About writing . . .

[jld]

Just from the little bit I'm reading on the writing sub-board, I'm starting to think that students may be limited in their ability to get high grades if they come into college with certain political and religious views. I see over there some encouragement on keeping religion out of it, and studying logic so as to make a coherent, fact-based case on whatever topic, but are students going to be able to do that if they've grown up with very definite worldviews? Is "toning it down" enough, or will students need to reconsider positions they have taken for granted are obviously correct? Will they be able to?

 

Or is this way too hot of a topic to discuss?:D

 

One more thing: I see a lot of emphasis on these boards on spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc., but in my college writing class these were not stressed at all; ideas, and the clear, effective presentation of them were 99% of the course. Has this been other people's experience as well? Are we putting the stress on the right syllable in the language education of our children?

[Murphy101]

In my college comp and lit courses, the emphasis was on the content.

However, it was openly stated at the start of the courses, and in at least one syllabus that I remember, that it was presumed students in a college writing course knew how to edit and would do so. Students who did not do that to whatever standard the instructor deemed below grade level risked having their paper returned ungraded or having it dropped a letter grade.

 

As for religion. I see that as well.

Tho I do not think religion and logic are necessarily in conflict and are best served together regardless of setting. :)

[MommyThrice]

I feel that whatever values one holds are more important than good grades! I'm sure that many of us on these boards hold different political and religious views, but we probably all want our children to share our values. We want our children to have a strong sense of values and not be tossed by the wind. Isn't that a large part of why we homeschool?

 

I can't imagine many kinds of writing - amateur or professional - that aren't influenced by the authors values and worldview. My kids will have to choose whether or not they want to write what they think a professor wants to hear. But, it my opinion, that is not critical thinking. That is mindless.

[jld]

In my college comp and lit courses, the emphasis was on the content.

However, it was openly stated at the start of the courses, and in at least one syllabus that I remember, that it was presumed students in a college writing course knew how to edit and would do so. Students who did not do that to whatever standard the instructor deemed below grade level risked having their paper returned ungraded or having it dropped a letter grade.

 

As for religion. I see that as well.

Tho I do not think religion and logic are necessarily in conflict and are best served together regardless of setting. :)

 

Interesting. I don't remember any emphasis on this, though that was over 20 years ago, blush. I do remember wanting to reprint a paper (I had made some changes, scratched out words, etc.) and the teacher told me not to worry about it, but to just hand it in as it was. The appearance didn't seem to affect the grade.

 

That course, and most of college, just felt really, really different from high school, like we jumped from do we have our shoes tied, class? to the design and construction of the shoes, lol.

[jld]

I feel that whatever values one holds are more important than good grades! I'm sure that many of us on these boards hold different political and religious views, but we probably all want our children to share our values. We want our children to have a strong sense of values and not be tossed by the wind. Isn't that a large part of why we homeschool?

 

I can't imagine many kinds of writing - amateur or professional - that aren't influenced by the authors values and worldview. My kids will have to choose whether or not they want to write what they think a professor wants to hear. But, it my opinion, that is not critical thinking. That is mindless.

 

How would you define critical thinking, MT?

[angela in ohio]

In a college writing class, the focus should be on ideas. There is an assumption that you have learned the foundational skills of writing (spelling, grammar, etc.) already in elementary and high school (which may or may not be correct, but that's another conversation.) That is precisely why I focus on those skills in elementary and junior high. Once a student has mastered them, they have more freedom to focus on content. If they are still struggling with grammar and spelling, it is hard to concentrate on presenting their thoughts and ideas.

 

I'm not concerned about my students' worldview being "toned down." We discuss the idea of audience and purpose in writing. There are things you say and styles of argument you use in some situations and not in others. That doesn't mean their worldview changes, just that they know what to use in what situation.

[angela in ohio]

Interesting. I don't remember any emphasis on this, though that was over 20 years ago, blush. I do remember wanting to reprint a paper (I had made some changes, scratched out words, etc.) and the teacher told me not to worry about it, but to just hand it in as it was. The appearance didn't seem to affect the grade.

 

That course, and most of college, just felt really, really different from high school, like we jumped from do we have our shoes tied, class? to the design and construction of the shoes, lol.

 

That has not been my experience at all. Both my first time around 18 years ago, and in my current college courses, those things did matter.

 

And even if they don't to the professor, they will to the boss. :D If my dd sent out a letter to his staff that had errors and things scratched out, his boss would not be happy.

[MommyThrice]

Well, here's one from The Critical Thinking Co:

"Critical thinking is the identification and evaluation of evidence to guide decision making. A critical thinker uses broad in-depth analysis of evidence to make decisions and communicate his/her beliefs clearly and accurately."

 

But I would say it involves determining the meaning (of what you read, are told, observe, etc...) deciding if there is enough evidence to support the argument, if the argument is logically sound, if the sources are credible, etc... And then reaching and expressing your conclusion, or what you believe to be true.

 

Really, either you write a paper about something that is right or wrong (ie. Explain the series of events leading up to WWII) or you write about an opinion. (ie. Explain the cause of WWII). I seem to remember most college papers requiring an opinion. You should prove that you know how to think critically.

