Bauer vs. Beechick: Who's right on age to begin grammar?

[LucyStoner]

It really varies. My husband went to a single rural/small town (but college town) school district for 13 years K-12 and graduated high school with a firm grasp of grammar from a fair amount of actual grammar instruction. I went to 10 plus schools in 3 states and received no grammar instruction beyond the basic parts of speech. I assumed that perhaps this was because I was always just missing it since I switched schools so often. Then I learned my friends who did 13 years all in the same city didn't get grammar instruction either.

[sbgrace]

Wow, thank you--so many thoughts going through my head. What is sentence combining?

 

 

 One form involves providing two related (usually short) sentences for students to combine into one sentence. You would likely provide stylistic models for this combining, especially at first and as new grammatical milestones are reached. Apparently, there is quite a bit of solid research showing this practice improves writing. This article http://smago.coe.uga.edu/Books/Hillocks.pdf gives some idea of why this might be true beginning on page 264. The grammar studies (indicating lack of helpfulness of grammar study in writing quality, also saying emphasis on mechanics generally can be a problem) are just above the sentence combing area of the paper, or at least some of them. The article is actually quite informative in places. But I felt as if I was mining nuggets of gold out of sludge. The transfer to pdf/digital was not pretty/aspects were lost and general wordiness was a problem. I read it late at night, so perhaps it was that. However, I also requested a recently published book by the same author from inter library loan and first glance indicates that one is going to be work to read through too!

 

Why sentence combining practice might be helpful:

However, the process studies by Bereiter and Scardamalia (1982), Bracewell and Scardamalia (1979), and Bracewell (1980) suggest reasons for the effectiveness of sentence combining. These studies indicate that overhauling an existing sentence or syntactic structure (as opposed to the process used in sentence combining) is a very difficult task. In their samples the students avoided it altogether or made only very minor changes. When they made more thorough revisions successfully, they retained the basic sentence plan already present. Attempts to change the existing structure entirely but to retain the same content often resulted in flawed structures. Bereiter and Scardamalia (1982) argue that when children encounter sentences already formulated, the stimulus provided by the existing sentence is of such strength that it overwhelms attempts to create a new one making use of the same content. They argue that writers may need to have knowledge of syntactic options organized hierarchically so that they can systematically survey and evaluate what is available, instead of relying on intuition to somehow think of a superior alternative structure. Most SC exercises, of course, provide just such knowledge organized around various syntactic concepts, such as the relative clause, and provide ample practice in constructing sentences using a variety of devices. Bereiter and Scardamalia believe that such practice helps young writers to consider alternative structures more readily

 

 

 

It goes on to suggest that even more effective is composing spontaneous sentences while focusing on a specific sentence structure technique:

 

 

The effects on quality of writing achieved in sentence combining studies are what we might expect, given the hypothesis about levels of composing suggested earlier. SC exercises can influence syntactic planning more than grammar study can. But SC exercises alone cannot influence higher-level plans dealing with content, audience, voice, and so forth.

 

Interestingly, the Faigley study (1979c) included in the meta-analysis with the SC studies does more. Each lesson asked students to observe some phenomenon-perhaps as simple as a student walking across campus-and then develop a sentence using particular syntactic structures. This method involves somewhat higher levels of planning, deciding what details toinclude and what effect is intended, as well as syntactic planning. We might

expect the method to have a more powerful effect than ordinary SC exercises. And it does have the greatest effect size (.51, compared to .35 for the mean effect over five SC studies).

 

 

Anecdotally, I have been doing sentence combining (both types) with my 4th grade boys. I am seeing transfer to their own sentence structures in free writes. I'm certain I would be a better writer today if I had been given the type of instruction I'm researching and hoping to provide my boys.

 

To stay on topic, what I'm finding is most grammar instruction, including the majority of things mentioned in this thread, really doesn't have research showing it is going to benefit writing. I'm still doing it. We've memorized parts of speech and lists of helping  verbs ala FLL. I'm doing MCT right now. I see /hear the thoughts that this gives you the vocabulary to discuss and edit writing and the possible benefit of front-loading (vs. teaching it, perhaps more effectively, as the need arises in writing as the student ages). I don't think it's harmful and we are still doing it. However, I am starting to think maybe it's not actually the best use of our time and money to meet my ultimate goals.

[birchbark]

I just finished a book (Why Johnny Can't Write) which also claimed that grammar instruction does not improve writing. Chapter two, "Grammar, The Ineffectual Monster," also made mention of studies which supported this claim. This is one of them. 

 

Interestingly, WJCW is also about sentence combining. The author, Arthur Whimbey, makes a good case for it as an effective approach to developing writing skills. He also feels that sentence combining can be used as an effectual way to teach grammar so that students truly understand it and are able to apply it to their writing. As I read, I was reminded of Willingham's book Why Students Don't Like School, where he talked about focusing on the meaning of something in order for students to truly grasp it. (Hard to explain here, try to get the book!)

 

Anyway, Whimbey actually wrote a series of grammar books using sentence combining that I'm very interested in. Here they are.

 

I started out more FLL-minded on grammar, although after getting a student under my belt, I now lean more Beechick. I think I personally would prefer a light treatment of grammar in late elementary (like parts of speech only) with more serious study in high school. Mechanics and usage should be taught from the get-go.

 

This sentence combining stuff really has my wheels turning!

[Amy M]

Really? How long do Americans generally study grammar when they attend public school all the way through? Would that be all school year long, or just portions? Is it a separate subject, or incorporated into English? (European here. :))

 

My impression is that grammar is emphasized much more in private and homeschools, rather than public schools, which emphasize composition more.

 

At one time, there were two other families working with us on our mission field here (5 adults total). Four of us had attended private schools; one attended public. The one who had graduated from public school was lost in grammar, and openly admitted how much trouble he had had with it in our Christian college. He said his school emphasized composition. It was much more difficult for him to learn the language than for us. (The language is Tsonga, and there are no language schools or programs and very few helps to learn it.) We would say, "The way to make infinitives in Tsonga is..." or "Tsonga puts the direct object between the subject and verb," and he would be lost.

 

I definitely think a good foundation in grammar is helpful to learning other languages. I'm just wondering the best time to introduce it, and whether or not it needs to be studied every year (grades 1-12), specifically the first few grades.

