watchful for these elements in non-fiction as well. They are just more aware of language and I feel that can only help their writing in the long run.

 

You'd have to pry my MCT materials from my cold dead hands. :lol:

this:

 

I will supplement a little more and be far more present as a teacher, but my son is a better writer for having used MCT. There is also more to it than that. One of my stated language arts goals is to instill a love for and appreciation of the beauty of the written word in my children. MCT has moved us steadily along in fulfilling that goal. I think I will look at this placement test as a hiccup in our plan and move on from there.

 

I think it makes more sense for us as a family to iron out some of the issues that kept me from giving the curriculum my focus than it does to go through the process of learning a new curriculum. This doesn't even take into consideration the resistance I would meet in removing MCT from the lesson plan.:tongue_smilie:

and this:

I agree, but I do think that part of the beauty of MCT is that we don't have to do 300 workbook pages if we don't need to. I can add in a supplementary page here or there if necessary. Eight, that is where I fell down this year. I have been doing this on auto pilot instead of being actively engaged. I completely forgot that we did go over verb tenses in the 4th week. Not only that, we did cover the three degrees of adjectives. That was an information dense week and the boy obviously needed way more hands on practice. Not the fault of the curriculum. I can't believe I didn't remember covering it. How could I expect him too.:tongue_smilie: This is why we are making a few changes around here.

 

and I feel MUCH, MUCH better now! Thanks to all for adding to this most interesting discussion.

Edited January 16, 2011 by PenKase

[radiobrain]

I am still enjoying MCT, and I am finding that my dc are thriving with it. But I have a question here, and it's really, truly non-snarky. Isn't the point of all our grammar study to make us better writers, not to make us superlative grammarians? I don't mean at all that we should not learn grammar, and learn it thoroughly, but rather that we should keep in mind what we are aiming for. I can say honestly that I never had anything approaching the level of formal grammar instruction that is provided by MCTLA, but that my grammar USAGE in both speech and writing is extremely good. I would rather that my dc be able to appropriately USE grammar, even if they can't say why, than that they are simply extremely proficient grammarians. The thing which really struck me about MCTLA is that he really cares about beauty in expression. I have not seen this emphasized to the same degree in any other program, and it's for that emphasis that I plan to stick with MCT. :001_smile:

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

Not only do I obviously agree with this, I also think that tests are not something to get all bent out of shape about. So many factors go into doing well or poorly. Often they are worded in an extremely confusing way, and only teaching how test writers phrase certain questions will help. When I do tests, I spend a certain amount of time beforehand explaining that the actual correct answer might not even be on the test, you need to figure out what THEY think is the right answer, given the choices.

 

Look at the places where there seem to be gaps, and see if they actually are gaps, or if it is test confusion.

 

The pluses in MCT far outweigh any "gap" that can be filled in my opinion. :D

Edited January 16, 2011 by radiobrain

[Kuovonne]

For our family, studying grammar is 2 fold. First, it allows for intelligent conversation during revising and editing.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

Before we started grammar, Sparkle didn't recognize that she was making mistakes and wouldn't understand my corrections. Now, she still makes mistakes, but at least when I explain them to her, she understands and can correct them.

[Crimson Wife]

Look at the places where there seem to be gaps, and see if they actually are gaps, or if it is test confusion.

 

 

And where there are gaps, see if it's something that is important vs. nit-picky. For example, how much does it *REALLY* matter that the child knows to italicize the name of a painting and put the name of a short story in quotes as opposed to vice versa? :tongue_smilie:

[8filltheheart]

And where there are gaps, see if it's something that is important vs. nit-picky. For example, how much does it *REALLY* matter that the child knows to italicize the name of a painting and put the name of a short story in quotes as opposed to vice versa? :tongue_smilie:

 

Actually, it is very important. The question is whether they need to have it memorized or not. I do not believe it ranks being memorized. But, students absolutely do need to know that it is essential to look up the correct MLA format and use that format in their writing.

 

What may seem nit-picky to us, can cost an entire letter grade if a teacher is serious about format. :tongue_smilie:

[JulieD]

Thanks for all your help with my questions. And thank you, Lisa, for sharing your journey with us. I really want MCT to work for us, and I've learned a lot from your comments.

 

Julie D.

[Corraleno]

I can say honestly that I never had anything approaching the level of formal grammar instruction that is provided by MCTLA, but that my grammar USAGE in both speech and writing is extremely good. I would rather that my dc be able to appropriately USE grammar, even if they can't say why, than that they are simply extremely proficient grammarians.

:iagree:

I had no formal grammar instruction beyond middle school, and yet I spent six years as head of the publications department for a large nonprofit, where I edited numerous books and monographs and wrote press releases, mission statements, newsletter articles, technical articles, and many other things. I've also published a book on pre-Columbian art and two other scholarly papers. Somehow, despite not knowing how to diagram a sentence, I could still write well enough to make a living as a writer and editor.

 

I want my kids to be able to write in a way that's clear, persuasive, well organized, and grammatically correct, but most of all I want them to enjoy language. I want writing to be a fluid and natural process, not something stiff and mechanical. If my kids can use an appositive phrase, correctly placed and punctuated, then to be honest I'm not that bothered about whether they remember the label.

 

Jackie

[8filltheheart]

:iagree:

I had no formal grammar instruction beyond middle school, and yet I spent six years as head of the publications department for a large nonprofit, where I edited numerous books and monographs and wrote press releases, mission statements, newsletter articles, technical articles, and many other things. I've also published a book on pre-Columbian art and two other scholarly papers. Somehow, despite not knowing how to diagram a sentence, I could still write well enough to make a living as a writer and editor.

