No grammar in grammar stage?

[Just Robyn]

Here in the list of lectures from the 2010 Indianapolis Mini Convention is a lecture by Andrew Pudewa in which he argues against teaching grammar before middle school.

 

Thoughts?

[boscopup]

Listen to SWB'S lecture on writing for the counter arguments.

[Just Robyn]

Listen to SWB'S lecture on writing for the counter arguments.

 

I have listened to them, though it has been awhile. None the less, I definitely don't base all my thoughts, opinions, and actions off of what SWB alone says. I prefer to consider many thoughts and ideas from different people rather than defaulting to those of one person.

[CourtneySue]

I listened to this lecture a few months ago. And I've heard SWB talk about it, too. Honestly, I never took the "delay grammar" arguments very seriously because mostly they had more to do with the fact that it's easier for a child to learn grammar when they are 10 than when they are 6 or 7. Well, you could say that about just about everything.

 

In this lecture, I think Andrew P. offers the best argument for the delay-formal-grammar idea than anyone I've heard. But, the key component of his argument is studying a foreign language, in which the child is studying grammar in a much more natural setting. He talks about how most people who say they understand grammar will admit that they never understood grammar until they studied a foreign language. This was definitely the case for me. I never understood grammar until I studied Greek and Latin in college. I know if you get Prima Latina by Memoria Press that it does incorporate the teaching of English grammar with the Latin.

 

To make a long story short, I may now be a convert.

[Veritaserum]

Here in the list of lectures from the 2010 Indianapolis Mini Convention is a lecture by Andrew Pudewa in which he argues against teaching grammar before middle school.

 

Thoughts?

 

I think it's a bad idea. Grammar is a skill. Skills get stronger with proper use. More time practicing proper grammar usage will create a better foundation for grammatically correct writing in later years. When correct grammar is explicitly taught and practiced, I think it likely that more children will come away with a good understanding than if it is not taught at all. ;) Exposure is important, but it isn't enough, imo.

 

I wouldn't avoid formal math in grammar stage and expect my child to be better equipped for higher math. I wouldn't avoid grammar in grammar stage and expect my child to be better equipped for formal writing. :)

 

I like Andrew Pudewa (we use IEW), but I agree with SWB on this one. :)

[Veritaserum]

I listened to this lecture a few months ago. And I've heard SWB talk about it, too. Honestly, I never took the "delay grammar" arguments very seriously because mostly they had more to do with the fact that it's easier for a child to learn grammar when they are 10 than when they are 6 or 7. Well, you could say that about just about everything.

 

Yes. But I don't think that's a good argument because a younger child can learn grammar (and math and science, etc.).

 

In this lecture, I think Andrew P. offers the best argument for the delay-formal-grammar idea than anyone I've heard. But, the key component of his argument is studying a foreign language, in which the child is studying grammar in a much more natural setting. He talks about how most people who say they understand grammar will admit that they never understood grammar until they studied a foreign language. This was definitely the case for me. I never understood grammar until I studied Greek and Latin in college. I know if you get Prima Latina by Memoria Press that it does incorporate the teaching of English grammar with the Latin.

 

To make a long story short, I may now be a convert.

 

My counter to that would be that more people would understand English if they learned English grammar. :) Writing is a foreign language. We do not write the same way that we speak. The rules and structure of written English should be explicitly taught and practiced if we want our students to gain proficiency.

 

I understood grammar better when I learned a foreign language because I was never taught English grammar in the first place. :)

[ChrissySC]

Oh good, another thread for my infamous opinions, LOL.

 

You can very easily choose not to teach grammar until the logic stage. Yes, it is feasible. However, you will need to provide rich resources that are imitating/demonstrating grammar. There is a serious need to encourage and to develop vocabulary too. You will need to support or build the foundation through example. This implies that not only do reading materials or verbal language need to support the grammar, but they need to support the vocabulary too. The theory is not that you will not teach grammar. The concept is that you will not consciously teach grammar. You can develop the skill without being rigorously tutored or providing directed teaching. Well, this is the current theory, whether I disagree or not.

 

With that noted, you must consider that linguistic study, of our own language or any foreign language, will necessitate the need for grammatical studies. Even with a massive workload of readings, it would be impossible to expect grammatical accuracy in writing without a formal and directed approach. So, at some point, you will inevitably need to introduce a grammar program. You could begin with an informal approach, but as you read through this post, you will need to begin at some point. That is quite obvious.

 

As we prescribe to the classical learning methods, we believe or tend to provide instruction for grammar. If you use Rod and Staff, you are isolating the grammar studies and, more than likely, are using grammar to drive or to support your writing instruction. The idea of removing grammar as a rigorously taught subject, that was the premise for language arts development and instruction, began to dissipate during the whole language movement. You will find very little grammatical instruction in public school. How many times have we read on the forum in a thread the recounting of a lack of grammar for a particular student and the need for placement assistance in one program or another as the transition to homeschool is made?

 

Allow me to comment on the above. There is no proof that the new approach will yield effective grammar knowledge. This is the new public approach – that is to use grammar and introduce as needed for the purpose of the instruction without formality and rigorous study. Please remember the lack of phonics-based reading instruction when considering the idea of dropping a formal grammar study. In addition, the students are tested on their accurate use and application of grammar. If you know that you will be tested, then it would make complete sense to formally study. Sometimes I wonder if these theories are developed in the fantasy world rather than in real life. As a matter of fact, testing requires cursive writing, essay writing, and much more than what is taught formally.

