Can we discuss this quote by Cindy Rollins about grammar?

[KeriJ]

I know this topic has been discussed here before, and I've read many different views about it.  But it's kind of the last piece of my puzzle that I just can't settle in my own self.  

 

From her Homeschooling the Freeborn post:

 

"For instance, you can teach grammar by using workbooks and you will notice that for many children, in spite of years of grammar exercises, they retain very little grammar, or you can get an old grammar textbook like The Mother Tongue I or II and work through it orally over many years. If the whole family does this together, the whole family can discuss grammar when it arises in real life."

 

I will admit that streamlining is sometimes what drives me to want to believe it.  But then I think about the idea of repetition leading to retention, and I just can't quite bring myself to give up R&S.

[73349]

I don't think she's suggesting that we avoid repetition. But the more we point out examples of what we've been studying as they arise in our reading or speech or whatever, the more they will stick. I think that's true of any subject, not just grammar.

 

In my high school, students chose a foreign language: Spanish, German, French, or Latin. One other student and I were a year ahead of the other French students in our class. (Neither of us had any particular advantage such as having visited France or a francophone family member.) As we talked one day, he mentioned mentally translating song lyrics into French when he listened to music. I did that too! I believe we were the only ones going beyond the textbook exercises and thinking in French often, and that's why we were able to perform so well in the subject.

 

Surely the child who notices, or who is helped to notice, simple machines in everyday life will have a little edge in a physics course later. The toddler whose snacks are sometimes arranged in a pattern and who is encouraged to remark on the pattern may be the kindergarten student who finds math very natural. Those who attend to details on a nature walk will find botany easier. And so on.

[Zoo Keeper]

You don't need to give up R&S, it does have little bits of instruction to "work through orally over many years".....it also happens to have little bits of written work, too. ;)  Some people need the copious amounts of oral instruction AND written work to make it all stick, especially for things like proper punctuation, capitalization, etc.  

 

I see it as similar to math: you can quickly understand the concept of multiplication, but most people need large amounts of repetition in applying that concept in *varied situations* in order to make it all flow well. 

 

I have found that my children do better when we take time to analyze their copywork or dictation for whatever grammar concept they happen to be working through in their grammar book--takes the grammar out of the workbook, and into real life. 

[forty-two]

I will admit that streamlining is sometimes what drives me to want to believe it. But then I think about the idea of repetition leading to retention, and I just can't quite bring myself to give up R&S.

I don't think she's suggesting that we avoid repetition. But the more we point out examples of what we've been studying as they arise in our reading or speech or whatever, the more they will stick. I think that's true of any subject, not just grammar.

<snip>

Surely the child who notices, or who is helped to notice, simple machines in everyday life will have a little edge in a physics course later. The toddler whose snacks are sometimes arranged in a pattern and who is encouraged to remark on the pattern may be the kindergarten student who finds math very natural. Those who attend to details on a nature walk will find botany easier. And so on.

Also, all the pointing out in daily life - that *is* repetition. And repetition that is more spread out than just during school time, in addition to modeling and teaching how to integrate the fruits of formal learning into the rest of life.

[Hunter]

I would love to set up a family style spiral schedule for language arts. I think it's possible. I don't yet see the resources on the market to accomplish it well. In the meantime I need to do something NOW. I'm letting the idea rest and compiling resources as I find them, but using a more tradition linear scope and sequence with each student in the meantime.

 

I do use leaner curricula and reinforce the topics in other subjects and daily life. I just don't have everyone studying the same subject at the same time.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

(Just to preempt the grammar haters -- I teach it because I find value in it, and because it's so much easier to teach Latin and Greek to students who have studied English grammar at this level. I'm defending grammar lessons on a classical education board! LOL )

 

As far as the quote goes, I smell a false paradigm. :) We use R&S for the whole family and across the years. The associations and remembrances definitely carry through the family because all the boys used the same material and were taught by the same teacher! They do retain the information and we are able to refer to grammar principles as the occasion arises. Off the top of my head I can think of dozens of examples. Some are recitations that are part of the R&S program, and some are the funny tricks and jingles I have devised on my own and used for each student.

I'll tell you what works to solidify grammar knowledge and skills in students: a competent teacher! It's not about a curriculum choice or style. Let each teacher use the method that works for her, if she can master it and enjoy teaching it. Especially in a homeschool or one-room schoolhouse setting, the ongoing lessons across the grades and over the years do settle into the mind. It's a built-in strength of homeschooling on its own, as all the children are hearing the constantly repeated lessons and recitations, and Rod and Staff works very well.

[GrammarGirl]

I taught grammar for years with A Beka workbooks, and my students DID understand grammar and did retain it. Last year I was teaching 11th graders in a school that doesn't incorporate much grammar, much to my chagrin. A couple of the kids had gone to another school in elementary and been taught A Beka in 5th grade. They still remembered their grammar! Anytime I hear someone claiming grammar drill or workbooks don't work, I suspect they are just poor grammar teachers.

[stripe]

"For instance, you can teach grammar by using workbooks and you will notice that for many children, in spite of years of grammar exercises, they retain very little grammar, or you can get an old grammar textbook like The Mother Tongue I or II and work through it orally over many years. If the whole family does this together, the whole family can discuss grammar when it arises in real life."