[Amy M]

I don't think even SWB says to do grammar every year for 12 years. More like 8-10. :D

 

We all know our own kids. Mine don't need to do every single lesson in FLL1-4 to get it, so we skip some. But we do it because I think it's valuable and just easier to start earlier. I don't want to be introducing this stuff in middle school. By middle school I hope grammar is one of those easier subjects kind of on the back burner that we study and apply to writing as needed. I don't consider grammar a terribly difficult subject, so it's something that can be taken care of early and largely be done with intensive study by the end of middle school, so we can use it as a tool and spend more productive time on reading, thinking, analyzing.

 

As far as learning it naturally through writing rather than going through a program, I agree. I think that's the ideal. However, I like that with a busy household I can use something age-appropriate that is written for me. I don't have to reinvent the wheel unless I want to.

 

I know it sounds extreme, doesn't it, but I've checked TWTM twice since reading Beechick, and SWB really does recommend studying grammar every year for 12 years!

 

Your other comments touch on some of my concerns: in the logic stage, I want to be spending time on lots of other stuff. Do I want to introduce grammar then when I could let it be taken care of with independent study if I spent 1st -4th grades on it?

 

Also, your third paragraph--I'm afraid if I just teach it through WWE or whatever writing we are doing, that will translate into not doing it. That just seems to be the way I work--curriculum gets done, my own made-up stuff doesn't.

 

[Amy M]

If you hand your pages to an editor, and you have split infinitives, they will flag them as incorrect, or, if it changes the meaning of the sentence they will flag them.  If you've been trained to not split them, then you pick up on it immediately because your ear just knows it's wrong. On fb and on discussion boards I don't think anyone would say a thing. 

Hehe, was this a test? There's a split infinitive in the above paragraph. :laugh: But maybe I wasn't supposed to mention it since this is a discussion board. ;)

 

:iagree:   I just finished Mott Media's Parent Teacher Guide to the McGuffy's readers and no where do I see Beechick advocating delaying instruction, though, she DOES say that you shouldn't teach a child grammar until they are fluent readers who can read for instruction. Which totally makes sense. I've also read the 3Rs, and again don't remember her saying to delay. 

 

I totally agree with the PP that with some children, grammar is imperative especially if they come from a home that doesn't speak English correctly. 

 

I delay grammer, they get enough grammar instruction as I teach them to write and through Latin. If they studied grammar specifically, they'd have 3 'classes' of it. Total overkill, IMVHO. I think it's more beneficial to teach grammar within foreign language instruction, that way it's not as abstract. 

 

I am also in the excellent reading camp. 

 

I typed this out 2 1/2 times last night--lengthy paragraphs from Beechick where she does advocate delaying instruction through the elementary years, using just that phrase--but my internet crashed the first two times I tried to post, and after that the forums were down or something. :( Oh, well!

 

[Amy M]

 One form involves providing two related (usually short) sentences for students to combine into one sentence. You would likely provide stylistic models for this combining, especially at first and as new grammatical milestones are reached. Apparently, there is quite a bit of solid research showing this practice improves writing. This article http://smago.coe.uga.edu/Books/Hillocks.pdf gives some idea of why this might be true beginning on page 264. The grammar studies (indicating lack of helpfulness of grammar study in writing quality, also saying emphasis on mechanics generally can be a problem) are just above the sentence combing area of the paper, or at least some of them. The article is actually quite informative in places. But I felt as if I was mining nuggets of gold out of sludge. The transfer to pdf/digital was not pretty/aspects were lost and general wordiness was a problem. I read it late at night, so perhaps it was that. However, I also requested a recently published book by the same author from inter library loan and first glance indicates that one is going to be work to read through too!

 

Why sentence combining practice might be helpful:

 

 

It goes on to suggest that even more effective is composing spontaneous sentences while focusing on a specific sentence structure technique:

 

 

Anecdotally, I have been doing sentence combining (both types) with my 4th grade boys. I am seeing transfer to their own sentence structures in free writes. I'm certain I would be a better writer today if I had been given the type of instruction I'm researching and hoping to provide my boys.

 

To stay on topic, what I'm finding is most grammar instruction, including the majority of things mentioned in this thread, really doesn't have research showing it is going to benefit writing. I'm still doing it. We've memorized parts of speech and lists of helping  verbs ala FLL. I'm doing MCT right now. I see /hear the thoughts that this gives you the vocabulary to discuss and edit writing and the possible benefit of front-loading (vs. teaching it, perhaps more effectively, as the need arises in writing as the student ages). I don't think it's harmful and we are still doing it. However, I am starting to think maybe it's not actually the best use of our time and money to meet my ultimate goals.

 

Thank you so much for your time! Can you give me some examples or scripts of how you teach your boys to do sentence combining? I have a vague picture in my mind, but I don't know if I'd know how to teach that without a curriculum helping me at this point. Does sentence combining address grammar, or is it wholly unrelated to grammar and more related to a writing strengthener? I don't have access to a library to check out the book you referenced, but I have downloaded the pdfs linked in this thread. Thank you!

 

[Amy M]

I just finished a book (Why Johnny Can't Write) which also claimed that grammar instruction does not improve writing. Chapter two, "Grammar, The Ineffectual Monster," also made mention of studies which supported this claim. This is one of them. 

 

Interestingly, WJCW is also about sentence combining. The author, Arthur Whimbey, makes a good case for it as an effective approach to developing writing skills. He also feels that sentence combining can be used as an effectual way to teach grammar so that students truly understand it and are able to apply it to their writing. As I read, I was reminded of Willingham's book Why Students Don't Like School, where he talked about focusing on the meaning of something in order for students to truly grasp it. (Hard to explain here, try to get the book!)

 

Anyway, he actually wrote a series of grammar books using sentence combining that I'm very interested in. Here they are.

 

I started out more FLL-minded on grammar, although after getting a student under my belt, I now lean more Beechick. I think I personally would prefer a light treatment of grammar in late elementary (like parts of speech only) with more serious study in high school. Mechanics and usage should be taught from the get-go.

 

This sentence combining stuff really has my wheels turning!

 

Wow, thanks! Very helpful. When you say, "Mechanics and usage should be taught from the get-go," what exactly is in mechanics and usage? Capitalization? Punctuation? Subject-verb agreement? I'm at the get-go stage right now. :)

 

[Amy M]

I'm going to take some time to think and read on this subject. Here are some of my unparallel competing thoughts for now:

 

1. I am a traditional person. It's hard for me to think about not teaching grammar explicitly in each grade. What if they really needed it every year, and I didn't do it?