 

So, should you teach grammar formally? You bet your bottom dollar that you should!

[Daisy]

I think the only way I would have ever considered delaying grammar was if I was using something like Abeka Oral Language exercises. I think proper speaking goes a long way in making grammar simple to learn. Unfortunately, in my personal experience, often the people who choose to delay teaching their children grammar are the very ones who should have started early. That may be an unpopular view but there it is.

 

I grew up under the tutelage of a grammar Nazi though. Thanks, Mom!

Edited April 29, 2011 by Daisy

[Just Robyn]

Yes. But I don't think that's a good argument because a younger child can learn grammar (and math and science, etc.).

 

 

 

My counter to that would be that more people would understand English if they learned English grammar. :) Writing is a foreign language.We do not write the same way that we speak. The rules and structure of written English should be explicitly taught and practiced if we want our students to gain proficiency.

 

I understood grammar better when I learned a foreign language because I was never taught English grammarin the first place. :)

 

I don't think your thoughts are counter to his. He doesn't say children shouldn't practice using correct grammar. He says they don't need to learn to diagram sentences so early. He believes LOTS of input from well written books, poems, etc. coupled with practicing writing things correctly is the grammar practice needed in the grammar stage. This seems to actually go along with what you're calling for. He is specifically against analyzing sentences and memorizing parts of speech and other grammar terms in the grammar stage, but I don't think he is suggesting that grammar should be ignored. It should just be learned more organically, through exposure and practice with usage (according to my understanding of this lecture).

Edited April 29, 2011 by crstarlette

[Just Robyn]

Oh good, another thread for my infamous opinions, LOL.

 

You can very easily choose not to teach grammar until the logic stage. Yes, it is feasible. However, you will need to provide rich resources that are imitating/demonstrating grammar. There is a serious need to encourage and to develop vocabulary too. You will need to support or build the foundation through example. This implies that not only do reading materials or verbal language need to support the grammar, but they need to support the vocabulary too. The theory is not that you will not teach grammar. The concept is that you will not consciously teach grammar. You can develop the skill without being rigorously tutored or providing directed teaching. Well, this is the current theory, whether I disagree or not.

 

This is precisely what he recommends: exposure to well written works and lots of writing practice. He also says to start learning Latin asap.

 

With that noted, you must consider that linguistic study, of our own language or any foreign language, will necessitate the need for grammatical studies. Even with a massive workload of readings, it would be impossible to expect grammatical accuracy in writing without a formal and directed approach. So, at some point, you will inevitably need to introduce a grammar program. You could begin with an informal approach, but as you read through this post, you will need to begin at some point. That is quite obvious.

 

As we prescribe to the classical learning methods, we believe or tend to provide instruction for grammar. If you use Rod and Staff, you are isolating the grammar studies and, more than likely, are using grammar to drive or to support your writing instruction. The idea of removing grammar as a rigorously taught subject, that was the premise for language arts development and instruction, began to dissipate during the whole language movement. You will find very little grammatical instruction in public school. How many times have we read on the forum in a thread the recounting of a lack of grammar for a particular student and the need for placement assistance in one program or another as the transition to homeschool is made?

 

Right. I am aware of this. However, in my experience, grammar was not delayed until middle school. Grammar was simply not taught. I have seen how awful that is as I had to learn it in college. (Really, that was only due to my major. I am certain I could have gotten through college without it if I had studied something different.) However, not teaching grammar at all is quite different from not starting it until the logic stage.

 

Allow me to comment on the above. There is no proof that the new approach will yield effective grammar knowledge. This is the new public approach – that is to use grammar and introduce as needed for the purpose of the instruction without formality and rigorous study. Please remember the lack of phonics-based reading instruction when considering the idea of dropping a formal grammar study. In addition, the students are tested on their accurate use and application of grammar. If you know that you will be tested, then it would make complete sense to formally study. Sometimes I wonder if these theories are developed in the fantasy world rather than in real life. As a matter of fact, testing requires cursive writing, essay writing, and much more than what is taught formally.

 

So, should you teach grammar formally? You bet your bottom dollar that you should!

 

Also, from what I've learned of a CM approach (all second hand information from lectures - I have not read her original words) grammar is not taught until 4th or 5th grade in that approach. Again, this is late grammar or early logic stage. So, delaying grammar until the logic stage is not necessarily a new idea (and, as I said, is not at all the same as just plain not teaching it).

 

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with one side or the other. I love grammar and have been using MCT this year with my 3rd grader. I'm just talking.

[Veritaserum]

I don't think your thoughts are counter to his. He doesn't say children shouldn't practice using correct grammar. He says they don't need to learn to diagram sentences so early. He believes LOTS of input from well written books, poems, etc. coupled with practicing writing things correctly is the grammar practice needed in the grammar stage. This seems to actually go along with what you're calling for. He is specifically against analyzing sentences and memorizing parts of speech and other grammar terms in the grammar stage, but I don't think he is suggesting that grammar should be ignored. It should just be learned more organically, through exposure and practice with usage (according to my understanding of this lecture).

