MCT and grammar questions

[swimmermom3]

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.

 

Karen, I can't buy his statement. I think there are aspects of grammar study that don't achieve clarity until the student is older, maybe even an adult. We can do the worksheets, pass the quizzes, but that doesn't mean we get how language hangs together.

[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

 

Jackie, for what is possibly the first time ever, I bypassed one of your links. Your description made me think of IEW and the -ly words. Then I saw Capt. Uhura's post and I just had to go back and look. The reviews were good. If I don't feed the kids next week...:D

[swimmermom3]

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:

 

Your situation is one I understand. My questions were more for the "general population." How do we approach teaching not just an understanding of grammar rules but a love for language in the early grades?

 

I think Julie D's comment about homeschooling parents teaching grammar earlier because possible it feels as though you are doing something with regards to teaching writing is a comment worth examining.

 

I hope this makes sense as I am fading.

 

Crimson Wife, thanks for the Killgallon recommendation. I am working my way through the Sentence Composing Book for Middle School. So far, I think it would be complimentary to Paragraph Town.

[wapiti]

My DD :001_wub: MCT and Killgallon.

 

I guess this is a subject for a whole other thread, but which Killagon did your dd get through so quickly? Are you using a Killagon book now? I bought Sentence Composing for Elementary School, and I didn't really care for it, though I didn't show it to dd. Maybe I should have her try it out anyway.

 

And y'all are making me consider MCT (yet again ;)), for writing. I'd better think about it in the morning when I'm fresh. Are the teacher manuals really necessary?

 

Thanks for this lovely discussion, ladies. I knew I didn't have enough books yet :tongue_smilie:.

[ElizabethB]

And also what factors outside of school might have contributed to the decline in writing skills in the 1970's.

 

:iagree:

 

When I read "The War Against Grammar," my first thought was that it was not the lack of grammar instruction that was to blame, but the switch from well taught phonics to whole language and then whole language inspired quasi-phonics with a bunch of sight words. (Of course, that's my first thought for a lot of things--but reading really is foundational, and poor reading skills lead to many problems.)

[Capt_Uhura]

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.

 

 

You see? There it is again. I'll use my favorite word. Really? REALLY? Half the class didn't know what nouns or verbs were? Yet I presume at that level they were all good writers for their age?

[Capt_Uhura]

As I lie here, losing my battle with insomnia, I find myself reflecting on this topic. I was thinking of the math vs language comparison. I can do math now w/out using the term commutative property, distributive property, Pythagorean theorem. But it would difficult to teach w/out the proper terminology. Having just one term that represents a thing is just more efficient.

 

It reminds me of an argument I read about phonics. Fluent adults do not use phonics to read; we see whole words, so why teach kids phonics? I wonder if at some point, we become fluent readers and no longer need phonics, or it happens so quickly, we are unaware of it. Could the same be true for writing? I can write and punctuate a phrase correctly not recalling the word for appositive phrase, or not having an immediate recall of the rule I,D vs D,I clauses. Yet, if I were teaching writing or learning writing, it would be hard to learn that w/out knowing the proper terminology b/c having that terminology just makes communicating the idea easier. And at some point, students move beyond it and are fluent writers and the terminology is lost but the skill is internalized. But some things I just think you wouldn't lose such as the definition of a noun and verb. That's like forgetting your multiplication tables or learning how to ride a bike.

 

So all this to say that perhaps terminology is only required to teach/learn writing in the middle grades, and as kids move into high school and become more fluent writers, the terminology is lost. Hence adults feel, perhaps erroneously, why teach it b/c we no longer use it.

 

Kilgallon uses traditional terminology in some of the books but not others. Is it the newer books where he uses traditional terminology? I know that was hashed out in another thread at the K-8 board but I can't recall the resolution.

 

 

Elizabeth B - I had a similar thought when reading The War on Grammar - it coincided with a decline in reading.

[Capt_Uhura]

I'm not a big fan of memorization .... perhaps b/c I have a poor memory in my old age. :001_huh: For some reason, the chemical formula for glucose just popped in to my head...no kidding...maybe I'm having a stroke. :lol: I really must be having a stroke b/c the term for two compounds with the same chemical formaula that are mirror images of each other almost popped into my head....see if I had that term I could explain it better. Oh my what are they called? Darn it, it's gone.

 

I'm also not a big fan of tests. I was an excellent test taker and perfected binging and purging information...no retention or else it's buried so deep I can no longer access the information. Things I liked I retained like science. History which was a long list of boring dates and facts - binge and purge for the test.

 

Jackie wrote:

"Once a student learns to correctly use and punctuate the phrases, it doesn't really matter if they remember the name for it, KWIM?"

 

Ah yes, that was the point of my long winded monologue. When there is no longer a need for discussion about usage and mechanics, the terms are not needed. My kids certainly aren't there yet! 8-)

Edited January 17, 2011 by Capt_Uhura

[8filltheheart]

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."

 

I am not a fan of memorization out of context. One of the reasons that I really like MCT is that he discusses vocab and sentence structure w/in the context of grammar in the writing texts.

 

One advantage to AG is that nothing it taught in isolation. Once a topic is introduced, it is incorporated from then on. B/c of that, the concepts/terminology are essentially "memorized" through constant use. The disadvantage is that it is strictly grammar in the sense of identifying parts of speech and mechanics and does not cover topics such as than vs. then, etc.

 

That is how I teach my kids from 2nd grade on. I start with nouns, then action verbs, then adjs, then advs, then being verbs, then subj complements, etc. Teaching them this way, they master grammar simply and at their own pace. (I don't introduce a new topic until they master what they are learning.) My 6th grader mastered all the way through verbals this way by 5th grade.

 

When we edit writing, we can easily discuss her work in terms that readily understood by both of us b/c they are defined. It is not emotional or personal b/c we discuss in the language of the subject objectively, not subjectively.

Edited January 17, 2011 by 8FillTheHeart

[Capt_Uhura]

I am not a fan of memorization out of context. One of the reasons that I really like MCT is that he discusses vocab and sentence structure w/in the context of grammar in the writing texts.