 

My thoughts include:

1- we have two choices? Workbook OR old grammar textbook? I think not. And why an old textbook? As an example, Janet Angelillo's Grammar Study (available as Scholastic download, current sale price $5) presents suggestions for effectively teaching grammar with neither of these. Killgallon's approach also isn't workbooky. There are more dynamic ways to teach grammar through real life experiences and great literature than old textbooks. Which I think she is actually suggesting! But her words are too limiting.

2 - what is the significance of the whole family studying grammar together? Why orally?

3 - I think study of at least one other language is greatly helpful in understanding linguistic structure. My first memorable grammar lessons came in a language class.

 

I should mention that I used an old grammar textbook in my public high school, approx. 1960s, about 30 years out of date. I had an elderly teacher whose other resource was his own mimeographed handouts on grammar. Which I still own. That is the main grammar instruction I remember. My family members are all educated and write well, but we never devoted much time to grammar talk. Word play, definitely. But grammar? Sounds kind of dull. I just don't think grammar requires huge amounts of time. My purple mimeographed handouts are surprisingly few in number!

[FloridaLisa]

No need to write what I was thinking as Tibbie has done it for me. Precisely. 

 

(Just to preempt the grammar haters -- I teach it because I find value in it, and because it's so much easier to teach Latin and Greek to students who have studied English grammar at this level. I'm defending grammar lessons on a classical education board! LOL )

 

As far as the quote goes, I smell a false paradigm. :) We use R&S for the whole family and across the years. The associations and remembrances definitely carry through the family because all the boys used the same material and were taught by the same teacher! They do retain the information and we are able to refer to grammar principles as the occasion arises. Off the top of my head I can think of dozens of examples. Some are recitations that are part of the R&S program, and some are the funny tricks and jingles I have devised on my own and used for each student.

I'll tell you what works to solidify grammar knowledge and skills in students: a competent teacher! It's not about a curriculum choice or style. Let each teacher use the method that works for her, if she can master it and enjoy teaching it. Especially in a homeschool or one-room schoolhouse setting, the ongoing lessons across the grades and over the years do settle into the mind. It's a built-in strength of homeschooling on its own, as all the children are hearing the constantly repeated lessons and recitations, and Rod and Staff works very well.

 

I will only add that it took me several years to arrive at what is now very solid grammar teaching in our home. I love R & S. 

 

Lisa

[Hunter]

I don't know why Mother Tongue 2 is being recommended as a good text for family style teaching. I redownloaded the vintage copy to look through it and am confused. I think friends are just finding ways to get the word out about a new curriculum. I'm not sure about the rest of the homeschooling world, but it seems to be failing HERE. :lol:

 

Who exactly is the person who is producing Mother Tongue 2? 

[73349]

I don't know why Mother Tongue 2 is being recommended as a good text for family style teaching. I redownloaded the vintage copy to look through it and am confused. I think friends are just finding ways to get the word out about a new curriculum. I'm not sure about the rest of the homeschooling world, but it seems to be failing HERE. :lol:

 

Who exactly is the person who is producing Mother Tongue 2? 

 

Could you explain more about this? I see Mother Tongue 1, 2, and 3 all as free Google books by Gardiner, Kittredge and Arnold. Is someone else selling a new book by the same title?

[Hunter]

Could you explain more about this? I see Mother Tongue 1, 2, and 3 all as free Google books by Gardiner, Kittredge and Arnold. Is someone else selling a new book by the same title?

 

Amazon

http://www.amazon.com/s/?_encoding=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&linkCode=ur2&page=1&rh=n%3A283155%2Cp_27%3AAmy%20Edwards&tag=dominionfamil-20

 

Thread on the book.

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/524153-the-mother-tongue-ii-a-new-antique/

[stripe]

Thread on the book.

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/524153-the-mother-tongue-ii-a-new-antique/

(FYI Your link -- which I didn't copy -- has an affiliate code for the blogger.)

 

Original books written by George Lyman Kittredge and Sarah Louise Arnold

Recently published books reformatted by Amy Edwards and Christina Mugglin

The downloads of the originals are perfectly legible. 

[Hunter]

(FYI Your link -- which I didn't copy -- has an affiliate code for the blogger.)

 

Original books written by George Lyman Kittredge and Sarah Louise Arnold

Recently published books reformatted by Amy Edwards and Christina Mugglin

The downloads of the originals are perfectly legible. 

 

Does that mean she gets credit for purchases of the book? So, if I click on a book discussed from a site/blog, then the copy and paste that amazon page, it gives credit to the person from the site/blog that directed me to Amazon? Ugh! How do I strip away that affiliation?

 

Thank you for the names. Who are they? 

[stripe]

Does that mean she gets credit for purchases of the book? So, if I click on a book discussed from a site/blog, then the copy and paste that amazon page, it gives credit to the person from the site/blog that directed me to Amazon? Ugh! How do I strip away that affiliation?

 

Thank you for the names. Who are they?

To the first -- Yes. But apparently once you've clicked it, any purchase of anything that person linked to will credit that person for the next 24 hours or something. You don't have to buy it right there. Virtually all blogs have this. I no longer click links in blogs. I search for the book myself. Or I copy the URL and examine it before entering it. I saw the dominionfamil-20 at the end of the URL as it was written in your post.

http://electronplumber.com/amazon-affiliate-lesson-2-the-best-amazon-affiliate-links/

 

I have no idea who Amy Edwards or Christina Mugglin are. An internet search for Christina Mugglin just identified where she lives, not any information about her activites or qualifications or a blog. Amy Edwards has a more common name, and even with the middle inital M, I am not sure I found out anything about her.