 

Where I disagree with him is that I think it is good to memorize parts of speech and do sentence analysis and diagramming while being exposed to good writing. Organic + explicit additional instruction is what I think is the best approach. I think the comparison to the phonics vs. whole language debate is a good one. Explicitly taught formal grammar bleeds organically into the study of good poetry and literature. Exposure to good writing is definitely important, but it doesn't stand alone. Neither does formal grammar. That's why I like the combo. :)

[ChrissySC]

Also, from what I've learned of a CM approach (all second hand information from lectures - I have not read her original words) grammar is not taught until 4th or 5th grade in that approach. Again, this is late grammar or early logic stage. So, delaying grammar until the logic stage is not necessarily a new idea (and, as I said, is not at all the same as just plain not teaching it).

 

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with one side or the other. I love grammar and have been using MCT this year with my 3rd grader. I'm just talking.

 

Yes, it is completely possible. I agree. As I explained, with the appropriate planning and support prior to study, it can be done well and makes some logical sense.

 

I am fond of many of the CM approaches too. :tongue_smilie:

 

The new idea, perhaps not well explained, is to not formally teach the grammar at all except as it implies to the need or, for example, the writing instruction at the time. I feel that this new approach is one that sets the child up for failure.

 

And yes, oh yes, how often do they choose not to address it at all!?!

 

Imagine, if you will, a fourth grader that does not know what a subject or a verb is. How do you think that child can write a sentence? The only guided instruction was to think of a sentence in terms of a complete thought. While this is a great introduction to identifying a sentence, how many fragmented thoughts do you think a child will have in a day upon which they will base the idea that their individual thought is a sentence?:lol: "yummy bronwies" is not a sentence ....

[ChrissySC]

Explicitly taught formal grammar bleeds organically into the study of good poetry and literature. Exposure to good writing is definitely important, but it doesn't stand alone. Neither does formal grammar. That's why I like the combo. :)

 

Well Stated!

 

Latin: I think that a good point was made concerning Latin too. It requires a formal grammar study. I believe that this will go a long way to adaptation and assimilation for our own grammar studies, but that is an off side comment. Yet, if you applied the immersion approach to Latin, it is accepted that the grammar will follow too. Imagine not teaching Latin grammar.:glare: How far do you think you could get with the language?

Edited April 29, 2011 by ChrissySC

[boscopup]

I have listened to them, though it has been awhile. None the less, I definitely don't base all my thoughts, opinions, and actions off of what SWB alone says. I prefer to consider many thoughts and ideas from different people rather than defaulting to those of one person.

 

I wasn't expecting you to base your thoughts on one person. I was just pointing out a source for the opposite view without typing it myself, since I only have internet on my phone right now. :)

 

I've made my own decision by hearing arguments from multiple sources on both sides. The argument that stuck with me was that writing is a foreign language, and learning a foreign language is easiest done when young. It's also a skill, and it's nice to get these individual skills worked on in the grammar years before the kids start writing original works. That way, they don't have to think "Do I have a verb in this sentence?" It's automatic by then.

[Haiku]

He talks about how most people who say they understand grammar will admit that they never understood grammar until they studied a foreign language. This was definitely the case for me.

 

This is true for me, too. I never really got grammar until I studied German in high school and college.

 

BUT!

 

(And it's a big but, hence the all caps)

 

Learning German grammar elucidated for me the English grammar that I had been (poorly) taught in elementary, middle, and high school. It clarified concepts I was already familiar with. I think that studying a foreign language without having the benefit of at least some knowledge of English grammar would be difficult.

 

Tara

[Greta]

I started a Latin program with my dd in 3rd grade. We had not done any formal grammar study before that, but the Latin text was assuming a basic knowledge of parts of speech and such. So I just taught those concepts to her as we went along. It worked just fine.

 

We used a good but gentle English program in 4th, and I decided on a more formal, structured one this year. She tested in to the 500 level of CLE (which is the "right" grade level for her age, though some people say the program runs a grade ahead and 500 is really more like 6th grade) and she's doing just fine, making A's, and right on track.

 

I'll go listen to the lecture now, but I wanted to go ahead and post saying that of all the things I wish I had done differently, introducing grammar earlier really isn't one of them.

Edited April 29, 2011 by GretaLynne

[MinivanMom]

Yes, it is completely possible. I agree. As I explained, with the appropriate planning and support prior to study, it can be done well and makes some logical sense.

 

I am fond of many of the CM approaches too. :tongue_smilie:

 

The new idea, perhaps not well explained, is to not formally teach the grammar at all except as it implies to the need or, for example, the writing instruction at the time. I feel that this new approach is one that sets the child up for failure.

 

And yes, oh yes, how often do they choose not to address it at all!?!

 

Imagine, if you will, a fourth grader that does not know what a subject or a verb is. How do you think that child can write a sentence? The only guided instruction was to think of a sentence in terms of a complete thought. While this is a great introduction to identifying a sentence, how many fragmented thoughts do you think a child will have in a day upon which they will base the idea that their individual thought is a sentence?:lol: "yummy bronwies" is not a sentence ....

 

I'm feeling very young as I read these posts. This "new" instruction has been around for a little while now. I was taught language arts with Readers Workshop and Writers Workshop back in the 80's when it was first being developed out of Fresno State. I attended a self-contained gifted program for my district and we were some of the guinea pigs. I was taught no formal grammar prior to the 8th grade. There was little to no instruction in spelling, mechanics, and vocabulary. We read good literature, listened to our teacher read aloud, wrote in journals, and wrote lots of stories. When neighborhood children pulled out Mad-Libs, I backed away slowly. I didn't want anyone to know that I didn't understand what those fancy words (noun, adverb, adjective) meant!

