The importance of "learning" grammar

[farming_mum]

We have read the WTM book and love it, but we're not too sure if grammar is really that necessary to actually assign a curriculum based program or time slot to it.

 

I was very close to buying the FLL, but after reading some of the sample pages. I believe the lessons learnt are gained through reading and every day writing etc and also FLL looked really boring and repetative.

 

We teach our children punctuation as part of their writing/spelling and don't see the need for our children to know whether a word is a noun/verb etc. My DH and I don't use this information for our daily activities and through our discussions, neither of us saw the point of learning it in school.

 

If you have a different opinion I would be interested to read it as we might be missing point as so many of you include grammar in your home schooling. :)

 

By the way we have children going into Gr1 & Gr2.

[Lily_Grace]

Having a basic knowledge of grammar can be extremely helpful in writing or learning a foreign language.

 

I do not think a child needs to study it every year or an hour a day, but I do think that setting aside time to focus on the structure of our language can't be anything but beneficial.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

IMHO grammar is critical since we have many people who cannot write well at all. A proper sentence is the basic foundation of good writing;)

[Hedgehog]

We have read the WTM book and love it, but we're not too sure if grammar is really that necessary to actually assign a curriculum based program or time slot to it.

 

I was very close to buying the FLL, but after reading some of the sample pages. I believe the lessons learnt are gained through reading and every day writing etc and also FLL looked really boring and repetative.

 

We teach our children punctuation as part of their writing/spelling and don't see the need for our children to know whether a word is a noun/verb etc. My DH and I don't use this information for our daily activities and through our discussions, neither of us saw the point of learning it in school.

 

If you have a different opinion I would be interested to read it as we might be missing point as so many of you include grammar in your home schooling. :)

 

By the way we have children going into Gr1 & Gr2.

 

 

Firstly, I think grammar is important - because I didn't learn any at school and I struggle with my writing. I write something, and it doesn't look quite right, but I don't know what is wrong with it and I find that very frustrating.

 

It is also very useful when you come to learn another language.

 

Let's put it this way: IMO, teaching English without teaching grammar is like building a house without using any framing.

 

Having said that, I wouldn't sweat it for 1st and 2nd graders. Spelling, Phonics, Reading, and Penmanship are really important at this stage; you can leave Grammar until 3rd grade or later.

 

And as an aside, FLL didn't work for us either, for whatever reason. We use R&S.

[Momling]

In a way, I think you're kind of right. Your kids inherently have a grammar of whatever English you speak at home (as in a set of rules about how words make sentences). Assuming your dialect is pretty similar to the standard English that they'll be expected to write in, there's no need to try to "teach grammar".

 

But knowing how to talk about language *is* important. When your child is 10 and still writes every sentence in a very simplistic and repetitive Subject-Verb-Object way ("I have a brother. He is six years old. He is really bizarre. He likes eating worms.") It's hard to explain how to write well if you don't have the vocabulary to discuss subordinating conjunctions or prepositional phrases. ("Bizarrely, my six year old brother likes eating worms." "My brother, a bizarre six year old, likes eating worms." "Despite being only six years old, my bizarre little brother likes eating worms." or whatever...). If you want your kids to be able to play around with language and create interesting sentences, you'll need a way to talk about it.

 

Plus, as soon as your child wants to learn another language, she'll be at a great disadvantage if she doesn't know what a modal or verb tense is. Some of this vocabulary can be learned, but it's far easier, for instance, to learn about nominative and accusative case when you already know about the remnants of our English case system and understand why we use the pronoun "me" as an object and "I" as a subject.

 

So... at some point in their education, knowing how to talk about language is going to be necessary. You can probably hold off until late elementary school, but I wouldn't give up on grammar entirely. It is important.

[twoforjoy]

In a way, I think you're kind of right. Your kids inherently have a grammar of whatever English you speak at home (as in a set of rules about how words make sentences). Assuming your dialect is pretty similar to the standard English that they'll be expected to write in, there's no need to try to "teach grammar".