 

The title page of Mother Tongue lists the data for Kittredge and Arnold. Arnold was a supervisor of several school districts and eventually dean of Simmons College.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lyman_Kittredge

http://www.simmons.edu/library/archives/exhibits/438.php

[Hunter]

To the first -- Yes. But apparently once you've clicked it, any purchase of anything that person linked to will credit that person for the next 24 hours or something. You don't have to buy it right there. Virtually all blogs have this. I no longer click links in blogs. I search for the book myself. Or I copy the URL and examine it before entering it. I saw the dominionfamil-20 at the end of the URL as it was written in your post.

http://electronplumber.com/amazon-affiliate-lesson-2-the-best-amazon-affiliate-links/

 

I have no idea who Amy Edwards or Christina Mugglin are. An internet search for Christina Mugglin just identified where she lives, not any information about her activites or qualifications or a blog. Amy Edwards has a more common name, and even with the middle inital M, I am not sure I found out anything about her.

 

The title page of Mother Tongue lists the data for Kittredge and Arnold. Arnold was a supervisor of several school districts and eventually dean of Simmons College.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lyman_Kittredge

http://www.simmons.edu/library/archives/exhibits/438.php

 

Thank you, Stripe! I will be more careful with links to Amazon.

 

As for the "adapters" of The Mother Tongue, I'm finding this whole situation very odd.

[Mystie]

To bring the conversation back to topic, I think that what Cindy means is that having discussion about grammar and being able to do it together will work better over the long haul than assigning your child workbook pages you yourself don't understand and only correct with a TM. If you know grammar and can talk about it, then it doesn't matter if its R&S or anything else you like. If you can't talk about it and dissect a sentence in some other context that's not provided by your text, then the grammar you're doing is likely not going to stick.

 

I've taught grammar to middle school homeschool kids for a few years and definitely saw that the kids who could do all the Shurley drills did not actually know grammar and generally where not the ones who ended up understanding the best by the end of the class. 

 

My opinion, as a grammar person is that grammar tends to be overdone in classical homeschooling recommendations. Latin in third grade, reading aloud, and correcting spoken and written English in the elementary years, plus a year or two in the logic stage of diagramming sentences is completely adequate. 

 

Cindy's position is that small, discussion-oriented bits of repeated grammar over the years will get you farther in the end than large, independent-work chunks of repeated grammar. She's definitely still advocating repetition.

 

I'm doing grammar and writing with 6th grade and up this year and was going to teach diagramming just with my own references and making up my own exercises. When I saw that Mother Tongue was updated to be more user friendly, I immediately changed my plans and I am excited to receive my ordered copies. :) I think they did grammar better pre-postmodernism, and I'm glad for a text that merges old content with modern design and format, whoever did the work. Also, as an author and a blogger myself, I'm always happy when a percentage of my purchase goes to support good work being put out into the world (such as with Amazon affiliate links).

[Lang Syne Boardie]

To bring the conversation back to topic, I think that what Cindy means is that having discussion about grammar and being able to do it together will work better over the long haul than assigning your child workbook pages you yourself don't understand and only correct with a TM. If you know grammar and can talk about it, then it doesn't matter if its R&S or anything else you like. If you can't talk about it and dissect a sentence in some other context that's not provided by your text, then the grammar you're doing is likely not going to stick.

 

I've taught grammar to middle school homeschool kids for a few years and definitely saw that the kids who could do all the Shurley drills did not actually know grammar and generally where not the ones who ended up understanding the best by the end of the class.

 

My opinion, as a grammar person is that grammar tends to be overdone in classical homeschooling recommendations. Latin in third grade, reading aloud, and correcting spoken and written English in the elementary years, plus a year or two in the logic stage of diagramming sentences is completely adequate.

 

Cindy's position is that small, discussion-oriented bits of repeated grammar over the years will get you farther in the end than large, independent-work chunks of repeated grammar. She's definitely still advocating repetition.

 

I'm doing grammar and writing with 6th grade and up this year and was going to teach diagramming just with my own references and making up my own exercises. When I saw that Mother Tongue was updated to be more user friendly, I immediately changed my plans and I am excited to receive my ordered copies. :) I think they did grammar better pre-postmodernism, and I'm glad for a text that merges old content with modern design and format, whoever did the work. Also, as an author and a blogger myself, I'm always happy when a percentage of my purchase goes to support good work being put out into the world (such as with Amazon affiliate links).

Is your signature up to date? Am I understanding correctly that you have not taught English, Latin, or Greek to students who are beyond the logic level in those subjects?

 

I ask because I think it matters, when we speak so authoritatively, that we are clear about our experience. No one in this thread attacked Cindy, herself, for two reasons:

 

1. She has seen her students through graduation and beyond, which backs up the perception that most of us had, namely that

2. At the end of the day we probably agree more than we disagree, both in theory and in practice.

 

The disagreement is about what to tell new homeschoolers. If Cindy or I teach English grammar very competently yet very organically, we may claim our successes but we should let others know that competence is the largest part of the equation. The point is not merely to dismiss formal texts. The point is to teach with understanding, however one approaches it. The typical classical perspective is that most educators of today are greatly deficient in grammar knowledge; therefore, they need the formal lessons as badly as their students.