 

After a year of basic grammar in 8th grade, we were all dumped into honors classes. I rocked the SAT's, did great on my AP's, and even got a perfect score on the English portion of my ACT's. I had no problem with college level writing. My classmates' experiences were similar. Maybe I'm a genius :001_smile:. Obviously the deck is a little stacked when you experiment with kids who have already been identified as having high IQ's. It certainly wouldn't have hurt my academic achievement to have a little more formal grammar.

 

But . . . I find it a little absurd to think that you can't write a sentence without knowing grammatical definitions. I have a lot of old stories and essays from elementary and middle school that contradict that idea. At a very basic level, isn't writing just thoughts and speech that have been written on paper? If you grow up in a home where people speak grammatically, then you can probably speak well. If you can speak well, then you can write well. Obviously, the writing process is a bit more complex than that, but it isn't that complex. I'm sometimes surprised at how little writing many homeschoolers do. There seems to be this pervasive belief that writing is a difficult, mysterious process that can only begin after years of grammar instruction.

 

Personally, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. Many public schools err in dropping grammar entirely. Many homeschoolers err in teaching basic skills to the exclusion of actual writing time. Based on my own experience as a student, I am choosing to delay formal grammar instruction until the logic stage. My children will still get the opportunity to learn and master formal grammar. I just don't think that formal grammar is a prerequisite for writing a simple story.

[ChrissySC]

The decline in formal grammar instruction, I believe, is now more evident, and not just in the children from public school but today's published author's too.

 

I recently read a work of fiction that contained periods at the end of "thoughts." For example. Something odd. Today.

 

I was irked. Is it just thoughts? speech on paper?

 

(And everything will always be considered new if I did not personally experience it, LOL I will not admit my age.)

[Just Robyn]

But . . . I find it a little absurd to think that you can't write a sentence without knowing grammatical definitions. I have a lot of old stories and essays from elementary and middle school that contradict that idea. At a very basic level, isn't writing just thoughts and speech that have been written on paper? If you grow up in a home where people speak grammatically, then you can probably speak well. If you can speak well, then you can write well. Obviously, the writing process is a bit more complex than that, but it isn't that complex. I'm sometimes surprised at how little writing many homeschoolers do. There seems to be this pervasive belief that writing is a difficult, mysterious process that can only begin after years of grammar instruction.

 

Personally, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. Many public schools err in dropping grammar entirely. Many homeschoolers err in teaching basic skills to the exclusion of actual writing time. Based on my own experience as a student, I am choosing to delay formal grammar instruction until the logic stage. My children will still get the opportunity to learn and master formal grammar. I just don't think that formal grammar is a prerequisite for writing a simple story.

 

I have also always written fairly well and mostly with correct grammar despite, in my K-12 years, never learning formal grammar.

 

Recently I had my ds in grade 1 narrate for me the happenings in a short chapter book he read. I typed up everything he said as he narrated. It was pretty long. The goal was not a concise summary. Realizing I was typing it up and this was not an informal conversation, he did not utter a single incomplete sentence. I attribute this ability completely to WWE. We do not use FLL or any grammar program in first grade.

 

So, there are at least three accounts now of formal grammar being unnecessary for one to learn to write only in complete sentences (if you will count my ds's narration). Of course this is all anecdotal and there are also many accounts of people, even published writers, writing in incomplete sentences. Perhaps formal grammar is necessary for some people and not others when it comes to very simple writing conventions like knowing where to put a period.

[joysworld]

I haven't listened to his lecture, but I don't do formal grammar lessons until they are older. Why? Because IMO, it's an unnecessary hassle. I do however, informally teach grammar. We learn grammar through talking, and reading. I read great literature to them, and they pick up the flow of language from them as well as the vocabulary. I also have a vocabulary notebook that I keep for myself. When I learn a new word, I write the word in there and make sure I incorporate it into my everyday language. I also correct them whey they speak improperly. Beyond this, I just don't see the need for it. If they are talking properly, then they will be able to write down their thoughts properly, in due time. Of course, this is just my humble opinion:D

[birchbark]

Thanks for this thread. I have been thinking about this lately and even started a thread recently in the same vein. I didn't get many responses though (maybe I put it on the wrong board :tongue_smilie:).

 

I really appreciate ChrissySC's posts. They helped clarify in my mind what the purpose of grammar is. Grammar knowledge is not for impressing college professors with complex sentence diagrams. It is not an end in itself. It is a tool. And two things that it is helpful for are writing instruction and foreign language study.

 

So I guess what you have to ask yourself is what are you trying to accomplish? If you want to have formal writing instruction before the logic stage then knowledge of some grammar will be helpful. Memorizing lists of, say, helping verbs during the grammar stage (while it is easy) for future reference can be helpful too.

 

FWIW, I don't think you can pick up grammar through reading and speaking. You can pick up usage, and maybe mechanics, but grammar is terminology and definitions that must be taught.

[Momling]

I always get a little confused by the term "grammar" to begin with...

 

"Grammar" sometimes just means 'writing mechanics'--- you know, making sure sentences are punctuated properly and capitalized well. I think this is worth doing as early as first grade. There's no reason to put it off.

