Growing with Grammar users

[rdromick]

I'd love to hear from someone who's used this program for several years. Do you find there is good rentention? I'm using Rod and Staff 5 and would love for something more independent and streamlined.

[TarynB]

Bumping for you.

 

I haven't heard good things about GWG for true understanding of concepts (too easy to deduce the correct answer without really understanding, due to the decipherable pattern of correct answers) nor for long-term retention. Our brief usage of GWG made me see why. There are other threads here where that problem is highlighted. So be forewarned and watch for that if you decide to use GWG.

 

We use Hake Grammar which is mentioned frequently here as a thorough and secular alternative to R&S. Hake is extremely spiral, which is part of what I like about it, and it's easy to skip or alternate if you don't need that much review. But if you don't like spiral, you won't like Hake.

 

Hake is streamlined since the grammar lessons are all in one textbook. (There are a few lessons' worth of "extra practice" pages for grammar in the student workbook, but there's so much review in the textbook, we've never needed them.) I let my DS write in the textbook like a workbook. We don't use the writing portion of Hake and since that is limited to a separate workbook it is so easy to just set aside the writing exercises. It is written to the student. It includes diagramming too. My DS does Hake almost entirely independently (his preference - in logic stage and puberty fog hasn't hit yet) and he'll be using it again next year. I might recommend using only Hake 5 or 6 and then skipping to Hake 8, spreading each level over more than one year. (Level 5 and 6, & then level 7 and 8 repeat many of the same concepts.) Coming out of R&S 5, I'd think Hake 6 would be a good fit, then skip to 8.

[loulou belle]

I have used it for most of last year and all of this year. We will not be using it next year. I do not hand the book to my child and have her complete the assignment. I teach the lesson and she takes notes and writes examples in her grammar binder. It has been good for introducing my kid to all the parts of speech and basic diagramming. I pulled her out of PS in 3rd grade, and her knowledge of grammar was barely understanding a noun from a verb. She has made tremendous progress. We will move on to something new for this year. I think we need a new approach.... a new look... a new something.

[zoo_keeper]

We've used levels 1-halfway through 4. We're actually scaling back and have dropped the entire line (GWG/WWW/SWS) on a trial basis. The girls learn so much more from their other grammar curriculum (i.e., MCT and KISS) that GWG and the others are seeming very much like busy work.

[Mom in High Heels]

We used in for 3rd and 4th and I thought it was fine. The retention was there, but for 5th it started to feel like busy work. He knows the parts of speech and has a good grasp on them, so I think we'll move to something else next year.

[TraceyS/FL]

SO far it has been what my DD needs, and I sit with her and add to the lessons. She isn't a typical kid though, and she is unable to notice it might not be as hard for her if she figured out a pattern. But with working memory and processing delays - it works out well! :p (I have no expectation of retention with her - we need to do the same thing over and over and over for a long time for that to happen. She would not learn anything from some of the programs other kids can use just fine!)

 

We will be using the 2nd grade one to review with my PS kid starting in the next couple of weeks.

[RootAnn]

Agreeing with the others that you can't just hand it to the kids & walk away if you are looking for understanding & retention.

I've used levels 3 & 5 and plan to continue with just those levels. Level 3 is a good "intro" to grammar for someone who hasn't done formal grammar previous to that.

I wouldn't use every level and I wouldn't do it every year. I wanted something different for my 7th grader, so she'll be trying G.U.M. (She's my guinea pig.)

[rdromick]

awesome, thanks so much!

[NittanyJen]

I agree with the PP, and am having a lot more success with MCT; it is parent-intensive, but the lessons are quite short but with far better results.

 

I will say this, however-- I am far more impressed with the JacKris publisher's "Digging with Diagramming" book. The predictability factor is not there the way it was with GWG, and the kids are learning the diagramming piece that is not so much present in MCT. It's a nice, inexpensive, independent diagramming book for them so far.

[TraceyS/FL]

I agree with the PP, and am having a lot more success with MCT; it is parent-intensive, but the lessons are quite short but with far better results.

 

I will say this, however-- I am far more impressed with the JacKris publisher's "Digging with Diagramming" book. The predictability factor is not there the way it was with GWG, and the kids are learning the diagramming piece that is not so much present in MCT. It's a nice, inexpensive, independent diagramming book for them so far.

Thanks for the info on the diagramming.

 

I was thinking of adding that to DDs routine in a month or so. I think visually diagramming might help her with figuring out the parts....

 

Or, it could just end up being another :banghead: experience for me :D

[Mom-ninja.]

Well, I'm not seeing a retention problem. However, ds did all 4 levels of FLL and that set a solid foundation. I'm toying with the idea of getting Hake just to see what it's like.

 

Maybe I'll start a post....