2. I lean towards classical ed. I like the emphasis on language skills. SWB says grammar helps writing instruction and to teach grammar every year. I often felt that grammar was a noticeable point of difference between CM and classical ed, and I put myself in the classical camp, thinking I should teach grammar. But I never really thought about why I should teach grammar. When I read Beechick which led me to double-check TWTM, I kept noticing how SWB says that grammar helps writing, but doesn't really back up how it does that, or further, why the fact that grammar (abstract concept) helps writing causes a need for grammar to be taught in grades 1-4. Logic also helps writing, but we don't address that until the logic stage, for example. However, I have appreciated classical philosophy in so many points, especially for its emphasis on language skills, that I feel I would be inconsistent to drop this point. Do other classical proponents emphasize grammar this much, and do any of them discuss why they do?

3. MCT: I need to look at this, but I doubt I'll be able to purchase until my oldest is in 5th grade. I already have FLL 1/2 and R&S 3-5 until then. MCT has confused me in the past when I looked at it. The price is hefty, and I'm not sure what it includes. It looks like a lot of different subjects wrapped into one language arts program. Do I need to use the writing component with the grammar? Can I get just the grammar part? How does that work?

4. If I do teach grammar through writing until 4th or 5th grade, how would that look?

 

So I don't know whether to just stick with grammar every grade like planned, or whether to save my time and go one of these less traditional but seemingly more effective routes. I did wonder--what if I used FLL 1 with my two oldest boys together when the oldest reaches 3rd grade, and the second boy is in 1st? Or would that be way to simplistic? Should I just skip it then, and start in 3rd grade with FLL, R&S, or MCT? Not sure what to do now, but I am going to continue thinking and reading on the matter.

 

 

 

[Matryoshka]

Thank you so much for your time! Can you give me some examples or scripts of how you teach your boys to do sentence combining? I have a vague picture in my mind, but I don't know if I'd know how to teach that without a curriculum helping me at this point. Does sentence combining address grammar, or is it wholly unrelated to grammar and more related to a writing strengthener? I don't have access to a library to check out the book you referenced, but I have downloaded the pdfs linked in this thread. Thank you!

 

 

I do use Killgallon, which is sentence combining, alongside of MCT; I find them very complementary and neither takes much time - I don't do both the same day.  Killgallon has two parallel series; I like the "Grammar" series better - Story Grammar for Elementary, Grammar for Middle School and Grammar for High School.  All the grammar is taught in context of the sentence combining.

[Amy M]

What would you guys think of something like this?

 

Teaching Grammar with Playful Poems

[Matryoshka]

What would you guys think of something like this?

 

Teaching Grammar with Playful Poems

 

Poetry is wonderful, but often ungrammatical (or gramatically inventive) to keep meter and rhyme.  I'm not sure that's where I'd head to imitate good prose sentence structure.

 

The Killgallon series does use passages from quality children's lit for the kids to imitate. 

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

I don't think good ol' John Warriner has been mentioned.   We started with him after the last FLL.  It worked for me in the 70's, and I was in a pretty progressive school district with many a former hippie teacher (I took mediation for credit).  The original Warriner books can still be found used on Amazon/eBay.

[birchbark]

Wow, thanks! Very helpful. When you say, "Mechanics and usage should be taught from the get-go," what exactly is in mechanics and usage? Capitalization? Punctuation? Subject-verb agreement? I'm at the get-go stage right now. :)

 

 

Mechanics: Handwriting, spelling, capitalization, punctuation, abbreviations, etc.

 

Usage: Selecting the proper words within the context of grammar. For instance, "I go to the store," is grammatically correct, but "I am going to the store," is correct usage. A lot of times when you correct a young child's "grammar," you are really correcting usage. I would say it is something you model, rather than deliberately teach with a curriculum.

[birchbark]

When I read Beechick which led me to double-check TWTM, I kept noticing how SWB says that grammar helps writing, but doesn't really back up how it does that, or further, why the fact that grammar (abstract concept) helps writing causes a need for grammar to be taught in grades 1-4. Logic also helps writing, but we don't address that until the logic stage, for example. However, I have appreciated classical philosophy in so many points, especially for its emphasis on language skills, that I feel I would be inconsistent to drop this point. Do other classical proponents emphasize grammar this much, and do any of them discuss why they do?

 

I agree that grammar is an abstract concept and it doesn't seem consistent to try to teach it to young children. There was an interesting thread on this awhile back.

[Chrysalis Academy]

I don't think good ol' John Warriner has been mentioned.   We started with him after the last FLL.  It worked for me in the 70's, and I was in a pretty progressive school district with many a former hippie teacher (I took mediation for credit).  The original Warriner books can still be found used on Amazon/eBay.

 

We just started using Warriner's Composition, and I adore it!!!   :thumbup:

[RootAnn]

2. I kept noticing how SWB says that grammar helps writing, but doesn't really back up how it does that, or further, why the fact that grammar (abstract concept) helps writing causes a need for grammar to be taught in grades 1-4. Logic also helps writing, but we don't address that until the logic stage, for example. but I am going to continue thinking and reading on the matter.

 

I was just listening to one of SWB's audio lectures last night before bed & she was talking about how important grammar was to writing well. She emphasizes that you shouldn't make kids do two hard things at the same time. I think that was one of the reasons she wants some stuff already in your kids' brain before they have to use it to write well. For example, if your kid is still focusing really hard on forming letters (say, for cursive), then it is hard to remember how to spell a word. Or, if you are trying to remember how to spell a word, it is hard to remember what else you were going to write for that sentence. 

 

I think it was The Well-Prepared Student where she says that grammar instruction can take a back seat in high school if you've done a good job teaching in through the middle grades. (I'd point you to the handout for more, but it appears to be currently missing.) I think she's backed off of the TWTM grammar-every-single-year even since the 3rd edition.

[Muttichen]

I never taught my kids grammar, although we did do lots of foreign language.  They read plenty and wrote an essay or a story every single day. The oldest four all got 800 on the writing section of the SAT.  In my experience teaching other homeschoolers, I've found that having students do lots of workbook grammar has no real value.  It's consistent experience writing that teaches kids to write well.

 

[Penelope]

 

I think it was The Well-Prepared Student where she says that grammar instruction can take a back seat in high school if you've done a good job teaching in through the middle grades. (I'd point you to the handout for more, but it appears to be currently missing.) I think she's backed off of the TWTM grammar-every-single-year even since the 3rd edition.

Yes. She also discusses grammar in her writing lectures. In high school, at least in the last 2-3 years, grammar is a tool to use in service of writing. At that point it's recommended the student use a handbook to refer to as needed.

 

But I had thought that even in the most recent edition of TWTM, a formal program is only recommended through grade 10, as that is when Rod and Staff English is finished.