 

Then there is the grammar that I find a bit weird and belonging more in an ESL textbook. For instance, in CLE LA1, there are exercises where the student decides whether to write "Sam and I" or "I and Sam" or "Five ducks are" or "Five ducks is". In my experience, this is bizarrely unnecessary for a native speaker of standard English. The grammar that allows a six yr old to communicate is not learned from a textbook, but is acquired as an infant and toddler. It's totally unneccesary to teach this grammar -- it already exists in our brains.

 

Then there is the grammarian's grammar -- the language that is not a part of our dialect and needs to be taught if it is to be used. It's the grammar you dust off when you want to sound formal... you know... trying not to split your infinitives or end your sentences with prepositions. I think this one is up in the air whether or not you want to teach it at all.

 

Finally, there's the syntax -- the linguistic side of how we put together words into sentences. This is where we teach about the parts of speech, the different types of phrases and clauses, cases and declensions and how to analyze sentences. It can be done in a study of English grammar or in a study of Latin or any other language or the study of langauge in general. I think this grammar is best doled out in small chunks throughout the years. I do like to talk about language, so even though my kids are young, we talk about adverbs or adjective phrases or superlatives or whatever we come across... but I have no desire to delve into x-bar theory in elementary school.

[joysworld]

Thanks for this thread. I have been thinking about this lately and even started a thread recently in the same vein. I didn't get many responses though (maybe I put it on the wrong board :tongue_smilie:).

 

I really appreciate ChrissySC's posts. They helped clarify in my mind what the purpose of grammar is. Grammar knowledge is not for impressing college professors with complex sentence diagrams. It is not an end in itself. It is a tool. And two things that it is helpful for are writing instruction and foreign language study.

 

So I guess what you have to ask yourself is what are you trying to accomplish? If you want to have formal writing instruction before the logic stage then knowledge of some grammar will be helpful. Memorizing lists of, say, helping verbs during the grammar stage (while it is easy) for future reference can be helpful too.

 

FWIW, I don't think you can pick up grammar through reading and speaking. You can pick up usage, and maybe mechanics, but grammar is terminology and definitions that must be taught.

 

If one knows how to speak properly then one knows grammar. Maybe not all the technical 'rules' so to speak, but grammar is not strictly 'rules'. The reason for grammar is to understand language. One does not have to know the 'rules' to understand language, nor to write well. Now, if we are talking a foreign language, then that's a different topic, IMO. I'm only referring to one's native language here.

[birchbark]

If one knows how to speak properly then one knows grammar. Maybe not all the technical 'rules' so to speak, but grammar is not strictly 'rules'.

 

I was referring primarily to the parts of speech and their definitions; the type of grammar one would be learning in early grades.

[joysworld]

I was referring primarily to the parts of speech and their definitions; the type of grammar one would be learning in early grades.

 

Okay, and I just don't see the need to formally teach the parts of speech in early grades. *shrugs* :D

[ChrissySC]

Okay, and I just don't see the need to formally teach the parts of speech in early grades. *shrugs* :D

 

 

As long as you support the growth and isntruction informally, I feel this is completely possible. I would imagine that you have provided ample readings of good quality, and you have chosen to correct your child's verbal errors.

 

I believe that you subscribe to the theories or ideology of the lecturer.

 

I caution you in waiting too long to provide formal instruction, but I feel that you will make wise decisions for your children. None of us are what anyone can call "dumb." :lol:

 

As I always say, when all esle fails you ... READ and READ lots!

[Haiku]

The grammar that allows a six yr old to communicate is not learned from a textbook, but is acquired as an infant and toddler. It's totally unneccesary to teach this grammar -- it already exists in our brains.

 

I don't think that's true. My son is eight and he still messes up correct verb usage. He was adopted at 2 from another country, but I don't know whether that has had any impact on his language acquisition. But I DO think some kids need to be explicitly taught this stuff. For some kids, it's simply not innate. Grammar is patterns of language, and not all kids just "pick it up." If it were true that this type of knowledge were innate, we would not have slang and dialect and people who sound uneducated because of the way they speak ... we would all speak a standardized, "correct" form of English. That is, in part, what the whole Ebonics issue was about. My dd16 attends a mostly-black public school, and "black English" (for lack of a better term, and I am not trying to offend here) uses different verb conjugations a lot of the time. Is this an acceptable dialect or is it "bad English?"

 

Tara

[Haiku]

If one knows how to speak properly then one knows grammar.

 

I don't think that's true, either. To me, that is like saying, "If you can run a computer program, you know how to program a computer." If you can't fix the program when it gets buggy, you don't know how to program a computer. If you can't explain why something is correct or incorrect, you don't know grammar. You just have good usage.

 

Tara

[ChrissySC]

I don't think that's true, either. To me, that is like saying, "If you can run a computer program, you know how to program a computer." If you can't fix the program when it gets buggy, you don't know how to program a computer. If you can't explain why something is correct or incorrect, you don't know grammar. You just have good usage.

 

Tara

 

 

:iagree:

 

This was a wonderful example.

 

However, if I teach you the basic terminology ("mamma" and "dadda" or "give me"),e.g. variable, switch, loop, etc., I can show you the structure by showing you examples of written code (reading to you).

 

I can further enhance this knowledge by showing you well written code in its application form(here is a book for you to read) as well as inviting you to further attempt code(write a narration).

 

As the "years" progress, you may be able to write parts of the code(sentence and/or paragraph), but you many not be able to structure a full application(essay or book) until I show you the complete syntax, or grammar.

