Grammar: Gentle vs. Rigorous

[joyfulhomeschooler]

Interested on thoughts from others on this? We are getting ready to really embark on our English/grammar adventure and I am still undecided on this. So if you could list pros and cons of each and what your experience has been that would be great. I am most interested in hearing from seasoned home school Mama's. But even if you aren't one of those I would love to hear your thoughts :)

[KathyBC]

The only tidbit I have is this: when we began our English/grammar adventure, I felt my son could use gentle instruction (vs. rigorous) and so that's what we did. I now feel those labels were not wholly understood by me. What they really meant was implicit vs. explicit and in hindsight he really could have used more explicit instructions. How we applied those explicit instructions would have been where the gentle vs. rigorous method applied.

 

My .02.

[Oops, duplicate account :/]

Well, we loosely follow the SCM schedule with gentle grammar in 3rd and/or 4th and plan to introduce formal grammar in 5th grade and will probably try Jr. Analytical Grammar. Then the plan is to roughly follow the AG recommendation and years it's covered rec. I'm doing what's in my siggy with my third grader this year. From experience, I know this is not necessarily the place to best discuss gently, delayed grammer, so with that I'm :auto:. :D:D:lol:

Edited September 7, 2011 by JENinOR
AG is for Analytical Grammar

[mazakaal]

When we started out, I went the rigorous route using Rod and Staff. Since then, I've decided that my kids (now it may just be my kids, yours may be completely different) struggled with rigorous grammar in the early years. They could do the exercises, but didn't really have a solid understanding and retained little. I felt like it was a huge waste of time and energy. I found Analytical Grammar, which gives a good solid grammar education in three years in middle school, when imho they're more able to understand and retain it.

 

So with my younger kids, I'm trying to give them a gentle grammar start - teaching the definitions of the parts of speech and basic punctuation rules - then becoming more rigorous in middle school. This year I'll be using KISS for the first time for the littles. I don't know if it's considered rigorous or gentle, but I'll be using it in a gentle way or tossing it to use some other free internet resource.

[chepyl]

We are in R&S 2. I feel that it is very gentle, as I would define it. It is slow, methodical and easy to do orally. We just finished unit 2 on the sentence. DS really enjoys it. He has really grasped the concepts. They show in his dictation.

[nansk]

We use KISS Grammar and I would call it both, gentle and rigorous. Gentle because it deals with simple sentences from children's literature and rigorous because it introduces advanced concepts from the start.

 

What we do is, I read one story (such as from Bunny Rabbit's Diary) to my dd, then we analyze a couple of sentences each day from that story (the KISS Grammar level one beginning exercises use sentences taken from this children's book) until we finish the exercise. Then we read the story used in the next exercise and analyze a couple of sentences each day, and so on. My story-loving dd enjoys this approach.

 

Lately, I have started analzing the sentences from our WWE copywork (there too, since we have already read a passage from the story that the sentence is taken from, the sentence becomes relevant to the context.)

[Hedgehog]

For my kids I've found it works well to teach grammar "gently", if at all, up to the end of 2nd grade, and get more rigorous from 3rd grade up.

[Haiku]

We use FLL, and while I feel it is rigorous in that it expects a lot to be learned, I also feel that it is ... gentle is not the right word ... I guess I would say "appropriate" in that the material is reviewed quite a bit. It's not lightning-fast, and it's not mind-numbingly slow (at least at level 3 and above. I used FLL 1/2 with my son and finally bailed 2/3 of the way through because. it. was. like. following. an. inchworm. that. had. taken. quaaludes). I think you could start even a 2nd grader in FLL3 and be fine. My dd9 LOVES FLL. My ds8 doesn't, but he doesn't really love anything. Except annoying his sister and playing hockey.

 

Tara

[Farrar]

We do gentle. No clue how it will turn out though. But I used to teach middle schoolers with a lack of grammar and any kid who read books was always no problem to catch up. Kids who didn't, that was an issue.

 

This is a post I did with some living books we used for first grade grammar last year.