[My3girls]

I think grammar is essential. My plan is to be done with it by 6th grade with my youngers. After that they will use it in their writing, and we'll review as needed. Dd11 was in ps through 5th grade and they did minimal grammar in a spiral approach which left dd with very little actual knowledge. She is doing AG on the 2 year schedule so she'll be doing grammar through 7th.

[Colleen in NS]

...but I don't feel like checking it just now. I will if you want me to. :) (Can I end that sentence with a preposition?) ;)

 

pssst....you're not using "to" as a preposition here.... ;)

 

Personally I'd rather get a child used to understanding the function of language (along with the proper terminology) in a window in elementary school when they seemingly "internalize" such things, rather than waiting until the tween or teen years when there is something in their brains that hears something like "the object of preposition" as "blah, blah, blah." If you know what I mean?

 

 

yup.  This is why I am glad I started teaching my kids in Grade 1 (FLL is so easy to use; and yes, adaptable, as others have said).  Back then it was mostly about memorizing definitions and lists, even if they didn't quite grasp concepts.  They eventually did over the first few grades (simple concepts such as what the various parts of speech were and what some simple sentence parts were and how to do simple diagrams to see those relationships).  In middle grades they got into the more complex concepts. I am soooooooo glad my son went all the way through R&S (and, he did books 9 and 10 in one year, Grade 9, so his formal study is done.  From here on out, it's application of his knowledge to his writing projects, with the Handbook at his side).  All that training is serving him well now.  He is not hindered by wondering what I'm talking about when I point out a grammatical error that is making his writing unclear. And my daughter is in the Charlie Brown teacher stage at the moment ("wah wah wah wah") - if I hadn't taught her the more basic grammar concepts/definitions/lists when she was younger, she would be having a really hard time by now.

 

... SWB really does recommend studying grammar every year for 12 years!

 

Studying until a certain progression is done, yes.  Twelve years, no.  Even my 2nd edition WTM talks about using the handbook and a couple of other materials for review in the high school years, but that is just for review. Reference.  Have you read about her Advanced Language Lessons series? She started to write it a couple of years ago, but had to shelve it in favour of other projects.  It is meant to be a four-year middle grades course (that ideally follows FLL 1-4, but not completely necessary) that directly teaches grammar, so that the high school years are freed up to focus on writing, using grammar as a tool.

 

Also, your third paragraph--I'm afraid if I just teach it through WWE or whatever writing we are doing, that will translate into not doing it. That just seems to be the way I work--curriculum gets done, my own made-up stuff doesn't.

 

 

This describes me, too.  With what I now know about grammar, there is no way I could have taught all that within the context of writing. Not unless I had been thoroughly trained in grammar and composition myself during my school years, and had practice. Which I wasn't and didn't.

 

...I kept noticing how SWB says that grammar helps writing, but doesn't really back up how it does that, or further, why the fact that grammar (abstract concept) helps writing causes a need for grammar to be taught in grades 1-4.

 

 

Read the last two paragraphs of p. 8 and all of pp. 10-13 here:  http://peacehillpress.com/media/downloads/pdfsamples/wwesample.pdf  Part of the writing training in WWE is talking about grammar.  It will be easier to talk about it if the child knows what you are talking about.

 

Suffice it to say that I am extremely glad we started grammar in Grade 1, because it gets it out of the way for the later years.  Oh, and R&S 9 and 10 were EASY to do in one year, because they was 99% review, and half of each book was composition which we skipped in favour of another writing program.

[venusmom]

I do think this is a big part of the problem.  A large part of the reason I was able to not do anything formal and then have 2nd and 5th graders do just fine with Easy Grammar 6 is that I know my grammar.  I can wing it, so although they hadn't had "formal" grammar before then, they'd gotten the basics already in a more holistic way.

 

A friend of mine came over the other day to ask me about grammar - her kids had taken a standardized test and she was worried that they'd said they didn't know a lot of the material, and what could she do to afterschool them in grammar.  I first dragged out MCT.  "Oh, this is way beneath them," she said.  "They need something more challenging."

 

So I sat down and did a sentence with her.  She couldn't identify the subject or the predicate at first.  She thought all the verbals were verbs.  She couldn't even figure out where the prepositional phrases were.  I walked her through the 4-level analysis and she was blown away. I suggested she start with something like Easy Grammar that's more step-by-step and has a detailed teachers manual, so that she can learn along with them.  She didn't know what they don't know because she doesn't know it herself - I think that's the state of a lot of teachers these days too - schools didn't teach it to them, so most never learned it. 

 

I think most homeschool moms, when faced with a subject they don't know, learn alongside the kids.  I think many (especially elementary) teachers have the attitude of "I don't know this and I've never needed it, so it doesn't need to be taught."  Or pretend they know more than they do and end up teaching things in a confused or even wrong way (I think this goes for math as much as grammar.  Everyday Math anyone?  Could be that might even be a decent program in the hands of an expert teacher, but in the hands of someone who doesn't understand math deeply?  Disaster.)

 

I wish I had you to help me!!  My son's writing is acceptable, and he does fairly well in grammar.  We used ILL with him, and I am using PLL for the 2nd year with my daughter.  It is a fairly gentle approach to grammar, but it is presented. 

 

I am teaching another child along with my two and he is unable to write a complete sentence most of the time that can be understood.  He is home schooling for the 1st time and was doing fine in public school, but was beginning to need more one on one help. 

 

Now my dilemma is improving my son's writing skills & helping strengthen the other child's language skills.  My son was taught with ILL and I think it would be considered an approach that delayed formal grammar instruction.  Everyone who reads my son's writing says he is a strong writer, however I disagree with that, though I would not categorize him as a weak writer by any means.  The other child is struggling with every aspect of written communication; from spelling to holding a uniform train of thought from the beginning of the sentence to the end. 

 

I think I'll take a look at EG & MCT...might be worth a try.  We are primarily using All-In-One English this year (for the two boys), and I am also using an old book called "Writing to Inform".  I've also used Razzle Dazzle Daily Dazzle and I add some activities from my Spelling Power activity task cards too.

[WishboneDawn]

I'm going to take some time to think and read on this subject. Here are some of my unparallel competing thoughts for now:

 

1. I am a traditional person. It's hard for me to think about not teaching grammar explicitly in each grade. What if they really needed it every year, and I didn't do it?