 

This is a wonderful analogy for grammar and writing.

 

The question I have for you: How many errors or incorrect forms will you learn on your own? While attempting to reproduce or immitate what you have seen or experienced, if I do not guide you or present you with any formal instruction, you will fail to have any code that will execute (run). Would this not prove to be frustrating? How would you feel when I sit a book on syntax in front of you after 5 years of your hard work?

[ChandlerMom]

I'm not sure that grammar ed has "declined" or is "delayed". Unless 35yrs ago my school was ahead of its time! :lol:

 

When I was a kid, K-3 we didn't do any grammar. We learned to read and write, and some activities listing "things" and then lists of what those things might "do". In 5th grade we covered basic parts of speech and simple diagraming. Beginning of 9th grade we did a detailed week long review and that was the end of grammar ed. I got 4.0s in every english class I took in college, so I must have learned enough.

 

DD#1 did K12's LA program (heavy on grammar) for K-1 and was halfway thru 4th grade LA by the end. Maybe it was seeing it accelerated like that, but it is soooo repetitive! DD "got it" the first time around, and I just about lost it when at the start of 4th they re-termed everything like "question" to "interrogative sentence". Just seemed like an abstract vocab lesson to slog thru. Sooo, in 2nd I ditched it and started Latin instead. We do madlibs from time to time to practice parts of speech. She reads tons of good lit. I don't plan to touch grammar again formally until she's MS age and won't teach my other dcs grammar beyond the names of basic parts of speech (so they can join in our madlibs!).

 

In my mind, if you have to repeat 90% of the info year to year it's a sign they aren't ready for it. I wouldn't do that in Math or any other subject, os what's so special about grammar that it needs constant repetition of the SAME STUFF?? Especially when they can pick it up over the course of a couple months when they are older. I have a lot of things I'd rather od with the time for the first 6-8 years! But that's just me an dmy opinion. YMMV.

[Just Robyn]

I don't think that's true. My son is eight and he still messes up correct verb usage. He was adopted at 2 from another country, but I don't know whether that has had any impact on his language acquisition. But I DO think some kids need to be explicitly taught this stuff. For some kids, it's simply not innate. Grammar is patterns of language, and not all kids just "pick it up." If it were true that this type of knowledge were innate, we would not have slang and dialect and people who sound uneducated because of the way they speak ... we would all speak a standardized, "correct" form of English. That is, in part, what the whole Ebonics issue was about. My dd16 attends a mostly-black public school, and "black English" (for lack of a better term, and I am not trying to offend here) uses different verb conjugations a lot of the time. Is this an acceptable dialect or is it "bad English?"

 

Tara

 

It's already been well supported with tons of evidence that we learn the grammar of our native language naturally, without explicit instruction. However, that is a whole other conversation because it is referring to our natural grammar, not a prescribed one. That would then include dialects and the natural evolution of language. The study of this is the study of descriptive grammar.

 

The lecture referred to in this thread was about prescriptive grammar.

[ChandlerMom]

I don't think that's true, either. To me, that is like saying, "If you can run a computer program, you know how to program a computer." If you can't fix the program when it gets buggy, you don't know how to program a computer. If you can't explain why something is correct or incorrect, you don't know grammar. You just have good usage.

 

Tara

 

Per your example: Most people only need to learn to RUN a computer. Few ever need to PROGRAM a computer. Maybe the PP should have said, "If you can speak/write well you know grammar WELL ENOUGH." :D

 

Most adults have sense of when something sounds "right" or "wrong" even when they do not know WHY. You don't need to memorize all the terminology of grammar to use grammar perfectly, and most of grammar ed is about learning the vocab. That's great if you want to grow up to be a copy editor, but overkill if your goal is to be able to speak and write well.

 

As to Ebonics and such: it isn't an accidental set of english errors, but an intentional developed sub-language to unify a group. It's a rather politically and socially charged thing of which I am largely ignorant. I did know a couple kids in my HS that spoke ebonics to each other and perfect english to everyone else. For them it was like flipping a switch (or a foreign language). In the larger society, being able to speak and write formal english is taken as a sign of intelligence. If your child struggles with that, of course they should receive extra help. But the majority of kids (IMO) if english is spoken properly in the home and good lit is read will learn all the grammar they need well into MS.

 

If homeschooling is supposed to be about individualized education, why should ALL kids slog through years of formal grammar ed if they can learn everything they need in a few months later on? In the meantime, my kids do get mini-grammar lessons and gentle corrections whenever errors pop up. That way what they are being taught is concretely relevant to what they are doing, which to me is what the elementary age is all about! I'll save the abstract and archaic for the logic stage. :D

[Veritaserum]

I don't think that's true, either. To me, that is like saying, "If you can run a computer program, you know how to program a computer." If you can't fix the program when it gets buggy, you don't know how to program a computer. If you can't explain why something is correct or incorrect, you don't know grammar. You just have good usage.

 

Tara

 

:iagree: When my dd writes a flawed sentence, I can ask her diagnostic questions related to grammar. What is the subject? What is the verb? What is that adjective modifying? Is that the best place for that prepositional phrase? What is the punctuation rule regarding a complex sentence with a dependent clause followed by an indendent clause? She knows that the sentence looks wrong, but the pointed questions help her diagnose the problems and fix them. A foundation of practice with grammar rules reduces the incidence of mistakes and helps her understand where she went wrong.