 

I want my kids to be able to write in a way that's clear, persuasive, well organized, and grammatically correct, but most of all I want them to enjoy language. I want writing to be a fluid and natural process, not something stiff and mechanical. If my kids can use an appositive phrase, correctly placed and punctuated, then to be honest I'm not that bothered about whether they remember the label.

 

Jackie

 

Jackie,

 

May I ask a question that I hope you will take as being sincere and not at all snarky? B/c I am genuinely trying to understand.

 

What is the distinction between

 

understanding why we punctuate and use specific wording and terminology vs. being able to use them correctly intuitively

 

and

 

understanding all the whys behind what we do in math and the correct terminology vs. being fully competent in performing math w/o the analytical background?

[wapiti]

Jackie,

 

May I ask a question that I hope you will take as being sincere and not at all snarky? B/c I am genuinely trying to understand.

 

What is the distinction between

 

understanding why we punctuate and use specific wording and terminology vs. being able to use them correctly intuitively

 

and

 

understanding all the whys behind what we do in math and the correct terminology vs. being fully competent in performing math w/o the analytical background?

 

I'm not Jackie, but here's my two cents. I think there are some similarities between math and grammar, but they are not completely analogous. Language usage changes over time, while math does not. Also, there is a big difference between knowing the name of a term and having a deeper understanding of what it means. I can understand a lot of things without knowing the names for them, in either math or grammar. For example, until this year, never in my life had I heard of: appositive phrases, subtrahends and minuends. That doesn't mean I can't write or subtract.

 

I guess that while there are some similarities, using high level language is a lot more intuitive than using high level math. Usage and exposure to high level language can occur daily. Exposure comes from reading, while exposure to high level math typically only comes from specific instruction in a math course. I learned diagramming briefly in eighth grade, and took high school Latin (loosely - I didn't study much :D though I vaguely recall hearing the term gerund). I suppose I would have found such a course boring in school. Working provides much more purpose and motivation. I regularly wrote federal appellate briefs without having had a Calculus-level grammar course - I'm sure I learned the "whys" as I went along, while working, without learning the specific names of the terms.

 

Thinking out loud, teaching certain levels of grammar and punctuation would only make sense as the student was ready to write at such a level. They go hand in hand. Without context and motivation, it's hard to teach such rules.

 

Also, FWIW, although it's been almost a decade since I stopped writing briefs, the "rules" of punctuation aren't necessarily as hard and fast as some grammar programs would make them seem. My former boss was a former editor, and my primary mentor when it came to writing. We did not punctuate according to some rules I've seen lately, though I can't think of a specific example right now.

 

It's odd, I always hated writing until I learned how to organize my thoughts because I hadn't been taught, which didn't happen until I was much older. Once I learned to approach lengthy writing as a mathematical proof, it was so much easier. :tongue_smilie:

Edited January 16, 2011 by wapiti

[Guest]

Jackie,

 

May I ask a question that I hope you will take as being sincere and not at all snarky? B/c I am genuinely trying to understand.

 

What is the distinction between

 

understanding why we punctuate and use specific wording and terminology vs. being able to use them correctly intuitively

 

and

 

understanding all the whys behind what we do in math and the correct terminology vs. being fully competent in performing math w/o the analytical background?

 

I'm not Jackie either. However, like Jackie, I had no formal grammar instruction or diagramming experience; I have also managed to write a dissertation, publish both academic and scholarly articles, and am working on a book.

 

What is the issue for me is perhaps slightly different: is using a formal grammar program the only, or even the best, way to learn how to write well, discuss writing in technical terms, and use correct grammar automatically?

 

I suspect there are enormous differences among kids, which perhaps explains why some studies show that formal grammar study does not impact student writing, while others seem to show the opposite. For me, learning the mechanics of correct grammar came easily from extensive reading. Learning how to discuss grammar and syntax came later, primarily from revising sessions with a professor who was very gifted as an editor. That's a rare skill, one I've come to appreciate greatly as my writing has or has not been subject to editorial work.

 

The undergrads I've taught come from varied backgrounds regarding grammar instruction or lack thereof. But most need one-on-one discussions regarding their own writing -- essays written for a grade, which means the students are automatically invested in the outcome -- for whatever background they have to be transferred over into their writing. In my experience, they don't necessarily need a lot of formal grammar vocabulary or previous direct instruction in grammar; but then, I'm working with a specific population of kids in the University of California system. So I'd hesitate to make a sweeping claim about how "all kids" should ideally learn. Certainly the ones I came most into contact with, my own experience, and my daughter's, all demonstrate that it's possible to achieve the goal without extensive grammar training -- and I should add that in my mind the goal includes correct, clear and thoughtful writing as well as an ability to evaluate language in other written sources. Grammar is one part of this package.

 

As far as explicit grammar programs go, I agree with the poster who says that the love of language and its beauties clearly apparent in the program are one of its strong points.

 

I'm interested in the similarities with vocabulary instruction too. I went through a standard vocabulary instruction program at some point in high school. Dd, whose vocabulary is far, far more sophisticated and extensive than mine was at her age (14), has shown me again and again that she picks up vocabulary primarily (and very efficiently) through her reading. She USES the words she reads, in a way I never did in everyday conversation. Turning words into something to be "learned" would be counterproductive for her. Looking back, I think the same was true for me.

 

Spelling is another story! In that area dd has needed long explicit direct instruction.

[8filltheheart]

I'm not Jackie, but here's my two cents. I think there are some similarities between math and grammar, but they are not completely analogous. Language usage changes over time, while math does not. Also, there is a big difference between knowing the name of a term and having a deeper understanding of what it means. I can understand a lot of things without knowing the names for them, in either math or grammar. For example, until this year, never in my life had I heard of: appositive phrases, subtrahends and minuends. That doesn't mean I can't write or subtract.