2. I lean towards classical ed. I like the emphasis on language skills. SWB says grammar helps writing instruction and to teach grammar every year. I often felt that grammar was a noticeable point of difference between CM and classical ed, and I put myself in the classical camp, thinking I should teach grammar. But I never really thought about why I should teach grammar. When I read Beechick which led me to double-check TWTM, I kept noticing how SWB says that grammar helps writing, but doesn't really back up how it does that, or further, why the fact that grammar (abstract concept) helps writing causes a need for grammar to be taught in grades 1-4. Logic also helps writing, but we don't address that until the logic stage, for example. However, I have appreciated classical philosophy in so many points, especially for its emphasis on language skills, that I feel I would be inconsistent to drop this point. Do other classical proponents emphasize grammar this much, and do any of them discuss why they do?

3. MCT: I need to look at this, but I doubt I'll be able to purchase until my oldest is in 5th grade. I already have FLL 1/2 and R&S 3-5 until then. MCT has confused me in the past when I looked at it. The price is hefty, and I'm not sure what it includes. It looks like a lot of different subjects wrapped into one language arts program. Do I need to use the writing component with the grammar? Can I get just the grammar part? How does that work?

4. If I do teach grammar through writing until 4th or 5th grade, how would that look?

 

So I don't know whether to just stick with grammar every grade like planned, or whether to save my time and go one of these less traditional but seemingly more effective routes. I did wonder--what if I used FLL 1 with my two oldest boys together when the oldest reaches 3rd grade, and the second boy is in 1st? Or would that be way to simplistic? Should I just skip it then, and start in 3rd grade with FLL, R&S, or MCT? Not sure what to do now, but I am going to continue thinking and reading on the matter.

KISS is one more option that should be in the running. Context is important with KISS so that you're not looking for whether a word matches the definition of a noun or adverb but rather what function it's performing in the context of the sentence. The sentences are from literature and it's free.

 

I use MCT as well but I think KISS has been key in giving my kids a way to think about grammar.

[Heathermomster]

I tend to side with Beechick.  Mind you, my 2e dyslexic son sat in a regular classroom through sixth grade.  Grammar was torture.  The private school that DS attended, used an odd mix of Shurley Grammar with grade level Holt Language text books, and DS retained none of it.

 

During seventh grade, DS finally learned how to parse a sentence and write a good, solid paragraph.  Given the dyslexia, I didn't expect that he'd learn so quickly ....Sentence combining and learning how to write more complex sentences using better vocab, sentence openers, and stronger verbs are where he reaped the most rewards.  Understanding the language of grammar absolutely enabled DS learn more from formal writing instruction.  DS enjoys sentence combining now.

 

Ultimately, each child is unique, and I'm not suggesting anyone follow our lead.  I don't expect I will formally teach grammar to my DD until after 3rd grade.  I haven't really decided yet.  If she encounters problems like her brother, I will absolutely delay until middle school

[Donna A.]

That's TOTALLY ABSURD to suggest that grammar instruction has NO impact on writing.

 

 

WHOA.  Hold on.... Ruth Beechick NEVER said that!  What she SAID was that the names of the parts of the speech could be taught formally at a later time.  Reason?  Because while they may be USING grammar in context of reading and writing and oral communication and copywork and... and... for all those early grammar years, the concept of attaching names to the parts of speech is what is unnecessary because they CAN learn them at a later time.  (Yes, that is a run-on sentence and very poor grammar. :lol:  ) 

 

Ruth Beechick ABSOLUTELY believes in working *very* closely with the child in the language arts from the day they're born!  She just doesn't advocate the need to teach grammar formally prior to about 4th or 5th grade.  (NOT 9th grade, as someone above mentioned.)  In fact, in her book You CAN Teach Your Child Successfully: Grades 4-8, she explains how in great detail.  http://www.christianbook.com/can-teach-your-child-successfully-paperback/ruth-beechick/9780940319042/pd/19047

 

In The Language Wars, Beechick explains how the very competitive publishing industry is one of the biggest reasons that teaching 'formal' grammar, along with many other 'formal' school subjects, in 1st grade became popular.  ;)

 

Just wanted to clear that up.  Carry on.  :001_smile: 

[Spy Car]

WHOA. Hold on.... Ruth Beechick NEVER said that! What she SAID was that the names of the parts of the speech could be taught formally at a later time. Reason? Because while they may be USING grammar in context of reading and writing and oral communication and copywork and... and... for all those early grammar years, the concept of attaching names to the parts of speech is what is unnecessary because they CAN learn them at a later time. (Yes, that is a run-on sentence and very poor grammar. :lol: )

 

Ruth Beechick ABSOLUTELY believes in working *very* closely with the child in the language arts from the day they're born! She just doesn't advocate the need to teach grammar formally prior to about 4th or 5th grade. (NOT 9th grade, as someone above mentioned.) In fact, in her book You CAN Teach Your Child Successfully: Grades 4-8, she explains how in great detail. http://www.christianbook.com/can-teach-your-child-successfully-paperback/ruth-beechick/9780940319042/pd/19047

 

In The Language Wars, Beechick explains how the very competitive publishing industry is one of the biggest reasons that teaching 'formal' grammar, along with many other 'formal' school subjects, in 1st grade became popular. ;)

 

Just wanted to clear that up. Carry on. :001_smile:

But what is the advantage of not learning the proper nomenclature if children are at an age when they understand the concepts? I don't see what's gained by not putting the name to ideas (or substituting "place-holder" names that need to be unlearned later).

 

Against this knowing shared terms for ideas helps cement the concepts and greatly improves the efficienty of addressing problem areas.

 

This "delay" makes no sense to me.

 

Bill

[Muttichen]

"That's TOTALLY ABSURD to suggest that grammar instruction has NO impact on writing."

 

Sorry, but I can't find the post that originally came from.  I won't say that grammar instruction has NO impact on writing, but I will say that most of it is unnecessary busywork, and your children will be much better served if they spend the time actually writing.  Of course you correct their work and have them revise it.   I found that teaching grammar in the context of writing or foreign language was a much better use of our time, and my children have all turned out to be excellent writers.  

[birchbark]

I thought I'd look through my Beechick books again to see what she actually does say about grammar. There really isn't a whole lot about delaying grammar. She is more an advocate of teaching it incidentally through writing, rather than having a separate curriculum that teaches it formally and out of context. Here are a couple quotes I found interesting:

 

 

Teaching of the grammar parts has been researched extensively. If you tested any group of children to find who knows a lot of grammar and who knows only a little grammar, you would find that the grammar scores do not correlate with quality of writing. Children who know the most grammar are not necessarily better writers. The parts do not add up to the desired whole.
 