 

She can speak her ideas using correct grammar (I insist on that), but written language is different. Practice and direct instruction are helpful and even necessary for many students. It is unfair to delay formal instruction for kids who need more practice. I'm still a fan of every child having early and frequent exposure because it won't hurt anyone and it will help the (majority of) children that need a prolonged period of explicit instruction and practice. :)

 

The question I have for you: How many errors or incorrect forms will you learn on your own? While attempting to reproduce or immitate what you have seen or experienced, if I do not guide you or present you with any formal instruction, you will fail to have any code that will execute (run). Would this not prove to be frustrating? How would you feel when I sit a book on syntax in front of you after 5 years of your hard work?

 

Good questions. :)

[Haiku]

 

If homeschooling is supposed to be about individualized education, why should ALL kids slog through years of formal grammar ed if they can learn everything they need in a few months later on?

 

I guess it depends on whether you believe SWB when she says that kids from good high schools with high GPA's end up in her writing classes with writing that is seriously lacking and that this poor writing is due to a lack of grammar instruction. Having been a copy editor in my pre-child life, I don't believe that grammar can be learned in a few months, and I don't believe that wanting to be a copy editor is the only reason one needs an in-depth understanding of grammar. But you're right, homeschooling is about individual kids' educations, so everyone can handle the grammar conundrum the best way they see fit. :D

 

Tara

[ChrissySC]

Based upon the previous post, let's define both.

 

Prescriptive grammar is following the rules of grammar. Some will argue that this is based on someone else's notion of what is good or bad. I consider this the societal norm of what or how something should be said or written. There is nothing wrong with adhering to the design and/or of your native language. It is a demonstration of competence and academic exceptionalism. You may choose to argue the latter, but it is something that is judged in real life.

 

Descriptive grammar is what is actually spoken. Consider our southern tradition of dropping consonants and letters. As well, this would be the informal way that we fragment our thoughts or perhaps say something like "do you want to?" with the preposition dangling on the end of the sentence. I believe this is also referred to as transformational grammar in the "school" environment. I read articles and essays on transformational many days ago. I encourage you to do a search and read for yourself.

 

So ....

 

To read and write "freely" or "naturally" to acquire skill was coupled with that eighties-appearing approach of whole language. The child began their "free writing" assignments and the concentration moved to creative writing and expressing yourself. I was reading extensively on the results of this approach, being that it has been instituted over the last 20 years (I consider this new!) and should show some result whether good or bad. There seems to be a following for returning to the traditional grammar instruction, or prescriptive grammar. I am not so sure that the hold on descriptive grammar instruction does not stick around because of the readings and love of literature that it promotes. Remember the school districts that were sued in the late 80's and 90's for graduating students that could not read? Perhaps this panic is cause to hold on to the descriptive method because it is focused on reading. I don't know for sure, but I think a good balance of both is an asset.

 

It is a highly controversial subject in the academic arena amongst curriculum developers and educators, not even inlcuding parents.

 

No matter what we decide or how we approach this topic, there are benefits and essential needs met by combining the ideology of both prescriptive and descriptive instruction. :) I might add that the lecturer was attempting to meet both grammar ideologies to some extent.

 

I will still teach grammar beginning in the second grade and continue through high school. :) However, I provide quality readings, often of a classical definition, too. I believe that this is finding compromise or meeting somewhere in the middle between the two.

 

Note:

To address another poster, concerning the idea that we do not repeat math year to year, I beg to differ. We do indeed repeat and build upon our math skill. :) This would not be a good example.

[ChandlerMom]

It is a highly controversial subject in the academic arena amongst curriculum developers and educators, not even inlcuding parents.

 

No matter what we decide or how we approach this topic, there are benefits and essential needs met by combining the ideology of both prescriptive and descriptive instruction. :) I might add that the lecturer was attempting to meet both grammar ideologies to some extent.

 

I will still teach grammar beginning in the second grade and continue through high school. :) However, I provide quality readings, often of a classical definition, too. I believe that this is finding compromise or meeting somewhere in the middle between the two.

 

Note:

To address another poster, concerning the idea that we do not repeat math year to year, I beg to differ. We do indeed repeat and build upon our math skill. :) This would not be a good example.

 

I think the Note was directed to me. :D In math and other subjects, you BUILD but you should not be REPEATING. I only teach my kids addition once (of course I'm mastery based). Sure, they see it again applied to new things (large numbers, fractions, decimals), but I don't repeat the lesson 2+2=4. Grammar does just that. Repeat. How many times should I define a noun? She got it in K and they still discuss it 5 years later. The only time I repeat in Math is when she wasn't ready. So, if you really have to cover the same stuff with 10% new material year after year, that suggests to me we're better off waiting. Even then, one criticism of US math is we spend too many years teaching the same topics. So I stick by my example. :lol:

 

As to how schools teach -- never gave a fig since they seem to swing back and forth in lots of areas (phonics/whole word comes to mind). I assume the truth is somewhere in between. Personally I think most cruddy college writing is born not from a lack of grammar ed, but too much dependence on formulaic writing, such as 5-by-5 essays. In my high school they were outlawed -- a 5x5 would result in an F, so we actually had to learn how to WRITE. That said, I agree with you that being open to both sorts of grammar is good. As is adapting your teaching as your child's needs change. In practice matters more than in theory, IMO. :D

 

As I said, I don't NOT teach grammar, I just don't FORMALLY teach it or daily. I teach it as it applies, not for its own sake. As hs'rs each of us need to find our balance and make our own decisions. I'm not really interested in convincing anyone I'm "right" -- just sharing the process of how I came to my choice and why. If it rings true for some, fine. If it doesn't, fine. ;)

[Veritaserum]

I think the Note was directed to me. :D In math and other subjects, you BUILD but you should not be REPEATING. I only teach my kids addition once (of course I'm mastery based). Sure, they see it again applied to new things (large numbers, fractions, decimals), but I don't repeat the lesson 2+2=4. Grammar does just that. Repeat.