[LindaOz]

Interested on thoughts from others on this? We are getting ready to really embark on our English/grammar adventure and I am still undecided on this. So if you could list pros and cons of each and what your experience has been that would be great. I am most interested in hearing from seasoned home school Mama's. But even if you aren't one of those I would love to hear your thoughts :)

 

We do what is usually considered a rigorous grammar program (Rod & Staff) in a more 'gentle' way. By that I mean we only do it twice a week. I find that the kids progress fine with that without it becoming overkill, and they have time to work on other writing projects etc that we do. I did play around with less structured grammar earlier on and regretted it so I'm happy with the balance we have - rigorous in content but not in schedule (if that makes any sense at all).

 

HTH

Edited September 7, 2011 by LindaOz

[abbeyej]

I think the PP who said it's not really gentle vs rigorous but implicit vs explicit is right on the money. It's perfectly possible to do grammar "gently" and also explicitly. There's nothing "un-gentle" about using FLL or R&S... But they do make the instruction explicit. And I think that that is *ultimately* extremely helpful for kids.

[Halcyon]

I don't know whether we'd be considered rigorous, but we use Growing with Grammar here and have for a few years. It has proved invaluable to my children in learning Latin-they can quickly pick out the parts of speech, diagramming Latin is a snap since older has already learned it in GWG and when they're writing, and I'd like to see more descriptive words, I can just say "try throwing in some adverbs" and they'll easily be able to do that

 

We're also using MCT with younger, which is a very nice fit for him.

 

I can't say what would have happened had we not started grammar early. I can say that Latin wouldd have been more challenging.

[Mom0012]

My daughter has been using CLE LA and I feel it is gentle, yet thorough. Adding in Writing Tales last year in 3rd grade really reinforced a lot of the material she had learned and helped her to apply it.

 

I've been experimenting a little bit this year with R&S for my son. I did not plan to do this, but he wanted to try it since he'd always liked R&S Math. To be honest, I'm amazed at how much easier it is to do than Saxon was last year. I have heard how rigorous R&S is, so I guess I expected it to be a royal pain to implement each day. We're only finishing up the second chapter, so maybe it gets tougher further in though.

 

Lisa

[Ellie]

I don't believe that native speakers of English need to formally study their own grammar for 12 years.

 

I don't believe it's necessary for a child younger than 9 or 10 to formally study his own language, even though he may need to be corrected when he speaks and writes.

[Mom0012]

I don't believe that native speakers of English need to formally study their own grammar for 12 years.

 

I don't believe it's necessary for a child younger than 9 or 10 to formally study his own language, even though he may need to be corrected when he speaks and writes.

 

I think I actually agree with this if you have a child that doesn't have any learning disabilities. I suspect AG's approach is a really good one for your typical child. We started with CLE early though, both because it is pretty painless and because I didn't have the confidence to just wait.

 

Lisa

[angela in ohio]

I wait until they are finished with phonics, and then I start rigorous phonics in 3rd grade. We do R&S. I also incorporate what they learn into other areas (what many consider the aspects of gentle grammar, I suppose.) I read a lot of Beechick when they were younger, and from there I learned how to apply our grammar lessons to our literature and such.

 

I put one dd all the way through the R&S series, and another through 8 (she is doing an outside grammar class this year, but then will finish R&S 9/10 later.) One of them loves, loves, loves grammar, and the other came to appreciate it. We did it at grade level and fully written. They have an amazing grasp of the English language, and their writing instruction has been easy. I wouldn't do it any other way.

Edited September 7, 2011 by angela in ohio

[Strawberry Queen]

I used FLL for the first 4 years with DD1. I found FLL 1and 2 to be very age appropriate with short lessons. It was not hard for her to progress through the lessons. THe memorywork was easy for her and she still remembers it. FLL 3 and 4 are more work which is appropriate for the age. I found the explicit instruction helpful. Last year we started another program but it didn't fit us. I ended up leaving grammar and started up with Rod and Staff 6 this year. Although I wish I could have FLL all the way through, R&S should work well. I haven't seen a deficit in skipping R&S 5 as of yet.