 

Those who have taught grammar over the years with multiple students can attest to the efficacy of short lessons that are intimately shared and primarily oral. That is the way grammar is taught in formal texts such as Rod and Staff and Harvey's. These courses cannot be used independently by students whose teachers are neglectful. Diligent teaching is required, and built into the course! These materials are exempt from the broad-brush criticism of ineffectual lessons because they are not that type at all.

 

The other reason I ask about your experience is that I am wondering about your goals for your students, if you feel that two years of formal grammar in the logic stage are adequate. In my experience, higher levels of grammar are deeply entertwined with studies in logic, rhetoric, Latin, Greek, theology, government, philosophy, and even higher math. Grammar becomes the vehicle. There may be other ways to achieve that facility with words and concepts but grammar has been utilized for this purpose down through the ages. This classical approach has been very effective for my rhetoric level students, which is why I advocate such a traditional philosophy toward the rigorous study of grammar.

[angela in ohio]

That's one of the "tales homeschoolers believe" right up there with "they don't learn anything in public school" and "just reading good literature teaches a child to be a great writer." :D

 

She has changes two variables in her comparison anyway, different levels of parental involvement and different materials. She isn't proving that the workbook was the issue. I would argue that the materials used, as long as they are relatively complete, aren't the important consideration, but the way the parents uses them and they are applied.

 

[Mystie]

 I would argue that the materials used, as long as they are relatively complete, aren't the important consideration, but the way the parents uses them and they are applied.

 

Yes, I would agree with the quoted above; that's what I intended. The most important curriculum isn't what you buy, it's what you do and how you do it.

 

My oldest is only 11. I myself was homeschooled, as was my husband. I have also taught other middle school homeschooled kids writing, grammar, and literature for 7+ years, and been told by them and their parents that 1-2 years in my middle school classes was more grammar or writing than they got in 4 years of public or private schools, and some passed out of English 101 in college, because - they told me - they'd already done with me in middle school what they were doing in English 101 (I tutored writing at the university while I was there, and yes, I was teaching to middle school kids, some of whom had lots of grammar as kids and some of whom had no grammar in elementary what I did in upper level English classes as an English major (and they were electives for English majors). From those 40+ kids I taught over the years, I saw no correlation between how well they did in my class and the amount of grammar they had had at home in the elementary years. 

 

My opinion is that in the logic stage, they are ready to eat it with a spoon if it's taught logically. Grammar-stage grammar "just memorize it and don't try to understand" is a waste of time and a misunderstanding of the classical tradition, in my (very opinionated) opinion.

[Mystie]

Oh, also, as a homeschooled student (my mom was more unschooly), I had very little grammar instruction and what my mom did try to do, I didn't understand. I started college at 16 and 2 years of Spanish + 1 1-credit 300-level grammar class and I *loved* grammar and it completely clicked.  

 

Stress less, moms, it's not all on our shoulders. Give the best you can, and trust God with the rest. We work and water, but each child makes it his own in the end.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Mystie, I'm sorry, I left the window open and came back to clarify my post without realizing that the thread had moved forward in the meantime. My above post has been amended. Again, I apologize for interrupting the flow of the conversation.

[Mystie]

Is your signature up to date? Am I understanding correctly that you have not taught English, Latin, or Greek to students who are beyond the logic level in those subjects?

 

I ask because I think it matters, when we speak so authoritatively, that we are clear about our experience. No one in this thread attacked Cindy, herself, for two reasons:

 

1. She has seen her students through graduation and beyond, which backs up the perception that most of us had, namely that

2. At the end of the day we probably agree more than we disagree, both in theory and in practice.

 

The disagreement is about what to tell new homeschoolers. If Cindy or I teach English grammar very competently yet very organically, we may claim our successes but we should let others know that competence is the largest part of the equation. The point is not merely to dismiss formal texts. The point is to teach with understanding, however one approaches it. The typical classical perspective is that most educators of today are greatly deficient in grammar knowledge; therefore, they need the formal lessons as badly as their students.

 

Those who have taught grammar over the years with multiple students can attest to the efficacy of short lessons that are intimately shared and primarily oral. That is the way grammar is taught in formal texts such as Rod and Staff and Harvey's. These courses cannot be used independently by students whose teachers are neglectful. Diligent teaching is required, and built into the course! These materials are exempt from the broad-brush criticism of ineffectual lessons because they are not that type at all.

 

The other reason I ask about your experience is that I am wondering about your goals for your students, if you feel that two years of formal grammar in the logic stage are adequate. In my experience, higher levels of grammar are deeply entertwined with studies in logic, rhetoric, Latin, Greek, theology, government, philosophy, and even higher math. Grammar becomes the vehicle. There may be other ways to achieve that facility with words and concepts but grammar has been utilized for this purpose down through the ages. This classical approach has been very effective for my rhetoric level students, which is why I advocate such a traditional philosophy toward the rigorous study of grammar.

 

Tibbie, this is all excellent.

 

The most effective lessons coming from competence is a scary message for homeschool moms who are already stressed and scared, but you are correct. One reason why I think Cindy's recommendation is a good one is that if mom is teaching it in small doses orally, she's learning it herself.

 

Right, grammar is just a small piece of a bigger whole. If it's not coming in the context of language study and rhetoric, it's often disjointed and doesn't seem to be important. But usually modern grammar stage grammar is out of context and memory and fill-in-the-blank, which doesn't help later with rhetoric. Logic-stage instruction provides a necessary foundation for serious language stud and rhetoric. 