:iagree::iagree::iagree: When we did GWG, it was a separate subject. It was relegated to it's time slot and that was it. MCT occurs throughout our curriculum...during our daily grammar time (Practice Town), during our writing time (Paragraph Town, editing DC's writing), during our literature time (discussing great sentences, paragraphs, word choice, poetic elements). It's constantly reinforced. I would say that it is "internalized" rather than "memorized." Perhaps all the studies showing grammar actually made writing worse completely compartmentalized grammar from writing? The educational establishment can never find a healthy middle ground. It always has to be polarized on one end or the other. Phonics vs whole language....grammar vs no grammar....spelling vs no spelling...literature selection vs whole works. Is it any wonder writing has gone downhill? :glare: I received a letter from a junior at our high school. She is honors English, honors History, honors Science. This letter was filled with grammatical errors and poor sentence structure. It was then the frightening thought occurred to me that I might be HSing high school.

[Dana]

"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.

 

Wish it were hyperbole.

 

I've said it before. I've taught college students who don't know how many states there are in the US. I'm not talking just one or two students. In a beginning algebra class at the cc roughly 40% of the students could not answer the following bonus question correctly for an extra point on their test. "There are ____ states in the United States."

[Capt_Uhura]

:svengo:

[Dana]

Yup. Only 1/7 of my calculus students that semester got it wrong, but she then argued with me when I returned the test.

[Guest]

 

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."

 

Dd and I do this kind of thing all the time, playing around with words and talking about what sorts of sentences sound "pretty" and rhythmic, or convoluted, etc. This has come about on dd's initiative, not mine; and we don't discuss it in terms of grammar or diagramming, although words like "subject" and "verb" are bandied about and we probably end up at the same place SWB does with the Hobbit sentence (which I adore). We might discuss some elements of grammar when we are looking at sentences, but we don't do grammar separately. Our approach is rather like MCT, but without using MCT materials -- we probably use many of the same sentences from literature that he does, even, but in the course of our reading rather than in a workbook. So although perhaps a lot of what I'm saying seems like I'm opposed to grammatical instruction, I'm actually not -- I just do it in the larger context of dd's reading and her love of language play, because that suits her interests and it works well for us.

 

Similar things happened to me in graduate school. Although I never had a grammar class in high school or grammar instruction in college, in the course of intensive studies of authorial style and language use many of these same things were covered. They were never separated out into strands, and we never diagrammed anything. But classes in poetics and close reading discussed sentence structures, variations, techniques and quirks of punctuation, word choice, etc. But again, it was done in the context of larger historical and literary issues.

 

All this is not to say that any one way is better than another. It's just to point out that there ARE multiple ways of approaching a subject and a skill, and that not all skills have to be taught incrementally or formally to all kids. If a child is an "intuitive" or naturally correct writer and of her own accord discusses the way certain sentences are arranged, is there still a need to teach all the grammatical terms, to diagram formally; or is this informal study of stylistics sufficient? If a child seizes on an unusual but appealing sentence structure she reads and then imitates it in her own writing, is there a need to explicitly teach sentence variety? I'm just saying the answer isn't clear-cut for me.

[Corraleno]

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.

IMO math facts and grammar terms are not equivalent. You can't do math without math facts; if you haven't memorized them then you need to look them up or use a calculator for even the simplest operations. OTOH, you can read, speak, and write perfectly well without memorizing 50 grammar terms.

 

I've been trying to think of a more accurate analogy, and the best one I can think of is gardening. Let's say your goal is to have a beautiful English perennial garden, so you trudge off to the garden center and come home with a truckload of plants. You ask two of your neighbors, Mr. S. Parsing and Mrs. Read'n-Write, to teach you how to garden. Mr. Parsing tells you that first you must memorize the Latin names of all the plants you bought and diagram their taxonomic relationship. Mrs. Read'n-Write laughs and says she's been gardening for 30 years without knowing the Latin names for most of the flowers she grows, and she couldn't diagram their taxonomic relationship if her life depended on it. She tells you that the best way to learn to garden is to visit lots of beautiful gardens and see what plant combinations look good, which plants grow best in shade or full sun, which plants give a garden structure and which add eye-catching accents, etc., and then play with those ideas using your own plants.

 

Now, if you happen to be the kind of person who finds plant taxonomy a fascinating subject in its own right, then Mr. Parsing's advice will appeal to you. If, OTOH, your primary goal is planting and maintaining a beautiful garden (and you find taxonomy quite tedious, to be honest), then you may decide that Mrs. Read'n-Write's methods are more appropriate for you. And while I agree that knowing at least the Latin genus, if not the species and subspecies, for some of the plants will help you discuss your garden with other gardeners, IMO it won't necessarily make you a better gardener.

 

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.

I think there is a basic level of terminology that students need to know, because it's almost impossible to talk about writing without it. For example, it would be difficult to explain subject/verb agreement, which is a common error in writing, if kids don't know what noun, verb, subject, and predicate mean. When I talk about not needing to memorize arbitrary terms and label sentence parts, I'm talking about things like this:

Her goal is to win.

Grammar text: To win is an infinitive acting as an adjective; it's a predicate nominative, which is a type of subject complement.

Me: :ack2:

 

Jackie

Edited January 17, 2011 by Corraleno

[Capt_Uhura]

Our approach is rather like MCT, but without using MCT materials -- we probably use many of the same sentences from literature that he does, even, but in the course of our reading rather than in a workbook. So although perhaps a lot of what I'm saying seems like I'm opposed to grammatical instruction, I'm actually not -- I just do it in the larger context of dd's reading and her love of language play, because that suits her interests and it works well for us.

 

I would hardly call MCT a workbook. I think of it as a text which guides the parent in this type of thinking. For those of us where this doesn't come naturally, we need this so that we too can incorporate this into our literature. And MCT definitely, definitely spills over into our literature all. the. time.