 

With DD2 we ended up only getting halfway through FLL3 last year. nSince we didn't end up doing grammar much in 5th with her sister, we'll progress through FLL 3 and then part of 4th this year. That leaves the other part of 4 to do in 5th grade. This DD is not a natural memorizer and is a bit clueless with things at times(I think due to not actually putting effort into thinking;)).

 

I personally find that spending a short time on grammar when they're young is helpful. They're much happier memorizing lists when they're little. Their schedules are also more open so you can slip it in more easily.

HTH

[Farrar]

I don't believe that native speakers of English need to formally study their own grammar for 12 years.

 

I don't believe it's necessary for a child younger than 9 or 10 to formally study his own language, even though he may need to be corrected when he speaks and writes.

:iagree:

 

I also think, as others have said, that it's probably a good idea to teach things overtly and gentle doesn't mean you don't either intend to do that at some point (many people are saying around 3rd grade) or that you aren't doing it, just without a lot of worksheets or a scripted program.

[Mommy22alyns]

I think the PP who said it's not really gentle vs rigorous but implicit vs explicit is right on the money. It's perfectly possible to do grammar "gently" and also explicitly. There's nothing "un-gentle" about using FLL or R&S... But they do make the instruction explicit. And I think that that is *ultimately* extremely helpful for kids.

 

 

:iagree: I just feel more comfortable with explicit instruction.

[MerryAtHope]

The only tidbit I have is this: when we began our English/grammar adventure, I felt my son could use gentle instruction (vs. rigorous) and so that's what we did. I now feel those labels were not wholly understood by me. What they really meant was implicit vs. explicit and in hindsight he really could have used more explicit instructions. How we applied those explicit instructions would have been where the gentle vs. rigorous method applied.

 

My .02.

 

I second this, great insight! I was very drawn to "natural" methods when my kids were young, but my kids (especially my oldest) needed very direct, incremental instruction in subjects like grammar.

 

I don't feel I've been "rigorous" (I don't do grammar every year, I don't do diagramming, I'm not a stickler for some of the more obscure grammar rules, I'm happy if they can speak and write correctly for the most part, I'm not a stickler for them always remembering the name of every single type of verb, and so on).

 

I think it's important to have enough common knowledge to be able to discuss what's right or wrong with a sentence so that a student can understand why it needs to be fixed without thinking mom is just being picky. A lot of grammar can be picked up "naturally," but my kids also needed some direct instruction, and I'm glad I finally figured that out (and wish I had not been so "anti-workbook" early on, LOL!)

 

Merry :-)

[stripe]

I think "gentle" is also sometimes a codeword for "features Victorian illustrations of bunnies." One can clearly cover something briefly, but directly, without loads of worksheets. I am not sure what that is.

 

I like grammar but don't think it's a very big field of study that requires vast amounts of time.

[Mommy22alyns]

I think "gentle" is also sometimes a codeword for "features Victorian illustrations of bunnies."

 

:lol:

[Cosmos]

The only tidbit I have is this: when we began our English/grammar adventure, I felt my son could use gentle instruction (vs. rigorous) and so that's what we did. I now feel those labels were not wholly understood by me. What they really meant was implicit vs. explicit and in hindsight he really could have used more explicit instructions. How we applied those explicit instructions would have been where the gentle vs. rigorous method applied.

 

My .02.

 

Very good distinction here.

 

I think "gentle" is also sometimes a codeword for "features Victorian illustrations of bunnies."

 

Isn't that the truth! :lol:

 

I've been using Easy Grammar with my ds, starting in 5th grade. I would call it both gentle and explicit. He was able to jump into the 5th grade book without much previous grammar study with *no problem*.

[Haiku]

I think "gentle" is also sometimes a codeword for "features Victorian illustrations of bunnies."