 

It isn't that I disagree with you, but let me attempt to explain my view.

 

First, I'm not sure that I agree that language usage changes over time as a valid reason. Yes, language is not stagnant, but grammar hasn't changed in my life time, so I'm not convinced it will change in any significant ways in the near future. You can pick up a grammar book from the beginning of last century and the actual grammar instruction would resemble that of today. Documenting and format do change, but that is not grammar. Mechanics do change, but that is discussed in the terms of grammar.

 

I agree that you don't need to know the terms minuend and subtrahend to do subtraction, but those terms are the language of math. Math is more than simply completing operations. Learning the language of math is not complicated; it is actually nothing more than learning terminology. Every field of study has its own terminology. I wouldn't expect my children to study a science and neglect to understand the language its field.

 

 

I guess that while there are some similarities, using high level language is a lot more intuitive than using high level math. Usage and exposure to high level language can occur daily. Exposure comes from reading, while exposure to high level math typically only comes from specific instruction in a math course. I learned diagramming briefly in eighth grade, and took high school Latin (loosely - I didn't study much :D though I vaguely recall hearing the term gerund). I suppose I would have found such a course boring in school. Working provides much more purpose and motivation. I regularly wrote federal appellate briefs without having had a Calculus-level grammar course - I'm sure I learned the "whys" as I went along, while working, without learning the specific names of the terms.

 

There are a lot of people that repeatedly post that they have been able to complete high levels of math w/o ever fully understanding what they were doing. They can implement math w/o understanding why. Goodness, the math wars on the forum exist b/c programs like Saxon teach how very thoroughly w/o necessarily teaching the why.

 

I guess that is the perspective I am trying to understand. Why is not learning the terminology of our language and the whys behind why an appositive works in the sentence not as valid an area of study as learning the terminology of math or chemistry or poetry?

 

Thinking out loud, teaching certain levels of grammar and punctuation would only make sense as the student was ready to write at such a level. They go hand in hand. Without context and motivation, it's hard to teach such rules.

 

I fully agree with that comment. I also think studying grammar in isolation makes no sense. Grammar only makes sense when studied within the context of writing.

 

 

 

I don't want people to feel like that need to defend their views! That is not my intent.

(I just wanted to add that I don't view learning grammar and terminology as all that difficult or time consuming.)

Edited January 16, 2011 by 8FillTheHeart

[Caitilin]

Jackie,

 

May I ask a question that I hope you will take as being sincere and not at all snarky? B/c I am genuinely trying to understand.

 

What is the distinction between

 

understanding why we punctuate and use specific wording and terminology vs. being able to use them correctly intuitively

 

and

 

understanding all the whys behind what we do in math and the correct terminology vs. being fully competent in performing math w/o the analytical background?

 

I am not Jackie either, but my response is that while grammar can be approached scientifically, writing well is an art. You cannot simply follow some magic formula for writing and therefore produce beautiful prose (or poetry!). Mathematics is artful, in some sense, but not in the way that expression through language is, and I would hesitate to call mathematics "art."

 

I have loved understanding the grammar that I have been able to use with great facility my whole life, but it hasn't made me a better user of grammar. MCT has, however, made me aware of linguistic patterns and choices I would not have readily noticed previously; I am a better reader and, consequently, writer for having used this curriculum. However, I don't attribute the improvement to the grammar portion, at least not in isolation, but rather to the view which the program promotes and instills.

 

And in addition to all that, I am fairly convinced that seeing how grammar works in another language makes understanding your own grammar both more apparent and more valuable. I have learned more grammar from studying Latin than from anything else. :D

[Guest]

Mathematics is artful, in some sense, but not in the way that expression through language is, and I would hesitate to call mathematics "art."

 

This is just an aside: From reading biographies of mathematicians I know that many of them find particular equations aesthetically pleasing and beautiful, and I would suspect that they would claim an element of art in higher mathematics. As a humanities person myself, I can see that they think this way but I sure don't understand it!

 

But -- back to your comment on language expression -- I think several of us are referring to a larger understanding and appreciation of stylistics, which goes beyond mechanics, syntax, and diagramming. This is what MCT seems to do very well.

[wapiti]

I guess that is the perspective I am trying to understand. Why is not learning the terminology of our language and the whys behind why an appositive works in the sentence not as valid an area of study as learning the terminology of math or chemistry or poetry?

 

Quote:

Thinking out loud, teaching certain levels of grammar and punctuation would only make sense as the student was ready to write at such a level. They go hand in hand. Without context and motivation, it's hard to teach such rules.

I fully agree with that comment. I also think studying grammar in isolation makes no sense. Grammar only makes sense when studied within the context of writing.

 

 

I don't want people to feel like that need to defend their views! That is not my intent.

(I just wanted to add that I don't view learning grammar and terminology as all that difficult or time consuming.)

 

I think I agree with you to a large extent. It shouldn't be that big of a deal to learn what appositive means, for example. Although I never did, and it didn't seem to hinder me to not know a term in order to practice a concept, knowing the term, and having a more in-depth understanding of the concept, certainly could help a person become a better writer. Terms help categorize information. I think the problem lies in the second part of our discussion, that teaching such terms and rules within the context of writing is the only way that would make sense to me. The problem is that such instruction does not seem to be occurring in schools or curricula generally. Many of us didn't learn grammar in high school, or even writing for that matter. And, when they are taught, they tend to be taught separately. Moreover, writing is a skill that is constantly developing/evolving, both for children and adults, so it would take some doing to coordinate grammar and writing skill very closely. HS-ing might be an ideal environment in that regard, because it has the potential to be the ultimate custom education.

