What makes the classical approach to LA rigorous?

[lewelma]

I get the impression that classical education uses certain methods to teach language arts. What makes this approach rigorous?  The other thread kept referring to reading literature from the 'cannon' and to engaging with the best thinkers. Well, I can do that. But then I kept reading that to be a classical educator requires a high-level of education and perhaps training, that you could not just co-learn at a high level because it is not the same.  What specific methods do they use and why are they considered by some to be so good?  I'm not interested in content as much as teaching techniques and methods. Thoughts?

[8filltheheart]

My house is getting crowded with family (love it 🙂 ) and my thoughts are on the holidays. 

The Ratio Studiorum describes exactly how they taught. It isnt a book of philosophy but methodology. I found this post that describes a brief portion of their day.  That link didn't work and I can't delete it for some reason.  Oh well.  The description is now pasted below the link. Oral competitions were integral to their education. It was designed around a classroom structure and master teachers.

 

1. The aim of this class is to achieve a com-
plete and perfect knowledge of grammar. The teacher

shall therefore review syntax from the beginning, add-

ing all the exceptions. Then he shall explain figures

of speech and rules of prosody. In Greek, however, he

shall cover the eight parts of speech or whatever is

embraced under the name of rudiments except dialects

and the more unusual variations. The reading matter

in prose in the first semester shall be taken from the

more important of Cicero’s letters Ad Familiares, Ad

Atticum, Ad Quintum Fratrem; in the second semester,

his De Amicitia, De Senectute, Paradoxa, and the like.

From the poets, in the first semester, some selected

and expurgated elegies and epistles of Ovid should be

taken, and in the second semester expurgated selections

from Catullus, Tibullus, Propertius, the eclogues of

Vergil, or also some of the easier books of Virgil,

such as the fourth book of the Georgics and the fifth

 

85

 

and seventh books of the Aeneid. In Greek, St. John

Chrysostom, Aesop, Agapetus, and such authors are to

be taken.

 

2. The division of time shall be as follows.

For the first hour in the morning, recital of grammar

and Cicero from memory to the decurions, while the

teacher corrects the themes collected by the decurions,

meantime assigning various exercises to the pupils, as

described in the fourth rule below. In the second hour

the prelection of Cicero will be briefly repeated and

new matter explained, followed by a quiz for half an

hour. Finally, the subject and outline of content for

an assigned composition is dictated. During the last

half hour the grammar lesson is reviewed, a new lesson

explained and questions asked on it. Sometimes a com-

petition may occupy this period. In the first semester

there shall be a rapid review of the grammatical con-

structions seen in the previous class, then the matter

proper to this class is to be taken up. On alternate

days the general rules of prosody, omitting the excep-

tions, are to be explained. In the second semester there

must be at least a two months’ review of that part of

grammar belonging to the lowest class, and every second

day the rules of prosody already explained are to be

reviewed briefly and rapidly, leaving the necessary

amount of time for explaining the other rules. After

finishing the review of grammar, prosody is to be ex-

plained every day, including the exceptions, the verse

forms and the rules that are given for the formation

of patronymics and accent.

 

In the first half hour of the afternoon the poet

or Greek author is to be recited from memory, while

the teacher looks over the marks of the decurions and

corrects either the morning exercises or the homework

not yet corrected. The following hour and a half is

to be divided between a review and a prelection of the

Latin poet and a prelection and written work in Greek.

A little more than half an hour is to be devoted to

Greek. The last half hour, or whatever remains of it,

shall be spent in a class contest.

 

Edited December 21, 2019 by 8FillTheHeart

[Shoes+Ships+SealingWax]

1 hour ago, 8FillTheHeart said:

The Ratio Studiorum describes exactly how they taught. It isnt a book of philosophy but methodology. I found this post that describes a brief portion of their day. 

So, just checking my comprehension here... the basic formation of a day, in today’s words, would look something like this?

Morning

Grammar review by recitation

Reading of great works followed by class discussion, quiz over newly learned materials, & composition assignment

Grammar lesson followed by grammar assignment

Class contest

Afternoon

Recitation of memory work

Latin lecture

Greek lecture, followed by written work in Greek

Class contest

*Grammar being understood to mean syntax, mechanics, linguistic devices, poetics & also memory work pertaining to the aforementioned. 

Edited December 21, 2019 by Expat_Mama_Shelli

[Little Green Leaves]

 

I'm curious about what "composition" would look like in classical education.

 

And I guess I'm also curious how you all think composition should be taught, in general. I notice a lot of people on these boards really hate the five paragraph essay but I haven't seen any explanation yet of why. Is it because it's taught in a cookie-cutter way? Is it because it's the only style of writing taught?

 

Edited December 21, 2019 by Little Green Leaves

[Shoes+Ships+SealingWax]

5 minutes ago, Little Green Leaves said:

I notice a lot of people on these boards really hate the five paragraph essay but I haven't seen any explanation yet of why. Is it because it's taught in a cookie-cutter way? Is it because it's the only style of writing taught?

For me, it’s the formulaic dryness of it. Language has the potential be dynamic, complex, & beautiful. 

My experience of written composition in public schools reduced language to a box-checking exercise. A topic no one would ever have willingly chosen was assigned. You were expected to address it with an introduction, five single-clause sentences each for three body paragraphs, and a conclusion that restated the introduction almost verbatim. Any deviation from the formula was marked off.

This standard largely reigned until high school AP literature courses, at which point a few “flourishes” were allowed & paragraphs or essays were expected to be longer... but there was little guidance to achieve that & many had become entrenched in the 5-paragraph format. There was no discussion of phrases, clauses, modifying word order or sentence length to increase interest. We didn’t have the shared vocabulary to discuss why some things worked in a composition while others didn’t, why some writing was better than other writing. Those of us who read broadly & frequently could often imitate better writing, but we didn’t really comprehend what we were doing. 

Even at the university level, my first-year composition professors were bogged down with teaching the class how to write complete sentences. *sigh*

I look forward to hearing others’ views re: what composition ought to look like, as we are in the thick of getting started with that! 

[Little Green Leaves]

4 minutes ago, Expat_Mama_Shelli said:

For me, it’s the formulaic dryness of it. Language has the potential be dynamic, complex, & beautiful. 

My experience of written composition in public schools reduced language to a box-checking exercise. A topic no one would ever have willingly chosen was assigned. You were expected to address it with an introduction, five single-clause sentences each for three body paragraphs, and a conclusion that restated the introduction almost verbatim. Any deviation from the formula was marked off.