 

I'm teaching my elementary kids the parts of speech using the Shurley definition chants, but we "play with the animals," to use Andrew-Kern-speak. We use those definitions in context of playing with sentences, in context of correcting spoken and written word, and in jokes. However, this circles back to your initial point about competence and what to tell the mom who knows no grammar. 

 

We are recovering education, and we don't have to start from a perfect place to do it. We have to start where we are and do what we can. And we also have to open ourselves up to becoming students alongside our kids. I didn't like that thought myself when I started out. I thought maybe I could just get video courses for the subjects I don't like and be good. Turns out, I have to be willing to be a student if I want my children to be open to being students. Turns out, being a student is actually quite amazing, humbling, and interesting. 

 

Wow, how's that for wanting to go back to the topic of grammar and circling all 'round the philosophical bunny trails? :) Thanks for the thoughtful response, Tibbie!

[stripe]

No one in this thread attacked Cindy, herself,

 

Actually I didn't attack her at all, and not for the reasons you listed.

 

I disagreed with her phrasing because it struck me as a false dichotomy (workbooks OR vintage text), and her solution (old text) is not the only resource that will give what she desires. There are other resources that promote the discussion and study of grammar that use literature. I proposed two in the spirit of goodwill and open discussion.

 

I must confess that it never occurred to me that the reason that one would need to have oral grammar lessons was because the mother didn't know grammar herself. I assumed the instructor was competent. It is depressing to think the intructor/mother might assign workbook pages for years and still not herself understand grammar. I honestly failed to consider that, and obviously instructor ignorance would be the biggest problem, not the style or selection of material.

[...................]

the fact is, that if you play with ideas, and chew on the ideas, and dig down deep into the ideas and discuss the ideas of grammar of COURSE you are going to get better retenton than just doing the workbook.  

 

But it doesn't have to be either-or.  If you are doing Rod and Staff together with your child, and discussing each lesson, and at least occasionally showing some interest in it, your child will retain fairly well.

 

This year my son is using Abeka Grammar, and doign it independently. I meet with him to discuss it and correct errors for a few minutes.  I would not have a ton of hope that he will retain a lot long term....except that he is taking a Greek course at the local high school wherein a ton of grammar will also be discussed and reinforced, in a group setting, across subjects.  Therefore, I think the Abeka will stick.

[Amy M]

I have also been reading a bunch from Rollin's blog and Schole Sisters and trying to "get" all this "Kern speak." I'm a wanna-be, but I don't think I get how to relax or rest in my teaching yet...which is what I think Rollins was trying to get at.

 

She mentioned several times her personal lack of understanding in grammar, so that would answer the teacher-being-competent issue. Secondly, her oral discussions involved diagramming a sentence from MCT together as a family during morning Time...so isn't that using a workbook (just orally and in a more relaxed way)? When I read that article, I definitely got the impression that using all of my R&S books on the shelf would be ineffective and that I'd be better served by ordering that Mother Tongue book. :)

 

But I think once again, the bigger question being asked here comes down to how much to teach grammar (how rigorously?) and at what age to begin. That's something I've been mulling over for a while. I read Rollins or Beechick or CM and almost decide to give up grammar stage grammar. But then I read Tibbie or someone else who's btdt in classical ed, and decide to keep plugging away with it just in case. :/ By the time my kids are grown maybe I'll have decided on my philosophy?

[Amy M]

In my experience, higher levels of grammar are deeply entertwined with studies in logic, rhetoric, Latin, Greek, theology, government, philosophy, and even higher math. Grammar becomes the vehicle. There may be other ways to achieve that facility with words and concepts but grammar has been utilized for this purpose down through the ages. This classical approach has been very effective for my rhetoric level students, which is why I advocate such a traditional philosophy toward the rigorous study of grammar.

Could you please elaborate on this? I'm not sure I understand how grammar is intertwined with theology, gove, philosophy or math, nor how studying it in the 1s to 4th grades gets you to this level in a better way.

[FloridaLisa]

The most effective lessons coming from competence is a scary message for homeschool moms who are already stressed and scared, but you are correct. One reason why I think Cindy's recommendation is a good one is that if mom is teaching it in small doses orally, she's learning it herself.

 

Right, grammar is just a small piece of a bigger whole. If it's not coming in the context of language study and rhetoric, it's often disjointed and doesn't seem to be important. But usually modern grammar stage grammar is out of context and memory and fill-in-the-blank, which doesn't help later with rhetoric. Logic-stage instruction provides a necessary foundation for serious language stud and rhetoric. 

 

I think the kindest thing I could tell a "stressed or scared"  homeschooling mom is to just learn alongside your child.  I think we can all agree that handing a workbook off to a child is going to be the least effective way to teach grammar. I did that one year. And then I just plunged in and started teaching/working the materials alongside my oldest. If I could tell my younger self anything about teaching grammar I would say:

 

• Don't stop teaching formal grammar in 7th grade. Continue formal grammar at least 1 year into high school.  Your SAT scores will thank you.
• Find and use a solid program that gets beyond the simple patterns of noun-verb-indirect object-direct object. Good writing is much more complex.  
• Learning how to parse or diagram a complex sentence is not just about the subject content of grammar.  Puzzling out a sentence also develops skills of analysis and logic. (Truly, I have no research to back that up.  That's my own experience. I get the same feeling from translating Latin or figuring out an Algebra II problem. It's good brain work and I'm as interested in my kids developing those neural pathways from good brainwork as the content of the material.)

