MCT scope and sequence

[Lara in Colo]

So if I buy Voage level + Paragraph Town and CE1, I am good to go?

We are covering in Killgallon prepositional phrases, participle phrases, appositives, as well as adjective and adverb clauses.

 

along with practice town, -- I would say yes.

[Chrysalis Academy]

I have never seen Town and it has been 3 yrs since we used Voyage, but iirc, he spends something like an absurd 3 pages on articles and then covers all verbals in something like 8?? (I really don't remember exactly anything other than the ironic disproportion of coverage and difficulty of concept).

 

I am wondering if the verbal coverage is enough inVoyage for someone who may have no idea what they even are. Of course, you could simply use the Internet for explanations and use the exercises from V.

 

Doing verbals just once definitely wasn't enough - that was the one part of Grammar Voyage we did review.  So we covered them in Grammar Town and again in Grammar Voyage.  I think it's sticking at this point, but it was the one part she was still shaky on after Grammar Town.  

[thebacabunch]

I don't know what more to say.  Honestly.  Grammar is the same thing.  The sentences being analyzed get harder and the explanations and grammar are deeper once you hit Magic Lens.  If my explanations don't resonate, MCT at the upper levels won't work for you.  I explained it the way it is explained by the author.  It is so similar to what I did in AP Honors English that I know it is rigorous.  I don't give a rat's *^ about standardized testing until the SAT and ACT tests.  Most of the English in those tests is about comprehension, vocabulary, analogies, and writing.  I could care less if my kids score well on the star, common core, etc.  They always score at the top of those tests and I have not done more than is in the MCT books.  I want my kids to go to college, that is what speaks to my curriculum choices.

[Chrysalis Academy]

So if I buy Voage level + Paragraph Town and CE1, I am good to go?

We are covering in Killgallon prepositional phrases, participle phrases, appositives, as well as adjective and adverb clauses.

 

I think that would work fine.  Either way, really - you could do all of Town and just CE 2 (and essay voyage, if you want to use it), or all of Voyage plus Paragraph Town and CE1.  I don't *think* it would make a whole lot of difference which path you choose.

 

And yes, I agree - using Kilgallon is a nice complement.  It gives more practice on the tough parts, the verbal phrases, and how the different phrases and clauses function in the sentence.  We're using Grammar for Middle School, it's our first foray into Kilgallon and it's very compatible with MCT but gives you a lot more practice with these tougher constructions.

[Lara in Colo]

Here's a funny for you---- We just took a CE test and DD1 got everything correct--exactly-- I mean her copy and the TM copy were exact-- word for word-- I said as much---  and she said--

 

"That's because I cheated"

 

I asked "how" (because I was confused since she was near me the whole time)

 

She said "I memorized them"

 

:smilielol5:

[Chrysalis Academy]

Here's a funny for you---- We just took a CE test and DD1 got everything correct--exactly-- I mean her copy and the TM copy were exact-- word for word-- I said as much---  and she said--

 

"That's because I cheated"

 

I asked "how" (because I was confused since she was near me the whole time)

 

She said "I memorized them"

 

:smilielol5:

 

 

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:

[Penelope]

It would be really nice to see a scope and sequence. We can't even see a table of contents for each of the books.

 

Can we make a list of general grammar topics that MCT does not cover in the first three levels and ask the Hive if they are covered in ML?

 

Offhand, I'm wondering about things like principal parts, complete discussion of tense, and parallel construction. Is there enough discussion about what's wrong with certain sentences to be able to apply grammar to the student's own writing, vs. just analyzing good sentences from literature?

[Penelope]

And thank you for posting, thebacabunch. I don't think anyone is questioning that it is rigorous, just whether it covers grammar as thoroughly as some of us would like.

 

I took honors and AP English, too. Maybe that's why I'm not completely sure what you mean when you say ML is like that. By the time I was in high school, we weren't studying grammar. My AP English class was about reading lots of books, usually one a week, discussing them, and writing lots of papers. Maybe there was a bit of vocabulary study, but that was mostly on our own, and there was next to no grammar. It was in middle school that grammar was emphasized, and it included more than parts of speech and verbals (though perhaps not a lot more), so that's where I'm confused. That said, what I can see of ML looks really good; however, it's frustrating to not be able to see more of it. I know that the first three MCT levels include a lot of discussion of grammar points in the Practice books. Perhaps it's the same with ML.

[Chrysalis Academy]

It would be really nice to see a scope and sequence. We can't even see a table of contents for each of the books.

 

Can we make a list of general grammar topics that MCT does not cover in the first three levels and ask the Hive if they are covered in ML?

 

Offhand, I'm wondering about things like principal parts, complete discussion of tense, and parallel construction. Is there enough discussion about what's wrong with certain sentences to be able to apply grammar to the student's own writing, vs. just analyzing good sentences from literature?

 

The first three levels don't include any in-depth discussion of principal parts or tense.  There is one page in GT and one in GV that list the 6 verb tenses, but you don't do any work with them at that point.  Both books cover action vs. linking verbs pretty thoroughly and verb tense very briefly, GV adds a discussion of verb agreement, which is heavily covered in all the writing books as well.

 

I don't recall seeing any discussion of parallel construction - if that's included, it would probably be in Essay Voyage.  We're almost done with that, and I haven't seen anything yet.  There is some analysis of incorrect sentences in Essay Voyage - you get a page with sentences that have missing punctuation and you have to supply the correct punctuation.  There is also a paragraph with "Bugs" that you have to correct.  Not a lot of this, but there is some.  I agree, it's extremely useful.