 

I am not dismissing the fact that most college professors would prefer your opinion to be in agreement with theirs, and that they may even give you a higher score if that is the case. But I think students need to be honest in their analysis and persuasively explain how and why they reached their conclusion. That's why I said that if they only write what a professor wants to hear - if they are told what conclusion to reach before they begin to analyze - then they are not learning to think critically.

[flyingiguana]

In my experience in dealing with college students, those who complained they couldn't get a good grade in a class because they didn't agree with their professor, basically just couldn't write. They blamed their low grades on the professor's bias. In truth, those students couldn't write and couldn't form a logical argument.

 

I've seen students on both sides complaining about this -- those who said they couldn't get a fair grade from a religious professor when the student wrote in support of such things as atheism, as well as those who complained atheist professors wouldn't fairly grade a paper espousing religion.

 

There may be professors out there who really are biased against one or the other, but in my experience, this looks more like a handy excuse for students who don't want to learn how to write.

[Jonibee]

Really, either you write a paper about something that is right or wrong (ie. Explain the series of events leading up to WWII) or you write about an opinion. (ie. Explain the cause of WWII). I seem to remember most college papers requiring an opinion. You should prove that you know how to think critically.

 

I am not dismissing the fact that most college professors would prefer your opinion to be in agreement with theirs, and that they may even give you a higher score if that is the case. But I think students need to be honest in their analysis and persuasively explain how and why they reached their conclusion. That's why I said that if they only write what a professor wants to hear - if they are told what conclusion to reach before they begin to analyze - then they are not learning to think critically.

 

I do not think this is true at all -- or should not be true of most teachers, especially those in the English department. Judging the quality of the writing does not depend on my agreement with the student's opinion.

 

I have taught/am teaching a Writing class to co-op students now. The weakest writers are those who bring God into their paper (He's on their side). Instead of arguing against abortion, they will say abortion is wrong because God said it. This is a weak argument. This is similar to the children saying "My dad can beat up your dad." i.e., I'm right because God is on my side. This is the weakest of writing styles and will get nowhere with a teacher, not because of God or morals, but because it is just not well argued.

 

I tell my students that God has reasons why abortion is wrong, and we can elaborate on those reasons for logical arguments without using God's name at all. Truth is truth and we should be able to argue (put forth a defense) of truth without bringing God's name into our paper. Some students just cannot do this and continue to write stuff like: God (fill in the blank) and therefore, I agree.

 

My finest writers often hit me with papers I totally disagree with -- the value of cartoons, why everyone needs Facebook, chocolate is overrated (HA); it is not the topic at all but rather the fact that it can be successfully argued.

[Photo Ninja]

I'm not concerned about my students' worldview being "toned down." We discuss the idea of audience and purpose in writing. There are things you say and styles of argument you use in some situations and not in others. That doesn't mean their worldview changes, just that they know what to use in what situation.

 

This has been my dc's experience. They have firmly held world views, but that has not stood in their way as they write college papers. Same thing for class discussions. There are times for some arguments and times for not arguing/debating, or "taking the bait", as my dc say. My dc learned to discern these times, and it has not watered down their world views. They have learned to give the teacher what he wants when they know their world view would lower their grade. They are good writers, organized, use logic and examples related to the assignment,and get good grades on their papers. There are times they have used terms such as, "Many experts believe that..." or "It is commonly held that..." to express what the teacher wants to hear, even when they don't personally believe it. Most their papers are research, not opinion, and the research stands for itself if it is argued well. They do speak up and argue for their beliefs when the instructor is open to alternate opinions, but keep quiet when they think no good will come of offering a differing opinion.

 

There are ways of expressing one's world view while still respecting another person's world view when it does not agree. The same thing goes when one needs to express an opinion, knowing that the instructor expects an answer that agrees with his/her beliefs. One ds needed to write about the following question in his Sociology course: Who has the right to deliver a baby, a midwife or a doctor? (To set the context, the chapter was about males usurping what traditionally have been women's jobs. The teacher and text strongly held feminist world views and were quite antagonistic towards men in general). Ds took the position that neither the midwife nor the doctor have that right, but that the decision belongs to the woman having the baby. She has the right to choose who she wants to deliver her baby. Those who argued for the doctor were blasted. Those who argued for the midwife were praised according to the teacher's and text's world view, for having the correct answer. Ds got a good grade because, even though he took a third position, he argued it well. He was able to communicate his opinion (because this was asking for an opinion, supported with some evidence) without contradicting the teacher's world view, but also without agreeing with her world view. It is these type of skills that students need, in addition to having strong writing skills.

[angela in ohio]

Ds got a good grade because, even though he took a third position, he argued it well. He was able to communicate his opinion (because this was asking for an opinion, supported with some evidence) without contradicting the teacher's world view, but also without agreeing with her world view. It is these type of skills that students need, in addition to having strong writing skills.

 

Dh had a situation like this. One of the "values realignment" courses for his Master's in Education Leadership was about the oppression of women in society. He did his class project on the effects of the near-pornographic images in teen magazines on the health and self-image of young teen girls. It was a topic that my ultra-conservative dh agreed with the ultra-liberal teacher on. He got an A+. :D

[jld]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

 

I don't know. I'm not sure any education is happening if people's minds aren't being stretched and their pre-judgments challenged. And I'm not sure just keeping quiet about things leads to growth, either, though I could see how it could protect high grades.

 

Dh runs a factory and told me this morning he doesn't care about the appearance of reports as long as the information on them is accurate. I guess different bosses, and different teachers, have different priorities.