 

But knowing how to talk about language *is* important. When your child is 10 and still writes every sentence in a very simplistic and repetitive Subject-Verb-Object way ("I have a brother. He is six years old. He is really bizarre. He likes eating worms.") It's hard to explain how to write well if you don't have the vocabulary to discuss subordinating conjunctions or prepositional phrases. ("Bizarrely, my six year old brother likes eating worms." "My brother, a bizarre six year old, likes eating worms." "Despite being only six years old, my bizarre little brother likes eating worms." or whatever...). If you want your kids to be able to play around with language and create interesting sentences, you'll need a way to talk about it.

 

Plus, as soon as your child wants to learn another language, she'll be at a great disadvantage if she doesn't know what a modal or verb tense is. Some of this vocabulary can be learned, but it's far easier, for instance, to learn about nominative and accusative case when you already know about the remnants of our English case system and understand why we use the pronoun "me" as an object and "I" as a subject.

 

So... at some point in their education, knowing how to talk about language is going to be necessary. You can probably hold off until late elementary school, but I wouldn't give up on grammar entirely. It is important.

 

Great post.

 

One thing I wanted to add is that I think teaching grammar can be kind of a catch-22 situation. Some children will just naturally grasp standard written English (although not everybody who is raised in a home where standard English is spoken will be able to easily translate that into writing--in fact, I'd say most people have some trouble with that). For those kids, there really isn't much need to learn formal grammar. They'll just intuitively know how to construct a sentence, and to identify errors in grammar and correct them. But, those kids will also probably find learning grammar really easy, and possibly even fun, so it's not a burden to teach or learn it, and will give them, as noted, a vocabulary with which to talk about writing.

 

(That was me, by the way. I was that kind of kid. I thought diagramming sentences was great fun.)

 

But, for many other kids, even if they grow up speaking standard English, they just won't be able to very easily translate it into standard written English. And, in that case, it will be extremely helpful for them to know grammatical terms and concepts, so that they can identify and correct errors.

 

Plus, if they go on to college, they'll probably take at least one English class, and there's a good chance that a grammatical term or two will come up. It will be a lot easier on their teachers--and I say this as somebody who teaches the basic comp courses at a university--if they come in knowing what a subject and predicate are, and even better if they don't stare blankly when asked to identify the direct and indirect objects of a sentence.

 

I agree, though, that if grammar isn't something you're interested in teaching, there's no harm in waiting until they are older to introduce it.

[boscopup]

We teach our children punctuation as part of their writing/spelling and don't see the need for our children to know whether a word is a noun/verb etc. My DH and I don't use this information for our daily activities and through our discussions, neither of us saw the point of learning it in school.

 

By that argument, there's a LOT you shouldn't bother teaching... How to write an essay or research paper, most of middle school and high school math, most of high school science and probably history too, etc.

 

Where your child will get with a 4th grade education in life (because you stopped teaching things that weren't used in your daily life), I don't want to even imagine. ;)

 

That said, I don't think you need to worry about grammar in 1st and 2nd grade if you don't want to, but I agree with others - if you want to discuss their writing at all, you're going to need to have a language to discuss with. Grammar is that language. Also, unless you speak perfectly grammatical English in your home (I know I certainly don't), you'll need to teach "proper grammar" for writing. Basically, grammar is taught so children will write better, and so that you can discuss their writing to make it better.

 

There are a lot of ways you can teach grammar. Some wait until middle school, some start in 1st grade. Some use a curriculum that reviews every year. Some just teach it via copywork. All of those methods are fine. Do what works for your kids. I choose to teach it earlier so we can focus on the actual writing when we get to middle school. I want that "language" to be automatic, so if I say "Choose a better noun in this sentence.", my son knows which word in the sentence is the noun and what to replace it with. He won't have to think "Ok, what is a noun? Oh yeah, it's the name of a person, place, thing, or idea." He'll have picked out nouns for so long that he can just look at the sentence and quickly identify it. That's a simplistic example, of course, but once we get to more difficult grammar constructs, it will be very handy to have it all automatic. Personally, I want to start teaching it by about 3rd grade.