[Roadrunner]

I think that would work fine.  Either way, really - you could do all of Town and just CE 2 (and essay voyage, if you want to use it), or all of Voyage plus Paragraph Town and CE1.  I don't *think* it would make a whole lot of difference which path you choose.

 .

  

This is exactly what I needed to figure out at this point. Thanks!

 

It would be really nice to see a scope and sequence. We can't even see a table of contents for each of the books.

Can we make a list of general grammar topics that MCT does not cover in the first three levels and ask the Hive if they are covered in ML?

Offhand, I'm wondering about things like principal parts, complete discussion of tense, and parallel construction. Is there enough discussion about what's wrong with certain sentences to be able to apply grammar to the student's own writing, vs. just analyzing good sentences from literature?

I have a Side by Side French and English Grammar book that I bought with an intention of teachiching French grammar to my kids, but I am going to make them study the English "side" as well to make sure we cover tenses..... :)

 

You know, I might just post on MCT board and ask for scope and sequence for the entire thing.

[Kathryn]

I just want a little star next to the thread title so I can find it easier. I have nothing to add since we are on Island right now. Thanks for the discussion!

[8filltheheart]

 I don't think anyone is questioning that it is rigorous, just whether it covers grammar as thoroughly as some of us would like.

 

I wonder if it is based on my comment about questioning the claim that MCT teaches excellent writing.  :p

 

I have posted ad nauseam about the flaws in the 2nd 1/2 of Voyage and AAW !and 2.  MCT improperly teaches students how to incorporate supporting quotes.   Solid writing instruction teaches students that they should use block/long quotes sparingly and that all quotes support their position and do not make the argument for the student. MCT fails at both. If you read this link where he has a posted example http://www.rfwp.com/...-one-glance.pdf

you can see that he even goes so far as to introduce a long quote with a single sentence and then simply starts a new paragraph. Paragraph construction means something. Students need to have topic sentences, supporting arguments, and include quotes to support their position. Introducing a long quote and letting the quote speak for them is a big no-no and definitely not appropriate college essay prep.

 

Just doing quick google search for "incorporating supporting evidence into an essay"  produced this handout available online from UNC http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/evidence/

 

Like all pieces of evidence, a quotation can’t speak for itself. If you end a paragraph with a quotation, that may be a sign that you have neglected to discuss the importance of the quotation in terms of your argument. It’s important to avoid “plop quotations,†that is, quotations that are just dropped into your paper without any introduction, discussion, or follow-up.

 

In every single essay in both AAW 1 and 2 every single block quote ends the paragraph and he uses a lot of block quotes.   Block quotes should be used very sparingly and only if there is absolutely no way to paraphrase or cut the quote to only the key parts w/o losing the context (discussions in meter or consonance/assonance, etc are examples of when a short quote would eliminate the context of what is being discussed.)

 

It is always dangerous to not be giddy about MCT on these forums, but I am most definitely not a fan (except for CE....love the vocabulary!)

[Roadrunner]

I just want a little star next to the thread title so I can find it easier. I have nothing to add since we are on Island right now. Thanks for the discussion!

 

I can edit the title and add a * . Would that work?

 

 

I wonder if it is based on my comment about questioning the claim that MCT teaches excellent writing.  :p

 

I have posted ad nauseam about the flaws in the 2nd 1/2 of Voyage and AAW !and 2.  MCT improperly teaches students how to incorporate supporting quotes.   Solid writing instruction teaches students that they should use block/long quotes sparingly and that all quotes support their position and do not make the argument for the student. MCT fails at both. If you read this link where he has a posted example http://www.rfwp.com/...-one-glance.pdf

you can see that he even goes so far as to introduce a long quote with a single sentence and then simply starts a new paragraph. Paragraph construction means something. Students need to have topic sentences, supporting arguments, and include quotes to support their position. Introducing a long quote and letting the quote speak for them is a big no-no and definitely not appropriate college essay prep.

 

Just doing quick google search for "incorporating supporting evidence into an essay"  produced this handout available online from UNC http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/evidence/

 

 

In every single essay in both AAW 1 and 2 every single block quote ends the paragraph and he uses a lot of block quotes.   Block quotes should be used very sparingly and only if there is absolutely no way to paraphrase or cut the quote to only the key parts w/o losing the context (discussions in meter or consonance/assonance, etc are examples of when a short quote would eliminate the context of what is being discussed.)

 

It is always dangerous to not be giddy about MCT on these forums, but I am most definitely not a fan (except for CE....love the vocabulary!)

Sigh. I am going to print this and add to my MCT folder. Is there any resource you would recommend for essay construction? Seems like another area that will need supplementation :(

[Kathryn]

 

I can edit the title and add a * . Would that work?

 

 

Sigh. I am going to print this and add to my MCT folder. Is there any resource you would recommend for essay construction? Seems like another area that will need supplementation :(

No, I mean the star you get for posting on a thread instead of the usual dot. And now I have it!

[Chrysalis Academy]

I agree with what 8 says about Essay Voyage and quotes, but I will say that we have gotten a lot of discussion points about writing from EV.  We haven't done any of the writing assignments, and I have had occasion to point out things I disagree with . . . but overall it was a nice counterpoint to WWS, as EV its whole-to-parts/big picture in its approach, whereas WWS is very parts-to-whole.  (FWIW, I also really disagreed with WWS's examples of how to use quotes in the Research lessons - I thought they were way overused, and in many cases a paraphrase would have served much better.  So I have yet to find something that teaches this well).

 

However, I agree that EV is not adequate to teach essay writing.  I wouldn't skip it - but I would certainly not rely on it alone.  You need something to follow it that gives specific how-tos and usable assignments.  I'm still researching this, but I think Lively Art of Writing is a good candidate.