But moving in the opposite direction does work. That is, students who are good writers can learn grammar better than students who are poor writers. Grammar is not a way to good writing; it is a tool that good writers use to analyze writing, to justify doing something this way instead of that way, and so forth.

 

From The Three R's, page 46. In her grade-level guidelines in the same book, she actually includes some basic grammar for second and third grade.

 

 

In helping your child with daily writing, you teach more grammar than you may be aware of. And you can sprinkle in technical terms when you want to. For instance, after your child makes a tree sentence more specific by adding an adjective, as in the "pine tree' example given earlier, you can point out she used an adjective to do it.  This is called "incidental teaching" in which grammar gets taught incident-by-incident along with writing, and is of secondary importance to the writing. In this manner, you can use terms like noun, verb, and complete sentence with your children and introduce them to the vocabulary of grammar and to some of its ideas.

But at some point in your children's education, they should study grammar in a more formal way so they can see it as an organized discipline--a branch of human knowledge. Some advanced fifth and sixth graders and most junior highers can profit from such a study. Those who profit most are those who already write well. 

 

From You Can Teach Your Child Successfully, page 171-172

[boscopup]

I'm not sure why it would be beneficial to delay the names of parts of speech. Young children can learn things such as dinosaur names as early as 3 or 4. What is so scary about noun or verb or preposition?

[Matryoshka]

I'm not sure why it would be beneficial to delay the names of parts of speech. Young children can learn things such as dinosaur names as early as 3 or 4. What is so scary about noun or verb or preposition?

 

I think it's very beneficial to learn the names and definitions of the parts of speech young - just don't think it takes years of formal workbook curriculum to do it.  That's what Grammar Rock is for... ;)

[sbgrace]

I thought I'd look through my Beechick books again to see what she actually does say about grammar. There really isn't a whole lot about delaying grammar. She is more an advocate of teaching it incidentally through writing, rather than having a separate curriculum that teaches it formally and out of context. Here are a couple quotes I found interesting:

 

 

From The Three R's, page 46. In her grade-level guidelines in the same book, she actually includes some basic grammar for second and third grade.

 

 

From You Can Teach Your Child Successfully, page 171-172

 

Thank you for sharing those quotes. They are really interesting given given what I've been studying.

[tdemauro]

I never taught my kids grammar, although we did do lots of foreign language.  They read plenty and wrote an essay or a story every single day. The oldest four all got 800 on the writing section of the SAT.  In my experience teaching other homeschoolers, I've found that having students do lots of workbook grammar has no real value.  It's consistent experience writing that teaches kids to write well.

 

I recently listened to SWB"s audio lecture, Writing in The middle Years, and she suggests that the student write something everyday. The writing is more along the lines of narrations/short compositions. Would you mind elaborating on the types of essays your children were writing in middle school? Did they choose the topic, or were they writing in their content subjects? 

 

My 12 year old ds is getting ready to resume WWS 1, but I love the idea of having him write everyday. Are there any specific resources that you can recommend?

 

Thank you for sharing your success story about grammar through foreign language study. I contemplated dropping Rod and Staff because my children are doing Latin, French, and Russian. In one of her audio lectures, SWB recommends the study of formal grammar even if the student is studying Latin. SWB had 10+ years of English grammar and 6/7 years of Latin - this convinced me to continue with R&S, but maybe it's not necessary.....

 

Thanks,

Tanya

[Violet Crown]

I'm not sure why it would be beneficial to delay the names of parts of speech. Young children can learn things such as dinosaur names as early as 3 or 4. What is so scary about noun or verb or preposition?

Sure, if an infinitive marker was two stories tall and could bite your head off. ;)

[Muttichen]

I recently listened to SWB"s audio lecture, Writing in The middle Years, and she suggests that the student write something everyday. The writing is more along the lines of narrations/short compositions. Would you mind elaborating on the types of essays your children were writing in middle school? Did they choose the topic, or were they writing in their content subjects? 

 

Thanks,

Tanya

 

I would have them do a different type of writing every day.  It was easiest for me to stay on track if I used a weekly schedule, so I did something like this:

 

Monday -- science (for younger kids, maybe a nature journal entry; for older kids a lab report or a short paper on a topic I gave them to research.  They also did a long research project each year.)

 

Tuesday -- creative writing (They usually had a story they were writing on the computer.  Sometimes it was something I assigned -- e.g., retell a Greek myth from the point of view of one of the characters; sometimes it was something they came up with on their own.)

 

Wednesday -- persuasive writing (e.g., a five-paragraph essay on some topic I assigned)

 

Thursday -- history (for younger kids, a narration; for older kids, something more analytic -- I usually got the questions from my history spine)

 

Friday -- letter to their grandparents in another state

 

I tutor homeschoolers and public school students, and I've found that writing is one area in which many homeschoolers are woefully behind.  At least in my area, public school kids write every day from the earliest grades.  They might not know a gerund from an infinitive, but by the time they get to middle school, they can easily whip out an organized essay with a thesis and solid support for it.  You'd be shocked to know how many homeschooled high school students I've taught who have faithfully done Abeka grammar year after year after year but have NEVER written an essay.

 

My kids did Latin in elementary school and both French and German through AP level.  Trust me, they know their parts of speech! I don't think they're any worse off for skipping years of boring English grammar lessons!

 

Disclaimer:  Ignore the grammar mistakes in this post.  It's 7 am.  :)

[Donna A.]

My oldest insists that the one year of Latin she did helped her understand English grammar AND phonics AND spelling far better than any other language arts curriculum we've used. ;) 

[tdemauro]

Muttichen,

 

Thank you for taking the time to write a detailed response so early in the morning. Seeing your weekly routine is extremely helpful. My children write about their history and literature, but I will start having them write about a science topic one day per week. 

 

At this point I feel we fall into the group of homeschoolers who are woefully behind in writing --- well my 12yo anyway. We will continue to use WWS and CAP's Writing and Rhetoric. The aforementioned programs will not touch upon persuasive writing for quite some time. At what age did your children begin writing persuasive essays? Did you use a specific program? Can you recommend some resources that you have found helpful for this particular type of essay? 

[Muttichen]

Persuasive writing doesn't have to be hard.  I started very young. Give them a topic they're interested in.  For example, elementary school children can write an essay on "Why I Should be Allowed to get a Puppy."    Talk to them about their audience (they need to convince YOU that it would be good to get a puppy.)  Have them come up with three reasons that getting a puppy would be a good idea (e.g., it will teach me to be responsible, I will get exercise when I walk it...).  The essay will include an introduction, a paragraph on each reason, and a conclusion.