 

All this is not to say that any one way is better than another. It's just to point out that there ARE multiple ways of approaching a subject and a skill, and that not all skills have to be taught incrementally or formally to all kids. If a child is an "intuitive" or naturally correct writer and of her own accord discusses the way certain sentences are arranged, is there still a need to teach all the grammatical terms, to diagram formally; or is this informal study of stylistics sufficient? If a child seizes on an unusual but appealing sentence structure she reads and then imitates it in her own writing, is there a need to explicitly teach sentence variety? I'm just saying the answer isn't clear-cut for me.

 

IMO, If a child is a natural speller, then you don't do a spelling program. If a child naturally writes really well, you don't do formal writing instruction. I think of it like music. I can enjoy music w/ no knowledge of the language of music. However, if I'm going to have a discussion with musicians about music, learn from them, I'm going to need to know the language of music to converse with them. If I'm only going to listen and enjoy it, simply memorizing the terms will not enhance my enjoyment of it. In fact, it'll probably make me hate it. But if I'm learning the terms in the context of beautiful music, it makes the acquisition of the terms painless.

[Capt_Uhura]

Image Grammar looks very interesting! I thought at first it was mainly covering creative writing but I see at the end it covers non-fiction writing as well. In reading a few pages, you have to know the terms to understand what the author is saying...appositive, infinitive, participle, phrase. Now I agree you don't have to know how to diagram these in order to understand them but some kids need that visual picture and some don't. It's a tool, some will need it and others won't. But in order to learn how to use participles to create tension and action as the excerpt from Hemingway shows in Image Grammar, you have to be able to determine which words in the sentence are part of the participle phrase.

 

I loved page 5 on painting with absolutes. Sigh....my cart is going larger.

 

Oh my, I just read the page (pg95,96) on different feelings imparted by the colon, dash, comma, no comma! It's something I knew intuitively but fun to see it spelled out so clearly. The author mentions that many teachers would question discussing this with students for fear of confusing them. He said it is the opposite. It takes grammar and punctuation into the realm of creation rather than corrective and punitive. It shows the relationship between punctuation and meaning.

 

I think that is what we all here are aiming for. MCT definitely gives that to me and this book will be a nice addition to my language arts repertoire. Thanks Jackie for making my wallet even lighter. Ha Ha Ha.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Capt_Uhura

[8filltheheart]

I've been trying to think of a more accurate analogy, and the best one I can think of is gardening. Let's say your goal is to have a beautiful English perennial garden, so you trudge off to the garden center and come home with a truckload of plants. You ask two of your neighbors, Mr. S. Parsing and Mrs. Read'n-Write, to teach you how to garden. Mr. Parsing tells you that first you must memorize the Latin names of all the plants you bought and diagram their taxonomic relationship. Mrs. Read'n-Write laughs and says she's been gardening for 30 years without knowing the Latin names for most of the flowers she grows, and she couldn't diagram their taxonomic relationship if her life depended on it. She tells you that the best way to learn to garden is to visit lots of beautiful gardens and see what plant combinations look good, which plants grow best in shade or full sun, which plants give a garden structure and which add eye-catching accents, etc., and then play with those ideas using your own plants.

 

 

 

 

Her goal is to win.

Grammar text: To win is an infinitive acting as an adjective; it's a predicate nominative, which is a type of subject complement.

 

Jackie

 

 

Just for clarity's sake, MCT does teach infinitives and sc, etc and he does expect the student's to learn the info. I just want anyone considering the program to know that grammar is taught. It is just MHO that it is taught poorly. :D

 

Jackie, I do think your analogy is flawed. You can take the approach of Mrs. Read'n-Write and waste a lot of $$ killing plants. Ask me how I know!! ;) No one would ever ask me for gardening advice!! :lol:

 

I think that one does not need to know the Latin names and the taxonomic relationships. However, if one does does know the plant names, what type of soil conditions they need, what temperature zone they prefer, which plants do well growing together and which don't (do certain plants attract pests, etc that might be harmful to nearby non-resistant plants)........ in addition to how much sun they need and how they look in relation to each other......the odds of a successful garden are much greater. Growing a garden successfully requires much more "under the surface" information than how the garden looks or attempting to simply replicate someone else's garden. In addition, when problems do arise, you can go to a professional and ask and receive advice intelligently on how to help your plants.

Edited January 17, 2011 by 8FillTheHeart

[ElizabethB]

It reminds me of an argument I read about phonics. Fluent adults do not use phonics to read; we see whole words, so why teach kids phonics? I wonder if at some point, we become fluent readers and no longer need phonics, or it happens so quickly, we are unaware of it.

 

Elizabeth B - I had a similar thought when reading The War on Grammar - it coincided with a decline in reading.

 

I think that fluent readers are actually using phonics and decoding words sound by sound, they just do it so fast and automatically that they think they are reading by wholes. In this post, I explain what fMRIs and some other things show that would leads to believe this, with links to some fMRI pictures and research.

 

I'm glad you think so, too! (Not glad that it happened, though. And, I also think that more grammar should be taught, but I don't think that lack of grammar instruction is the root cause of the problem.)

[Capt_Uhura]

I haven't read any further on The War Against Grammar but my take on it thus far is not that a decline in grammar caused poor writers but that a decline in grammar lessoned the effectiveness of teaching writing b/c there wasn't a common language with which to communicate ideas about what makes good writing. Does that make sense?

 

To use Jackie's analogy, if you're having problems with your garden and you go to talk to a gardener and you don't understand terms such as pH, acidity, potash, phosphorous, peat moss .... it likely won't be a very fruitful conversation.

 

 

Have you seen research that Wanda Sanseri referred to regarding reading and spelling? I've never seen the original research but would like to. She said that brain scans of kids who were good readers and were also good spellers used the same part of the brain. Whereas kids that were good readers but poor spellers used different parts of their brain. Her premise was that by separating reading and spelling, and delaying spelling, a part of the brain that was less suited to the task of spelling was engaged.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Capt_Uhura

[ElizabethB]

Have you seen research that Wanda Sanseri referred to regarding reading and spelling? I've never seen the original research but would like to. She said that brain scans of kids who were good readers and were also good spellers used the same part of the brain. Whereas kids that were good readers but poor spellers used different parts of their brain. Her premise was that by separating reading and spelling, and delaying spelling, a part of the brain that was less suited to the task of spelling was engaged.