[8filltheheart]

I agree with what 8 says about Essay Voyage and quotes, but I will say that we have gotten a lot of discussion points about writing from EV.  We haven't done any of the writing assignments, and I have had occasion to point out things I disagree with . . . but overall it was a nice counterpoint to WWS, as EV its whole-to-parts/big picture in its approach, whereas WWS is very parts-to-whole.  (FWIW, I also really disagreed with WWS's examples of how to use quotes in the Research lessons - I thought they were way overused, and in many cases a paraphrase would have served much better.  So I have yet to find something that teaches this well).

 

However, I agree that EV is not adequate to teach essay writing.  I wouldn't skip it - but I would certainly not rely on it alone.  You need something to follow it that gives specific how-tos and usable assignments.  I'm still researching this, but I think Lively Art of Writing is a good candidate.

 

The difference between EV and AAW is that EV has lots of stylistic elements in the first half of the book to discuss.   (I will say that a couple of the voyager's essays are excellent).     In AAW the "student" sample essays are the instruction.  

[Chrysalis Academy]

Yes, I  :001_wub: some of the sample essays in EV.  That's actually why I decided to use it.  Some of them are a stretch, but so enriching.  (and btw, this is why I think it's ok to use MCT materials out of sequence - I can't imagine dd having been ready to read those sample essays before late 5th/6th grade.)

 

I haven't seen AAW in person.  I looked at the samples and could tell they weren't for us.

[Crimson Wife]

I don't give a rat's *^ about standardized testing until the SAT and ACT tests.  Most of the English in those tests is about comprehension, vocabulary, analogies, and writing.

The SAT has changed quite a bit since all of us took it. No more analogies, and there is a whole section devoted to grammar & mechanics.

 

Topics that either aren't in MCT at all at the elementary levels or are touched upon VERY briefly only in passing include: capitalization & punctuation, italics vs. quotation marks in titles, verb tenses, pronoun-antecedent agreement, pronoun reference & shift, parallel construction, and revising run-on & choppy sentences.

 

I've found other materials to cover these topics (Evan-Moor "Daily Paragraph Editing" and "Daily Language Review", Writer's Inc. "Daily Language Workouts", Sadlier-Oxford "Grammar and Writing for Standardized Tests", Warriner's, etc.) but it's annoying to shell out big bucks for MCT and then have to spend even more on grammar & mechanics supplements.

[thebacabunch]

Good points crimsonwife!  Honestly, who knows how the SAT and ACT tests will change as they align with the common core.  They are expected to change and I hope the changes are reflected in newer practice tests.  I have heard we will see analogies again as this is a "critical thinking" rather than  a rote memorization skill.  Who knows.  Sigh. 

[quark]

It would be really nice to see a scope and sequence. We can't even see a table of contents for each of the books.

 

Can we make a list of general grammar topics that MCT does not cover in the first three levels and ask the Hive if they are covered in ML?

 

Offhand, I'm wondering about things like principal parts, complete discussion of tense, and parallel construction. Is there enough discussion about what's wrong with certain sentences to be able to apply grammar to the student's own writing, vs. just analyzing good sentences from literature?

 

I have Magic Lens (3rd edition) Vol 1. I haven't decided whether to start now or wait till next summer.

 

The TOC says (my words in italics):

If only language were simple (the intro)...5

Level One: The Eight Parts of Speech...9

Level Two: The Parts of Sentence...79

Level Three: Phrases...114

Level Four: Clauses...149

Appendix...172

 

I'm not sure what the loop chapters are. The ones he refers to here. Does anyone know what he means?

 

In the intro, he gives a quick explanation of four-level analysis and argues why you need grammar.

 

Then come the eight parts of speech.

 

Nouns: he defines the noun, singular, plural, peppers the pages with lots of examples from classic lit. Gives an example of four-level analysis, highlighting the nouns. Offers some practice identifying nouns (from Latin and Greek stems).

 

Pronouns: definition of, gender, singular, plural, antecedent, subject pronouns, object pronouns, example of four-level analysis, possessive pronouns, possessive adjectives, its vs it's, interrogative pronouns, and other types of pronouns, pronoun/antecedent agreement, example of four-level analysis. Practice identifying types of pronouns (with vocab words from Latin and Greek stems).

 

As far as I can see the pattern continues with the other parts of speech: definitions, types, examples of four-level analysis, practice questions. There are sample diagrams and he discusses the structure but I don't see any for the student to complete. I could be wrong as I haven't read the book thoroughly yet. We are using a separate book for diagramming.

 

There seems to be quite an extended discussion of tense.

 

It's late. I'll check back when convenient to see if anyone has questions about ML1.

 

ETA: was curious about the loop chapters and I found this. The link also has a scope and sequence document (word doc) for ML1, scroll down to Grammar Scope and Sequence for Magic Lens (All Levels). It says all levels in the link but I'm not sure if the document actually shows the S&S for all levels. It looks like it only lists the topics in ML1. HTH!

 

 

[8filltheheart]

Good points crimsonwife! Honestly, who knows how the SAT and ACT tests will change as they align with the common core. They are expected to change and I hope the changes are reflected in newer practice tests. I have heard we will see analogies again as this is a "critical thinking" rather than a rote memorization skill. Who knows. Sigh.

I was under the impression that the new SAT would be more in line with the ACT since the shift of colleges has been away from the SAT toward the ACT. The ACT is more of knowledge-based exam vs. aptitude. I think analogies are unlikely to have a rebirth.

 

In this article http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/01/03/new-college-board-chief-cites-problems-with-sat/

Coleman criticized the vocab words on the exam as having "no real relevance in student's lives."