[Jim]

In my personal experience grammar is important. I sure wish I had a better understanding of how words work together. As a writer I rely heavily on editors that do know.

 

I vowed that my ds would not have the same problem and so we will do grammar every year until he is writing enough that we can cover it as part of his writing instruction.

 

I noted the statement that neither of you have found grammar important to you in your daily lives. That may be true, but will it be important to your child? That is the question my wife and I ask regularly. I never thought I'd be a writer yet here I am.

 

Ds will follow his own road and no one knows where he will land. He will compete with not his local peers but those from all over the US and even beyond our borders. In preparation we would like to build a strong foundation from which he can grow.

 

We like FLL. We did 1 and 2 in a single year, his second grade. We're on the verge of completing FLL 3 and I find it easy and quick, three times a week and taking only twenty minutes or so. I'm amazed by how much he's retaining. Frankly, I've learned plenty.

 

Jim

[ekarl2]

If there were a way to really master punctuation and usage without learning all the grammar (unless you want to learn a foreign language, then grammar is a must), I would bother studying it.

 

But it's not. There are comma rules and usage issues that simply can't be taught unless the grammar is learned already. For instance. You have to put a comma after an introductory adverb clause. That's the rule. If you don't know what one is, you're faking it. Faking it will get you by about 80% of the time. (I pause, therefore I comma.) The other 20% is when people like me read what you've written and say to themselves, "They don't know their punctuation rules ..." It's not fair, but that's the way it is.

 

That being said, I think it's silly to spend so much time on it. It doesn't take that long to learn grammar; it's a relatively small body of knowledge. Wait until they're ready to really learn all of it and get it over with.

 

Also, constantly repeating the definitions of the parts of speech is really not useful. I could poll 100 3rd graders. They'd all (probably) be able to tell me what a noun is, but only 15 of them would be able to identify all the nouns in a sentence. It's all about function and logical thinking. That's why it's best to wait.

[Haiku]

I don't think you need to worry about grammar in first and second grades, but I must admit I gasped in horror at this:

 

don't see the need for our children to know whether a word is a noun/verb etc.

 

Maybe you just mean at the ages they're currently at. But I certainly hope that you don't mean forever.

 

Imo, studying grammar is important. Grammar was not given much attention when I and my era (pushing 40) were in school, and a casual persual of people's blogs gives evidence of this. Sometimes I can't even understand what people mean because their writing and grammar are so bad. If you don't understand how to construct a good sentence or why, you can't fix errors that obfuscate your writing.

 

Although I know there are several well-respected writing programs out there that minimize the importance of grammar, I defy anyone to show me a consistent pattern of scholars who didn't study grammar but still write well. Those who can pick up excellent grammar solely "by ear" are, ime, few and far between.

 

SWB teaches writing at the College of William and Mary, and she has lectured about how these smart kids from "good schools" come to her classes with abysmal writing skills. I believe her, and I believe her prescription for addressing the problem.

 

Tara

[ChandlerMom]

If there were a way to really master punctuation and usage without learning all the grammar (unless you want to learn a foreign language, then grammar is a must), I would bother studying it.

 

But it's not. There are comma rules and usage issues that simply can't be taught unless the grammar is learned already. For instance. You have to put a comma after an introductory adverb clause. That's the rule. If you don't know what one is, you're faking it. Faking it will get you by about 80% of the time. (I pause, therefore I comma.) The other 20% is when people like me read what you've written and say to themselves, "They don't know their punctuation rules ..." It's not fair, but that's the way it is.

 

That being said, I think it's silly to spend so much time on it. It doesn't take that long to learn grammar; it's a relatively small body of knowledge. Wait until they're ready to really learn all of it and get it over with.

 

Also, constantly repeating the definitions of the parts of speech is really not useful. I could poll 100 3rd graders. They'd all (probably) be able to tell me what a noun is, but only 15 of them would be able to identify all the nouns in a sentence. It's all about function and logical thinking. That's why it's best to wait.