 

No, that sounds interesting, though.

 

I did read a somewhat related PhD Thesis that studied good and poor readers and spellers and found that you could be a good reader without being a good speller, but not vice versa. (Well, it's probably possible, but not the norm, and she did not find any in the sample of students she studied.)

[Crimson Wife]

I guess this is a subject for a whole other thread, but which Killagon did your dd get through so quickly? Are you using a Killagon book now? I bought Sentence Composing for Elementary School, and I didn't really care for it, though I didn't show it to dd. Maybe I should have her try it out anyway.

 

I guess I was unclear in my previous post. The Killgallon Story Grammar for Elementary School took my DD almost a full semester to get through doing one section per day. The workbook that only took her 3 weeks was Mark Twain Media Sentence Diagramming.

 

I am going to have her do Killgallon Grammar for Middle School this semester. I'm hoping that we'll get it when we meet with the virtual charter teacher on Wednesday.

[wapiti]

I guess I was unclear in my previous post. The Killgallon Story Grammar for Elementary School took my DD almost a full semester to get through doing one section per day. The workbook that only took her 3 weeks was Mark Twain Media Sentence Diagramming.

 

I am going to have her do Killgallon Grammar for Middle School this semester. I'm hoping that we'll get it when we meet with the virtual charter teacher on Wednesday.

 

Thank you!! This helps!! I must have missed the Mark Twain part - looks like a good book.

 

Are you now using Killgallon grammar in place of MCT grammar, or are you using one as a supplement to the other?

Edited January 17, 2011 by wapiti

[Corraleno]

I think that one does not need to know the Latin names and the taxonomic relationships. However, if one does does know the plant names, what type of soil conditions they need, what temperature zone they prefer, which plants do well growing together and which don't (do certain plants attract pests, etc that might be harmful to nearby non-resistant plants)........ in addition to how much sun they need and how they look in relation to each other......the odds of a successful garden are much greater. Growing a garden successfully requires much more "under the surface" information than how the garden looks or attempting to simply replicate someone else's garden. In addition, when problems do arise, you can go to a professional and ask and receive advice intelligently on how to help your plants.

But the analogy wasn't about simply replicating someone else's garden — it was about studying lots of other gardens, and learning from successful gardens what works and what doesn't. The effects of soil and temperature aren't really relevant to the analogy, which is between the arrangement of plants and the arrangement of words. A good garden design will have rhythm, repetition, and variety. It will have a coherent structure, "punctuated" by accents of color or texture, which will lead your eye from one part of the garden to another. There are "rules of thumb" in garden design, such as planting in odd-numbered groups (3, 5, 7) or putting the largest plants towards the back. You can learn all those things by actually studying gardens, as opposed to memorizing lots of facts about individual plants. And IMHO you can learn how to write well by studying good writing, without having to diagram sentences and label predicate nominatives.

 

To use Jackie's analogy, if you're having problems with your garden and you go to talk to a gardener and you don't understand terms such as pH, acidity, potash, phosphorous, peat moss .... it likely won't be a very fruitful conversation.

But people have been gardening for thousands of years without being able to label the chemistry behind it. My grandfather had the most amazing vegetable garden, and he couldn't have told you the pH of his soil if his life depended on it.

 

Anyway... regardless of whether the analogy works or not, my point is that it's entirely possible to be an excellent writer without having studied formal grammar (diagramming, 4-level analysis, etc), and that studying grammar informally, in the context of writing (Killgallon, Noden, Andersen, etc.), may actually be more effective if the goal is to produce skilled writers, as opposed to skilled grammarians.

 

Jackie

Edited January 17, 2011 by Corraleno

[Capt_Uhura]

Well, when my Blueberry bushes stopped making blueberries, going to observe all the blueberry bushes wouldn't have helped me. Now maybe they didn't know anything about pH, but they knew where to get the type of soil that would grow good blueberries. Living in a town, that's not easily done. It's certainly much, much easier for me to go to my garden center, inquire as to what might cause my bushes not to produce fruit and have the gardener tell me to check the pH. :lol: In fact, that's what happened. I lowered the pH w/ the proper chemicals and the next year I had blueberries. Perhaps in the good ol' days, I would have just abandoned the blueberries and planted something else. :lol:

[Capt_Uhura]

Anyway... regardless of whether the analogy works or not, my point is that it's entirely possible to be an excellent writer without having studied formal grammar (diagramming, 4-level analysis, etc), and that studying grammar informally, in the context of writing (Killgallon, Noden, Andersen, etc.), may actually be more effective if the goal is to produce skilled writers, as opposed to skilled grammarians.

 

Jackie

:iagree: I think that is where they went wrong in the past separating grammar instruction from writing. I think MCT works b/c it puts grammar in the context of good writing even though he uses 4-level analysis to give kids the language of grammar. MCT's goal is certainly not to produce skilled grammarians from what I gather from his writing and videos. The grammar is a means to an end, not the end in and of itself.

[Guest]

I can see that many people feel drawn to studying grammar formally, learning its vocabulary and rules. I can see that for some, if extensive reading doesn't lead to discussion and talk about language, formal study is probably a useful way to go. If your child's learning strength is not in reading or seeing written language -- and not all kids learn primarily in this way -- then an incremental, rule-based program might work really well, particularly if it is not kept separate from the child's own writing. I can also see that some people find a wonderful logic and clarity in grammatical rules -- I personally don't; I see historical contingency, constant evolution and debate. But then logic comes in different formats and materials, different kinds attracting different people.