 

I think when you think about vocabulary on exams, you know, how SAT words are famous as the words you will never use again? You know, you study them in high school and you’re like, gosh, I’ve never seen this before, and I probably never shall. Why wouldn’t it be the opposite? Why wouldn’t you have a body of language on the SAT that’s the words you most need to know and be ready to use again and again? Words like transform, deliberate, hypothesis, right?

I doubt the new SAT will resemble anything like the older version of the tests.

[Roadrunner]

ETA: was curious about the loop chapters and I found this. The link also has a scope and sequence document (word doc) for ML1, scroll down to Grammar Scope and Sequence for Magic Lens (All Levels). It says all levels in the link but I'm not sure if the document actually shows the S&S for all levels. It looks like it only lists the topics in ML1. HTH!

This is great!

[kbutton]

The SAT has changed quite a bit since all of us took it. No more analogies, and there is a whole section devoted to grammar & mechanics.

 

Topics that either aren't in MCT at all at the elementary levels or are touched upon VERY briefly only in passing include: capitalization & punctuation, italics vs. quotation marks in titles, verb tenses, pronoun-antecedent agreement, pronoun reference & shift, parallel construction, and revising run-on & choppy sentences.

 

I've found other materials to cover these topics (Evan-Moor "Daily Paragraph Editing" and "Daily Language Review", Writer's Inc. "Daily Language Workouts", Sadlier-Oxford "Grammar and Writing for Standardized Tests", Warriner's, etc.) but it's annoying to shell out big bucks for MCT and then have to spend even more on grammar & mechanics supplements.

 

Crimson Wife, I love your information. You are really making me do my homework for where we are going with language arts. 

 

I am not sure I can juggle extra balls in the air that MCT does not cover (down the road--we are okay for now). I am a big picture thinker who learned grammar piece by piece in a linear fashion (but I survived and did okay). I think MCT tackles the hardest parts of grammar with his big picture view of how it all works. I took an intensive grammar course in college, and I owe all my actual understanding of grammar to the teacher's big picture presentation (I could give right answers but didn't understand them). I think of the stuff outside of MCT as details that will not make sense until I get the big picture, and I don't want my kids to have to memorize meaningless rules as a substitute for actually understanding grammar. I'll have to check out these resources for putting in the other pieces that MCT doesn't address directly. So far, we discuss many things that he doesn't, but at some point, I will have to seek some outside sources.

 

Thanks to everyone for all the good information and debate!

[8filltheheart]

  Is there any resource you would recommend for essay construction? Seems like another area that will need supplementation :(

 

I cannot think of a single source that is simply wonderful.   I know others on this forum recommend Windows to the World.   I don't like it either.  ;)   The section on annotating is similar to Adler's philosophy on how to read a book (and you can get his essay on the subject free online.)   I do believe that if people are unfamiliar with that concept that that section is helpful.   However, her sample thesis statements and essays make me cringe b/c of the constant references to the "reader."   The writing is also very elementary.   For really beginning writers, the structure is fine.   They remind me of the essays my dd first wrote in 6th grade.   But, I do expect a more sophisticated level of writing for my high schoolers and it is marketed as high school level analysis.

 

Lively Art of Writing is very cheap and teaches the basic essay format but it is out-of-date and does not teach incorporating quotes in MLA format.   

 

Older editions of the MLA handbook are cheap.   MLA changes every yr, but for teaching the basics, an older edition is fine.   My kids have learned to check Purdue Owl or the MLA website for up-to-date info on correct formatting. (these are usually minor issues regarding comma placement, not major issues like "how to write.")

 

I have never actually seen the essay book for Put That in Writing, but her book on paragraphs is actually very good as far as  well-written examples, solid instruction on proper paragraph structure, and teaching editing skills.   The assignments are completely awful--just like every writing program I have ever seen-- and only about 1/3 of the book is actually necessary.  ;)   But, if her essay book instructs similarly to the paragraph book, I would think it would be helpful.  http://barrettsbookshelf.com/level-2-mastering-the-essay

 

I asked my kids what they thought was the key to learning to write a good essay and their answer was critiquing their writing with me.   I really think that is what solid writing instruction boils down.   The parent has to know what is good writing in order to critique assignments.   That is why I also do not understand many posters' reluctance to study grammar.   If a parent isn't solid on parallel construction, passive vs. active voice, identifying misplaced modifiers, identifying tense and voice, etc, I don't see how they are going to be able to mark the mistakes in assignments.   

 

HTH

[Roadrunner]

I have never actually seen the essay book for Put That in Writing, but her book on paragraphs is actually very good as far as well-written examples, solid instruction on proper paragraph structure, and teaching editing skills. The assignments are completely awful--just like every writing program I have ever seen-- and only about 1/3 of the book is actually necessary. ;) But, if her essay book instructs similarly to the paragraph book, I would think it would be helpful. http://barrettsbookshelf.com/level-2-mastering-the-essay

 

I asked my kids what they thought was the key to learning to write a good essay and their answer was critiquing their writing with me. I really think that is what solid writing instruction boils down. The parent has to know what is good writing in order to critique assignments. That is why I also do not understand many posters' reluctance to study grammar. If a parent isn't solid on parallel construction, passive vs. active voice, identifying misplaced modifiers, identifying tense and voice, etc, I don't see how they are going to be able to mark the mistakes in assignments.

 

HTH

I will ge a copy of the paragraph book. Thanks for recommendation.