 

:iagree:

 

Learning grammar gives you a safety net for those 20% of the time you aren't sure if you should use I/me, who/whom, comma/semicolon, etc. It is also VERY difficult to learn those rules as an adult if you weren't taught them as a child (dh is a great example of that: extensively read, articulate, knowledgeable, always learning...and can't punctuate a sentence to save his life.) It's like learning spelling rules -- helps out in a pinch. It also trains your ear/eye to get that "that's not quite right" feeling when there is a grammatical error.

 

I also agree that it isn't necessary to formally TEACH grammar in early elementary (K-2, maybe later if you cover the basics in a sly manner). For parts of speech, madlibs are great (and fun)! Kids learn best when it is relevant. As to the comments that "many people can't write well" or the kid that doesn't advance past simple sentences -- I would hope that those would trigger more extensive writing and grammar teaching. Being able to teach what YOUR child needs (instead of many people) is one of the great benefits of hs-ing.

 

Some kids do pick grammar rules up naturally, but they'll still benefit from formal teaching (eventually). It's like learning to drive -- you could pick up most of the rules by observation and practice, but there are some oddball laws and signs that are important but not obvious. Those you are only going to learn by someone spelling them out for you.

[bnrmom]

Just to add another perspective - I am pretty "unschooly" by nature but have realized the importance of a cultural education. By that I mean information that my child may not use in his daily life, but that allows him to drop into a situation and know what's going on.

 

I cringe at most formal grammar curriculums, but do want to make sure that he has an understanding of the basics so that he is not the odd man out in any given situation. If he's at a sleepover and they're playing mad libs, I don't want him to feel stupid. My sister just went back to art school, and is required to take several heavy duty writing classes as prerequisites. One could justifiably argue that grammar has no bearing on her chosen career, but she's going to have to deal with it to get her degree.

 

What I'm trying to say is that I think the question "does my child need this" is more complex than it seems. I'm a big believer in preparing my children so their options are open, but it does mean that I'm often teaching them or exposing them to things that I don't think are necessarily important in and of themselves. I mean really, if we're talking about a purely practical education, we should be teaching gardening, cooking, cleaning, auto repair and sewing.

[ktgrok]

Well, for starters, how can they do mad libs if they don't know the parts of speech?

 

Seriously though, later it becomes important to make sure your writing uses complete sentences. If you don't know that a complete sentence needs a subject and a predicate, and what those are, how do you identify the incomplete sentence? Or how do you correct places where things are not in agreement? Grammar gives you the vocabulary you need to talk about language and sentence structure.

[momto2blessings]

with the posters above. Just wanted to add that I like the Charlotte Mason way of teaching grammar. We use copywork and dictation to teach basic sentence structure/mechanics when young. Then around 5th we use Junior Analytical Grammar, then Analytical Grammar. I love that this program just gets to the point, and it's not something you need to do every year. Blessings, Gina

[twoforjoy]

SWB teaches writing at the College of William and Mary, and she has lectured about how these smart kids from "good schools" come to her classes with abysmal writing skills. I believe her, and I believe her prescription for addressing the problem.

 

Tara

 

I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, I wish more of my students came into my classes with some basic knowledge of grammar. On the other hand, I don't think a lot of grammatical knowledge necessarily translates into good writing skills, and the biggest factor in whether or not my students can write well seems to be how much they read. People of my parents' generation got a lot of formal grammar instruction, but many of them are mediocre or even abysmal writers. My mother can diagram sentences like a pro, but she's not a great writer. My father isn't as quick with formal grammar rules, but he's an excellent writer. I think the primary difference, in their case, is reading. My dad is and has always been an avid reader, my mother just isn't. I think that internalizing the structure and rhythm of written English through a lot of reading is far more determinant of whether somebody will be a good writer than grammar knowledge.

 

On the other hand, that isn't a sure thing, either. My sister and I both read a lot, and always have. But while writing comes very easily to me, she struggles with it. So, there are many cases where simply reading a lot isn't enough, and when that's the case, knowing formal grammar can be a huge help.