 

On the other hand, there are many of us, both parents and kids, for whom it is intuitive and natural to absorb and then produce correct, even stylistically pleasant and syntactically complex, writing from their reading or in whatever other ways this comes about outside of formal study. Other texts are like mentors, showing options, extremes, variations, and possibilities in language use that they then imitate or internalize.

 

To me grammar bears a resemblance to spelling in that some people need to learn to spell phonetically, some need to memorize rules, some are visual spellers, and some combine all of these techniques. My daughter is NOT a phonetic speller, although this does not mean that she never uses phonics at all in spelling. But it is not her primary tool. It is not where her strength lies. To insist that she should therefore study phonics anyway (and she also learned to read before I got around to teaching her phonics) because an educated person knows phonics and can use the rules to sound out any unfamiliar word misses the point that dd simply doesn't think like this.

 

Likewise, to insist that everyone needs to study grammar formally, learn its vocabulary and its rules and regulations through a curriculum of some kind, overlooks the fact that a number of us writing on this thread are living proof that this is not the case. I wouldn't suggest that everyone ditch grammar programs and just read because that's how I learned, and how dd does. What I would suggest is that it is a viable option for a number of kids, as is the alternative Jackie has mentioned. I would further suggest that grammar is one tool among many for the study and deeper understanding of how language works.

 

What I am learning from this thread is that some people both enjoy and in some way depend on, or need to have available, the vocabulary, the rules, the incremental parts. Others don't. It doesn't seem to really be debatable that each method has produced competent writers both on the boards and off. For some people, a grammatical vocabulary and a set of rules offers a point of entrance, a handle, something concrete and logical, a doorway to their study of language. For others, a different aspect of language may be the most useful, the most fascinating, the most understandable. The argument that one way, one method, is somehow the overall best, providing simultaneously the necessary fundamental base and the pinnacle of linguistic understanding without which all other knowledge is somehow incomplete or inferior, is what I don't understand in all this.

[Capt_Uhura]

Did someone say that everyone must study grammar formally using a curriculum? I hope my posts weren't taken to mean that. I can teach science w/out a curriculum to an extent. My boys knew a ton of science before I ever bought our first curriculum. It's part of who I am. But for my friend who is not a scientist, she needed a framework to work from. My way isn't better than hers and hers isn't better than mine. My friend is an artist. She can teach art w/out a guidebook. For me, I like having art books that help me point out different textures, different brush strokes, how an artist imparts mood to a painting. The same goes w/ writing or spelling or reading. Some take that intuitive approach and can instruct where necessary whenever it comes up. Others need a roadmap, need to be given the language to discuss those topics.

 

My argument was that I feel you need some basis for communication when talking about writing based on the NCTE saying that teaching grammar made poor writers. It makes learning easier, whether it's coaching soccer, gymnastics, writing, if you are able to communicate effectively. My Aunt had a difficult time helping her DD w/ her writing (she's in public school) b/c as a 6th grader, she didn't know what an adverb was, or an adjective, or a clause. I'm talking about regular folk here. There are always exception to every rule. Gifted musicians who never learned to read music for instance. I'm talking about us regular folk who need guidance. Now there are many ways to acquire that language .... it can be free-flowing as you've mentioned, it can be from a curriculum, they are all paths to a common endpoint of producing good writers. I know for my boys, discussing grammar in the context of writing has certainly helped their writing. For us, doing a dry workbook didn't accomplish nearly as much. For other kids, they could have seamlessly incorporated what they learned from that workbook into their writing. Not for mine so grammar and writing continues to be a time consuming, much discussion, much reading together endeavor since I can't just throw a workbook at them. :tongue_smilie:

 

Anyhow, I guess that's all I have to say about this subject. Sometimes I think we are all just arguing semantics and really agreeing about the same thing. :001_huh:

[Corraleno]

What I am learning from this thread is that some people both enjoy and in some way depend on, or need to have available, the vocabulary, the rules, the incremental parts. Others don't. It doesn't seem to really be debatable that each method has produced competent writers both on the boards and off.

:iagree:

And of course, as with most things in life, it's not an all-or-nothing thing: formal grammar instruction or no grammar instruction, memorizing dozens of grammatical terms or not knowing what a verb is. Informal/contextual grammar, as taught by Killgallon or Noden, can be as effective as diagramming if the goal is to improve writing skills. Some grammatical terms are necessary in order to discuss writing, others (IMO) are not; I can't imagine myself saying "That's a very interesting essay, sweetie, but I think you need more predicate nominatives." I may use the term appositives while teaching my son to incorporate them in his writing, and yet not care at all whether he can label or diagram 20 sentences with appositives, because my goal is usage not labeling. For others, being able to diagram a sentence and correctly label every word, phrase, and clause is itself an important skill. Some kids may pick up grammar and writing skills intuitively, some may need guided instruction, and some may need years of drill. That's one of the great things about homeschooling. :001_smile:

 

Jackie

[swimmermom3]

This has been an insightful thread for me and I appreciate the thoughtful responses that have come from many different viewpoints. Hopefully, I can clear up some of the tension that I sense in the thread.

 

I will admit that K12 test results were a bit of a shock, but the information given here with regards to test construction and personal teaching goals has quickly righted my sense of equilibrium. Like KarenAnne and Jackie, I prefer to teach grammar in context and a bit more organically than you may find in a typical home school if there is such a thing. However, unlike the backgrounds they both wrote about, I did receive formal grammar instruction through high school and we did learn the terminology. The nuns that taught me taught grammar as part of everything else to do with words. There was no torture involved and I respect the way they accomplished their objectives. If I could teach grammar and writing in the "no fuss, no agony" fashion that they did, I think I could be happy. The terminology no longer sticks with me, but for the most part, the basic rules do. So in this respect, I can relate to Eight's thoughts on grammar instruction but also note that she teaches in context as well.

 

My hope is that no one walks away from this thread discouraged or threatened by what they have read here. Hopefully, you have some new ideas to implement or feel reaffirmed in what you are doing. To each his or her own. There cannot be one right way to approach grammar as we are all different and our kids are all different.