This standard largely reigned until high school AP literature courses, at which point a few “flourishes” were allowed & paragraphs or essays were expected to be longer... but there was little guidance to achieve that & many had become entrenched in the 5-paragraph format. There was no discussion of phrases, clauses, modifying word order or sentence length to increase interest. We didn’t have the shared vocabulary to discuss why some things worked in a composition while others didn’t, why some writing was better than other writing. Those of us who read broadly & frequently could often imitate better writing, but we didn’t really comprehend what we were doing. 

Even at the university level, my first-year composition professors were bogged down with teaching the class how to write complete sentences. *sigh*

I look forward to hearing others’ views re: what composition ought to look like, as we are in the thick of getting started with that! 

Okay, that makes a lot of sense. So it's the WAY that the five paragraph essay is taught -- the rigidity of it and the bean-counting approach to sentence structure -- which is a problem.  Yeah I agree, that sounds terrible.

Many years ago I tutored remedial English students at a community college. Many of my students were intimidated by having to write at all. The basic structure of the 5 paragraph essay (thesis and supporting evidence) was really helpful; it took the mystery out of writing and gave them a clear way to structure their arguments. 

So I guess I think of the 5 paragraph essay as a good starting point. As writers grow stronger and more confident, they can branch out from it. I didn't realize that it was being taught in such a senselessly formulaic way.

I don't see any value at all to bossing students around about what kind of sentences to use, 

[Jackie]

1 hour ago, Little Green Leaves said:

 

I'm curious about what "composition" would look like in classical education.

 

And I guess I'm also curious how you all think composition should be taught, in general. I notice a lot of people on these boards really hate the five paragraph essay but I haven't seen any explanation yet of why. Is it because it's taught in a cookie-cutter way? Is it because it's the only style of writing taught?

 

 

Keeping in mind that I am *not* a Classical schooler, my objection to the five paragraph essay is that it is taught as a rule, not as a form. I think it can be a handy way to get started with essays as it gives students a format into which they can organize their thoughts. I think it is handy for teachers as a way to explain basic expectations for written work. However, once students have understood this one form, they need to move on to an understanding that an essay is meant to perform a function. People use essays to explain and persuade, and the essays should be set up in whatever way effectively accomplishes that goal, without an arbitrarily chosen number of paragraphs per essay or sentences per paragraph. If the instruction fails to move beyond the five paragraph essay, then the writing often fails to move beyond formula into an art.

[Bocky]

1 hour ago, Little Green Leaves said:

 

I'm curious about what "composition" would look like in classical education.

 

And I guess I'm also curious how you all think composition should be taught, in general. I notice a lot of people on these boards really hate the five paragraph essay but I haven't seen any explanation yet of why. Is it because it's taught in a cookie-cutter way? Is it because it's the only style of writing taught?

 

 

In classical education focusing on the study as Latin and Greek, as above, composition = writing in Latin and Greek. As a college classics major, I was expected to pay attention to style as well as having all grammatical elements correct. In Greek there was an emphasis on the Greek orators. For example, for my composition final exam in Greek at Masters level, I had to translate the Gettysburg address into Greek in the style of Isocrates.  

The most common composition assignment is to be given a piece of persuasive writing - my professors were partial to letters to the editor or newspaper editorial columns - to translate into Greek or Latin.

This sort of approach uses imitation of excellent examples of persuasive writing to teach composition. In the five paragraph essay method, structure is the focus; style is all but ignored in favor of a formulaic logical progression.

 

[domestic_engineer]

17 minutes ago, Bocky said:

This sort of approach uses imitation of excellent examples of persuasive writing to teach composition. 

 

In my mind, this imitation of the masters is a trademark feature of classical education.  Students study the great masters of a certain subject, then they imitate it, then they should be able to create great work.  

 Also, Socratic discussion is another key element of classical education.  (...as in using Socratic discussion rather than regurgitation or fill-in-the-blanks learning methods.)

[Corraleno]

2 hours ago, Expat_Mama_Shelli said:

My experience of written composition in public schools reduced language to a box-checking exercise. A topic no one would ever have willingly chosen was assigned. You were expected to address it with an introduction, five single-clause sentences each for three body paragraphs, and a conclusion that restated the introduction almost verbatim. Any deviation from the formula was marked off.

DS had to take a basic English comp class last year, which included a lot of "peer review" (don't even get me started on how useless I think peer review is in freshman comp!), and he was astonished, not only at how poorly most students wrote, but how formulaic their critiques were of his own papers. He would write a really excellent 2-page essay — well thought out, well argued, varied sentence structure, good transitions, etc. — and the critiques would be things like "you have too many supporting arguments, you should only have 3" or "the first sentence of your conclusion should be the same as the last sentence of your introduction." Oy.

I think the one thing that DS did as a homeschooler that contributed most to his understanding of what a good essay sounds like was watching tons of Great Courses lectures. Each lecture has the same basic structure as an essay: introduce the topic you're going to discuss, add some background, provide supporting evidence for your agruments, present and refute the counter arguments, mention questions or topics for further research, and summarize your conclusions. After watching hundreds of lectures, he totally internalized that structure, as well as learning a lot about academic style and vocabulary. That plus reading a lot of scholarly books (not standard HS textbooks) meant he entered college writing like an advanced college student, not a PS high school student. As an aside, as I mentioned in another thread, I do not think classical language study helped his writing at all, because his primary weakness as a writer is that he tends to write loooooong sentences full of clauses — exactly like all those Greek & Latin sentences he spent years translating. 

Edited December 21, 2019 by Corraleno

[Shoes+Ships+SealingWax]

46 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

This English teacher (not classical) teaches grammar through writing by uses phrases. It's not classical but you might find it interesting because of your comment about not learning about using clauses and phrases. The Write Way to Teach Grammar

I like how concise this is. It sounded very much like the way we have approached writing & I laughed when I scrolled down far enough to see Killgallon referenced - those books are a definite source of inspiration for me! 

We are using an amalgamation of Killgallon, Michael Clay Thompson, Writing & Rhetoric, & IEW to guide writing development... as well as possibly a commonplace book as he gets older because I think it could be an excellent tool for synthesizing all of the above as well as a way to support drawing from literature of his own choosing. 

[lewelma]

5 hours ago, Expat_Mama_Shelli said:

So, just checking my comprehension here... the basic formation of a day, in today’s words, would look something like this?

Morning

Grammar review by recitation

Reading of great works followed by class discussion, quiz over newly learned materials, & composition assignment

Grammar lesson followed by grammar assignment

Class contest

Afternoon

Recitation of memory work

Latin lecture

Greek lecture, followed by written work in Greek

Class contest

*Grammar being understood to mean syntax, mechanics, linguistic devices, poetics & also memory work pertaining to the aforementioned. 

Thanks for the summary!

It looks like English grammar study, memory work, and traditional foreign language learning. Totally not what I expected. I was picturing lots and lots of analysis of writing, rhetoric study, and high end composition. Does that come after the foreign languages are learned?