 

Actually, maybe typing this out has clarified my thinking on this a bit. I think that, for some people, simply reading a lot can be enough for them to internalize the structure of written English to such a degree that they can easily and fluently produce good writing, and identify and correct errors without knowing the rules for why or the names for what they're doing. For many people, reading a lot isn't enough, and they need formal grammar instruction on top of that to really grasp the structures of written English. But, I think there are very, very few people who can become competent writers simply through formal grammar instruction, without exposure to a lot of good writing.

 

If I were forced to choose between whether to formally teach grammar (while doing minimal or no reading) or whether to have my child read a lot (while do no formal grammar instruction), I'd pick the latter, and I think it would produce a much better writer than the former. But, luckily we don't have to make that choice, and I think that a combination of the two is probably the best way to produce decent writers.

[PeterPan]

The light dusting of grammar in FLL1/2 is just enough for a dc to go into a latin program (which many people start in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd) and to do the grammar required for some of the more popular writing programs like CW and WT.

 

Yes, FLL is terribly repetitive, beyond what some kids need. Condense.

[Rivka]

I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, I wish more of my students came into my classes with some basic knowledge of grammar. On the other hand, I don't think a lot of grammatical knowledge necessarily translates into good writing skills, and the biggest factor in whether or not my students can write well seems to be how much they read.

 

:iagree:

 

I do think grammar is important to study at some point, but from my perspective classical homeschoolers fetishize grammar a little too much. I don't think you need to know the technical grammatical terms for every single element of the English language in order to be able to use them correctly. I never knew what appositives were until I heard Michael Clay Thompson lecture, but that doesn't mean I haven't been using them and punctuating them correctly for most of my life.

 

I also don't think it's necessary to study grammar every year. Frankly, FLL 1 is so incremental and repetitive and concrete that it would make me want to chew my own foot off. I'd rather wait a few years and introduce grammar when my child is capable of grasping the big picture.

[zenjenn]

I think it depends on the child. I think this is true of both grammar and spelling.

 

Some children can really benefit from formal instruction, while some children pick these things up intuitively if they are voracious readers.

 

I truly believe I intuited most of this, and my youngest child does as well. My oldest child also seems to intuit grammar, but.. not spelling. I am starting her on AAS because in spite of reading 30-40 books a month she is NOT an intuitive speller.

 

Honesty I can sit down with a primary phonics book and learn something new because I never needed to pay attention to the rules. It never occurred to me that there was a rule for when a c makes an /s/ sound and when it makes a /k/ sound. But in writing I would intuitively follow the rule even though I couldn't have articulated what it was without going through backwards engineering to figure it out. It is fascinating watching my two kids - one who is intuitively making those connections through reading, and another who just doesn't.

 

That said, if a teacher in a classroom and could choose my curriculum freely, I would include grammar and spelling to assure that the kids who needed it, got it. For those that don't need it, knowing the rules certainly doesn't hurt. In my home, I will spend time only on what is necessary for my two students. My child who doesn't require formal spelling instruction - I'd rather her spend the time reading more books or even drawing or playing on the piano than studying the rules for something she already intuitively knows.

Edited August 29, 2011 by zenjenn

[Spy Car]

Frankly, FLL 1 is so incremental and repetitive and concrete that it would make me want to chew my own foot off. I'd rather wait a few years and introduce grammar when my child is capable of grasping the big picture.

 

I agree on this point. But, in stark contrast, MCT is doing a beautiful job of teaching grammar and a love of language in an efficient and enjoyable fashion to my rising second grader. When the Language Arts program is multi-faceted (like MCT) all the pieces of language fold in on themselves, and it is fun.

 

On the top of every page in Practice Island (in an almost subliminal grey script) it says: "Grammar is a way of thing about language." I don't know that I can improve on that.

 

Bill

[Rivka]

I agree on this point. But, in stark contrast, MCT is doing a beautiful job of teaching grammar and a love of language in an efficient and enjoyable fashion to my rising second grader. When the Language Arts program is multi-faceted (like MCT) all the pieces of language fold in on themselves, and it is fun.

 

On the top of every page in Practice Island (in an almost subliminal grey script) it says: "Grammar is a way of thing about language." I don't know that I can improve on that.