[Crimson Wife]

Thank you!! This helps!! I must have missed the Mark Twain part - looks like a good book.

 

Are you now using Killgallon grammar in place of MCT grammar, or are you using one as a supplement to the other?

 

I am alternating the two series because my DD has finished Grammar Town/Practice Town/Paragraph Town but isn't yet ready for the writing in Essay Voyage.

[Capt_Uhura]

That is my plan as well...to use Killgallon in that gap year between Town and VOyage and now maybe adding the book Correlano linked to Image Grammar.

[Crimson Wife]

maybe adding the book Correlano linked to Image Grammar.

 

There are corresponding middle school level and high school level activity books that look interesting. I can't decide, however, whether Image Grammar would add enough above & beyond what's in Killgallon to make it worth doing.

[Capt_Uhura]

OH I didn't know there were workbooks. I'll have to look at them more closely.

[Capt_Uhura]

After looking at the few sample pages, I think the Image Grammar book alone might be enough if you're using the Kilgallon books. It seemed like Image Grammar book had a few exercises in it as well? I found the Image Grammar book very inspirational. I think it would serve as a reference to me in aiding DS to incorporate those elements into his writing.

[Guest]

Lisa, your story about being taught painless grammar by the nuns made me wonder -- not to stir things up further but just wondering because I'm interested in how minds work. Your writing is such that I would guess you were a fairly competent writer from the get-go, an "intuitive" writer, if you would. Formal grammar instruction probably served to address a few individual issues such as all of us have at some point or other. I'd guess you liked grammar as a formal subject because it went with what you already intuitively knew; it put what you knew into formal language and organized it into ready-made patterns. And from what you say, this systemization (what an awful word) of patterns and rules fit with the way you think and learn.

 

I would bet quite large sums of money that not every kid in your classroom found the grammar instruction as fuss-free and painless as you did, or absorbed the rules long-term. And this was my point, not in the least meant to be confrontational or argumentative: that different kids learn differently, not everybody organizes or processes information in the same way, and no single approach is going to work with all. (And I'm not just making this up or going on my own experience; I had two years of graduate study in the teaching of writing, I've taught in the classroom with sixth-graders on up to master's students, I've read studies on various language pedagogies and classroom practices for going on ten years now, and I read continually about neurology and research on brains and learning.)

 

If kids process information and internalize it differently, this would seem to imply that for some, formal curricular instruction in grammatical vocabulary and sentence diagramming is not going to be the most effective or helpful way to produce a fluent and correct writer -- and this probably applies to a number of kids people on the boards are working with. It doesn't mean they don't learn any grammar, or that they are ignorant about how language works. It doesn't mean that some form of grammatical analysis is not a useful tool. It simply means that as with nearly everything, there is more than one path to an educational goal. Perhaps I should make this more clear every time I post about different ways of learning, but I'm always thinking of all the posts I've read over the months about children who have difficulties learning in conventionally formal ways, who don't seem to transfer what they study in this way over to their own writing, who resist or dislike standard programs. I'm not trying to convince anyone of the superiority of "My Way," but to reach someone who might be despairing because her child is struggling with standard programs, and who doesn't realize that there are indeed other ways to go about learning to write well and clearly.

[Capt_Uhura]

I would bet quite large sums of money that not every kid in your classroom found the grammar instruction as fuss-free and painless as you did, or absorbed the rules long-term. And this was my point, not in the least meant to be confrontational or argumentative: that different kids learn differently, not everybody organizes or processes information in the same way, and no single approach is going to work with all.

 

:iagree: I do not think anyone was disagreeing with you. I think most people here know and understand that kids learn differently and that no one approach works for all. I really don't understand where this thread took the turn that it did.

[justamouse]

I don't have a dog in this fight, I just love threads like these. (though I DO use Killgallon and love it-and, so do the kids)

 

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

 

*lovesJackie* :D I'm the same way. There's just a point that I reach where I throw up my hands and say, "Enough! Just write!"

 

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."

 

Just because I love this discussion...

 

I am willing to bet you that Lewis fuddled with the sentence, but I'll bet money he didn't go--"Perhaps if were to put the subject at the end..."

 

"A Hobbit lived in a hole in the ground." If you say it outloud--it sounds like yuck, who farted? Yeah, the information is there-but not so nice on the ear-AND it doesn't pluck at the imagination.

 

"In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit." It sounds different. It says to your heart and brain that you are about to be told splendid story. It hits the notes that all good storytellers have learned to strike. That is not something that can be parsed, it's something that comes through listening and reading and training the ear.

 

My one son is teaching himself guitar. The problem he's having is that all those years he'd noodled around with it-making do- he trained his ear to hear the wrong notes and is just as happy with a Gb as he is with a G. *gah* Retraining his ear is causing him tears.

 

I don't read to my children and speak Good English to them to be superior, I do it to train their ears.

 

Grammar helping writing doesn't come while WRITING the thing-it comes in while editing it. I can't edit as I write for the life of me. I have to turn that part off and just write. And, only later when the flow of writing is gone can I stop, look back and start to edit-and even then my eyes don't catch everything because they're on GMC and *does this work*. Two toaly different parts of the brain and yes, I agree that some children will probably be stronger than others in certain areas.

 

To me, it's like reading vs. spelling. Two totally different things. Coding and decoding. Writing is coding, grammar is decoding. You (universal) may not be the best speller, but my guess is that you can speak in sentences.

 

But there is NO excuse for not knowing what a noun is and that there a re 50 states. *gah*

 

 

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

 

yeah, tell me about it. *grumble*...

[Capt_Uhura]

*lovesJackie* :D I'm the same way. There's just a point that I reach where I throw up my hands and say, "Enough! Just write!"

 

:iagree:

 

Just because I love this discussion...

 

I am willing to bet you that Lewis fuddled with the sentence, but I'll bet money he didn't go--"Perhaps if were to put the subject at the end..."