I agree that a god teacher is a key, which is why I am purchasing books on essays even though my oldest is only eight :)

[Spy Car]

I wonder if it is based on my comment about questioning the claim that MCT teaches excellent writing. :p

 

I have posted ad nauseam about the flaws in the 2nd 1/2 of Voyage and AAW !and 2. MCT improperly teaches students how to incorporate supporting quotes. Solid writing instruction teaches students that they should use block/long quotes sparingly and that all quotes support their position and do not make the argument for the student. MCT fails at both. If you read this link where he has a posted example http://www.rfwp.com/...-one-glance.pdf

you can see that he even goes so far as to introduce a long quote with a single sentence and then simply starts a new paragraph. Paragraph construction means something. Students need to have topic sentences, supporting arguments, and include quotes to support their position. Introducing a long quote and letting the quote speak for them is a big no-no and definitely not appropriate college essay prep.

 

Just doing quick google search for "incorporating supporting evidence into an essay" produced this handout available online from UNC http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/evidence/

 

In every single essay in both AAW 1 and 2 every single block quote ends the paragraph and he uses a lot of block quotes. Block quotes should be used very sparingly and only if there is absolutely no way to paraphrase or cut the quote to only the key parts w/o losing the context (discussions in meter or consonance/assonance, etc are examples of when a short quote would eliminate the context of what is being discussed.)

 

It is always dangerous to not be giddy about MCT on these forums, but I am most definitely not a fan (except for CE....love the vocabulary!)

While I agree with you on the proper formatting of paragraphs and not letting quotes stand alone to deliver the paper-writer's points, I'm not seeing much in the linked MCT essay that could not be fixed in two keystrokes (namely: losing two tabs/indents).

 

And arguement could be made to reduce some of the block quotes, but (aside from that) the essay is pretty sound.

 

I have not seen the upper levels of MCT first-hand, but the lowers are extremely good. I would hate for potential users to be discouraged from using one of the most interesting language arts resources due to deficiency that is easily corrected. That would be a disportortunate response IMO.

 

Bill

[Chrysalis Academy]

Well, we had a very interesting grammar lesson yesterday.  I reviewed diagramming using a downloaded copy of Warriner's - I haven't done it since elementary school myself - and we decided to diagram our 5 MCT Practice Voyage sentences on the whiteboard.  It was enlightening for both of us.  Dd loved diagramming - she liked the visual representation of the relations between the parts of the sentence, and I think she found it a fun puzzle-like activity.  What also became clear was that she did not fully understand prepositional phrases - she could id them fine, but she didn't grasp that they behave as adjectives or adverbs and how they related, specificallly, to the part they modify.  Now, you (you know who you are  ;) ) can argue that this is because I taught the concept badly, but I do think it was interesting that after two years of MCT, she didn't explicitly understand this, but it only took one session of diagramming to make it clear.  We'll definitely be doing more diagramming in future.

 

Also in reviewing Warriner's, I remembered that clauses also function as parts of speech - nouns, adjectives, adverbs, something I was taught in my excellent elementary grammar classes, but that I had forgotten.  I haven't seen anything about this in MCT's grammar.  You talk about whether clauses are dependent or independent, and how they combine to form different types of sentences, but no deeper discussion of the roles of clauses.  So this is something else that I think is missing and that I'll be reviewing more thoroughly in Warriner's so I can teach it.

 

Just sayin'.

[Roadrunner]

I have not seen the upper levels of MCT first-hand, but the lowers are extremely good. I would hate for potential users to be discouraged from using one of the most interesting language arts resources due to deficiency that is easily corrected. That would be a disportortunate response IMO.

 

Bill

True.

 

We aren't switching from MCT (for those being dissuaded :) ). While we will eliminate some duplication, we plan on continuing with the program and supplementing heavily where it's needed. It's important to identify the weaknesses of any program, so we can be prepared. I am sure in the hands of skilled/experienced teachers, some of what we talked about is obvious, but some of us need more guidance.

In the lower levels supplementation with mechanics practice is necessary for example.

[8filltheheart]

While I agree with you on the proper formatting of paragraphs and not letting quotes stand alone to deliver the paper-writer's points, I'm not seeing much in the linked MCT essay that could not be fixed in two keystrokes (namely: losing to tabs/indents).

 

And arguement could be made to reduce some of the block quotes, but (aside from that) the essay is pretty sound.

 

I have not seen the upper levels of MCT first-hand, but the lowers are extremely good. I would hate for potential users to be discouraged from using one of the most interesting language arts resources due to deficiency that is easily corrected. That would be a disportortunate response IMO.

 

Bill

 

 MCT clearly stated that he believes that there is nothing wrong with his examples and that it is simply a matter of preference in how to write a paragraph.  His response: 

 

For me, it is only a question of whether or not the following paragraph is a new one. If the quotation occurs in the middle of a paragraph, then I do not indent after the quotation when I write. If the topic of the following paragraph is different, even slightly, then I indent. I do not remember writing about that in the text, but it is what I do in my own writing. In other words, the presence or absence of a quotation does nothing to alter the standard treatment of a paragraph. I am certain that there is no rule that requires you not to indent because you are following a quotation. Thanks for asking about that.

There is a longer reply here:  http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/244785-mct-writing-a-shift-in-view/?p=2432820 which states

 

I do not think we need to feel bound always to indent or not to indent, but we should give attention to the nature of a paragraph. Usually, I think, the text that follows a long quote is either a shift to a new idea or a discussion of the quotation. In either of those cases, that is a different purpose than the preceding paragraph, and I usually indent

 

Umm.....NO WAY.    The argument that the student is presenting and using the quote to support should not be a shift to a new idea.   It is the idea.  The quote should only be incorporated in the context of the argument.  I do not know how to articulate it any better than to say that the contention is the focus of the paper, not the quotes.   The quotes are the supporting evidence used to justify the position.   The quote itself should never be the focus of the discussion.   The student's position is the focus and the quote is incorporated into it to strengthen the argument, not the other way around. 