[lewelma]

7 hours ago, Little Green Leaves said:

And I guess I'm also curious how you all think composition should be taught, in general. I notice a lot of people on these boards really hate the five paragraph essay but I haven't seen any explanation yet of why. Is it because it's taught in a cookie-cutter way? Is it because it's the only style of writing taught?

From my point of view, the only use of the 5 paragraph essay is for summative assessment. Basically, it is a student-only form, and is not used in real life anywhere.  So why would we teach kids for years to produce something that is not to be found in any discipline?  You could argue that you are training them with a basic form and then build them up to be able to produce the forms seen in different disciplines, but that piece never happens and students are left with knowledge only of a student form.  

In NZ, the 5 paragraph is only used on timed exams (summative assessment).  However, writing is studied in all subjects (English, Geography, History, Statistics, Art History, etc) through forms appropriate to the discipline and audience. If you want to see a student attempt on a discipline-specific form, my younger ds's paper is still posted on the accelerated learners board (Thread: Bragging on my younger) . He was mimicking the National Geographic form. No five-paragraph essay in sight. And the thesis, although clear, is never stated as an academic thesis which is a part of the form he was mimicking. The rhetorical strategies he used are reasonably complex and were quite difficult to accomplish (for both him and me). We spent close to 10 hours studying and analyzing the form before he attempted to mimic it. In his essay, he was attempting to persuade by subtle emotional manipulation rather than clear cut argument. The difficulty was to determine who the audience was, what they might already know, and what their preconceived notions were. Then to use this to influence them to his position. 

ETA: I just copied his paper about 5 posts below this one. 

 

Edited December 21, 2019 by lewelma

[lewelma]

So I kind of assumed classical education in LA would be at an equally high level to what I have been trying to do. But what 8 listed is pretty low level stuff. Memory, comprehension, production of form. Ho Hum.

Do we have any true Classical educators among us who can explain this to me?!?!?  This is a neo-classical board, haha. 

[lewelma]

4 hours ago, Bocky said:

 

In classical education focusing on the study as Latin and Greek, as above, composition = writing in Latin and Greek. As a college classics major, I was expected to pay attention to style as well as having all grammatical elements correct. In Greek there was an emphasis on the Greek orators. For example, for my composition final exam in Greek at Masters level, I had to translate the Gettysburg address into Greek in the style of Isocrates.  

The most common composition assignment is to be given a piece of persuasive writing - my professors were partial to letters to the editor or newspaper editorial columns - to translate into Greek or Latin.

This sort of approach uses imitation of excellent examples of persuasive writing to teach composition. In the five paragraph essay method, structure is the focus; style is all but ignored in favor of a formulaic logical progression.

 

This is helpful. And your masters level final exam sounds tough!!!  Perhaps if all a student of the past was studying was English, Greek, and Latin and none of the modern subjects (science, math, economics), there would be time to make it to this level by the end of high school. That would clarify why people thought a classical education was rigorous! 

I do think that imitation of excellent examples is the way to make great writing.  In the first edition of the WTM, SWB had high school students study Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student by Corbett.  In it, he has 200 pages of writing to imitation in style and separately in argumentation. Stuff like MLK, JFK, or Rachel Carson.  Excellent pieces, which I plan to attack with my younger boy. This is far superior to a writing curriculum in my eyes (and I have read about 20!), and it is far superior than the modern method of trial and error in learning to write effectively. 

[lewelma]

3 hours ago, Corraleno said:

I think the one thing that DS did as a homeschooler that contributed most to his understanding of what a good essay sounds like was watching tons of Great Courses lectures. Each lecture has the same basic structure as an essay: introduce the topic you're going to discuss, add some background, provide supporting evidence for your agruments, present and refute the counter arguments, mention questions or topics for further research, and summarize your conclusions. After watching hundreds of lectures, he totally internalized that structure, as well as learning a lot about academic style and vocabulary. 

This is very interesting to me.  We have not used the GC lectures, but my dh has read high level books out-loud to our kids for years.  Even now, at age 16, my ds is listening to dh read Tom Holland's book "Crossing the Rubicon." Complex content for sure, but organized in a readable form.  Book before that was "Guns, Germs, and Steel," and before that was the Fangles Translation of the Odyssey in poetry.  I wonder if listening to great works is more powerful than analytical study because you absorb the form more deeply. 

[lewelma]

Oh, gosh. I am writing to myself. Haha.  One of the side effects of having your family in a different country than you at christmas.  Very quiet here. 🙂 

[lewelma]

2 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

This English teacher (not classical) teaches grammar through writing by uses phrases. It's not classical but you might find it interesting because of your comment about not learning about using clauses and phrases. The Write Way to Teach Grammar

My younger boy has dysgraphia and could not internalize any grammar rules.  His style was so advanced that it was impossible for him to punctuate it, and even to find where the sentences were.  In the end, in our effort to clean up both his spelling and his grammar, we used 30 minutes of dictation every day for 2 years when he was between 12 and 14.  I would read the sometimes long sentences in the proper chunks (phrases, clauses etc) for him to write down. Over and over again. Eventually, he began to hear how a sentence is put together, and then I went after naming the structures and explaining punctuation. We dabbled with Killgallon's High School book, and even just 5 days (one on each structure) was enough for him to internalize his options.  

Edited December 21, 2019 by lewelma

[Shoes+Ships+SealingWax]

33 minutes ago, lewelma said:

In his essay, he was attempting to persuade by subtle emotional manipulation rather than clear cut argument.

This sounds like a dangerous skill to develop! 😅

[lewelma]

1 minute ago, Expat_Mama_Shelli said:

This sounds like a dangerous skill to develop! 😅

Yup!  He wants to be a geographer, to tackle complex world problems.  Persuasion is key, and pathos is as effective if not more effective than logos. 

[Little Green Leaves]

19 minutes ago, lewelma said:

From my point of view, the only use of the 5 paragraph essay is for summative assessment. Basically, it is a student-only form, and is not used in real life anywhere.  So why would we teach kids for years to produce something that is not to be found in any discipline?  You could argue that you are training them with a basic form and then build them up to be able to produce the forms seen in different disciplines, but that piece never happens and students are left with knowledge only of a student form.  

In NZ, the 5 paragraph is only used on timed exams (summative assessment).  However, writing is studied in all subjects (English, Geography, History, Statistics, Art History, etc) through forms appropriate to the discipline and audience. If you want to see a student attempt on a discipline-specific form, my younger ds's paper is still posted on the accelerated learners board (Thread: Bragging on my younger) . He was mimicking the National Geographic form. No five-paragraph essay in sight. And the thesis, although clear, is never stated as an academic thesis which is a part of the form he was mimicking. The rhetorical strategies he used are reasonably complex and were quite difficult to accomplish (for both him and me). We spent close to 10 hours studying and analyzing the form before he attempted to mimic it. In his essay, he was attempting to persuade by subtle emotional manipulation rather than clear cut argument. The difficulty was to determine who the audience was, what they might already know, and what their preconceived notions were. Then to use this to influence them to his position. 