 

Thanks for this discussion; I've been having a hard time figuring out what my language arts goals are for dd9 and then how to go about achieving them. Part of me is incredibly afraid and insecure - dd has been known to struggle with (i.e., complain about!) any writing that is not of the creative variety. But, she's a fairly good writer in spite of that. Putting grammar instruction in the context of her writing puts an entirely new perspective on my plans!! What I feel like I need now is a list of grammatical concepts, corresponding to age or level, perhaps including a wee bit of instruction for dd. The rest I can perhaps coordinate for myself, though I'm feeling so lazy :tongue_smilie:. It would be so nice if a single curriculum coordinated the two closely. Does anyone know if there is such a thing? (Part of my problem is that I have a desire to teach everything to dd all at once, right now today, and she doesn't exactly share that enthusiasm ;)). Plus, in order to really learn how to write well, it helps if one has something they want to say (maybe that was a big reason I always hated writing in school?). Why is it that I'm never done shopping for curricula...

[Corraleno]

Jackie,

May I ask a question that I hope you will take as being sincere and not at all snarky? B/c I am genuinely trying to understand.

What is the distinction between

understanding why we punctuate and use specific wording and terminology vs. being able to use them correctly intuitively

and

understanding all the whys behind what we do in math and the correct terminology vs. being fully competent in performing math w/o the analytical background?

I think the analogy between math and language works in the sense that it is possible to correctly use and understand something like the commutative or associative property without remembering the name of it. Beyond that, though, I think the analogy breaks down, because the "rules" of mathematics are clearly defined and unambiguous. The "rules" of language are far messier and more subjective. A verb is a verb except when it's a verb-acting-as-a-noun or a verb-acting-as-an-adjective, etc., so we invent all these different labels for every possible situation a word, or group of words, might find itself in — and yet there is often genuine disagreement about which category applies to a specific word or phrase in a specific sentence. I stopped reading the MCT yahoo group because the endless discussions of whether word A was really an X or a Y, or simply an X functioning as a Y because it modifies Z, made me want to poke my eyes out! I realize that some people relish those sorts of discussions, but I'm not one of them — to me, it's like listening to a debate about whether a paint color should be called "orangey-red" or "reddish-orange" when all that really matters is does it have the desired effect in the painting.

 

Jackie

[Guest Cheryl in SoCal]

I think the analogy between math and language works in the sense that it is possible to correctly use and understand something like the commutative or associative property without remembering the name of it. Beyond that, though, I think the analogy breaks down, because the "rules" of mathematics are clearly defined and unambiguous. The "rules" of language are far messier and more subjective. A verb is a verb except when it's a verb-acting-as-a-noun or a verb-acting-as-an-adjective, etc., so we invent all these different labels for every possible situation a word, or group of words, might find itself in — and yet there is often genuine disagreement about which category applies to a specific word or phrase in a specific sentence. I stopped reading the MCT yahoo group because the endless discussions of whether word A was really an X or a Y, or simply an X functioning as a Y because it modifies Z, made me want to poke my eyes out! I realize that some people relish those sorts of discussions, but I'm not one of them — to me, it's like listening to a debate about whether a paint color should be called "orangey-red" or "reddish-orange" when all that really matters is does it have the desired effect in the painting.

 

Jackie

:lol::lol::lol:

[Capt_Uhura]

I'm currently reading The War Against Grammar perhaps I'll have something thoughtful to add after reading it! It is certainly interesting to read correlations in writing going down hill when NCTE decided in the early 70s to stop teaching grammar b/c it actually made student's writing worse and it took up valuable time from other things. The author also begins by citing how many times he has tried to teach college freshman, even ones who felt they wanted to learn grammar, and how it was just simply impossible. He likens it to the ease at which young kids pick up a foreign language. He feels the optimal time to teach grammar is grades 4-10.

[Guest]

I'm currently reading The War Against Grammar perhaps I'll have something thoughtful to add after reading it! It is certainly interesting to read correlations in writing going down hill when NCTE decided in the early 70s to stop teaching grammar b/c it actually made student's writing worse and it took up valuable time from other things. The author also begins by citing how many times he has tried to teach college freshman, even ones who felt they wanted to learn grammar, and how it was just simply impossible. He likens it to the ease at which young kids pick up a foreign language. He feels the optimal time to teach grammar is grades 4-10.

 

I didn't learn any grammar whatever until I started taking Spanish in middle school. I certainly had no English grammar training. Yet I found it easy when it came up in grad school.

 

Perhaps the kinds of people who find certain aspects of language, like grammar, intuitive didn't cross paths with the author; but you'd think in years of dealing with incoming freshmen he would have come across SOME who could learn grammar as young adults. That kind of blanket statement -- that people can or can't learn a certain thing after a particular age -- seems subject to so much qualification. I'm thinking not only of the experiences of myself and dd, but also of the writings of those who have worked with illiterate and basically uneducated adults in other countries, and of people who go into the prison system to work with similarly badly educated adults, and find many of them well able to learn all kinds of subjects about which it has previously been claimed that adults "can't" pick them up after a certain age. The sweeping statements on both extremes (that all people have to study grammar at a young age; or that no one ever needs to study it because they'll pick it up naturally) make me wary.

 

Maybe it depends on how The War on Grammar defines what constitutes having learned grammar: what is the outcome he is looking for? How he would answer this probably has a lot to do with his claims that freshmen "simply can't" learn grammar.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Guest

[Capt_Uhura]

From the WAr Against Grammar:

 

This is a hard truth that I have learned from experience. On three separate occasions, I have devoted entire semesters to trying to teaach the parts of speech, sentence diagramming, and the conjugation of English verbs to groups of college freshman, for whom my course was a freely chosen elective. In other words, at some point, these students wanted to study grammar. At the end, the only students who had any facility in identifying the parts of speech were the few who entered the course already understanding them fairly well. The others displayed an inability to master the subject that had all the appearances of a hostile determination not to.