 

:iagree: But he has internalized those structures. BUt I can tell you, granted keep in mind I'm not a lit person....I'm a scientist :lol: when I read that sentence, I loved it, but I could not have told you why. It wasn't until I started parsing the sentence, realized where the subject was and how that placement affected how I felt about the sentence, did I get it. So while he wouldn't have thought of it in grammatical terms, I needed to in order to understand WHY the sentence worked. Granted, all of you lit folk wouldn't need the grammar but I did.

 

Grammar helping writing doesn't come while WRITING the thing-it comes in while editing it. I can't edit as I write for the life of me. I have to turn that part off and just write. And, only later when the flow of writing is gone can I stop, look back and start to edit-and even then my eyes don't catch everything because they're on GMC and *does this work*. Two toaly different parts of the brain and yes, I agree that some children will probably be stronger than others in certain areas.

 

.

 

:iagree: I have to turn off that part of my brain as well! I learned that the hard way while writing my dissertation.....Oh boy I'm cutting out that paragraph that I spent so much time editing. :glare:

 

I like what I've seen so far in Image Grammar. I can see my son utilizing the section on participles now since so many of his stories have action in them. It gives him another tool in his toolbox. I'm not sure he would pick up on that on his own. I do not think he is that intuitive and needs explicit instruction. Heck, I need explicit instruction. :lol:

[8filltheheart]

I don't have a dog in this fight, I just love threads like these. (though I DO use Killgallon and love it-and, so do the kids)

 

 

 

I am willing to bet you that Lewis fuddled with the sentence, but I'll bet money he didn't go--"Perhaps if were to put the subject at the end..."

 

"A Hobbit lived in a hole in the ground." If you say it outloud--it sounds like yuck, who farted? Yeah, the information is there-but not so nice on the ear-AND it doesn't pluck at the imagination.

 

"In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit." It sounds different. It says to your heart and brain that you are about to be told splendid story. It hits the notes that all good storytellers have learned to strike. That is not something that can be parsed, it's something that comes through listening and reading and training the ear.

 

My one son is teaching himself guitar. The problem he's having is that all those years he'd noodled around with it-making do- he trained his ear to hear the wrong notes and is just as happy with a Gb as he is with a G. *gah* Retraining his ear is causing him tears.

 

 

 

I am certainly not reading this thread as a fight, but maybe I am dense. :lol:

 

I also have a short attention span for the internet and threads, so I had already decided not to get involved in any more of the grammar talk.

 

But......Tolkien, OTOH, yep, that is a different subject! ;)

 

I do agree that Tolkien deliberated over his words. But it is actually much more than "ear." He was an extraordinary linguist. He was a master of several languages and actually invented languages complete with their own rules for grammar.

 

FWIW.....word location in a sentence determines its strength. The end of the sentence is considered most powerful location.

 

Alternative word order, what we affectionately dub Yoda speak, is an effective way elicit a strong reaction b/c it jolts the mind. It would lose its effectiveness if everything were written this way. He incorporated it in amts that were perfect for the effects he wanted to evoke.

 

I think he deliberated his wording and word order with precision. And yes, I do believe Tolkien loved grammar. :lol:

Edited January 18, 2011 by 8FillTheHeart

[swimmermom3]

Nm. If you can't think, you shouldn't write.

 

Edited January 18, 2011 by swimmermom3

[Capt_Uhura]

We love Yoda-speak in this house! When we finished w/ Grammar Island, the boys had a light bulb moment when watching Star Wars and listening to Yoda. They finally got it! :001_smile:

 

Which reminds me, I have LLfLOTR, I should read it later and see if there is something in it about Tolkien's linguistic abilities. Thanks for the reminder 8Filltheheart.

[8filltheheart]

We love Yoda-speak in this house! When we finished w/ Grammar Island, the boys had a light bulb moment when watching Star Wars and listening to Yoda. They finally got it! :001_smile:

 

Which reminds me, I have LLfLOTR, I should read it later and see if there is something in it about Tolkien's linguistic abilities. Thanks for the reminder 8Filltheheart.

 

There is an entire unit on Tolkien and his passion for linguistics. My ds, who really hated to write prior to our LLfLOTR study, was truly inspired by that unit. He even started writing his own poetry and novel. I have a splitting headache and am not thinkiing very clearly, but he loved language so much that IIRC, he tried to fill in a lot of the blanks in one of the older languages.

[Matryoshka]

There are corresponding middle school level and high school level activity books that look interesting. I can't decide, however, whether Image Grammar would add enough above & beyond what's in Killgallon to make it worth doing.

 

:iagree: I really liked the sample of the Image Grammar book, but at the same time was struck by how similar in approach it was to the Killgallon we're already doing. Looking at the workbooks, I like the Killgallon books better, I think. But I think I have a preference for b&w over splashy color in texts, so that could be my own bias... Has anyone who's read the Image Grammar text and has Killgallon think that reading IG would add enough value to be worth spending the $$ ??

 

I've been following this discussion with interest. I think MCT and Killgallon are perfect complements for us in grammar - MCT for the analysis and terminology, Killgallon for the application for better writing. I agree with the assessment of some that MCT has uneven coverage of say, articles vs. verbals, but I am one who loves talking about grammar and am happy with a springboard to talk about grammar, so if something isaren't given as much treatment as I'd like, I just expand on it myself, and if some things go on and are repetitive, I skip it. A book that was plodding and methodical would just kill it for all of us.:tongue_smilie:

 

I have to say that the component of MCT we've gotten the least use of are the actual grammar books. I'd pretty much taught my kids most of what was in them, so we mostly skimmed them to get to the "meat" and application in the writing and practice books, which we love (or maybe, I love, kids tolerate ;)). We all get frustrated by how much repeitition there is in the grammar books from level to level - he even uses the same exact sentences in large parts of each book! Eye rolling and groaning ensue. We skipped Grammar Voyage entirely and are on to Magic Lens (even though we're doing Essay Voyage and Practice Voyage this year - well the 2nd half of it, then on to 4Practice1). I'm looking forward to the "loops" in ML - I think that'll kick it up a notch.