 

The upper levels are nothing but his examples.   Not using them is not a disproportionate response.    That he believes that his paragraphs are properly written for children to learn from and replicate is disturbing.  

 

That said, I have never seen the lower levels.  When I started using Essay Voyage, I really enjoyed it and the teaching is the way I naturally teach my children.  Also, some of the voyager's essays are excellent.  But, that does not negate that the 1/2 of the book is simply teaching children incorrectly and that the upper level books that contain nothing but his writing examples are completely full of errors.   It would be like suggesting that math program that had great teaching in the lower levels and then justified improper methodology for their answers in the upper levels was still fabulous and not worth dismissing.   

[Alte Veste Academy]

I reviewed diagramming using a downloaded copy of Warriner's

Oooooh, where did you get that? :D

 

My oldest loves diagramming too, precisely because he is my puzzle-solving kid. His favorite thing though, is to take already diagrammed sentences and see how quickly he can read them properly.

[Spy Car]

Well, we had a very interesting grammar lesson yesterday. I reviewed diagramming using a downloaded copy of Warriner's - I haven't done it since elementary school myself - and we decided to diagram our 5 MCT Practice Voyage sentences on the whiteboard. It was enlightening for both of us. Dd loved diagramming - she liked the visual representation of the relations between the parts of the sentence, and I think she found it a fun puzzle-like activity. What also became clear was that she did not fully understand prepositional phrases - she could id them fine, but she didn't grasp that they behave as adjectives or adverbs and how they related, specificallly, to the part they modify. Now, you (you know who you are ;) ) can argue that this is because I taught the concept badly, but I do think it was interesting that after two years of MCT, she didn't explicitly understand this, but it only took one session of diagramming to make it clear. We'll definitely be doing more diagramming in future.

 

Also in reviewing Warriner's, I remembered that clauses also function as parts of speech - nouns, adjectives, adverbs, something I was taught in my excellent elementary grammar classes, but that I had forgotten. I haven't seen anything about this in MCT's grammar. You talk about whether clauses are dependent or independent, and how they combine to form different types of sentences, but no deeper discussion of the roles of clauses. So this is something else that I think is missing and that I'll be reviewing more thoroughly in Warriner's so I can teach it.

 

Just sayin'.

If the diagramming cleared up a misunderstanding, that's great. I'm all for using what-ever methods work (since I have a sneaking suspicion you are directing you post at me :D).

 

And, not to say "you did it wrong," but I found that Mr Thompson covered phrases being "giant adjectives" or "giant adverbs" in MCT, so we kept up making them in the 4 Level Analysis in the Practice books, and discussed their role in each sentence.

 

Was this "directly included" by Mr Thompson in his rubric? No. Might it been better if he had? I believe so. Is it reasonable a parent/teacher could not emphasize this part of the lesson because they were not directly instructed to do so? Yes, very much so. So could a child miss that part of the lesson? Sure.

 

I think Mr Thompson would do well to include marking how phrases are functioning as a formal part of his analysis. It is covered in his materials.

 

If diagramming helps, why not? It is super easy to learn if one understand the grammar point. It just takes learning diagramming conventions. Not hard.

 

We diagram some of the Practice sentences ourselves.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

MCT clearly stated that he believes that there is nothing wrong with his examples and that it is simply a matter of preference in how to write a paragraph.  His response: 

There is a longer reply here:  http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/244785-mct-writing-a-shift-in-view/?p=2432820 which states

 

Umm.....NO WAY.    The argument that the student is presenting and using the quote to support should not be a shift to a new idea.   It is the idea.  The quote should only be incorporated in the context of the argument.  I do not know how to articulate it any better than to say that the contention is the focus of the paper, not the quotes.   The quotes are the supporting evidence used to justify the position.   The quote itself should never be the focus of the discussion.   The student's position is the focus and the quote is incorporated into it to strengthen the argument, not the other way around. 

 

The upper levels are nothing but his examples.   Not using them is not a disproportionate response.    That he believes that his paragraphs are properly written for children to learn from and replicate is disturbing.  

 

That said, I have never seen the lower levels.  When I started using Essay Voyage, I really enjoyed it and the teaching is the way I naturally teach my children.  Also, some of the voyager's essays are excellent.  But, that does not negate that the 1/2 of the book is simply teaching children incorrectly and that the upper level books that contain nothing but his writing examples are completely full of errors.   It would be like suggesting that math program that had great teaching in the lower levels and then justified improper methodology for their answers in the upper levels was still fabulous and not worth dismissing.

You maybe heartened to know (or maybe not:D) that I agree with you, and disagree with Mr Thompson.

 

However, I don't think (disagreeing with Thompson) that his paragraphs are concluded, and deserve the indents. Remove those and the form is fine. He does build points of his own, and the quotes (alone) do not carry the whole point.

 

I agree with you that "The quotes are the supporting evidence used to justify the position." I think he succeeds on this point, despite the bad formatting (which I like no more than you do).

 

He makes his points in this essay rather well IMO. I agree with you (again) that: "The student's position is the focus and the quote is incorporated into it to strengthen the argument, not the other way around." But believe the argument is pretty strong in this essay, and that the quotes (if a little long) do support the argument. Do I like the use of "indents"? no. I wish Mr Thompson would reconsider his opinion on this issue.

 

Bill

[Chrysalis Academy]

If the diagramming cleared up a misunderstanding, that's great. I'm all for using what-ever methods work (since I have a sneaking suspicion you are directing you post at me :D).