 

he goes on to distinguish between the age old habit of older teachers complaining about the ignorance of modern students and the opposite where the new low becomes average citing the ex of the renorming of the SAT.

 

 

I'm not saying I'm agreeing with him, just reporting what he said in light of the discussion. I was talking to a teacher of high school seniors. He was saying how impossible it was to teach them grammar after never having it and how he couldn't get them to understand that a word like "computer" for instance, could be a noun in one sentence and an adjective in another. He teaches diagramming as well. He always, always has students come back and say that his class saved them in college in being able to write well.

[Corraleno]

I'm currently reading The War Against Grammar perhaps I'll have something thoughtful to add after reading it! It is certainly interesting to read correlations in writing going down hill when NCTE decided in the early 70s to stop teaching grammar b/c it actually made student's writing worse and it took up valuable time from other things. The author also begins by citing how many times he has tried to teach college freshman, even ones who felt they wanted to learn grammar, and how it was just simply impossible. He likens it to the ease at which young kids pick up a foreign language. He feels the optimal time to teach grammar is grades 4-10.

But correlation is not causation. I'd like to know what other "educational reforms" were going on at the same time, which may have contributed to the decline in writing. There has been considerable research supporting the idea that the teaching of traditional grammar does not, in fact, improve writing skills. For example, a large study conducted in the UK in 2004 concluded:

In terms of practice, the main implication of our findings is that there is no high quality evidence that the teaching of grammar, whether traditional or generative/transformational, is worth the time if the aim is the improvement of the quality and/or accuracy of written composition. This is not to say that the teaching of such grammar might not be of value in itself, or that it might lead to enhanced knowledge and awareness of how language works, and of systems of language use. But the clear implication, based on the available high quality research evidence, is that the evidence base to justify the teaching of grammar in English to 5 to 16 year-olds in order to improve writing is very small.

 

Other research cited in the above study:

In this work, the value of the traditional English grammar lesson in helping children to write correctly was tested. The grammar lesson was found to be certainly not superior, and in most instances was inferior, to direct practice in writing skills. (Harris 1962)

Hillocks (1984, 1986)...analysed the experimental research between 1960 and 1982 on all interventions to improve written composition through a series of meta-analyses. Two of these were meta-analyses of trials of the effect of teaching grammar and sentence-combining. Hillocks concluded that grammar instruction led to a statistically significant decline in student writing ability and that this was the only instructional method of those examined not to produce gains in writing ability... Hillocks concluded that his research showed ‘sentence-combining, on the average, to be more than twice as effective as free writing as a means of enhancing the quality of student writing’ (op. cit., p 161).

 

Jackie

[Crimson Wife]

But correlation is not causation. I'd like to know what other "educational reforms" were going on at the same time, which may have contributed to the decline in writing.

 

And also what factors outside of school might have contributed to the decline in writing skills in the 1970's. For example, an increase in television watching and a decline in pleasure reading. The hours spent watching television increased by 30% from 1960-1970.

[Capt_Uhura]

It is certainly guaranteed that if there has been a decline in writing, that it is multi-facted. I'm only in the very beginning of the book, I'll report back when I'm finished. :001_smile: It's safe to say he is an advocate of teaching grammar. "Both erudite and entertaining, The War AGainst Grammar disagrees with the establishment view that the teaching of traditional grammar is a waste of classroom time. According to Mulroy, both history and commonsense make clear that students benefit from diagramming and learning their parts of speech."

 

My boys certainly enjoy studying grammar and it has definitely helped them to be able to punctuate properly. It also gives us a common, concise language to discuss editing. "Are you missing any commas?" "Uh, oh yeah, that's an appositive phrase and it needs to be set off with commas." For the moment, I'll err on the side of caution and keep studying grammar and diagramming those darn sentences. I see them as a puzzle.

 

Also, I wonder if it the old data has something to do w/ how grammar was taught? I think my boys awareness of beautiful language, of wonderful sentences, that has been brought out by MCT can only enhance their writing. AT the very least it would have no effect but certainly not make their writing worse!

[Capt_Uhura]

I don't understand this quote:

 

"In this work, the value of the traditional English grammar lesson in helping children to write correctly was tested. The grammar lesson was found to be certainly not superior, and in most instances was inferior, to direct practice in writing skills. (Harris 1962)"

 

No one would think grammar instruction would be superior to direct practice in writing skills! In order to learn to write, you have to write. I would think grammar instruction is inferior to direct practice in writing skills if the students aren't actually expected to write. There must be more that quote that I'm not getting.

[swimmermom3]

I've been turning over in my mind some of the comments, especially those by 8filltheheart, Corraleno, and KarenAnne. I read Eight's comments on grammar to be an advocacy for structure for the sake of form, not structure for the sake of rigidity. Growing up, I lived in home that operated on rigid order and I believe a lot of opportunity for joy was lost. My response to that upbringing was to go the opposite way and spend my undergraduate years operating in chaos. This time it was the opportunity for opportunities that was lost. When I finally decided to add some maturity into the mix, I discovered the age-old concept that a certain level of structure allows me more "flow" and beauty in my life, not less.

 

I propose that grammar works in a similar fashion. When we know the grammar rules ( and yes, that does include the proper terminology in the long run), we are able to write with greater effectiveness, clarity, and beauty (if that is one of our goals).