 

As far as the accent on the right syllable in language education, I still think reading is the most important thing our kids can do. I think all this focus on grammar, spelling, and the like is somewhat helpful, but should not be the main concern. I'm reading in TWTM that that is not the opinion of the authors, though, so perhaps it is better not to discuss that here.

 

I am becoming more and more persuaded that studying logic would be a helpful step towards improving writing. I will be looking into that pretty seriously.

 

Again, thanks for sharing your thoughts. We certainly learn a lot from each other and about each other here.

[MommyThrice]

jld,

I hate to keep beating the same drum here, but when you ask about challenging pre-judgements (which, in my opinion, is not the same thing as deeply-held core values) debate comes to mind. It doesn't have to be formal debate in competition, but forcing yourself to argue for the other side really helps you to see that there are two sides to every issue. It may strengthen your pre-judgements; it may not. This could also be done in writing. We have been using The Lively Art of Writing. Using that book, every persuasive paper must include arguments for the other side. It's really just a part of distilling your own arguments. If you list weak "con" arguments, then your "pro" arguments will also seem weak. If you have strong "con" arguments and are able to address them persuasively, then your paper is even stronger.

 

We started all of this with relatively a-moral arguments, where it is easier to argue either side of the issue. But it is learning a skill that will be used for more important topics later.

 

And I highly recommend the logic. We're finishing up Traditional Logic I & II by Martin Cothran. It is a study of formal logic (the form of the argument instead of the content) It has been very useful, but I almost think we refer back to what we learned in The Fallacy Detective more often. We love to point out logical fallacies in political speeches - whether we agree with their point or not. And, I assure you, finding logical fallacies in political speeches is like taking candy from a baby!

[jld]

jld,

I hate to keep beating the same drum here, but when you ask about challenging pre-judgements (which, in my opinion, is not the same thing as deeply-held core values) debate comes to mind. It doesn't have to be formal debate in competition, but forcing yourself to argue for the other side really helps you to see that there are two sides to every issue. It may strengthen your pre-judgements; it may not. This could also be done in writing. We have been using The Lively Art of Writing. Using that book, every persuasive paper must include arguments for the other side. It's really just a part of distilling your own arguments. If you list weak "con" arguments, then your "pro" arguments will also seem weak. If you have strong "con" arguments and are able to address them persuasively, then your paper is even stronger.

 

We started all of this with relatively a-moral arguments, where it is easier to argue either side of the issue. But it is learning a skill that will be used for more important topics later.

 

And I highly recommend the logic. We're finishing up Traditional Logic I & II by Martin Cothran. It is a study of formal logic (the form of the argument instead of the content) It has been very useful, but I almost think we refer back to what we learned in The Fallacy Detective more often. We love to point out logical fallacies in political speeches - whether we agree with their point or not. And, I assure you, finding logical fallacies in political speeches is like taking candy from a baby!

 

I appreciate your bringing this up. I remember a teacher in high school saying that at her previous school she had her female students argue why boys were smarter, and male students argue that girls were smarter. I think that was the first I had ever heard of actually allowing that the other side might have points worth considering. I grew up believing there was only one right way, in just about every area. Listening, really listening and trying to understand, was not emphasized in my family.

 

I need to research logic materials, and I appreciate your suggestions. I want to spend a considerable amount of time on writing with my dd this next year, and there is much to consider before making my plans. I think both dd and I are going to learn a lot.:)

[Ester Maria]

I see over there some encouragement on keeping religion out of it, and studying logic so as to make a coherent, fact-based case on whatever topic, but are students going to be able to do that if they've grown up with very definite worldviews? Is "toning it down" enough, or will students need to reconsider positions they have taken for granted are obviously correct? Will they be able to?

I strongly suggest keeping religion and politics out of papers which don't necessitate them - bringing them up usually smells of demagogy. In those papers which do deal with these (i.e. which tackle them directly, rather than tackle some topic which might, but doesn't have to be tied to them), I suggest bringing them up in a sort of impersonal, examine-the-idea way.

One more thing: I see a lot of emphasis on these boards on spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc., but in my college writing class these were not stressed at all; ideas, and the clear, effective presentation of them were 99% of the course. Has this been other people's experience as well? Are we putting the stress on the right syllable in the language education of our children?

First you get to crawl, then you get to walk, and only then you get to dance. ;) Same here: the emphasis on the basics means that you get down the crawling and the walking which are the prerequisites for dancing. If the focus in universities is on dancing, it is only because the previous two belong to earlier stages of education and are supposed to be mastered by the time you got there. For what it's worth, though, I know many people having failed or still failing university papers due to punctuation, inconsistencies in the linguistic norm, awkward grammar, etc. Many professors will refuse to even properly read a paper that's filled with middle school type of errors, even high school ones - those type of things are not addressed in classes as they're considered educationally passe far more than because they're somehow not important.

[Ester Maria]

It doesn't have to be formal debate in competition, but forcing yourself to argue for the other side really helps you to see that there are two sides to every issue. It may strengthen your pre-judgements; it may not. This could also be done in writing.

I do this too with my daughters, pian piano now as they're still relatively "rigid" in thinking (no wonder, they're only 13 and 14), but I intend to emphasize it much more as they get older. We had to write several such papers in school too and argue an opposing viewpoint in philosophy lessons. It helped me a lot to see the different angles of one argument, appreciate the other side too, question my own opinions or reaffirm them.