 

My kids also get a lot of their grammar from the two foreign languages they're using, which have grammars more complex than English and add terminologies that I've rarely seen in an English grammar book. Although this is partly because different grammatical constructs "matter" more in some languages than others - but it leads to lively discussion about how these concepts relate to English grammar. I'm mulling over cross-pollinating in the other direction and have them do some 4-level analysis on some Spanish sentences...

 

Now I'm curious how they'd do on that K12 assessment - maybe I'll torture them with it if we get some free time... :D

[Mom-ninja.]

Just do this LA plan:

 

FLL and WWE/WWS (both, after all, are being continued for upper grades)

 

MCT all levels

 

JAG/AG

 

Killgallon

 

for good measure throw in some IEW, and Classical Writing as well. I can fit all that in, right? ;):lol:

[justamouse]

I am certainly not reading this thread as a fight, but maybe I am dense. :lol:

 

I also have a short attention span for the internet and threads, so I had already decided not to get involved in any more of the grammar talk.

 

But......Tolkien, OTOH, yep, that is a different subject! ;)

 

I do agree that Tolkien deliberated over his words. But it is actually much more than "ear." He was an extraordinary linguist. He was a master of several languages and actually invented languages complete with their own rules for grammar.

 

FWIW.....word location in a sentence determines its strength. The end of the sentence is considered most powerful location.

 

Alternative word order, what we affectionately dub Yoda speak, is an effective way elicit a strong reaction b/c it jolts the mind. It would lose its effectiveness if everything were written this way. He incorporated it in amts that were perfect for the effects he wanted to evoke.

 

I think he deliberated his wording and word order with precision. And yes, I do believe Tolkien loved grammar. :lol:

 

No, not a fight, just that I don't use MCT and technically shouldn't be posting here. *g*

 

I did know that he was a linguist, and I did know that he invented his own language and that the subject coming at the end gives it more weight--but what I'm saying is that there's a time when all of that turns off-and you write. You write the story and you listen to the words in your ear and weigh how they sound and if those words are the ones you want, and convey the meaning you want and the subtext you want. You trust yourself that it's all there in your subconscious and you let it work its magic.

 

I DO think he loved grammar-totally, but you don't start writing a story by deconstructing it. So, I guess what I'm saying is that I can see the argument that learning grammar doesn't make you a better writer.

 

And, what's with the headaches? Mine's pounding, too, I sympathize.

Edited January 18, 2011 by justamouse
cpr for the kitty

[Corraleno]

I really liked the sample of the Image Grammar book, but at the same time was struck by how similar in approach it was to the Killgallon we're already doing. Looking at the workbooks, I like the Killgallon books better, I think. But I think I have a preference for b&w over splashy color in texts, so that could be my own bias... Has anyone who's read the Image Grammar text and has Killgallon think that reading IG would add enough value to be worth spending the $$ ??

IMO, the books are very complementary but not redundant. Killgallon is a worktext written for students, which uses writing (sample sentences from literature) to teach grammar. Image Grammar (the actual book, not the workbooks) is more of a teacher's manual, and it's about using grammar to teach better writing. What they have in common (something they also share with MCT) is that the examples they use are drawn from literature, and the literary effects of the mechanics are explicitly taught.

 

I would say that Image Grammar applies and extends the principles taught in the Killgallon books. Where Killgallon concentrates primarily on the sentence (as most grammar books do), Image Grammar goes beyond the sentence and talks about components of good writing as a whole: rhythm, mood, structure, transitions, etc. My favorite section is on "Special Effects," and my favorite part of the section is called "Creating Special Effects with a Greek Influence." Here is the first paragraph:

For categorizing the special effects of structure, nothing matches the work of the ancient Greeks. Yet rarely are Greeks mentioned in the classroom. Most teachers introduce concepts like metaphor, simile, and personification, but not many have experimented with structures like the antithesis, anastrophe, anaphora, antimetabole, polypton, zeugma, epanalepsis, or chiasmus. These structures, first catalogued by the Greeks, can enrich classroom writing and provide fascinating examples of structure and meaning for students.

Now, tell me you don't need this book! :D

 

Jackie

[Crimson Wife]

Just do this LA plan:

 

FLL and WWE/WWS (both, after all, are being continued for upper grades)

 

MCT all levels

 

JAG/AG

 

Killgallon

 

for good measure throw in some IEW, and Classical Writing as well. I can fit all that in, right? ;):lol:

 

Substitute Warriner's for JAG/AG and The Paragraph Book series for IEW, and you're actually describing my LA plan. :lol::lol::lol:

[wapiti]

My favorite section is on "Special Effects," and my favorite part of the section is called "Creating Special Effects with a Greek Influence." Here is the first paragraph:

 

Now, tell me you don't need this book! :D

 

Jackie

 

This brings up an important point that has been lurking in my mind while reading this thread: the role of Classical studies in teaching writing, i.e., how Latin and Greek studies can enhance the ability to clearly express one's thoughts through the skillful use of language (as well as enhancing the ability to do the thinking that results in the thoughts to be written :tongue_smilie: I shouldn't try to think to hard when we're running out the door).

[Crimson Wife]

IMO, the books are very complementary but not redundant. Killgallon is a worktext written for students, which uses writing (sample sentences from literature) to teach grammar. Image Grammar (the actual book, not the workbooks) is more of a teacher's manual, and it's about using grammar to teach better writing. What they have in common (something they also share with MCT) is that the examples they use are drawn from literature, and the literary effects of the mechanics are explicitly taught.

 

I would say that Image Grammar applies and extends the principles taught in the Killgallon books. Where Killgallon concentrates primarily on the sentence (as most grammar books do), Image Grammar goes beyond the sentence and talks about components of good writing as a whole: rhythm, mood, structure, transitions, etc.

 

Now, tell me you don't need this book! :D

 

Jackie

 

I've got a Barnes & Noble gift card that I put aside from my Christmas gifts for the upcoming school year and I am *seriously* tempted to spend some of it on Image Grammar.