 

It's used for summative assessment in the US too. When I tutored English, students needed to pass a timed essay test in order to place out of remedial classes. By the time they came in for help, most of our students had taken the test and failed it a few times. So we were definitely teaching to the test, which is why we used a very bare bones version of the 5 paragraph essay. 
And you know, I not a fan of teaching to the test in theory, but I was left with a very positive feeling about how well that tool (the 5 paragraph essay) worked out for a lot of people. 

I know that's not the point of this thread. I'll look for your old thread, thanks!

 

[lewelma]

Here is an example of a NOT five-paragraph essay or even an expanded version of it.  My ds wrote it using what I would think of as more classical methods of imitating excellent writing and through rhetorical study. 

deleted

 

Edited January 5, 2023 by lewelma

[Corraleno]

On 12/21/2019 at 12:52 PM, lewelma said:

It looks like English grammar study, memory work, and traditional foreign language learning. Totally not what I expected. I was picturing lots and lots of analysis of writing, rhetoric study, and high end composition. Does that come after the foreign languages are learned?

I think the neoclassical approach to language in the so-called "grammar stage" (copywork, memorization, grammar drill, dictation) is very easy for homeschoolers to implement (assuming the child isn't frustrated and/or bored to tears, like mine, lol), so lots of parents are gung ho about "classical education" in elementary. Then they start to get a little worried when they get to the "logic stage," and many just deal with it by adding logic workbooks. Then when a lot of homeschoolers hit high school, they realize they have no idea how to teach "rhetoric," so they often either put their kids in school or farm out HS English to online courses. So that's why you will see lots of homeschoolers doing "grammar stage" language arts at home, but far fewer teaching "rhetoric stage" (at least in any way that resembles the classical version). And frankly, having read several texts that attempt to teach rhetoric in very old fashioned "classical" ways (narratio, partitio, confirmation, etc.) I have found most of them to just be a different kind of busy work, and not very relevant or helpful. For me, it was far more effective and efficient to learn what good, well-organized arguments sounded like by reading and listening to good, well-organized arguments, rather than plodding through the sorts of exercises that Greek boys might have done 2500 years go.

In addition to reading books and watching lectures, we also spent a lot of time discussing things — there was much more discussion than writing before about the middle of HS. To me, it's much easier to teach a bit of formatting to someone who already has strong skills in analysis and synthesis than it is to take someone who's spent years learning grammar by rote and logic from workbooks and teach them how to reason and argue at a deep level, so we focused on discussion and argument from day 1 and left the "rules" and formatting until much later. I happen to think Sayers' "ages & stages" concepts are total BS, and I never bought into the idea that young kids can only memorize and parrot information, not think deeply and abstractly. So by HS, DS was more than capable of formulating a well-organized and well-reasoned argument, and my input mostly focused on eliminating redundancy and overly-complicated sentence constructions, and increasing precision and conciseness.

The only outside course we used for English was a semester of Roman literature at the end of 12th grade, which had some really creative and clever assignments that involved imitating the style of various Roman writers. So, for example, for one assignment students had to take a love poem by Propertius and write a response, in the same style, but from the perspective of the woman the poem was addressed to, and another involved writing a Ciceronian prosecution or defense of a fictional character. He did a really outstanding job on those (A+ and high praise from the teacher on every assignment), even though he had never done anything like that before. I think he just had developed a very good "ear" for style and meter from all of his reading, plus he already had a firm grasp on argumentation, so he could afford to focus all his efforts on style, syntax, rhythm, etc.

Edited December 24, 2019 by Corraleno

[lewelma]

1 hour ago, mms said:

Ruth, I'm surprised you started this thread because your monster writing thread is a goldmine of classical composition resources. 

I know, right!! But well-respected people in the other thread stated that after listening to EM they gave up thinking they could create a classical education at home. That is just wasn't possible.  And I always thought that a classical education focused on LA.  I have read all the composition books from my monster thread all those years ago, and I understand the classical content.  What am I missing then that suggests that a classical education requires such high-end teachers that basically no one can do it?  Is it just the translating between multiple languages and reading the full cannon that separates it out?  Is the composition element not that striking?

My older boy had a humanities teacher in university tell him that his research paper was the 'best student paper I have read in numerous years.' This is a boy who didn't write anything but math proofs in 9th and 10th grade -- actually refused to write for any subject but math.  He is a deep reader and thinker, but I have come to believe that most of his proficiency in writing has come by writing math proofs! They are full of ordered thinking.  And my younger, who has dysgraphia, has picked up his language skills mostly through watching David Attenborough documentaries and reading fantasy novels. I have helped both of my boys become the excellent writers by working along side them to write and by providing ideas and feedback. I have been a co-writer, coach, and editor. We have worked side by side to analyze great works and have heavily scaffolding their writing for years.  So I use classical content without a classical approach. 

I guess what I am trying to figure out is what makes the classical approach different?  Is it students working independently to mimic great writers?  If so, why did EM think that the teachers were so high end that none of us could replicate their capability.  If the students were working independently, were the teachers just setting the assignments and critiquing the writing? *What* were the teachers doing that was so hard?!?!?

Edited December 22, 2019 by lewelma

[lewelma]

1 hour ago, mms said:

BTW, in the Jesuit schools one teacher was assigned to a class (or more accurately a form) for almost all their subjects.  There was no departmentalization of English, Latin, Greek, but one master teacher who took the students on an intellectual journey over the course of several years.  Thinking about this fact - what your son said, Ruth, resonated: I want to be my childrens' intellectual partner.  At the very least - as incapable as I am compared to y'all - I hope I can give them that.

 I will say that teaching my kids *every* subject has been an overwhelmingly beautiful thing. I will say that I finally gave up on Mandarin for lack of time, and I also gave up on my older boy's math once he got into the IMO camp, but the rest I have co-learned. Co-learning has allowed me to be exactly what my boy said, his "intellectual partner." And it has been fun because we have loved learning together, side by side on the sofa. It has brought us together in a way that me being his teacher/assessor never could.

And in the other thread when I said I was picking up my Latin again. Well, I did.  Just for me.  But then my ds, who actually doesn't like to work very hard, heard me listening the the audio for Wheelock's Latin.  And he came over and starting repeating all the words, and then my dh says "oh, that sounds like French," and speaks a few phrases he remembers from highschool. Next thing I know, my ds says "I want to learn French, let's do it together." Well, I about fell over.  This is a boy who I have had to pull tooth and nail through work for a decade, and now he is keen to do more?!?!  It was all because of modelling and co-learning. He saw my latin, heard his dad's french, and was interested to give it a go.  