 

We should do this on boards sometimes too. :lol: I think it would be totally fun, I can already see myself arguing why Latin and Greek should be kicked out of schools for good. LOL.

[angela in ohio]

As far as the accent on the right syllable in language education, I still think reading is the most important thing our kids can do. I think all this focus on grammar, spelling, and the like is somewhat helpful, but should not be the main concern. I'm reading in TWTM that that is not the opinion of the authors, though, so perhaps it is better not to discuss that here.

 

You can discuss it, just understand that many of us will disagree. :D There are quite a few of us homeschooling exactly because we don't want our dc in school learning that grammar, spelling, and skills don't matter at all. I would disagree with you, though, that grammar and spelling are the "main concern" in WTM or in most of our homeschools. They are one part.

[jld]

I strongly suggest keeping religion and politics out of papers which don't necessitate them - bringing them up usually smells of demagogy. In those papers which do deal with these (i.e. which tackle them directly, rather than tackle some topic which might, but doesn't have to be tied to them), I suggest bringing them up in a sort of impersonal, examine-the-idea way.

 

 

 

I think it would be very enlightening, EM, to have a thread on demagogy, its definition, specific examples of it right here on these boards, and why it does not promote truth and understanding. I have very much appreciated your bringing it up, but I think it might be helpful to have it fleshed out a bit more. Or I guess I could just go and read some more about it on my own, lol.:D

[jld]

You can discuss it, just understand that many of us will disagree. :D There are quite a few of us homeschooling exactly because we don't want our dc in school learning that grammar, spelling, and skills don't matter at all. I would disagree with you, though, that grammar and spelling are the "main concern" in WTM or in most of our homeschools. They are one part.

 

I am pretty torn about classical vs. more modern thoughts on what's important in language arts education. One high school I taught in did not allow any grammar teaching in the English dept. Many seniors there took AP English and scored 5s on the exam. I was pretty shocked by that, and was of course shocked about the rejection of traditional methods by the dept. chair. Looking back, I really wish I had talked with her about why she believed the way she did, considering it with an open mind, instead of just dismissing it as strange.

 

I don't know. I find so much of what I read in TWTM interesting and thought-provoking, and yet am still not convinced it is the only way to go. My philosophy of education is ever-evolving, I guess.:D

[mims]

I think one of the best curriculum out there for working through the 'logic' of writing a paper is Lost Tools of Writing from Circe Institute. It is not laid out real home school friendly but the meat of the program is what you are talking about.

[Nan in Mass]

I think very few of us say that TWTM is the only way to go. There are quite a lot of us who say that they have tried other ways and can only make that one work for their particular children. But we all mean something different by TWTM, so it is a little difficult even to generalize about that GRIN. I suspect that if you don't see any reason to study grammar that your whole family is naturally talented enough at it that it makes grammar seem unnecessary to you. It is like my sister's little boy. Everyone kept groaning about how wiggly he was, but he seemed perfectly normal to me. Finally both my sisters pointed out that I'd had no experience with little girls. You are a bilingual, college educated family. You probably speak standard English rather than a dialect, and your children have some experience with how a language works, even if they don't know the terminology. They also have read and been read to abundently. I think grammar is one of those things that in your family gets learned in context, without much effort. You would have to watch an older student struggling to extract the meaning from a poem to understand its uses. Maybe? I'm guessing. : )

-Nan

[LizzyBee]

Just from the little bit I'm reading on the writing sub-board, I'm starting to think that students may be limited in their ability to get high grades if they come into college with certain political and religious views. I see over there some encouragement on keeping religion out of it, and studying logic so as to make a coherent, fact-based case on whatever topic, but are students going to be able to do that if they've grown up with very definite worldviews? Is "toning it down" enough, or will students need to reconsider positions they have taken for granted are obviously correct? Will they be able to?

 

Or is this way too hot of a topic to discuss?:D

 

One more thing: I see a lot of emphasis on these boards on spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc., but in my college writing class these were not stressed at all; ideas, and the clear, effective presentation of them were 99% of the course. Has this been other people's experience as well? Are we putting the stress on the right syllable in the language education of our children?

 

I don't know how much things have changed, but I went to a public university where I had some professors whose views were diametrically opposed to mine. Most of them graded on the quality of the work regardless of whether they disagreed with the content. If a student can write a coherent, logical argument, most professors are adult enough to overlook ideological disagreements. That said, I had one professor in whose class I did self-censor more, because I didn't trust him to grade fairly.

 

On the second question, in my opinion, a writer cannot make a clear, effective presentation without a good foundation of spelling, grammar, and punctuation. I tell my kids all the time that it doesn't matter if you're right; nobody will be interested in reading or listening to your ideas if you can't express them elegantly and without significant usage errors. By college, those things should be so automatic that no attention needs to be given to them by professors, but I don't think that means they're unimportant. That said, throughout high school and college, we were marked down for spelling, grammar and punctuation errors. Maybe I'm showing my age with that statement. :D

[LizzyBee]

I am pretty torn about classical vs. more modern thoughts on what's important in language arts education. One high school I taught in did not allow any grammar teaching in the English dept. Many seniors there took AP English and scored 5s on the exam. I was pretty shocked by that, and was of course shocked about the rejection of traditional methods by the dept. chair. Looking back, I really wish I had talked with her about why she believed the way she did, considering it with an open mind, instead of just dismissing it as strange.