 

KarenAnne and Jackie, I don't know where exactly the intuitive grammarian fits in the scheme of things. I know you aren't proposing that one throws out the grammar rules in order to pursue freedom of expression. You just don't want grammar instruction to be so nit-picky that it kills off all joy in writing, right? Which again, I doubt that's Eight is advocating, but she'll correct me if I am wrong.;)

 

What I find interesting is that my dd, who is a flow, beauty, and "Where did I misplace the rules?" kind of girl, would probably agree with Eight's comments. She is a product of the school system that tells its students that "grammar is not nearly as important as comprehension." When she came home and I told her that she would be studying grammar, you could hear the impact of that eye roll. Fours months later, her thinking has shifted; she feels short-changed. "How can the way words are put together not matter?" I assure you that my kids are not as engaged with their school work as it sounds, but we do like words here. Dd is doing MCT on her own and feels it pulls together what for her were previously disparate pieces of information. (Cautionary note: how I use MCT with the 12 yo is different than how I use it with the 18yo.)

 

KarenAnne and Jackie, I was wondering if some of your concerns aren't really related to when we teach students certain aspects of grammar. This ties into Wapati's post:

 

Thinking out loud, teaching certain levels of grammar and punctuation would only make sense as the student was ready to write at such a level. They go hand in hand. Without context and motivation, it's hard to teach such rules.

 

 

 

In contrast to public school practices regarding grammar, with homeschoolers I have observed a general trend to get heavily into grammatical terminology at very young ages. I see grammar work being discussed for 3-4th graders that we did in high school. Contrary to what my writing shows, my high school did a good enough job to help me earn a 5 on the AP test.

 

Since we have been taking grammatical side-trips: What drives this trend ? Is it an effective one? Or do we risk stifling a love of language?

 

Oh honestly! You are all good sports. How can a person spend so much time obsessing about teaching kids grammar?:tongue_smilie:

[Capt_Uhura]

ANyhow, I don't want to derail this thread with my diatribes. It's been a long day and my mind is just bouncing around like a rubber ball....please return to your regularly scheduled program. :001_smile:

 

I don't recall being taught much grammar. I would say I'm an intuitive grammarian and speller. Yet, MCT has certainly enhanced my ability to REALLY enjoy writing (well not writing, but enjoy reading good writing). I'm much more aware of language, how poets and authors impart feeling and sound to their poems and writing by using certain words, syllables, sentence structure.

 

I was listening to SWB's middle school MP3 where she talks about diagramming. She diagrams one of the first sentences in the hobbit, illustrating how heavy it is at the beginning with the subject being placed at the end. She then diagrammed it the other way around w/ the subject at the beginning and the sentence became very flat. I think that visual really helped me to hear the difference. With the subject at the end, that is where the emphasis lies..... "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit."

Edited January 17, 2011 by Capt_Uhura

[Corraleno]

And also what factors outside of school might have contributed to the decline in writing skills in the 1970's. For example, an increase in television watching and a decline in pleasure reading. The hours spent watching television increased by 30% from 1960-1970.

Good point! And now we can add computers and video games to the list of activities that have replaced reading, and texting/tweeting/emailing to the activities that have replaced writing. Most of the "literature" students read in HS these days is in the form of excerpts rather than whole works (and much of it isn't very challenging anyway), and the tests are multiple choice instead of essays. If they write at all it's likely to be some kind of "journaling," where mechanics are secondary to emotional response. I think the lack of actual reading and writing are probably bigger culprits in the decline of writing skills than the lack of formal grammar instruction.

 

Jackie

[Capt_Uhura]

The author of the book is not a grammarian. "He is a classicist devoted to teaching and translating of Greek and Latin texts; his latest book is a translation of the poems of catullus along with a commentary, and before we typecast him as a stuffy out-of-touch academic, it is worth noting that the U. of Wis Press, which published his "The Complete Poetry of Catullus," notes that Mulroy "has performed his translations of Catullus' poems at poetry slams in Milwaukee bars to enthusiastic response."" :lol:

[8filltheheart]

I've been turning over in my mind some of the comments, especially those by 8filltheheart, Corraleno, and KarenAnne. I read Eight's comments on grammar to be an advocacy for structure for the sake of form, not structure for the sake of rigidity. Growing up, I lived in home that operated on rigid order and I believe a lot of opportunity for joy was lost. My response to that upbringing was to go the opposite way and spend my undergraduate years operating in chaos. This time it was the opportunity for opportunities that was lost. When I finally decided to add some maturity into the mix, I discovered the age-old concept that a certain level of structure allows me more "flow" and beauty in my life, not less.

 

I propose that grammar works in a similar fashion. When we know the grammar rules ( and yes, that does include the proper terminology in the long run), we are able to write with greater effectiveness, clarity, and beauty (if that is one of our goals).

 

KarenAnne and Jackie, I don't know where exactly the intuitive grammarian fits in the scheme of things. I know you aren't proposing that one throws out the grammar rules in order to pursue freedom of expression. You just don't want grammar instruction to be so nit-picky that it kills off all joy in writing, right? Which again, I doubt that's Eight is advocating, but she'll correct me if I am wrong.;)

 

What I find interesting is that my dd, who is a flow, beauty, and "Where did I misplace the rules?" kind of girl, would probably agree with Eight's comments. She is a product of the school system that tells its students that "grammar is not nearly as important as comprehension." When she came home and I told her that she would be studying grammar, you could hear the impact of that eye roll. Fours months later, her thinking has shifted; she feels short-changed. "How can the way words are put together not matter?" I assure you that my kids are not as engaged with their school work as it sounds, but we do like words here. Dd is doing MCT on her own and feels it pulls together what for her were previously disparate pieces of information. (Cautionary note: how I use MCT with the 12 yo is different than how I use it with the 18yo.)