 

Anything they're nagging you about or arguing about can be the inspiration for an essay!  If they get the basic formula down, they will be in great shape to move onto more sophisticated rhetoric when they are older.

 

Sorry I don't really have any resources to recommend.  My oldest went to school through third grade, so I pretty much just copied what I saw her teachers do.  They were writing essays like this in first grade!

 

One thing I forgot this morning is that I would also do a fun "Writer's Workshop" activity every week when my kids were little.  The favorite was "dice stories." List six characters ( a pirate, a mad scientist, a princess...), six settings (the moon, New York City, the wild west...), and six problems (something is lost, aliens invade the earth...), then have each person (including mom!) roll a die three times.  Set the timer for twenty minutes and everyone writes a story.  Then have hot chocolate and cookies and read your stories out loud.

[Spy Car]

I tutor homeschoolers and public school students, and I've found that writing is one area in which many homeschoolers are woefully behind. At least in my area, public school kids write every day from the earliest grades. They might not know a gerund from an infinitive, but by the time they get to middle school, they can easily whip out an organized essay with a thesis and solid support for it. You'd be shocked to know how many homeschooled high school students I've taught who have faithfully done Abeka grammar year after year after year but have NEVER written an essay.

 

I can't speak to your characterization of homeschooled kids, but the description of successful public school students is pretty accurate. They do learn to efficiently write tight essays that support a thesis. They also (generally) have a woefully lacking command of formal grammar.

 

One might cite such evidence as "proof" the study of grammar is unnecessary. Not me. My ideal is that a student be able to craft tight essays and have a strong grammar background. Both. These things are not antagonistic, but complementary.

 

As I said earlier, I'm not a huge fan of the exceptionally dry and dreary style of many of the "traditional" grammar programs, as this does not need to be a loathsome subject, but remain convinced of the value of the subject in ones education.

 

Skill in one area does not eliminate deficiencies in others. And the subject can be done in an enjoyable fashion.

 

If the question is can students (who are accustomed to hearing standard English spoken) learn to write without a strong formal grammar background? I'd have to concede the point in the affirmative. Just as there are some great songwriters who never learned to read music or never studied music theory. But is this the "ideal" situation? Heavens no. Not from my perspective anyway.

 

Bill

[WishboneDawn]

My oldest insists that the one year of Latin she did helped her understand English grammar AND phonics AND spelling far better than any other language arts curriculum we've used. ;)

The best year of Language Arts my daughter ever had was when she did GSWL, Jensen's Punctuation and Grammar Voyage at the same time. It was almost thrilling for her and she'd often come to me with something, "really cool," to share about clauses or gerunds or semi-colons. It was a magical combination.

[tdemauro]

Thanks again, Muttichen, your posts are very helpful. My son has Crohn's, and writing is taking a toll on both of us this year. The stress greatly contributes to a "flare".  :sad:  I tried outsourcing, but neither class has been working like I had hoped. He recently begged me to start WWS again; he thought WWS was pure torture last spring, but the structure of the program speaks to him. 

 

 

 

One thing I forgot this morning is that I would also do a fun "Writer's Workshop" activity every week when my kids were little.  The favorite was "dice stories." List six characters ( a pirate, a mad scientist, a princess...), six settings (the moon, New York City, the wild west...), and six problems (something is lost, aliens invade the earth...), then have each person (including mom!) roll a die three times.  Set the timer for twenty minutes and everyone writes a story.  Then have hot chocolate and cookies and read your stories out loud.

 

What a wonderful way to make writing FUN! My children will love the doing your version of a "Writer's Workshop", especially if I get involved! As we approach the chilly weather here in Massachusetts, the hot chocolate and cookies are essential. 

[shawthorne44]

I just don't know. Beyond basic grammar, I guess I think of grammar instruction as remedial, for children or adults who are simply unable to hear the errors in their work.  Other English speaking countries don't stress grammar studies as much as the US does, and they manage to produce students who write just as well.

 

I think, though, that it is quite possible to "hear" an error as a vague uneasiness about certain wording, but not know what to do about it.  In my case, when that happens and I am concerned about errors, I usually edit the wording so that I know what is left is correct.  But, that makes it more primitive. 

[Amy M]

This is now my 4th time typing out quote from Ruth Beechick's book A Biblical Home Education, so we'll see if my internet connection will allow it to post this time. :/

 

In chapter 9, "Grammar after Writing" her introduction states the following:

"The homeschool community is being oversold on grammar. The following information can help you avoid being oversold. First, we see how grammar originated and developed, and how educators came to misuse it. Then we look at the solution, which is to delay teaching grammar through the elementary years, and show some of the reasons for delaying. This can simplify your homeschooling life, help you spend less on curriculum, and help you teach writing more easily. Your children will profit from a stronger writing foundation, and in the end they will turn out to be better writers, not burned out on grammar along the way."

 

In her section later called "Grammar Last," she says, "After learning to speak and then learning to write, students can begin to handle a formal study of grammar. Some verbally oriented students or those who understand abstractions will take to this more readily than others. Those who take up writing full- or part-time are likely to make this a lifelong study. We do them a favor by not boring them or burning them out on grammar while they are young. The schooling world and the advertising world have convinced many people that to teach language you must teach grammar, and you must being early as though that is the route to good writing and speaking. But the real route is to use the language first, immerse children in the language, and then teach its grammar.

"This delay of grammar and minimizing of grammar is not at all to minimize English teaching. Quite the opposite. If your children are not burdened with difficult and ineffective grammar, then they have more time for learning that counts."

 

My friend has a couple other books by Beechick, so I'm hoping to get more specifics from those soon. Thank you all for your advice.

 

Do any of you have links to perhaps an mp3 where SWB already answers this question? Root Ann mentioned one, I think. Do any of you have links to what other classical proponents say on the subject of how teaching grammar in the grammar stage improves writing--perhaps from companies who write articles, like Memoria Press or Veritas?

[Haiku]

Children who are proficient with oral language and who have been exposed daily to well written prose over a number of years, rarely make grammatical errors in their writing.

 

As I have mentioned here many times before, I used to be an editor, and I dealt with many people who believed they were great writers but weren't. Most of the wrote "by ear," so they made all the common grammar and usage errors that persist in our spoken language. They might have had great style, but style only gets you so far. Although I know there are people and curricula that espouse the natural writing or speaking-writing model, my professional experience has taught me that this is not necessarily an effective strategy. Some people are blessed with good natural writing skills, yes, but most are not, and if they can't identify what is wrong with their writing, they don't know how to fix it.