 

I don't know. I find so much of what I read in TWTM interesting and thought-provoking, and yet am still not convinced it is the only way to go. My philosophy of education is ever-evolving, I guess.:D

 

Was grammar taught well before high school in that district? In the school I attended, grammar was taught very intensively in 7th and 8th grades. By high school, we were expected to use correct grammar (and were marked down when we didn't) without additional instruction. This was a rural public jr-sr high school.

[jld]

Was grammar taught well before high school in that district? In the school I attended, grammar was taught very intensively in 7th and 8th grades. By high school, we were expected to use correct grammar (and were marked down when we didn't) without additional instruction. This was a rural public jr-sr high school.

 

I don't know. It was a high school north of Chicago (pretty farth north, not one of the wealthy districts directly north). And once again, I wish I had been a little curious and asked. I didn't look into the philosophy of the English dept. at all, but I couldn't argue with the results, at least of those AP kids.

 

It wasn't just the AP kids that were excused from grammar, either. None of the kids were studying it. The emphasis for all the kids seemed to be on writing often and as clearly as possible, though that is just what I observed watching the kids come into the computer labs during their English classes (I had computer lab duty one semester -- what a joke for a non-techie like me!:D). Once again, I didn't even have the curiosity to ask the teachers, or better yet, the dept. head, why they did things the way they did. I could have at least compared that to my more traditional thinking on language education. I just thought it all sounded strange (different from what I had experienced), and therefore wrong, you know.

 

Like I've said, I really need to read more about this philosophy and see if it has any merits. Someone mentioned here recently that students become better writers by writing, and said she had seen the results of that in her own child. That is exactly what the teachers I had in teacher training classes said, but that just seemed so strange to me, and even now it kind of gives me pause. Just writing, writing, writing could produce better writers? What about spelling, grammar, dictation, etc.? But once again, I didn't open my mind and consider something other than what I already thought to be true.

[jld]

I tell my kids all the time that it doesn't matter if you're right; nobody will be interested in reading or listening to your ideas if you can't express them elegantly and without significant usage errors.

 

I don't know, LizzyBee. What are the ideas? If someone wrote a cure for cancer on scrap paper, with spelling and grammar errors, I'd still read it.

 

You know, I'm wondering if we're a country more concerned with packaging than substance.

 

I want my kids to understand and communicate important ideas. While I think it is helpful to avoid distractions like poor spelling and grammar and punctuation errors, I'm not sure those skills merit the time some kids might need to take to get those assignments done, and at the expense of what else in the curriculum?

 

Look, none of this is new, and has almost certainly been discussed many other times here. But I'm planning a writing-intensive experience for dd15 this next year, her junior year, and I'm trying to figure out my priorities, and so these philosophies are being redebated in my head, lol. I've been pretty convinced we need to study logic, but after what one poster wrote recently, I'm wondering if we should just write a lot, too, on topics we're interested in, and then rewrite what we've written, if necessary, bouncing ideas off each other for making what we've tried to say clearer and more effective. That seems to be what those teacher trainers said to do, and I'm wondering if they were right.

[jld]

I think one of the best curriculum out there for working through the 'logic' of writing a paper is Lost Tools of Writing from Circe Institute. It is not laid out real home school friendly but the meat of the program is what you are talking about.

 

I'm not familiar with this at all, but will look into it. Thanks for the suggestion.:)

[jld]

I think very few of us say that TWTM is the only way to go. There are quite a lot of us who say that they have tried other ways and can only make that one work for their particular children. But we all mean something different by TWTM, so it is a little difficult even to generalize about that GRIN. I suspect that if you don't see any reason to study grammar that your whole family is naturally talented enough at it that it makes grammar seem unnecessary to you. It is like my sister's little boy. Everyone kept groaning about how wiggly he was, but he seemed perfectly normal to me. Finally both my sisters pointed out that I'd had no experience with little girls. You are a bilingual, college educated family. You probably speak standard English rather than a dialect, and your children have some experience with how a language works, even if they don't know the terminology. They also have read and been read to abundently. I think grammar is one of those things that in your family gets learned in context, without much effort. You would have to watch an older student struggling to extract the meaning from a poem to understand its uses. Maybe? I'm guessing. : )

-Nan

 

Maybe, Nan. I remember thinking it would be fun to study grammar with dd, but then life got in the way and it never happened. Phonics seemed to only get minimal time here, too. And even without a writing program, I think a few of the things she's written have been really good. And then she got a perfect writing score on the PSAT. I'm not sure how that happened without R&S grammar books, lol!

 

I do think reading is really, really important, but I can tell you we don't read as much as the families here. I really did not read enough to her when she was little, either. Yet another of my parenting mistakes, blush.

 

I do think knowing grammar is helpful when studying a foreign language, particularly at the adv. levels. Dd mentioned the other day she's learned some grammar through studying Latin, so that's good. We're not as far along in Spanish as in Latin, but I'm sure the Spanish will reinforce the grammar understanding she's gotten from Latin. She's studied French grammar, too, so she has an idea of their grammar terms. Mostly she's studied those grammars just to be able to speak and write those languages better, though, especially in French. I wanted her to be able to go to a French school if she wanted, and I think with a year of literary training, she could take the French language bac (given a year before the general bac), no problem. But she doesn't want to go to a French school, so she's just reading on her own in French now, and wants to work on improving her writing.