 

And, not to say "you did it wrong," but I found that Mr Thompson cover phrases being "giant adjectives" or "giant adverbs" in MCT, so we kept up making them in the 4 Level Analysis in the Practice books, and discussed their role in each sentence.

 

Was this "directly included" by Mr Thompson in his rubric? No. Might it been better if he had? I believe so. Is it reasonable a parent/teacher could not emphasize this part of the lesson because they were not directly instructed to do so? Yes, very much so. So could a child miss that part of the lesson? Sure.

 

I think Mr Thompson would do well to include marking how phrases are functioning as a formal part of his analysis. It is covered in his materials.

 

If diagramming helps, why not? It is super easy to learn if one understand the grammar point. It just takes learning diagramming conventions. Not hard.

 

We diagram some of the Practice sentences ourselves.

 

Bill

 

I agree completely!  I mentioned it partly to throw a wink at you, because I knew you could take it,   ;)  :D but mostly because we had morphed in this thread to talk about things people felt were missing in MCT, and this stood out to me.  If somebody reads this post and it reminds them to emphasize the role of prep phrases in the sentence when they're going through MCT's practice sentences, then it will have been worth the time it took to write the post.

[Chrysalis Academy]

Oooooh, where did you get that? :D

 

My oldest loves diagramming too, precisely because he is my puzzle-solving kid. His favorite thing though, is to take already diagrammed sentences and see how quickly he can read them properly.

 

 

Aw man, now I can't find the link!  I did a search here for Warriner's, and someone had posted the links to the downloads, but I can't find them now!!  I'll keep looking and post back here if I find it, but you might try a search of the high school board.

[Spy Car]

I agree completely!  I mentioned it partly to throw a wink at you, because I knew you could take it,   ;)  :D but mostly because we had morphed in this thread to talk about things people felt were missing in MCT, and this stood out to me.  If somebody reads this post and it reminds them to emphasize the role of prep phrases in the sentence when they're going through MCT's practice sentences, then it will have been worth the time it took to write the post.

I agree 100% with all points (including your knowing I'd take the wink :D).

 

But, more importantly, you're right that your "head-up" (and the subsequent discussion) could alert parents that "how the phrases function" in the practice sentences should be discussed or noted since it is not a "formal" part of the MCT style 4 Level Analysis. It is a good (and valid) point.

 

As are "8s" points.

 

I still feel MCT is an unbelievably brilliant program. I literally dreamed of finding an approach like this one (and did not have high hopes after years of researching TWTM recommendations for LA going back to the original version, and up). In contrast to other programs this one is a breath of fresh air, and is a program I feel respects children's intelligence in a way I really appreciate. I'm very glad MCT is not a "mechanics" style program. There are plenty of those on the market already. MCT is different. I relish the difference. (General rant: not one aimed at you ;))

 

Bill

[Roadrunner]

I'm very glad MCT is not a "mechanics" style program. There are plenty of those on the market already. MCT is different. I relish the difference. (General rant: not one aimed at you ;))

 

Bill

Right, but most elementary school age kids need mechanics practice, so MCT needs supplementing in that regards. It would have been nice if he had an extra practice book focused on mechanics for each level so we could eliminate the need for other programs.

[Woodland Mist Academy]

We almost stopped MCT after the Voyage level because parts of it seemed like a waste of time and money. In the end we decided to give the Magic Lens level a try. It was a good decision for us.

 

MCT is not our sole English program, but it has certainly enriched our days. We don't do the writing assignments because we are doing so much writing elsewhere. For us, MCT writing is more for inspiration and encouragement. (And fun. ;) )

 

 

 

[Woodland Mist Academy]

Right, but most elementary school age kids need mechanics practice, so MCT needs supplementing in that regards. It would have been nice if he had an extra practice book focused on mechanics for each level so we could eliminate the need for other programs.

 

I guess this doesn't bother me. I am hesitant to get the full dose of any subject from one author--especially over many years.

[Chrysalis Academy]

I agree 100% with all points (including your knowing I'd take the wink :D).

 

But, more importantly, you're right that your "head-up" (and the subsequent discussion) could alert parents that "how the phrases function" in the practice sentences should be discussed or noted since it is not a "formal" part of the MCT style 4 Level Analysis. It is a good (and valid) point.

 

As are "8s" points.

 

I still feel MCT is an unbelievably brilliant program. I literally dreamed of finding an approach like this one (and did not have high hopes after years of researching TWTM recommendations for LA going back to the original version, and up). In contrast to other programs this one is a breath of fresh air, and is a program I feel respects children's intelligence in a way I really appreciate. I'm very glad MCT is not a "mechanics" style program. There are plenty of those on the market already. MCT is different. I relish the difference. (General rant: not one aimed at you ;))

 

Bill

 

Oh, you're talking to a kool-aid drinker here! When we started hsing in 4th grade, we tried FLL for the first couple of months, and dd and I were both completely miserable.  MCT language arts not only breathed life into our language arts studies, but it also helped me see the style of teaching and learning that works for us, and set the bar high for the kind of materials I look for in other subjects.

[Roadrunner]

I do want to add that doing MCT sentences on a whiteboard with me discussing the notes adds a lot to the program.

[Soror]

OH, the baby just deleted my response! So much for trying to make sure my post about grammar was grammatically correct and carefully worded :)

 

I'm doing Island Level w/ ds now and also have some of the upper level books for self-education- Essay Voyage, Magic Lens and Word Within a Word. I've said more than once that MCT really helped to deepen my understanding of grammar. I do however see great value in diagramming as well. From what I have studied w/ both I do feel that diagramming gives one a greater understanding of how the parts work together. I think both the 4 level analysis and diagramming together providing an outstanding grammar basis. I'm glad that I don't have to choose just one approach.