 

Bill

 

Not to worry, Bill, I already have the Grammar Island set ready and waiting to go. :D

[Spy Car]

Not to worry, Bill, I already have the Grammar Island set ready and waiting to go. :D

 

You are going to dig it! :D

 

Bill

[Dmmetler]

My almost 7 yr old looked at my computer and commented "Grammar is important 'cause it's fun!".

 

I blame Michael Clay Thompson. And maybe Christopher Perrin :).

[LibraryLover]

I make the introductory adverb clause comma mistake often. It's something that still vexes me. I think some of us have short circuit brain issues. I bug the crud out of myself sometimes.

[MrsMe]

I make the introductory adverb clause comma mistake often.

 

"HUH?" :001_huh:

Perhaps I need MCT Grammar. :lol:

[crazyforlatin]

DD thoroughly enjoys grammar and it could be due to using MCT, Grammar-Land, and FLL.

 

I really want DD to know the rules of grammar so well that she doesn't have to think twice, look up a rule or ask someone. I learned grammar in a parochial school starting in 6th grade, but I thought it was too late since some kids grasped it quickly while others found it challenging. For the latter group, I think it would have helped if they were introduced to grammar concepts at an earlier age. DD happens to have advanced language skills, yet I'm still teaching her English grammar.

[LizzyBee]

I agree on this point. But, in stark contrast, MCT is doing a beautiful job of teaching grammar and a love of language in an efficient and enjoyable fashion to my rising second grader. When the Language Arts program is multi-faceted (like MCT) all the pieces of language fold in on themselves, and it is fun.

 

On the top of every page in Practice Island (in an almost subliminal grey script) it says: "Grammar is a way of thing about language." I don't know that I can improve on that.

 

Bill

 

Is thing a typo? Should it be thinking? Cuz otherwise, that sentence makes no sense. :D

[boscopup]

nm

[Laura Corin]

Both mine absorbed decent writing styles and grammar from their reading. I worked on punctuation and tweaked any particular grammar problems. Not all children work like this.

 

Laura

[Erika]

Firstly, I think grammar is important - because I didn't learn any at school and I struggle with my writing. I write something, and it doesn't look quite right, but I don't know what is wrong with it and I find that very frustrating.

 

It is also very useful when you come to learn another language.

 

Let's put it this way: IMO, teaching English without teaching grammar is like building a house without using any framing.

:iagree:

 

Learning the definition of a noun and a verb was the extent of my grammar lessons in school. And I struggled with writing papers in college. I did survive it, but I want my son to succeed. FLL takes 5 minutes to do and it's a great foundation to grammar. But if you don't like FLL 1 & 2, look at FLL 3 or R&S 3 for next year.

[justamouse]

IMHO grammar is critical since we have many people who cannot write well at all. A proper sentence is the basic foundation of good writing;)

:iagree:

[Spy Car]

Is thing a typo? Should it be thinking? Cuz otherwise, that sentence makes no sense. :D

 

Yes, typo. My mistake.

 

Bill

[justamouse]

Here, read this thread and then decide if grammar is important

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=306259

[thescrappyhomeschooler]

But knowing how to talk about language *is* important.

 

Plus, as soon as your child wants to learn another language, she'll be at a great disadvantage if she doesn't know what a modal or verb tense is. Some of this vocabulary can be learned, but it's far easier, for instance, to learn about nominative and accusative case when you already know about the remnants of our English case system and understand why we use the pronoun "me" as an object and "I" as a subject.

 

So... at some point in their education, knowing how to talk about language is going to be necessary. You can probably hold off until late elementary school, but I wouldn't give up on grammar entirely. It is important.

 

 

:iagree: 100%

 

When I taught college level French classes, I had to go back and teach terms of grammar before I could begin to teach my French lessons. My very first class I ever had to teach was French 102 and the lesson was supposed to be on relative pronouns. No one could tell me what a pronoun was. Only one student could define a noun for me. They need the knowledge and vocabulary of their own language structure to understand another language's patterns.