 

I don't see grammar as repeating. It also builds. :) Sure, you may review previously learned concepts, but you also expand upon how x, y, z can be used to make more interesting sentences. Grammar starts simply with defining things like subject and verb. Practice that until it's solid. Then you add an adjective. Practice. Then add adverbs, objects, prepositional phrases, etc. Practice. Learn how to start a sentence with an adverb or how to properly combine two sentences into one. Practice. These things are more easily learned and used correctly if the basics (subject/verb, parts of speech, etc.) are mastered. :)

[joysworld]

I don't think that's true, either. To me, that is like saying, "If you can run a computer program, you know how to program a computer." If you can't fix the program when it gets buggy, you don't know how to program a computer. If you can't explain why something is correct or incorrect, you don't know grammar. You just have good usage.

 

Tara

 

As long as he is talking, writing, and narrating properly, I don't need him to be able to explain the whys to me at this age:)

[ChrissySC]

As long as he is talking, writing, and narrating properly, I don't need him to be able to explain the whys to me at this age:)

 

 

Quite a good point stated. Why or the analyzation should be left for logic stage. (IMO) This is of course assuming the classical model of education is in practice. Yet, there does exist the child who can mentally handle the rigor of formal instruction much earlier. There is always an exception.

 

I believe this is why most classically based notions encourage diagramming and parts of speech in the grammar stage. It is to properly present the written and spoken language. As we have all discussed, it is not the only way either! LOL :lol:

 

OT: Did I mention how much I love the hive mind? Well, if I have not said it enough, I love you all! Try finding a similar discussion on another HS forum, LOL.

Edited May 1, 2011 by ChrissySC

[Penelope]

I think we can't take personal experiences, such as the example of writers who can write well but don't know formal grammar, and generalize it to all students. I was one of those students that did not get formal grammar until middle school (but then I got 3 years of Abeka, which was very thorough), and I loved it and did well. But I always loved to read and write, loved Madlibs when I was little. Conversely, many students in my English classes struggled mightily with grammar. Many freshman and sophomores that I knew in college through the dorms, study groups, and tutoring struggled with being able to write a coherent paragraph and grammatically correct sentences. This was a "good" college and many students were from socioeconomically advantaged groups. I don't know how much grammar they had. But I do know that "If you can speak well, you can write well", just isn't true for everyone. I believe I benefitted greatly from grammar instruction in school.

 

I'm somewhat confused by what Pudewa is saying. It sounds like he is merely saying, don't do any formal grammar until middle school. But then at times it sounds like he is also saying, don't worry about much formal grammar at all, at any point, because it doesn't help with writing and experts can't always agree on correct grammar, anyway.

 

Most of what FLL or even the local private schools do, is introduce parts of speech in the very early grades. I think that's a good thing and not inappropriate for grammar stage. I can't tell if Pudewa is saying not to even give this information to young children, but if so, I think that would be a mistake. AFA diagramming in grade 3 and 4, we are doing it, but I'm not sure it's essential for my children. I am sure there are children who need the earlier, step by step approach, so that they aren't overwhelmed at having it all thrown at them at once a couple of years later.

[ChrissySC]

Regarding your comment about experts agreeing on the "rules," I would wonder if whether or not at some point style is the issue, or acceptable style. This is something worthy of investigation. What denotes syntax and what denotes style?

 

:bigear:

 

I think we can't take personal experiences, such as the example of writers who can write well but don't know formal grammar, and generalize it to all students. I was one of those students that did not get formal grammar until middle school (but then I got 3 years of Abeka, which was very thorough), and I loved it and did well. But I always loved to read and write, loved Madlibs when I was little. Conversely, many students in my English classes struggled mightily with grammar. Many freshman and sophomores that I knew in college through the dorms, study groups, and tutoring struggled with being able to write a coherent paragraph and grammatically correct sentences. This was a "good" college and many students were from socioeconomically advantaged groups. I don't know how much grammar they had. But I do know that "If you can speak well, you can write well", just isn't true for everyone. I believe I benefitted greatly from grammar instruction in school.

 

I'm somewhat confused by what Pudewa is saying. It sounds like he is merely saying, don't do any formal grammar until middle school. But then at times it sounds like he is also saying, don't worry about much formal grammar at all, at any point, because it doesn't help with writing and experts can't always agree on correct grammar, anyway.

 

Most of what FLL or even the local private schools do, is introduce parts of speech in the very early grades. I think that's a good thing and not inappropriate for grammar stage. I can't tell if Pudewa is saying not to even give this information to young children, but if so, I think that would be a mistake. AFA diagramming in grade 3 and 4, we are doing it, but I'm not sure it's essential for my children. I am sure there are children who need the earlier, step by step approach, so that they aren't overwhelmed at having it all thrown at them at once a couple of years later.