 

Although, I was of the opinion that it better to use fewer programs my own study has changed my mind. I see much more value now in approaching subjects in a variety of ways. I know studying grammar from many sources has only served as a benefit for me. I work w/ one text and then go back to another, back and forth, picking up greater understanding on each go through.

 

*Fwiw I'm using MCT for grammar primarily. I haven't studied the writing portion enough to have an informed opinion about its usefulness, for me anything of use I can pull from the writing portion is just a bonus.

[Woodland Mist Academy]

Although, I was of the opinion that it better to use fewer programs my own study has changed my mind. I see much more value now in approaching subjects in a variety of ways. I know studying grammar from many sources has only served as a benefit for me. I work w/ one text and then go back to another, back and forth, picking up greater understanding on each go through.

 

 

 

This is true for us as well.

[Soror]

I do want to add that doing MCT sentences on a whiteboard with me discussing the notes adds a lot to the program.

I haven't done them on the whiteboard as we work on the couch here. I know reading the discussion at the beginning of ML1 really was another lightbulb moment for me. I'm sure that for others it probably seems quite obvious but yet again reading the whole of how he examines sentences really helped me in my own teaching and understanding. I just love it!

[Roadrunner]

I'm sure that for others it probably seems quite obvious but yet again reading the whole of how he examines sentences really helped me in my own teaching and understanding. I just love it!

I don't think it's that obvious. There is information that's not taught to students in Grammar Island, so couple of sentences of notes to the teacher "hiding" under each sentence seem like an afterthought (or extra info intended for the teacher). It's possible to assume that MCT doesn't intend to introduce that type of detail yet in the Island level grammar. Yet that's where a lot of the teaching is hiding.

[Spy Car]

I don't think it's that obvious. There is information that's not taught to students in Grammar Island, so couple of sentences of notes to the teacher "hiding" under each sentence seem like an afterthought (or extra info intended for the teacher). It's possible to assume that MCT doesn't intend to introduce that type of detail yet in the Island level grammar. Yet that's where a lot of the teaching is hiding.

You don't think Mr Thompson intends of parents to read the "comments" to the students, post-analysis? We always do this, and have a discussion about the sentences, and I've always assume this if what's intended by the author. Yes?

 

Bill

[Crimson Wife]

Right, but most elementary school age kids need mechanics practice, so MCT needs supplementing in that regards. It would have been nice if he had an extra practice book focused on mechanics for each level so we could eliminate the need for other programs.

Given the relatively high price of his LA package, I would prefer to have it included in the existing grammar & practice books. If Bill or others want to skip over those portions, that would be user prerogative.

[Woodland Mist Academy]

I guess I have the opposite thought. He should stick with what he does best and not spread his focus too thin. Sometimes more products means a dilution in quality. There are enough problems with editing as it is; I don't think they should add more books to edit (or not edit).

 

 

[Spy Car]

Given the relatively high price of his LA package, I would prefer to have it included in the existing grammar & practice books. If Bill or others want to skip over those portions, that would be user prerogative.

MCT is not inexpensive, but boy do I feel we get our monies worth.

 

If he had a "mechanics" book as part of the package, we would likely use it. I don't ever see that happening, as it runs against his "teach the big picture understanding and the details will fall into place" style (as opposed to working on small details and hoping the big picture emerges).

 

If people need/want mechanics books there are a ton of options. We get some of that at school—this being the sort of "schooly" learning schools do—and my kid does better with the MCT approach of taking 5 minutes to explain the difference between proper nouns and common nouns (and which get capitalized), than spending 56 lessons on the topic. People have different needs.

 

Bill

[Roadrunner]

You don't think Mr Thompson intends of parents to read the "comments" to the students, post-analysis? We always do this, and have a discussion about the sentences, and I've always assume this if what's intended by the author. Yes?

 

Bill

I assume that as well, which is why we use the notes in discussion. However, it is possible to interpret the intentions differently. I can't speak for anybody, but I do wonder if some parents think of those notes as "notes to the teacher" (additional info for a parent maybe to clear up confusion or...) we find at the end of the Story of the World chapters. It's possible that some parents might think whatever MCT intended to be taught are in the text intended for students, but in his program the big things are hidden in little things so to speak.

 

I bet if he writes the mechanics book it won't look anything like the boring "California Treasures."

 

 

If anybody is interested, we found Daily Paragraph Editing to be the best supplement for mechanics practice for MCT. My boys love using their red pens and pretending to be newspaper editors.

[Penelope]

If people need/want mechanics books there are a ton of options. We get some of that at school—this being the sort of "schooly" learning schools do—and my kid does better with the MCT approach of taking 5 minutes to explain the difference between proper nouns and common nouns (and which get capitalized), than spending 56 lessons on the topic. People have different needs.

 

Bill

Thanks for noting this. I do think it is a slightly different discussion when you are using a program for after schooling vs. homeschooling. Your child is hopefully getting a lot more instruction at school than just mechanics. I would expect actual writing instruction as well. :) Which may make it harder to see the problems some are talking about. Just a thought.

 

I really like the first two levels. Love the grammar approach and the stories, think Paragraph Town is genius. But Im not sure about the upper levels.

 

I agree with 8 about the essay examples. I think that essay is only "good" if the writer is an actual eighth grader, as the page indicates. ;) Most of the paper is quotes with very little fleshing out of the points. I had thought originally MCT was a high school teacher, but I'm fairly certain this would not be an excellent example of a high school essay for a gifted student, unless gifted no longer means what I think it does.