Totally, off track from the thread.  But I guess it links back through the idea that Classical Education is rigorous, but I know it doesn't do co-learning because the teachers are top-down teaching content that they have mastered.  But I'm just not convinced of some great outcome from this method.  Boy, I wish EM was here. I'd love a good fight.  🙂 

New thread topic for after x-mas: ramifications of top-down vs co-learning teaching methods

Edited December 22, 2019 by lewelma

[lewelma]

1 hour ago, Corraleno said:

 And frankly, having read several texts that attempt to teach rhetoric in very old fashioned "classical" ways (narratio, partitio, confirmation, etc.) I have found most of them to just be a different kind of busy work, and not very relevant or helpful. For me, it was far more effective and efficient to learn what good, well-organized arguments sounded like by reading and listening to good, well-organized arguments, rather than plodding through the sorts of exercises that Greek boys might have done 2500 years go.

I love hearing about how you taught your boy. I think discussion is key.  And I really like the idea of going after argument from day one. 

As for the above quote, I too found the exercises in some of the 'classic' programs to be quite contrived.  When we talk about a true classical education, is that the method we are actually referring to?  I wonder if that was the writing education that EM had.  If so, it is not at all what I expected.  

I guess I have read that the founding fathers all had a pretty traditional classical education.  They were all wealthy and would have had private tutors from day one.  I some how thought they were doing something different than the narratio, artitio, etc. I kind of thought that the homeschool curriculum that have been designed with that approach were a throw back to 2000 years ago, but that by the 17thC a 'classical education' had been modernized a bit. But maybe not. 

ETA: I must be thinking about the Autobiography of Ben Franklin and how he described learning to write. By that was self-driven, not a product of a schooling situation.

Edited December 22, 2019 by lewelma

[lewelma]

2 hours ago, mms said:

the teacher's own erudition was so very important in classical schools of the past.  

 one master teacher who took the students on an intellectual journey over the course of several years. 

I think this is the key. To do a true classical education, you would need a masters degree in the Classics and in English. 

So basically, a classical education has 2 pieces:

1) Content: Latin, Greek, English cannon (classic poetry, drama, history, philosophy, novel), logic, and rhetoric

2) Method: top-down, teacher-driven.  The 'sage on the stage' model with a single teacher leading students on an intellectual journey through specific exercises designed to improve certain skills. 

So on this board, we have some people who do #1 (with some outsourcing) and some who do #2 (with different content), but no one who can pull off both at home on their own. 

Edited December 22, 2019 by lewelma

[lewelma]

3 minutes ago, lewelma said:

1) Content: Latin, Greek, English cannon (classic poetry, drama, history, philosophy, novel), logic, and rhetoric

2) Method: top-down, teacher-driven.  The 'sage on the stage' model with a single teacher leading students on an intellectual journey. 

Haha, quoting myself. 

I actually don't agree with either the classical model's content or method. Fascinating.  I'm not sure I realized how far I had drifted from when I first started homeschooling. 

[Corraleno]

26 minutes ago, lewelma said:

 I will say that teaching my kids *every* subject has been an overwhelmingly beautiful thing. I will say that I finally gave up on Mandarin for lack of time, and I also gave up on my older boy's math once he got into the IMO camp, but the rest I have co-learned. Co-learning has allowed me to be exactly what my boy said, his "intellectual partner." And it has been fun because we have loved learning together, side by side on the sofa. It has brought us together in a way that me being his teacher/assessor never could.

And in the other thread when I said I was picking up my Latin again. Well, I did.  Just for me.  But then my ds, who actually doesn't like to work very hard, heard me listening the the audio for Wheelock's Latin.  And he came over and starting repeating all the words, and then my dh says "oh, that sounds like French," and speaks a few phrases he remembers from highschool. Next thing I know, my ds says "I want to learn French, let's do it together." Well, I about fell over.  This is a boy who I have had to pull tooth and nail through work for a decade, and now he is keen to do more?!?!  It was all because of modelling and co-learning. He saw my latin, heard his dad's french, and was interested to give it a go.  

Totally, off track from the thread.  But I guess it links back through the idea that Classical Education is rigorous, but I know it doesn't do co-learning because the teachers are top-down teaching content that they have mastered.  But I'm just not convinced of some great outcome from this method.  Boy, I wish EM was here. I'd love a good fight.  🙂 

New thread topic for after x-mas: ramifications of top-down vs co-learning teaching methods

^^^ Agree with all of this.

My arguments with EM centered on two ideas: (1) that a rigorous education must, by definition, be very rigid and structured and top-down (she once posted that if she could change one thing about her own education, it would have been even more structured, with less choice!), and (2) that the "best" students can all learn that way, and if those methods don't work for them, then obviously they aren't as smart as they think they are and need to accept their lower place on the food chain. And the reason I continued to argue about those points was not because I thought there was a chance in hell of changing EM's mind, but because there were a lot of other parents, especially on the HS board, who were totally freaked out by her pronouncements of what constituted an acceptable, let alone rigorous, education. And at the other end of the spectrum, there were a lot of people on the K8 & logic boards who totally bought into EM's ideas — and then a lot of them disappeared when it came to HS and they suddenly realized there was no way they could replicate the kind of education that EM got in an elite, private, Italian school.

And there were a lot of miserable little kids whose stressed out parents were beating themselves up because they couldn't fit math and grammar drill and narration and dictation and logic workbooks and Latin study and SOTW activities and Henty read-alouds and nature study, blah blah blah, into a normal day without a 9 year old melting down in tears of frustration and exhaustion. But they were afraid if they didn't stick with it, keep imposing all that structured, top-down learning, their kids would end up as undisciplined, unintellectual "fachidiots."

When I see some of these old threads pop up again, one of the most striking things is that that whole little group of us who were not only arguing for a more "intellectual partnership" approach, but actually pursued that, now, a decade later, have all seen the fruits of our labor: extremely well-educated kids who are critical/analytical thinkers, good researchers, excellent writers, and often at the top of their classes in college. 

[Corraleno]

1 hour ago, lewelma said:

I know, right!! But well-respected people in the other thread stated that after listening to EM they gave up thinking they could create a classical education at home. That is just wasn't possible.  And I always thought that a classical education focused on LA.  I have read all the composition books from my monster thread all those years ago, and I understand the classical content.  What am I missing then that suggests that a classical education requires such high-end teachers that basically no one can do it?  Is it just the translating between multiple languages and reading the full cannon that separates it out?  Is the composition element not that striking?