 

You know, it's funny, because I really enjoy reading TWTM book, but our life has been almost all whole language with our kids. The two older kids taught themselves to read, first in English, and then about 6 mos. or so later in French. Ds likes to write in English, but reads a fair amount in both languages. I feel kind of guilty even saying we've done whole language on these boards, partly because it seems to be the "wrong" way, and partly because it's not like I had a lifelong plan to go the whole language route, lol. It just kind of happened. Twenty years ago I would have said TWTM, or traditional methods, were the only way to go.

[jld]

You would have to watch an older student struggling to extract the meaning from a poem to understand its uses. Maybe? I'm guessing. : )

-Nan

 

But for this we should spent 45 minutes a day for twelve years on grammar? Just to figure out the meaning of a few obscure poems we might read in our lifetime? I'm not even sure I can think of any poems I've read that I needed grammar to understand. Of course, that's not saying a lot, as I don't read much poetry.

 

I don't know. Maybe I'm just off on this. That could certainly be the case. I just think the time could be used better. Obviously, that's jmho.

[MSNative]

I think one of the best curriculum out there for working through the 'logic' of writing a paper is Lost Tools of Writing from Circe Institute. It is not laid out real home school friendly but the meat of the program is what you are talking about.

 

:iagree:

LTOW is fantastic. I love the audio cds and listening to how he presents the material.

 

FWIW - dh and my father both teach grad (MBA and law) classes and punctuation, grammar, spelling, etc. matter. Content also matters. It's not a choice between one or the other.

 

I had some professors who did grade higher if you agreed with their POV. I don't know if they meant to be biased or if it was simply that they saw their POV as "right" so the other POV must be wrong. Does that make sense? Most professors, though, were very careful to be unbiased. I agree with PP who mentioned that people need to learn to discern when to debate, when to avoid taking the bait and when to keep opinions/worldview out of the picture.

[Nan in Mass]

Grin - your children were born fairly talented in language arts, had that talent developed by growing up bilingual, and then on top of that they got extensive training in grammar. Perhaps it wasn't English grammar, but I don't think that matters. If they could transfer their reading skills to other languages, they obviously figured out the phonics on their own. Phonics isn't complicated unless you have a brain wiring that makes it so. In other words, they are talented and trained. It just wasn't with the resources recommended by TWTM. : )

-Nan

[Nan in Mass]

Well, I would say not unless you needed it. But then, my younger two, the ones whose education I've been responsible for, are naturally good at picking out language patterns and have had Latin grammar (although they don't remember much of it - sigh). We did very little formal English grammar. I think "grammar" encompasses some things other than parts of speech and that is why it is recommended for so long in TWTM? Maybe? I don't know. As SWB keeps saying - nobody is meant to do all the recommendations in TWTM. You are supposed to tailor it to your children. : )

-Nan

[Nan in Mass]

The definition of "writing" might have varied. Some people include the mechanics when they talk about writing, and others just mean wording and organization.

[Nan in Mass]

jld - I can't imagine that it would be worth your while to study English grammar with your daughter after she has already had all that French grammar. Mine are perfectly able to disentangle overly complex sentences (like turning "The reason that it is important to use more complex punctuation is because ..." into "It is important to use more complex punctuation as one's sentences become more complex."). I think you can safely forget about grammar next year. : ) If you want something quick and writing-oriented for logic, you could have her read A Rulebook for Argument. It summarizes the rules of logic and then applies them to writing persuasive papers. It isn't a curriculum - it is just a rulebook. The same with Skunk and White (except that it isn't Skunk - it is something that sounds like skunk LOL). It is another quarter inch think small paperback that just lists suggestions for improving the clarity of one's writing. Perhaps if your daughter read those and then concentrated on writing writing writing, it would be what you are looking for? Have you looked at the Oxford book recommended in TWTM? That is a smallish book you can buy used relatively cheaply. It is a curriculum and it is aimed at improving one's writing. I would think it would be about right for your fifteen year old. None of those approaches writing from the classical perspective, with its emphasis on the progym, so you might like them better. I have all three and am impressed by the practicality and sensibleness of them, although I haven't used any of them yet. (I am about to go through S+W and ARfA with my youngest this spring. I wish I had time to do the Oxford book, but his writing is fast approaching where it needs to be for engineering and I want to put time into other things.) For what it is worth, I think you need to write to improve at writing. I'm not sure that writing with no guidance whatsoever is what people mean when they say "write write write". I think they are assuming that one either has someone to critique one's writing, or that one already knows what good writing sounds like and critique one's own.

HTH

-Nan

[Murphy101]

The definition of "writing" might have varied. Some people include the mechanics when they talk about writing, and others just mean wording and organization.

 

This is me. I would never spend 45 minutes a day for 12 years just on the grammar component of writing. Starting around 7th grade, I ditch grammar as a separate option. Even before then, I don't spend 45 minutes a day on it, more like 20.