 

 

 

Lisa, that is a beautiful testament! And, yes, that is what I was trying to convey. I don't think knowing how grammar works leads to stifling creativity but actually gives them the confidence to explore and to manipulate sentences and word arrangements.

 

To anyone that is doubting MCT based on this thread, I would like to assure you that overall it is the best language arts series for writing and vocabulary that I have seen. (of course I should qualify that comment by stating that I am only familiar with Voyage level and AAW) I do believe the grammar portion is its weakness, but I do not believe its deficit negates the value of the program. I fully agree with all the positive assertions about writing skills.

 

For me, it was easy to dump the grammar portion b/c grammar happens to be a strength for my dd. We have just continued the path we have been using for the last several yrs. I would say an easy remedy to MCT's weakness in grammar is to simply have a grammar handbook available for extra explanations and reinforcement.

Edited January 17, 2011 by 8FillTheHeart

[JulieD]

I propose that grammar works in a similar fashion. When we know the grammar rules ( and yes, that does include the proper terminology in the long run), we are able to write with greater effectiveness, clarity, and beauty (if that is one of our goals).

 

:iagree:

 

 

Since we have been taking grammatical side-trips: What drives this trend ? Is it an effective one? Or do we risk stifling a love of language?

 

Oh honestly! You are all good sports. How can a person spend so much time obsessing about teaching kids grammar?:tongue_smilie:

 

I don't know why grammar is being started at younger ages. But I do know that small children write complex sentences with all the grammar trimmings. Whether they are ready to analyze them is another story. But that's probably why there aren't grammar programs tied to writing ability.

 

I know I am more confident about teaching grammar than I am about teaching writing. Looking at this thread, you can tell that doesn't say much.:D But maybe homeschoolers feel like they are accomplishing at least something towards writing by studying grammar.

 

I like the balance MCT offers. Grammar is helpful, but it isn't the whole point of writing. I do think concentrating on grammar alone could stifle love of language. Perhaps it's like memorizing arithmetic facts. There's no point in knowing 4*7 just to know it. But if you are trying to figure out how many square yards of carpeting you need for your living room, it's indispensable.

 

Julie D.

[Capt_Uhura]

I must admit to skepticism when I read things like this....much the way I feel when I read stats about how many kids are fluent readers, proficient in math that graduate from high school....that surely it must be hyperbole.

 

"Grammatical terms are part of all intelligible speech and writing. Ignorance of the part of speech of am is particularly telling. The verb be in its various forms is of fundamental importance in understanding English grammar. For example, the rule for making passive voice is ....But this rule means nothing to students who do not know that am, is, are, was, were, and been are forms of be. When I began teaching, I never imagined that I would ever encounter a college student who did not understand such an elementary fact. It was a watershed even in my career when I realized that few of my students knew what I meant by "the verb to be." They thought I was referring to a word that was destined to become a verb."

 

Really? College students do not know that? I find that very difficult to believe.

 

 

I do recall many, many, many ah ha moments when learning Spanish in high school that English grammar made so much more sense to me. I do think learning Spanish and it's grammar, helped me be a better writer.

 

My Aunt remarked how frustrating it is to help her DD edit her writing b/c this 6th grader can't tell you what an adjective is, what an adverb is, or what a clause is. If you don't understand what a clause is, how can you understand sentence fragments? Or if you don't have a common language, defined terms, it certain hampers communication.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Capt_Uhura

[Capt_Uhura]

Lisa, that is a beautiful testament! And, yes, that is what I was trying to convey. I don't think knowing how grammar works leads to stifling creativity but actually gives them the confidence to explore and to manipulate sentences and word arrangements.

 

:iagree:

 

It reminded me of the old saying....you must know the rules in order to know when and how to break them.

[swimmermom3]

ANyhow, I don't want to derail this thread with my diatribes. It's been a long day and my mind is just bouncing around like a rubber ball....please return to your regularly scheduled program. :001_smile:

 

I don't recall being taught much grammar. I would say I'm an intuitive grammarian and speller. Yet, MCT has certainly enhanced my ability to REALLY enjoy writing (well not writing, but enjoy reading good writing). I'm much more aware of language, how poets and authors impart feeling and sound to their poems and writing by using certain words, syllables, sentence structure.

 

I was listening to SWB's middle school MP3 where she talks about diagramming. She diagrams one of the first sentences in the hobbit, illustrating how heavy it is at the beginning with the subject being placed at the end. She then diagrammed it the other way around w/ the subject at the beginning and the sentence became very flat. I think that visual really helped me to hear the difference. With the subject at the end, that is where the emphasis lies..... "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit."

 

 

Yes! MCT is a good companion when you begin to delve into Shakespeare, Saxon riddles, Chaucer, and more advanced poetry. It helps kids and adults see and appreciate language more clearly. It's funny that you included The Hobbit example from SWB's lecture. I was listening to that in the car and it caught my kids' attention. They were briefly amused with how switching the parts of a sentence around could create a completely different feel to the sentence. Then, I'm afraid, the boys returned to their usual chatter and bodily function noises.:tongue_smilie:

 

ETA: My oldest son did contribute that in two of his Rosemary Sutcliff books, the author twisted around the basic "he said" in such a way that it sounded "cool." I will have to ask him if he can find it because it was another example of taking a basic phrase and giving it new elegance and appropriateness for the setting of the story.

Edited January 17, 2011 by swimmermom3

[Corraleno]

I propose that grammar works in a similar fashion. When we know the grammar rules ( and yes, that does include the proper terminology in the long run), we are able to write with greater effectiveness, clarity, and beauty (if that is one of our goals).