My older boy had a humanities teacher in university tell him that his research paper was the 'best student paper I have read in numerous years.' This is a boy who didn't write anything but math proofs in 9th and 10th grade -- actually refused to write for any subject but math.  He is a deep reader and thinker, but I have come to believe that most of his proficiency in writing has come by writing math proofs! They are full of ordered thinking.  And my younger, who has dysgraphia, has picked up his language skills mostly through watching David Attenborough documentaries and reading fantasy novels. I have helped both of my boys become the excellent writers by working along side them to write and by providing ideas and feedback. I have been a co-writer, coach, and editor. We have worked side by side to analyze great works and have heavily scaffolding their writing for years.  So I use classical content without a classical approach. 

I guess what I am trying to figure out is what makes the classical approach different?  Is it students working independently to mimic great writers?  If so, why did EM think that the teachers were so high end that none of us could replicate their capability.  If the students were working independently, were the teachers just setting the assignments and critiquing the writing? *What* were the teachers doing that was so hard?!?!?

I don't think EM actually learned to write using the methods that are hyped in neo-classical homeschooling books and curriculum. She repeatedly said that, in her world, the point of learning Latin and Greek is to read literature in Latin and Greek, it's not a surrogate for teaching grammar and vocabulary and logic and writing. I think people tend to ignore the fact that she also studied a lot of European philosophy, and of course she would also have had many years of classes in Italian literature and composition, which I doubt included going through all the artificial motions of Greek composition exercises.

I don't remember if it was in this thread or one of the others going on right now, but a couple of people have pointed out that a LOT of the books and blogs and essays on "classical education" are heavy on talk of "truth, beauty, and goodness" and exceedingly light on implementation. I think the reason there is such a disconnect here, and the reason "neoclassical" education basically falls apart once you really get into the so-called "logic" and "rhetoric" stages, is that a "classical content" based education and a "neo-classical method" education actually have very little in common beyond an (often perfunctory) study of Latin. There is absolutely nothing "classical" about the "ages & stages" approach to education that Dorothy Sayers invented, which most neoclassical education methods build on. (She never taught, or even parented, a single child and she basically made the whole thing up.) There is nothing classical about a 4-yr history cycle, or reading (badly written and often racist/colonialist) historical novels. I think it was SpyCar who pointed out that most of what gets labeled as "classical education" in American homeschooling circles would more accurately be called a Neo-Medieval Christian education — but that doesn't have quite the same cachet and marketing potential as a "classical education" label.

 

[lewelma]

43 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

^^^ Agree with all of this.

My arguments with EM centered on two ideas: (1) that a rigorous education must, by definition, be very rigid and structured and top-down (she once posted that if she could change one thing about her own education, it would have been even more structured, with less choice!), and (2) that the "best" students can all learn that way, and if those methods don't work for them, then obviously they aren't as smart as they think they are and need to accept their lower place on the food chain. And the reason I continued to argue about those points was not because I thought there was a chance in hell of changing EM's mind, but because there were a lot of other parents, especially on the HS board, who were totally freaked out by her pronouncements of what constituted an acceptable, let alone rigorous, education. And at the other end of the spectrum, there were a lot of people on the K8 & logic boards who totally bought into EM's ideas — and then a lot of them disappeared when it came to HS and they suddenly realized there was no way they could replicate the kind of education that EM got in an elite, private, Italian school.

And there were a lot of miserable little kids whose stressed out parents were beating themselves up because they couldn't fit math and grammar drill and narration and dictation and logic workbooks and Latin study and SOTW activities and Henty read-alouds and nature study, blah blah blah, into a normal day without a 9 year old melting down in tears of frustration and exhaustion. But they were afraid if they didn't stick with it, keep imposing all that structured, top-down learning, their kids would end up as undisciplined, unintellectual "fachidiots."

When I see some of these old threads pop up again, one of the most striking things is that that whole little group of us who were not only arguing for a more "intellectual partnership" approach, but actually pursued that, now, a decade later, have all seen the fruits of our labor: extremely well-educated kids who are critical/analytical thinkers, good researchers, excellent writers, and often at the top of their classes in college. 

Well, I am super glad that you were there to counterbalance the other side.  I remember all the arguments, but I was too early in the journey to really understand the ramifications of the choices I was making.

I started as child-led unschooling, moved to a more top-down curriculum model, and ended up with Problem-Based Learning. Haha. Seen it all and tried it all.  🙂 

[lewelma]

19 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

She repeatedly said that, in her world, the point of learning Latin and Greek is to read literature in Latin and Greek, it's not a surrogate for teaching grammar and vocabulary and logic and writing. 

Thanks for pointing this out.  

I always thought a traditional classical education was about engaging deeply in ideas. Multum non multa. And to engage *authentically*, NOT small bitsy exercises.  This is why I have been a bit confused as to how the exercises of antiquity (narratio, partitio, confirmation, etc) connect to what I perceive of as a classical education with authentic interaction with great thinkers. Perhaps the exercises were used 2000 years ago with younger kids only, and now they are stretched out through high school content. Not super clear on this. 

[lewelma]

5 minutes ago, mms said:

Also, I would distinguish between curricula that are called "Classical Writing" or some such thing that use the Progymnasmata and historical classical composition.  The progymnasmata was used but it was a small part of the curriculum, not the center as it has become in neo-classical circles.  Nor was it started as early as the curriculum providers would have us believe.

Ah, we were writing at the same time. Yes, this is my understanding as well. 

[lewelma]

2 hours ago, mms said:

One of the things that occurs to me is also the fact that a qualified teacher is not tied to methods.  What I mean is that a method is useful for starting out but after that the teacher, well, just teaches kwim?  To a certain extent by studying all about how to teach composition and how it was traditionally done, by being a writer yourself and by knowing your own students you were able to take off and run with whatever was useful and discard the rest.  I think that really is key.  I bet you every classroom back in the golden age of classical education (whenever that happened, lol) probably looked different from the next because so much was dependent on the teacher and his relationship with his students. 

Yup.  It was because I bought and read and compared all those writing books and curriculum that I began to understand the scope of my goals and to understand the varying pros and cons to different methods. I also came to understand the poor writing instruction that I had received (well actually, no writing instruction). I remember back then that 8 kept saying that she didn't use a curriculum and she even tried to describe what she did in lengthy posts.  I still have some of those posts bookmarked, but at the time I just couldn't see how that would ever be me. But in the end I have come to understand that all the curriculum I used were crutches that eventually I didn't need, and that I could have left behind years earlier if I had just had the confidence to forge my own path.  I haven't taught with a writing curriculum in 5 years, and I am a better teacher because of it.  I can adapt to the child I have and teach what he is capable of learning in the moment of interest.  