 

If they are reading quality, and we read quite a bit compared to conversations I hear around me, and they have regular writing assignments that are evaluated over all for content, format, and logic - then the grammar aspect is being covered in process, instead of abstractly separate from it's purpose in actual writing. Again, my kids seem to write much more than what I hear in conversations around me. I seem surrounded by mostly relaxed schoolers. I think all the other draconian schoolers must stay hidden in their dens or something.;)

 

I freely admit the verdict is out on whether my process will be successful for MY kids, but many people have followed this process with positive results. It certainly isn't anything new or profound. So far, I am not seeing any horrible warning signs in my kids language development to make me rethink this approach. And I absolutely would rethink it if at this point in my journey I were to see no fruit of the process. And as my oldest, who I have certainly had many a teeth pulling experience, recently shocked me by saying he wants to major in English, I think it is safe to say I must not be too horrifically discouraging in what I require. Or at least not with him.:)

[Kareni]

The same with Skunk and White (except that it isn't Skunk - it is something that sounds like skunk LOL).

 

Yes, it's The Elements of Style by Strunk and White (but I do have to admit that your new name gave me a chuckle, Nan!).

 

There's another book whose title also made me chuckle --

 

The Elephants of Style: A Trunkload of Tips on the Big Issues and Gray Areas of Contemporary American English by Bill Walsh

 

Regards,

Kareni

[LizzyBee]

I don't know, LizzyBee. What are the ideas? If someone wrote a cure for cancer on scrap paper, with spelling and grammar errors, I'd still read it.

 

You know, I'm wondering if we're a country more concerned with packaging than substance.

 

I want my kids to understand and communicate important ideas. While I think it is helpful to avoid distractions like poor spelling and grammar and punctuation errors, I'm not sure those skills merit the time some kids might need to take to get those assignments done, and at the expense of what else in the curriculum?

 

Look, none of this is new, and has almost certainly been discussed many other times here. But I'm planning a writing-intensive experience for dd15 this next year, her junior year, and I'm trying to figure out my priorities, and so these philosophies are being redebated in my head, lol. I've been pretty convinced we need to study logic, but after what one poster wrote recently, I'm wondering if we should just write a lot, too, on topics we're interested in, and then rewrite what we've written, if necessary, bouncing ideas off each other for making what we've tried to say clearer and more effective. That seems to be what those teacher trainers said to do, and I'm wondering if they were right.

 

Well, I did say significant usage errors. :D

 

Have you ever tried to read something and you couldn't figure out what the author was trying to say? Or you sort of figured it out but the writing was so convoluted that you were annoyed at how much effort was required to read the paper or article? That's the kind of writing I don't want my kids to produce. I would like to think we can have the packaging and the substance; one doesn't have to be sacrificed in favor of the other. However, if a high school student has a good foundation of grammar and usage instruction, I don't think we need to spend much time on it during high school. My high school definitely focused on writing, but we had good grammar, spelling, and vocab/roots instruction prior to high school.

[Nan in Mass]

LOL - Thank you, Kareni.

[jld]

Or you sort of figured it out but the writing was so convoluted that you were annoyed at how much effort was required to read the paper or article? That's the kind of writing I don't want my kids to produce.

 

Actually, I've had people tell me plenty of times that's how I sound, lol. :D

 

I think some of us think as we write, so we're still sort of processing info, but trying to communicate our thinking at the same time. Right now I've got this whole language v. traditional methods debate going on in my head, and each side seems to have interesting evidence to back it up. It's hard to take a decisive stand one way or the other, and that's reflected in my writing.

 

And let's face it, it's a bit hard to communicate in this world that is ready to jump on anybody at any time for offending somebody. I try to be tactful in what I say, but it can be a challenge to be tactful and yet clear. Still working on that one . . .

[jld]

Nan, thanks for your replies to my posts. It's interesting that you think that dd's study of French grammar has helped her English writing. I'm not sure I agree, but it is an interesting point to consider. Thanks for bringing it up.:)

 

I think it would have been fun to spend years doing R&S grammar books. Like many moms here, I enjoyed that sort of thing in school and I bet dd would have, too. But it just didn't happen here, and yet the results seem to be fine.

 

While I'm deciding what to do with dd next year, language arts-wise, I'm also thinking about my boys coming up, and what would be most effective with them, too. I think this is what weighs on me the most: we only have so much time with our kids, so how can we use this time most effectively? What should our priorities be? What has experience, rather than theory, taught us?

 

I keep coming back to reading, reading, reading, and now maybe adding more writing, too.

 

Thanks for your book suggestions. I was thinking of a more elaborate writing program, but maybe we'll just end up using a rulebook, like you suggested, along with lots of writing and rewriting. I really did want to get some logic study in there, too, though; I'll have to keep thinking about that.

 

You know, I really want to be open and evidence-based in my decision-making. We're all learning as we go, I think. I don't want to just stay in my original thinking and miss out on a better experience.

[Nan in Mass]

You might want to think about whole-to-parts and parts-to-whole. This is what I have figured out (just in case any of this is helpful. It sounds like you are reading about this, so you may be ahead of me here):

 

Some people learn better if they can see the big picture - what this little thing is a part of, where it fits in, how it relates to the other parts, how it is used in real life. If you teach them the little parts in an unconnected way, they have trouble remembering them long enough for enough the little pieces to accumulate that the big picture emerges. They also may have trouble making the connections and putting the pieces together, even if they manage to remember them. On the other hand, some people are driven nuts by situations that present the big picture first. They want to learn the little pieces thoroughily first and afterwards figure out how to put the little things together into a useful picture or job. It seems like more work to try to swallow everything at once. They object to doing the whole job badly while they wait until they have managed to figure out how to do a reasonable job on the pieces.