[Violet Crown]

Dh wrote a 1000-page dissertation on pronouns.* His take on grammar is that you study it for the same reason you study math, or astronomy, or poetry, or anatomy. It's part of our world, and you study it so as to understand how it works; not so that you can do something else with it.

 

This is why it annoys him that the mass of homeschoolers stick tenaciously to the traditional understandings of grammar that linguists rejected a century ago. To him, it's as if they refused to learn calculus, or heliocentrism, or literary theory, or germ theory, on the conviction that the old way must be better. If grammar is the set of rules governing our language - and it is - why ignore the people who've devoted their lives to understanding those rules?

 

(I tell him that as soon as the linguists publish an open-and-go curriculum, he may see a different response.)

 

*Sort of. They call them anaphora these days.

[abrightmom]

Amy,

 

Thank-you for starting this thread as I've been pondering the same questions this school year. Ruth Beechick's book A Biblical Home Education is a favorite of mine. 

 

My current position is this (and I realize no one cares about my position but it's fun to flesh it out):

 

Like Rose, I like the integrated grammar approach rather than the structured program in the early years.  There is a draw toward something like Primary Language Lessons because it savors language in a less structured but meaningful way. I don't know how to explain it but I've come full circle with this. FLL has some of this with poetry, picture study, etc. and so perhaps it's a happy medium that blends structure and beauty in an introductory English Grammar program. By about 5th grade I DO want formal grammar study. Currently, I am leaning toward using Analytical Grammar in 2 or 3 "seasons" with periodic review. I am still trying to figure out whether or not I want to use anything formal before AG (we're using Rod & Staff now). My top contenders are JAG, Easy Grammar and Daily Grammar Practice. In fact, I am so interested in DGP but because of my own deficiencies I simply don't know how to compare these approaches. Rod & Staff is incredibly thorough but the Part-to-Whole approach kills me. I HATE diagramming sentence skeletons; just show me the entire sentence on a diagram please. I find the approach confusing (though for others it's a God send ..... ) but it's here and it IS a fine English grammar program so we keep plugging away. 

 

The big take away for ME is that the teaching parent needs to study grammar. I actually think *I* should be purchasing curriculum for myself and THEN decide what to do for my kiddos. Teaching grammar to my children in an organic way sounds wonderful but I don't know grammar. The most important student in my home this school year is me ..... my deficiencies are painfully obvious. 

 

So, should I purchase Easy Grammar and a diagramming book or Analytical Grammar?  ;) I am a Whole to Parts learner and I struggle with discovery based learning. I want explicit teaching with a big picture in front of me the whole time .... 

 

I have a question and it's a BIG ONE. Why on earth can't we study Latin with Memoria Press and let it be? There seems to be plenty of grammar within Latin. Since I am ignorant, I don't know what is missing (mechanics perhaps? usage?) but it could and probably should mean that I can ease off on formal English grammar. This is why using AG appeals to me. We can work intensively on English grammar for 9-12 weeks of the school year and then shift over to our Latin studies. I can also rotate through kids once I have 2 or more students studying grammar formally. I'd teach one kiddo grammar each semester but never have to teach two at a time (another consideration for any Mom teaching more than two - the reality of how much time it takes daily and weekly cannot be ignored). 

 

:001_cool:

[abrightmom]

This thread is an interesting read. Maybe you'll find a tidbit to savor ... 

[Colleen in NS]

Do any of you have links to perhaps an mp3 where SWB already answers this question? Root Ann mentioned one, I think.

 

http://www.peacehillpress.com/audiobooks-lectures/the-well-prepared-student-how-to-get-ready-for-the-high-school-years-mp3-download/

[Amy M]

Dh wrote a 1000-page dissertation on pronouns.* His take on grammar is that you study it for the same reason you study math, or astronomy, or poetry, or anatomy. It's part of our world, and you study it so as to understand how it works; not so that you can do something else with it.

 

This is why it annoys him that the mass of homeschoolers stick tenaciously to the traditional understandings of grammar that linguists rejected a century ago. To him, it's as if they refused to learn calculus, or heliocentrism, or literary theory, or germ theory, on the conviction that the old way must be better. If grammar is the set of rules governing our language - and it is - why ignore the people who've devoted their lives to understanding those rules?

 

(I tell him that as soon as the linguists publish an open-and-go curriculum, he may see a different response.)

 

*Sort of. They call them anaphora these days.

 

No one is arguing not to study grammar. We're discussing what age we will study it. I don't think most 1st graders study astronomy or anatomy, and most certainly not calculus and germ theory. We're not ignoring people who've devoted their lives to studying grammar. Just wondering at what age it needs to be formally introduced as a science.

[Allearia]

Dh wrote a 1000-page dissertation on pronouns.* His take on grammar is that you study it for the same reason you study math, or astronomy, or poetry, or anatomy. It's part of our world, and you study it so as to understand how it works; not so that you can do something else with it.

 

This is why it annoys him that the mass of homeschoolers stick tenaciously to the traditional understandings of grammar that linguists rejected a century ago. To him, it's as if they refused to learn calculus, or heliocentrism, or literary theory, or germ theory, on the conviction that the old way must be better. If grammar is the set of rules governing our language - and it is - why ignore the people who've devoted their lives to understanding those rules?

 

(I tell him that as soon as the linguists publish an open-and-go curriculum, he may see a different response.)

 

*Sort of. They call them anaphora these days.

I'd love to hear more! What is the traditional study of grammar that is outdated? Diagramming? And would MCT be what he would recommend, or something else?

[Spy Car]

Dh wrote a 1000-page dissertation on pronouns.* His take on grammar is that you study it for the same reason you study math, or astronomy, or poetry, or anatomy. It's part of our world, and you study it so as to understand how it works; not so that you can do something else with it.

 

This is why it annoys him that the mass of homeschoolers stick tenaciously to the traditional understandings of grammar that linguists rejected a century ago. To him, it's as if they refused to learn calculus, or heliocentrism, or literary theory, or germ theory, on the conviction that the old way must be better. If grammar is the set of rules governing our language - and it is - why ignore the people who've devoted their lives to understanding those rules?

 

(I tell him that as soon as the linguists publish an open-and-go curriculum, he may see a different response.)

 

*Sort of. They call them anaphora these days.

If dear husband can write a thousand page book on pronouns, he ought to be able to write an alternative linguistically based grammar book for us. I'd be first in line to purchase a copy.

 

Tell him to get cracking! :D

 

Bill