I only have 2 kids. One learned to write through math proofs, and the other has dysgraphia so couldn't write at all. In hindsight I can't see how I thought a standardized curriculum would fit. 

[lewelma]

3 hours ago, mms said:

  And what EM did for me was open up a whole new world of rigor, lol.  So yes, you're right, I did burn out my (by then)  5 year old out of boredom and insecurities.  I wish I could laugh about that but it makes me very sad: DD11 is still paying the price for those bad decisions.

The impact of the board back then was to keep me mired in the breadth of a neo-classical education.  I tried to juggle way too many topics rather than just going deep in a few. Each subject seemed so important. How could I drop logic or latin or poetry and still provide a high-end rigorous education? Now, my younger boy does 3 academic subjects during our core 4 hours each day: Math (1 hr), Geography (2 hr), and Chemistry (1 hr).  He does violin practice on his own time and his dad reads history to him at night. We do LESS, and are not nearly a rigorous as I once aspired to be.  But then again, my older boy never lived up to my expectations of a rigorous education. I was always stressed that he did not do enough. And he is at MIT and has just been named a Burchard Scholar for excellence in the humanities.  So clearly, the board's definitely of rigor was pretty high, possibly impossible to obtain.  

Edited December 22, 2019 by lewelma

[Rosie_0801]

5 hours ago, Corraleno said:

I don't think EM actually learned to write using the methods that are hyped in neo-classical homeschooling books and curriculum. She repeatedly said that, in her world, the point of learning Latin and Greek is to read literature in Latin and Greek, it's not a surrogate for teaching grammar and vocabulary and logic and writing. I think people tend to ignore the fact that she also studied a lot of European philosophy, and of course she would also have had many years of classes in Italian literature and composition, which I doubt included going through all the artificial motions of Greek composition exercises.

 

Also, since her parents and grandparents had been educated the same way, she'd have been passingly familiar with a lot of this just from dinner table conversation. There is an awful lot of value in a foundation like that, a privilege you don't realise you have.

[lewelma]

1 hour ago, Rosie_0801 said:

Also, since her parents and grandparents had been educated the same way, she'd have been passingly familiar with a lot of this just from dinner table conversation. There is an awful lot of value in a foundation like that, a privilege you don't realise you have.

I am not high society, but both my parents have PhDs (and my dad also has an MD and a DMin). And I watched my mother earn her PhD over the decade from when I was 12 to 22. My grandfathers were a chemist and a general in WWII. So we had a lot of high-end dinner conversation and are an educated family. My father was high enough in the American government that at one point, everyone on this board would have been aware of his name. Basically, I have felt and still feel privileged, but I have also *sacrificed* for my kids' education both in my time spent and now in my money with university costs and a incredibly poor exchange rate.

Education is our top priority, even over jobs and money and status. Education leads to engagement in life, and that is our goal.  

Edited December 22, 2019 by lewelma

[lewelma]

My older boy asked yesterday if dh had read Rousseau. No, but he and my younger ds are currently reading about the collapse of the Roman Republic and the Political machinations at the end. I am listening the the GC lecture series on the Federalists vs the Antifederalists papers and Montesquieu's impact on the argument.  Guess what we will be arguing about on our 6 day tramp around the currently non-erupting volcano? 🙂   Education is a beautiful thing. 

Edited December 22, 2019 by lewelma

[Corraleno]

33 minutes ago, lewelma said:

The impact of the board back then was to keep me mired in the breadth of a neo-classical education.  I tried to juggle way too many topics rather than just going deep in a few. Each subject seemed so important. How could I drop logic or latin or poetry and still provide a high-end rigorous education? Now, my younger boy does 3 academic subjects during our core 4 hours each day: Math (1 hr), Geography (2 hr), and Chemistry (1 hr).  He does violin practice on his own time and his dad reads history to him at night. We do LESS, and are not nearly a rigorous as I once aspired to be.  But then again, my older boy never lived up to my expectations of a rigorous education. I was always stressed that he did not do enough. And he is at MIT and has just been named a Burchard Scholar for excellence in the humanities.  So clearly, the board's definition of rigor was pretty high, possibly impossible to obtain.  

...and possibly counterproductive in the long run.

Here are a few of the definitions of "rigor" from Merriam Webster: Harsh inflexibility in opinion, temper, or judgment... the quality of being unyielding or inflexible... severity of life, austerity... an act or instance of strictness, severity, or cruelty... a condition that makes life difficult, challenging, or uncomfortable... strict precision, exactness. Synonyms include adversity, difficulty, hardness, and hardship.

I'm looking to provide an education that is deep, meaningful, creative, and authentic, not one that is strict, inflexible, or severe. Academic work can certainly be deep and challenging without being tedious, painful, and overwhelming. EM used to argue vehemently against interest-led learning, claiming that kids who were allowed to follow their own interests would only ever choose easy, fluffy subjects, and would never learn to work hard or push themselves. I think the opposite is true: kids will often push themselves harder, and further out of their comfort zones, in pursuit of something that is genuinely meaningful to them.

[lewelma]

4 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

...and possibly counterproductive in the long run.

Here are a few of the definitions of "rigor" from Merriam Webster: Harsh inflexibility in opinion, temper, or judgment... the quality of being unyielding or inflexible... severity of life, austerity... an act or instance of strictness, severity, or cruelty... a condition that makes life difficult, challenging, or uncomfortable... strict precision, exactness. Synonyms include adversity, difficulty, hardness, and hardship.

I'm looking to provide an education that is deep, meaningful, creative, and authentic, not one that is strict, inflexible, or severe. Academic work can certainly be deep and challenging without being tedious, painful, and overwhelming. EM used to argue vehemently against interest-led learning, claiming that kids who were allowed to follow their own interests would only ever choose easy, fluffy subjects, and would never learn to work hard or push themselves. I think the opposite is true: kids will often push themselves harder, and further out of their comfort zones, in pursuit of something that is genuinely meaningful to them.

Sing it from the rooftops! 

[lewelma]

We need a new thread.  What does deep meaningful education mean if you reject rigor. Oh, I'm starting it.  This is fun. 🙂 

[lewelma]

19 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

...and possibly counterproductive in the long run.