 

Obviously, some jobs lend themselves more to one form or the other. Sometimes it is dangerous to do the job badly and figure out the pieces as you go along. Sometimes it is difficult to disentangle the pieces to teach them separately. Usually the pieces aren't much use unless at some point you pull the pieces together and practise the job as a whole.

 

I think part of what makes reading and writing difficult to teach is the fact that we ask children to read and write for other subjects while we are teaching them the pieces that will help them to become better readers and writers. In other words, we expect the "bad" job (the age appropriate job). Then, being homeschoolers without much experience in what is appropriate for different ages, we suddenly raise our expectations and begin a new round of teaching. Or even worse, your expectations go up but you don't begin that new round of the teaching of the pieces, or you continue to teach the pieces but never offer opportunities to put them together into something useful.

 

If you have a child who is especially good at figuring out those pieces while practising the whole job, then teaching the pieces separately will not be a good use of your time. On the other hand, a child that struggles with the whole job can be doing so for two reasons: It might be that you have a child who can do the pieces but struggles to put them together, then you need to put extra time into showing them how to do the whole job, possibly by modeling it over and over. Or it might be that you have a child who can't do the whole job because he can't do certain of the pieces. You have to figure out which of these three scenarios matches your child at this particular time.

 

At a guess, I'd say that your children were of the first type. Lucky, lucky you! You get help them to learn to read better by reading and to write better by writing. You don't have to struggle through Rod and Staff. Your daughter would have enjoyed doing it because it would have been fairly easy GRIN. You just have to make sure that this remains true at each level and help with a few pieces here and there.

 

But you probably are before me with all this. I'm posting it just in case, because it took me forever to figure that out.

 

-Nan

[jld]

Lol -- I don't think I have anything figured out. We just keep learning as we go, and then reflecting on it.

 

I think when the youngest is 18, then I'll have some real experience to share.:D

 

One thing I've been thinking a lot about lately is how important readiness is. So often our kids just haven't been able to do something until they were truly ready, and then it just seemed like they understood that thing overnight. If I could have been patient, I could have saved myself and everybody who had to listen to me lots of anxiety.

 

Well, ds5 has a fever, so I'll have to get back to this later.

 

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts, Nan.:)

[LizzyBee]

I think when the youngest is 18, then I'll have some real experience to share.:D

 

 

:iagree: I've had the same thought! I kind of hope my kids will let me homeschool my grandchildren so I can use the knowledge I gained from experimenting on them. :D

[BeckyFL]

Just from the little bit I'm reading on the writing sub-board, I'm starting to think that students may be limited in their ability to get high grades if they come into college with certain political and religious views. I see over there some encouragement on keeping religion out of it, and studying logic so as to make a coherent, fact-based case on whatever topic, but are students going to be able to do that if they've grown up with very definite worldviews? Is "toning it down" enough, or will students need to reconsider positions they have taken for granted are obviously correct? Will they be able to?

 

Or is this way too hot of a topic to discuss?:D

 

One more thing: I see a lot of emphasis on these boards on spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc., but in my college writing class these were not stressed at all; ideas, and the clear, effective presentation of them were 99% of the course. Has this been other people's experience as well? Are we putting the stress on the right syllable in the language education of our children?

The local college where my kids dual enrolled accepted and seemed used to Christians expressing their worldview. Of course, they were also used to all kinds of other topics that people write about... anything and everything.

As far as grammar, punctuation, etc.... an A paper was expected to be pretty much free of those types of errors. Students had access to a tutoring center if they wanted help with proof reading or they could ask someone at home to look it over as well.

[jld]

Another thing I've learned is the importance of following kids' interests as much as possible. Dd loves science, and is doing 3 Apologia courses this year (really, more like a semester, as she has only been doing schoolwork since Nov., took off 6 weeks around the holidays, and will finish the end of April) plus a lesson a day of Saxon calculus (finished adv. math recently). I could have said, no, no, you can't do all that science; you must have more balance in your studies. Instead, I said go for it! She did, loves it, and after covering half of each Apologia book, started incorporating more languages, lit, and history into her days. I think kids can often manage more than we think, when the responsibility is in their hands and we respect their choices. Okay, that's probably somewhat idealistic!:D

 

A note on the emphasis put on grammar and mechanics: I am not against proper spelling, or anything like that, lol. I am just not sure it has to be studied year in and year out (though I could see how that could be fun!). Dd, with minimal study (never did a spelling book, did one 30 page word study workbook I found at Goodwill, lol), improved tremendously in those areas between 6th and 8th. I asked her why yesterday, and she wasn't sure, though she thinks it might be that she was just reading more and writing more in general at that time, and becoming more aware of those things. It does seem like kids just mature into things, and sort of naturally improve over time.

 

It could be that you're right, Nan, and some kids are just more inclined to learn these things on their own, and some need more guidance. I wonder, though, even for the kids who need more guidance, if they improve that much with repeated instruction, and if it's sustainable. We all bring something different to the world, and maybe some aren't meant to bring great spelling, lol.

[Nan in Mass]

That is why engineering school is the only possible choice for some student GRIN. (Just joking. But only sort of.)

-Nan