Great discussion.  I hope no homeschool moms are stressing over grammar. It's too easy to learn -- slow and steady, year after year -- with your child.  In about 15 minutes a day. 

 

Lisa

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Could you please elaborate on this? I'm not sure I understand how grammar is intertwined with theology, gove, philosophy or math, nor how studying it in the 1s to 4th grades gets you to this level in a better way.

 

I've never advised studying formal grammar in first grade, because I don't believe children should study grammar until they have learned to read. :) We usually begin formal grammar studies the year after the child becomes a fluent reader, but of course, I believe families can be very successful with varied start points. My argument was that two years of diagramming in the logic stage are not enough, not that grammar should be rigorously studied in the first to fourth grades.

 

As far as how further grammar studies help with rhetoric level subjects -- consider how many arguments are made in law, religion, and philosophy that are predicated (so to speak) upon grammar! The apostle Paul argued over pluralities and direct objects, for example. An inheritance is lost due to a misplaced comma, a philosopher wonders about the existence of man but the reader can't even follow his train of thought without being able to parse his verbiage, a prosecuting attorney proves intent by noting the verb case used in the testimony of the witness...these instances all call for the ability on somebody's part to scrutinize and analyze English grammar. "What I think he probably meant," which is what we get when we analyze according to familiarity with the language, the person's tone, and our own motivation to interpret either positively or negatively, cuts no mustard when the written or spoken word belies that assigned intent. His own words, as they say, convict him.

 

Studies in Latin and Greek benefit from English grammar studies beforehand. The amount of time saved by not having to constantly redefine parts of speech (not the Schoolhouse Rock eight but the more complex issues such as case, tense, number , and gender) in the new language allows the student to progress more quickly. (For example, seeing the difference between accusative and dative cases is easier when you already know the difference between direct and indirect objects and their use in a sentence, even though in other languages the placement of these within the sentence might not be the same.) At least in my experience with these languages, momentum is everything, so the more lightbulbs flashing as we go, the better. :) Since nobody around is studying these languages, the student needs the confidence that comes from knowing he knows. Cheryl Lowe of Memoria Press has written about the confidence gained from utilizing study methods in languages that can be drilled, recalled, and compared much as mathematical facts are treated. She is entirely correct.

 

Logic and math -- I will answer these together because they cycle around to prove each other. A breakthrough in math for my eldest son came when he realized that equations are sentences. He had been thoroughly taught about the copula in his third grade grammar studies (Harvey's Elementary Grammar). He was balancing a difficult equation in Ray's Arithmetic but the light dawned as he repeated it aloud to himself and heard the word "is." (In Ray's, "is" is used in the primary and intermediate books before the term "equals" is introduced, for this reason. The idea is to learn the concept with familiar terms before introducing new mathematical terminology in later books.) He said, "Mama, grammar is math and math is grammar. There are parts that have to answer each other or it's wrong."

 

Clearly, the same lightbulb moments happen as the student begins to study Logic. MATH: A = B, B = C, A = C. LOGIC: Socrates is a man, all men are mortal, therefore Socrates is mortal. In beginning Logic studies, the statements are divided into minor, major, and middle terms. Dividing the statements into those terms is impossible without a knowledge of grammar, because you split up the subject, the predicate, and the copula (the 'being' verb in the middle). I could go on for awhile about the instances of this type, and my 17yo son is here telling me more examples, but you get the idea.

 

This is all what I meant about grammar becoming the vehicle. We get to the heart of concepts by understanding the language, and the knowledge begins to snowball and gather, even across subjects in which we never anticipated we'd use our grammar lessons.

 

A friend who is a librarian recently shared with me her review of a book titled, "The War Against Grammar," by David Mulroy. (I linked to the book at Amazon because the reviews are fascinating!) One of his anecdotes that made an impression on my friend had to do with Mulroy's extensive survey of his first year college students' ability to comprehend the very first sentence of the Declaration of Independence. Overwhelmingly, this generation cannot do it. Why not? They are obviously literate. They can read and react to what they've read. But when the vocabulary and sentence structure become too complex they can't parse it out. The missing skill is a lifelong facility in grammar.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I think the kindest thing I could tell a "stressed or scared"  homeschooling mom is to just learn alongside your child.  I think we can all agree that handing a workbook off to a child is going to be the least effective way to teach grammar. I did that one year. And then I just plunged in and started teaching/working the materials alongside my oldest. If I could tell my younger self anything about teaching grammar I would say:

 

• Don't stop teaching formal grammar in 7th grade. Continue formal grammar at least 1 year into high school.  Your SAT scores will thank you.
• Find and use a solid program that gets beyond the simple patterns of noun-verb-indirect object-direct object. Good writing is much more complex.  
• Learning how to parse or diagram a complex sentence is not just about the subject content of grammar.  Puzzling out a sentence also develops skills of analysis and logic. (Truly, I have no research to back that up.  That's my own experience. I get the same feeling from translating Latin or figuring out an Algebra II problem. It's good brain work and I'm as interested in my kids developing those neural pathways from good brainwork as the content of the material.)

Great discussion.  I hope no homeschool moms are stressing over grammar. It's too easy to learn -- slow and steady, year after year -- with your child.  In about 15 minutes a day. 