I agree that in order to write well, one must understand the rules. What I would take issue with is the idea that the best way to understand and apply the rules is to memorize a list of (IMO quite arbitrary) labels invented by grammarians. In many grammar programs, the focus is on learning to label words and phrases for the sake of knowing the correct way of labeling words and phrases. Now, if someone is interested in grammar for it's own sake, that's great. But, according to the studies I cited earlier, as well as my personal experience, if one's primary interest in learning grammar is to be able to write well, then a traditional grammar program may not be the most effective way of accomplishing that.

 

To give an example of another approach to grammar, which is specifically focused on improving writing, I recently read a book called Image Grammar by HR Noden. Noden shows students how using appositive phrases can add color and detail to their writing — in fact, he uses the phrase "painting with appositives." A number of examples are provided, and students in his classes learn how to use appositive phrases by actually writing sentences with appositive phrases — not by labeling or diagramming the phrases in a workbook. The entire purpose of the exercise is to teach students to write well, not to teach them to label an appositive phrase on a grammar test. Once a student learns to correctly use and punctuate the phrases, it doesn't really matter if they remember the name for it, KWIM?

 

Jackie

[Capt_Uhura]

But the students were initially given the correct terminology in order to discuss the proper use of appositives. I often wonder about my spelling instruction. Some of the rules I recall, but many I don't yet I can spell quite well. I wonder if it's b/c I learned the rules, internalized them, then forgot the formal definition of those rules?

 

I would lump something like GWG as traditional grammar. I don't think that year w/ GWG improved my son's writing at all. MCT, on the other hand, I feel did improve his writing by focusing on language. I don't know if you'd lump MCT in w/ traditional grammar or not.

[Capt_Uhura]

Correlano - you cost me so much money and Amazon thanks you.

[Corraleno]

I don't understand this quote:

 

"In this work, the value of the traditional English grammar lesson in helping children to write correctly was tested. The grammar lesson was found to be certainly not superior, and in most instances was inferior, to direct practice in writing skills. (Harris 1962)"

 

No one would think grammar instruction would be superior to direct practice in writing skills! In order to learn to write, you have to write. I would think grammar instruction is inferior to direct practice in writing skills if the students aren't actually expected to write. There must be more that quote that I'm not getting.

I believe Harris was referring to teaching traditional grammar separately from writing versus teaching it in the context of writing. IOW, he was comparing a traditional method like diagramming to a method like sentence combining (e.g. Killgallon, Whimbey) or Image Grammar (Noden).

 

Jackie

[swimmermom3]

I agree that in order to write well, one must understand the rules. What I would take issue with is the idea that the best way to understand and apply the rules is to memorize a list of (IMO quite arbitrary) labels invented by grammarians. In many grammar programs, the focus is on learning to label words and phrases for the sake of knowing the correct way of labeling words and phrases. Now, if someone is interested in grammar for it's own sake, that's great. But, according to the studies I cited earlier, as well as my personal experience, if one's primary interest in learning grammar is to be able to write well, then a traditional grammar program may not be the most effective way of accomplishing that.

 

To give an example of another approach to grammar, which is specifically focused on improving writing, I recently read a book called Image Grammar by HR Noden. Noden shows students how using appositive phrases can add color and detail to their writing — in fact, he uses the phrase "painting with appositives." A number of examples are provided, and students in his classes learn how to use appositive phrases by actually writing sentences with appositive phrases — not by labeling or diagramming the phrases in a workbook. The entire purpose of the exercise is to teach students to write well, not to teach them to label an appositive phrase on a grammar test. Once a student learns to correctly use and punctuate the phrases, it doesn't really matter if they remember the name for it, KWIM?

 

Jackie

 

Thanks for the clarification, Jackie. I am afraid my overly-chlorinated brain is operating on extra-foggy tonight. Can we talk about the memorization, because you know I value your opinion? After those unhappy test results and the responses on this thread, I have been going through the Magic Lens book and working on our new plans for the next few months. One activity that I have not yet done is play what MCT calls the "GoBack" game. There are about 50 essential grammar terms to memorize in order to play the game. The 50 terms have to do with parts of speech, parts of sentences, phrases, and clauses. To my way of thinking, these terms on the same level as memorizing multiplication facts. I don't mean this to be torture and of course I will give prizes. :D I have never been big on lots of memory work but I wonder sometimes if I will come to regret that as in will they forget to feed me and air me in the sun when I am elderly?:tongue_smilie:

I don't believe this will make them better writers, but as another poster pointed out, it gives them the language to discuss writing. Okay, it also terrifies me that my dd maintains that half of her lit class (juniors and seniors) last year didn't know what nouns or verbs were.

 

Anyway, is this the type of memorization you object to? If so, what would be a better way to solidify this information? I won't be asking for verb tenses. Swimmer Dude can't wrap his head around "past perfect."

[Crimson Wife]

In contrast to public school practices regarding grammar, with homeschoolers I have observed a general trend to get heavily into grammatical terminology at very young ages. I see grammar work being discussed for 3-4th graders that we did in high school. Contrary to what my writing shows, my high school did a good enough job to help me earn a 5 on the AP test.

 

Since we have been taking grammatical side-trips: What drives this trend ? Is it an effective one? Or do we risk stifling a love of language?

 

The grammar I'm doing with my 3rd grader is similar to what was covered in my 6th grade English class. But had I been homeschooled and able to go at my own pace rather than stuck in a classroom, I'm sure I could've learned it earlier. I spent the overwhelming majority of my time in school bored by material that was too easy. I don't want that for my kids.

 

My DD :001_wub: MCT and Killgallon. Sentence diagramming she didn't care much for, but she got through the entire workbook in about 3 weeks as opposed to the 3 tedious MONTHS I had to endure in 6th grade. :rolleyes: