If MUS was Language Arts

[Caraway]

What program would be the MUS equivalent for language arts?

 

:bigear:

[wy_kid_wrangler04]

Linking Blocks!!!! :D

[ChrissySC]

Visually, I remember the beginning of MUS and find Winston Grammar to be handson in this manner. :)

[JenninMN]

http://www.essentialsinwriting.com/

 

This claims to be like MUS for writing.

[grace'smom]

I kind of think of FLL as similar to MUS. I think because it's very incremental and it focuses on one concept at a time until the child understands it backwards and forwards before moving on to something else. But I've only seen FLL 1/2 and MUS Alpha, so that's a limited viewpoint.

[morosophe]

What an interesting thought exercise! There are so many aspects of Math-U-See to compare.

 

(By the way, please correct me when you think I'm wrong. Like I said, this is a thought exercise, in an area I don't really know much about. I'd love to learn more!)

 

For one thing, Math-U-See is mastery-based. You learn a concept in its entirety, and real life applications as they refer to that concept. I don't know that I'd want an LA program that was completely like that. I honestly believe that grammar, for instance, is better taught in a spiral fashion, because, unlike in math, the stuff you "haven't gotten to yet" (e.g., adjectives) have much more impact on the stuff you have gotten to (e.g., nouns) than do the little variations of the stuff you have gotten to (e.g., the nominative case, or even just subjects and direct or indirect objects). On the other hand, some people seem to prefer the "mastery" approach to phonics, in which nonsense syllables are made of the sounds that have been mastered, and I can't say that's wrong, although I think I would have found it extremely frustrating. A spelling program that does this, however, would probably be a phonics-based spelling program, which do seem to be extremely popular. (I'm using one right now.) A "roots"-based vocab/spelling program could also look a lot like this, although what you're "mastering" would be one root (and perhaps language source, such as Greek) at a time. What would this look like for writing? You have to master the sentence, then the paragraph, then the essay, then poetry? I'm not even sure. And what "mastery"-based reading would look like after phonics, I have no clue. As you can see, what "mastery-based" looks like in some part of language arts could be a little strange.

 

(By the way, I love how MUS does "mastery-based" learning. I am also extremely interested in Apologia, because Jeannie Fulbright makes some very cogent arguments in favor of what she calls "immersion science," which is another type of mastery-based learning, in my opinion. Of course, one of her points is that some of the basics of science will need to be learned in any branch, which isn't quite the same thing, but still... I could see more of an "immersion LA," if you will, for advanced literature studies, for instance. Isn't that what many of those lit unit studies, like Further Up and Further In, are?)

 

Secondly, Math-U-See is manipulatives-based, to the point where you use those little blocks all the way up to Algebra. This is where the Linking Blocks linked above come in. Also, All About Spelling is a very popular manipulatives (tiles) -based spelling program, although it is certainly not alone in having manipulatives for phonics. If you expand "manipulatives" to "multi-sensory," there are even more reading and/or spelling programs that fit the bill, although I haven't seen any besides those linking blocks that really fit the bill for grammar in quite the same way. Once again, though, composition and advanced reading don't really lend themselves to manipulatives in the same way some of the other aspects of LA do. On the other hand, if you look at the job of manipulatives--making the abstract concrete--you could argue that diagramming and marking up poems into feet do much the same job for the upper grades. (Yeah, that's a bit of a stretch.)

 

Thirdly, Math-U-See is whole to parts instruction. The concepts are taught, and then comes the memorization and examples. Here I'm going to give my only handwriting example (because so many handwriting programs I'm familiar with seem rather similar in the other areas I've listed): Handwriting Without Tears is very strong on understanding a shape before trying to get a child to actually write it. Hence all of those activities with wooden pieces and clay before the child is expected to use an actual pencil to write anything. But any handwriting program will make the child look at the whole letter, usually after (maybe even long after) they've learned the sound it makes, and then show the strokes needed to actually draw the letter. On the other hand, what whole-to-parts instruction looks like in reading instruction--whole reading--is an utter disaster; phonics, which seems to me to be the ultimate in parts-to-whole instruction, is widely considered to be preferable. Many lit students would agree, on the other hand, that really bad lit teachers never make it to the "whole" at all, whether at the beginning or the end of the process, focusing on literary techniques and "Jesus figures" and never approaching an actual interpretation of any of the works. How to Read a Book definitely supports a whole-to-parts approach to reading, however.

 

What does whole-to-parts grammar instruction look like, though? The first thing we do in grammar is pull things apart, and then build up the whole; in this area, you could argue that grammar is the second part of composition, in which first, the whole is built, and then you check the parts for coherency, which includes grammar, spelling, and "flow." As most writers would tell you, you don't try to do writing parts-to-whole: hence the popularity of this month, also known as NaNoWriMo. The closest you could really get is writing the pieces as you come up with them, but you usually have to have some sort of outline for this to work at all, and writing from an outline is the ultimate in whole-to-parts when it comes to writing, if you ask me. Except for the fact that, before even the outline, you have to have some sense of what it is you're trying to achieve with a piece of writing--an argument you're making, a story you want to get told, a feeling you want to evoke in the reader, whatever. There's the real "whole."

 

And wow, did I get to rambling. That can happen with writing, too, y'know. Which is why an outline is helpful. :p

 

Finally, when you use the DVDs and CD, Math-U-See is multimedia, and, in the early levels, allows the parent to act more as a teacher's helper than the teacher. Here, programs like Starfall, movies from Leapfrog, IEW's SWIs, and Schoolhouse Rock could be said to be like Math-U-See in the language arts realm.

 

So, for which part(s) of Math-U-See do you want an equivalent?

[Ewe Mama]

Easy Grammar

[MerryAtHope]

Winston Grammar if you are looking at hands on.

Easy Grammar if you are looking at incremental.

 

Essentials in Writing says it is an MUS-like approach to writing (and it includes grammar).

 

All About Spelling is incremental, mastery-based, and multi-sensory.

 

Handwriting without Tears uses manipulatives at the Pre-k level.

 

Just some to get started! Merry :-)