 

Lisa

 

"like"

 

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I have also been reading a bunch from Rollin's blog and Schole Sisters and trying to "get" all this "Kern speak." I'm a wanna-be, but I don't think I get how to relax or rest in my teaching yet...which is what I think Rollins was trying to get at.

 

She mentioned several times her personal lack of understanding in grammar, so that would answer the teacher-being-competent issue. Secondly, her oral discussions involved diagramming a sentence from MCT together as a family during morning Time...so isn't that using a workbook (just orally and in a more relaxed way)? When I read that article, I definitely got the impression that using all of my R&S books on the shelf would be ineffective and that I'd be better served by ordering that Mother Tongue book. :)

 

But I think once again, the bigger question being asked here comes down to how much to teach grammar (how rigorously?) and at what age to begin. That's something I've been mulling over for a while. I read Rollins or Beechick or CM and almost decide to give up grammar stage grammar. But then I read Tibbie or someone else who's btdt in classical ed, and decide to keep plugging away with it just in case. :/ By the time my kids are grown maybe I'll have decided on my philosophy?

 

FWIW, I've never taught grammar with a curriculum to seven-year-olds in my life. (I'm going by your sig, assuming your eldest is 7.) I prefer to use Primary Language Lessons for second and third graders (but only if they are reading very well), starting R&S, Harvey's, or Warriner's in third or fourth grade and continuing through eighth or ninth. So in my opinion, and according to the usual Hive Mind wisdom, you have plenty of time to sort your philosophy on this.

 

It will depend on your goals, by the time you are done, and the needs of your students and your own preferences. I hope you will find the right approach for your family, and I believe you will!

 

[Mystie]

Tibbie, I think we aren't that far off, really. I think that studying grammar alone for 2 years or so in the logic stage is enough to propel into the application and play of it alongside rhetoric and language and all the other applications. You never stop DOING grammar, but it doesn't have to be its own separate study. Today while listening to the sermon at church, I diagrammed the verse because there were so many prepositional phrases in it. I don't have to be formally studying grammar to be using it throughout life - grammar never stops. :) But I think a year or two of study (later) can get you to the point of being able to do that and using it with ease, and using it as a tool in other subjects, which I assume one will continue to do. :)

 

 

I love the math as sentence lightbulb! I am so looking forward to reaching logic and rhetoric stage in our house...

 

[Mystie]

And I suppose my primary observation in teaching logic-stage grammar has been that I have not seen a noticeable correlation between amount of grammar done in elementary years (some of my students came in as 6/7th graders with a hazy notion about what a noun was and that was it, while some had done Shurley grammar religiously) and how well they understood grammar and could play with diagrams by the end of the year. 

[stripe]

A friend who is a librarian recently shared with me her review of a book titled, "The War Against Grammar," by David Mulroy.

I agree -- a really interesting book.

 

Thanks for your posts.

[Guest]

Can someone clarify something for me on the books we are talking about here?

 

The book that Hunter referred to above is The Mother Tongue by Edwards, Mugglin, Kittredge, and Arnold. And I think that is what Cindy's comment refers to, since she mentions books I & II.

 

I thought (and I could be totally wrong!) that from reading Mystie's blog, that she uses, Our Mother Tongue by Nancy Wilson.

 

Are we all talking about the same book? Just curious as I'm reading all this and soaking it all in, as well. Really doesn't change anything re: this thread, but I was looking to purchase Our Mother Tongue, but will be re-thinking it if it is the same book that is referenced above. Thanks!

[KeriJ]

I remember Cindy using the one by Kittredge.  Man, I hate that her blog is gone!!

[Mystie]

Cindy recommends the one by Kittridge, which was out of print but has just been updated and republished. I haven't looked at this yet, but I ordered a copy and am eagerly waiting for it. :) I *do* love and have taught from Our Mother Tongue by Nancy Wilson. It's a great straightforward explanation for how to diagram sentences and what the different grammar words mean. However, it's weak on practice exercises - a teacher definitely has to supplement. It's the book I pull when I want to double-check anything grammar-related because she uses concise, simple language to explain things. 

[KeriJ]

Cindy recommends the one by Kittridge, which was out of print but has just been updated and republished. I haven't looked at this yet, but I ordered a copy and am eagerly waiting for it. :) I *do* love and have taught from Our Mother Tongue by Nancy Wilson. It's a great straightforward explanation for how to diagram sentences and what the different grammar words mean. However, it's weak on practice exercises - a teacher definitely has to supplement. It's the book I pull when I want to double-check anything grammar-related because she uses concise, simple language to explain things. 

 This is why I love R&S though.  It's straightforward and solid, but with plenty of exercises to choose from.  We do 2/3 of it orally and assign a few exercises to do written.  We don't do every exercise or every lesson in the book.  It's a textbook which requires separate paper, so you don't have those fill in the blank or underlining type exercises as in workbooks.

 

I personally love the way it explains it in an age appropriate way.  I even love the 2nd grade book done mostly orally.  It doesn't give complex, abstract lessons until older grades.  For example, the 2nd grade book describes a "telling sentence" rather than calling it a declarative sentence.  very easy for my 2nd graders to grasp.

 

Everything I have ever heard against grammar books in elementary seems to be resolved for me in the R&S books.  

 

I agree with Tibbie that there seems to be a false paradigm.  I've read all of the arguments for and against "early and often" grammar instruction, and I just don't get the "against" arguments.  I remember the "Charlotte Mason didn't require just copywork" thread where someone posted examples from her grammar instruction and mentioned that it sounded just like R&S.