 

:smilielol5:

 

Tara

[robsiew]

I prefer the "nibbled to death by a duck" routine for grammar. A little bit over a long period of time. R&S does this nicely. I don't assign everything in every lesson so I keep it nice and easy going, but we'll be doing grammar until 10th grade (or whenever they finish R&S). I think slow consistency is great for grammar because learning to write is such a long process. It takes time for the brain to incorporate all it needs to in order to write coherently. That's what has been working here anyway... although, my oldest is only 5th grade. He has a great foundation in grammar though and his writing is really starting to develop. He's finally feeling like he CAN write instead of being afraid of it. I think that's great for a 10 y/o!

[KathyBC]

I think "gentle" is also sometimes a codeword for "features Victorian illustrations of bunnies."

 

:blush:

 

And this is where I slink away, confessing that I really favoured Primary Language Lessons over Rod & Staff based on the lovely poetry and illustrations. :leaving:

[joyfulhomeschooler]

I was just now able to finally read all the answers to this post. Thanks so much everyone for the responses. It has been both insightful and humorous to read your thoughts on this. Unfortunately I am still undecided. My son LOVES to write on his own.... but not so much in school. He has a journal that he is constantly writing stories/thoughts in. We even had to limit his bedtime use of it. He also loves to read as long as he doesn't have to work to hard to decipher the words. I do notice in his journal writing though that he hasn't really carried over much of what he learned from PLL. He still forgets to put in punctuation and Capitals. I think with his love for writing stories that he does need more of the explicit instruction. I could be wrong, but I think he would be one of those kids who would love learning grammar. So I wonder.. what would be a better fit for him? 2nd half of PLL and just doing more of the natural/gentle approach, FLL, or R&S 3? I am tempted by FLL because he really did well with OPGTR, but I already own PLL and R&S 3.

[Oops, duplicate account :/]

I was just now able to finally read all the answers to this post. Thanks so much everyone for the responses. It has been both insightful and humorous to read your thoughts on this. Unfortunately I am still undecided. My son LOVES to write on his own.... but not so much in school. He has a journal that he is constantly writing stories/thoughts in. We even had to limit his bedtime use of it. He also loves to read as long as he doesn't have to work to hard to decipher the words. I do notice in his journal writing though that he hasn't really carried over much of what he learned from PLL. He still forgets to put in punctuation and Capitals. I think with his love for writing stories that he does need more of the explicit instruction. I could be wrong, but I think he would be one of those kids who would love learning grammar. So I wonder.. what would be a better fit for him? 2nd half of PLL and just doing more of the natural/gentle approach, FLL, or R&S 3? I am tempted by FLL because he really did well with OPGTR, but I already own PLL and R&S 3.

 

I tried FLL and it was a bust here. It it so stinking sweet though, and I just can't bear to sell it! I'm pulling things from it and using it as a spine of sorts. I know it's a great grammar supp., and works for others. I have no experience w/R&S except that I ordered a catolog a year or so ago. :tongue_smilie:

[nansk]

I am tempted by FLL because he really did well with OPGTR, but I already own PLL and R&S 3.

Don't be tempted by yet another program since you already have two good books. If you want explicit instruction, I'd suggest do R&S, atleast for the grammar lessons. Then, for the composition and poetry, if you prefer those in PLL to those in R&S, you may do relevant lessons from the second part of PLL.

[stripe]

Here's an email I just received from Simply Charlotte Mason that begins with "I have often heard homeschool moms refer to the Charlotte Mason approach as a “gentle” approach."

 

http://simplycharlottemason.com/2011/09/14/is-charlotte-mason-a-gentle-approach-part-1/

[angela in ohio]

Here's an email I just received from Simply Charlotte Mason that begins with "I have often heard homeschool moms refer to the Charlotte Mason approach as a “gentle†approach."

 

http://simplycharlottemason.com/2011/09/14/is-charlotte-mason-a-gentle-approach-part-1/

 

"The Charlotte Mason approach requires much of the children. It is not all sweet little storybooks and time playing outside."

 

Excellent! Thank you for linking this.

 

I know a lot of local homeschoolers who are CM because they do nature study and Classical because they use SOTW and tried Latin once. :lol: And of course, I am the bad guy when I try to explain that I don't mean the same things when I discuss CM and classical education. More people really need to read the original CM.