 

I know that in our family, our R&S lessons have become cozy, on the couch times for us.  We read the lesson together, giggle over some of the incorrect examples, practice a little orally to make sure they understand, and then send them off to do a few of the written assignments.   It takes about 10-15 minutes tops in the younger years.  I also follow HOD's recommendation of doing just 1/2 of a book each year starting in about 5th grade.

 

Thank you all for your thoughts, but other than the fact that I wish it could be taught in more of a family style (really just to save time since I have numerous kiddos), you've helped me realize that I'm very happy with our grammar experience. 

[Mystie]

Sounds like R&S is a good pick! I've never looked at them myself. My mom used workbook grammar and that meant Bob Jones or Abeka in her day (which could be what Cindy is thinking of, too), and it was a "do this page and I'll check against the answer key" sort of thing. :)

[Guest]

Cindy recommends the one by Kittridge, which was out of print but has just been updated and republished. I haven't looked at this yet, but I ordered a copy and am eagerly waiting for it. :) I *do* love and have taught from Our Mother Tongue by Nancy Wilson. It's a great straightforward explanation for how to diagram sentences and what the different grammar words mean. However, it's weak on practice exercises - a teacher definitely has to supplement. It's the book I pull when I want to double-check anything grammar-related because she uses concise, simple language to explain things.

Great. I bought the Abeka grammar handbook last year and while it is thorough, this book looks like it may be a better fit as a reference for elementary. (Maybe?)

[Woodland Mist Academy]

We do everything incorrectly here.

 

Early and often, for years and years, with and without workbooks, you name it - we have probably done it! ;)

 

It's worked well for us. Wouldn't change a thing! :)

[Mystie]

The most common piece of advice I hear from homeschool moms who have graduated all their students (I don't know any that were trying to do classical) is that "the best curriculum is the one that you use." :) 

[Woodland Mist Academy]

The most common piece of advice I hear from homeschool moms who have graduated all their students (I don't know any that were trying to do classical) is that "the best curriculum is the one that you use." :)

 

I'm confused. You don't know any homeschool moms using classical methods that have graduated their students?

 

By the way, what is your definition of classical? It means different things to different people, so I always like to clarify. :)

[Woodland Mist Academy]

. 

 

My opinion, as a grammar person is that grammar tends to be overdone in classical homeschooling recommendations. Latin in third grade, reading aloud, and correcting spoken and written English in the elementary years, plus a year or two in the logic stage of diagramming sentences is completely adequate. 

 

 

Completely adequate for what?

 

It seems to me that much depends on one's goals. Grammar can be a toy to be played with and loved in the younger years. A puzzle, a joy, a delight. Maybe we have different ideas about what being "a grammar person" means. ;) 

[TechWife]

This is all very interesting to me. My son never struggled with grammar. In first & second grade he was in a private school that used Shurley grammar and we contented that for third grade. Sometime between 2-4th grades he found my college English 101 textbook and read it cover-to-cover. He was fascinated by it. The next thing he did was Analytical Grammar - he did the entire book in 8th grade. Fast forward to 11th grade and he does about 1/2 of some daily grammar practice book and asks to stop because it's boring. He hasn't missed a single problem and the rest of it is repetitious, so I let him stop. 

 

I guess I have always figured that grammar, unlike math, is a finite body of knowledge, but with endless application. It is the application that really matters in the long run. I don't see the point in endless "drill and kill" for grammar, especially with students who demonstrate a mastery of the subject. I do, however, think that true mastery is demonstrated through consistent application, not through remembering facts about grammar. 

[GrammarGirl]

Great. I bought the Abeka grammar handbook last year and while it is thorough, this book looks like it may be a better fit as a reference for elementary. (Maybe?)

No, the handbook was written for eleventh and twelfth grades and for the freshman English courses at Pensacola Christian College (owner of A Beka). It is a handy reference book for parents but is not meant for elementary students.

[Guest]

No, the handbook was written for eleventh and twelfth grades and for the freshman English courses at Pensacola Christian College (owner of A Beka). It is a handy reference book for parents but is not meant for elementary students.

 

And to clarify, I didn't intend it to use with them, just as a reference for me when we ditched a formal grammar program. It has way more than I expected in it!

[Woodland Mist Academy]

Also, as an author and a blogger myself, I'm always happy when a percentage of my purchase goes to support good work being put out into the world (such as with Amazon affiliate links).

 

I think it's partially a matter of transparency. I would like the affiliate link to be obvious beforehand.  I'm so grateful for the posters on the board who give so freely of themselves. Sadly, I often wonder how much is taken from these boards and used on blogs for $$$....

 

There's something about an affiliated link that adds dollar signs to friendships and costs to camaraderie.

 

I wonder about the future of the internet and what it will be like... Will there be PayPal linked tip buttons on every post? Even now, I feel the internet to be somewhat of a big advertising scheme, as opposed to a forum for the open and free exchange of ideas...

[GrammarGirl]

And to clarify, I didn't intend it to use with them, just as a reference for me when we ditched a formal grammar program. It has way more than I expected in it!

It will be a very handy reference! I have taught high school and colleges courses with that text and still refer to it on occasion. I even have one autographed by the author who was a professor and colleague of mine. : )

[stripe]

Cindy recommends the one by Kittridge, which was out of print but has just been updated and republished.

It's also freely available online from Google Books and archive.org. No need to buy anything.