Yes, and disheartening for me at the time. I never felt the education I gave my eldest was enough, and it led to lots of angst and soul searching.  Now, with my younger, I know my goals, and I know I am meeting them. There is much less insecurity and much more joy. This is because I understand what a great education is and how to implement it. My oldest was the guinea pig, my second is my masterpiece. I should have had more kids. 🙂 

[Xahm]

In some ways I like the Classical idea of teaching great writing by imitating those writers, before eventually breaching out on your own. I think that can be a great method to learn writing but also to learn humility. Look first to the skilled, not first to the random scribblings you made in your first grade journal. I went to a college which recruited many home schooled and private schooled individuals, so I met a disproportionate number of these and found that In practice, those I knew who learned by this method rarely achieved either great writing or humility by the end of high school, though some got smoothed out after freshman year of college. A few were good writers, but most were still imitating and were not skilled at choosing which aspects to imitate. For example, when attempting to write a newspaper article, one repeatedly wrote thousand word essays that hid their point at the end and used diction appropriate to a philosophical treatise, but utterly inappropriate to the job at hand. When given constructive criticism, he dismissed it out of hand, underling to see that there are different styles of worrying appropriate to different circumstances. Instead of humility, there was extreme arrogance. Students entering university studies after a "classical" education had been told of the superiority of their education for so long that they scoffed at anything that wasn't included in their version of classical. One boy told me Dostoyevsky was not a great author, simply based on the fact he wasn't in the Western Canon and hasn't been studied in this boy's program. All that experience makes me wary of "classical" education. I'm sure there are better examples than those I met, and there are aspects I will implement, but on the whole, nope.

[lewelma]

32 minutes ago, xahm said:

In some ways I like the Classical idea of teaching great writing by imitating those writers, before eventually breaching out on your own. I think that can be a great method to learn writing but also to learn humility. Look first to the skilled, not first to the random scribblings you made in your first grade journal. I went to a college which recruited many home schooled and private schooled individuals, so I met a disproportionate number of these and found that In practice, those I knew who learned by this method rarely achieved either great writing or humility by the end of high school, though some got smoothed out after freshman year of college. A few were good writers, but most were still imitating and were not skilled at choosing which aspects to imitate. For example, when attempting to write a newspaper article, one repeatedly wrote thousand word essays that hid their point at the end and used diction appropriate to a philosophical treatise, but utterly inappropriate to the job at hand. When given constructive criticism, he dismissed it out of hand, underling to see that there are different styles of worrying appropriate to different circumstances. Instead of humility, there was extreme arrogance. Students entering university studies after a "classical" education had been told of the superiority of their education for so long that they scoffed at anything that wasn't included in their version of classical. One boy told me Dostoyevsky was not a great author, simply based on the fact he wasn't in the Western Canon and hasn't been studied in this boy's program. All that experience makes me wary of "classical" education. I'm sure there are better examples than those I met, and there are aspects I will implement, but on the whole, nope.

The problem is that in their imitation that forgot the critical piece of good writing - understanding of purpose and audience. The example you gave targeted the wrong audience for sure.  I've said purpose and audience for so long now, that my younger ds will say 'well, before we start, what is the purpose and audience?' Then he knows to be an expert writer, he must tailor his writing to the purpose and audience! 

When we went for the National Geographic article I posted above, we went through four steps. 

First, we spent about 5 hours over 5 days reading many articles in the magazine and discussing them. The audience was the same for all of them, but the purposes were sometimes difficult to find as the genre hides the thesis and allows it to be constructed over the course of the piece by the reader.  This was critical to understand as it was a defining part of this genre, but it was the trickiest part to understand how to accomplish.

Second, we picked our favorite article and spent 5 hours over 5 days studying just that one piece of writing.  What was the purpose of each paragraph?  How did they link together?  How was thesis hinted at in each paragraph? How did they use symbolism? What made the piece cohesive? What type of paragraph was used - description, narrative, definition, cause/effect, circumstance? And how did the choice of technique impact the ability to make the point that paragraph was trying to make? Why did certain paragraphs come before or after others and how did that impact the development of the thesis? What was the style? Why was it effective? etc! Basically the standard of classical writing: argument, arrangement, and style.

Third, he outlined his paper using the exact paragraph purpose and type from his model, but inserted his content into the outline.

Fourth, he wrote the paper.  But interestingly, after the 4th paragraph, he decided to go his own way and leave the model and the outline behind.  At that point he had internalized this genre's form and was capable of making the critical rhetorical decisions without using another piece has his scaffold.

My understanding is that the approach described above is a classical model for how to learn to write in high school. We have done it for many different types of genres.  But where those students in your post went wrong is that they learned from only *one* type of genre (an ancient one), and then applied that learning to a different genre - the newspaper article.  What they failed to understand is that the *method* of studying and mimicking good writing is genre specific. Don't write a National Geographic article if you want to publish it in the Economist. Purpose and audience are key.

Edited December 22, 2019 by lewelma

[lewelma]

So the problem with the 5 paragraph essay is that it ignores purpose and audience, and focuses only only on form. 

If the purpose is to argue an issue for a test and the audience is a teacher giving you a grade, then purpose and audience of the traditional 5-paragraph essay matches the genre.  You have written an appropriate essay.

But if you are writing for any other genre, you need to study an example of great writing in that field and mimic that.  The 5 paragraph essay is never published because it is a school form. If you want to learn how to write, you need to find published examples to mimic.

Edited December 22, 2019 by lewelma

[8filltheheart]

34 minutes ago, xahm said:

. One boy told me Dostoyevsky was not a great author, simply based on the fact he wasn't in the Western Canon and hasn't been studied in this boy's program.

Teens arent authorities and this young man is simply wrong. There is an entire volume devoted to Dostoevsky in Britannica's Great Books of Western Civ. He is considered part of the Western canon. 

I am wary of making generalized assumptions based on small sample sizes. In my own homeschool, outcomes vary radically bc they are individuals, not stereotypes.

[Little Green Leaves]

37 minutes ago, lewelma said:

So the problem with the 5 paragraph essay is that it ignores purpose and audience, and focuses only only on form. 

If the purpose is to argue an issue for a test and the audience is a teacher giving you a grade, then purpose and audience of the traditional 5-paragraph essay matches the genre.  You have written an appropriate essay.

But if you are writing for any other genre, you need to study an example of great writing in that field and mimic that.  The 5 paragraph essay is never published because it is a school form. If you want to learn how to write, you need to find published examples to mimic.

I think the 5 paragraph essay has developmental value. I find it's a really useful tool for learning how to create an argument. 

We may mean something different by "5 paragraph essay" I guess. What I mean is the structure of thesis plus three supporting pieces of evidence.

To this day, whenever I sit down to start writing any kind of essay, I take a piece of paper and jot down a rough thesis and supporting arguments. It's an ingrained habit. I may not stick to any of those points when writing, or I may bury the structure. But I lean on that old tool. I don't think I'm the only one because I see that rough structure everywhere.

I think the 5 paragraph essay (if it's taught generously, loosely, without silly restrictions) is useful. Definitely not the only kind of writing students should learn. I think they should be learning by reading great writers and by imitating them; they should be taught a wide range of forms and techniques but there is also a place for the much-maligned 5 paragraph essay!

Edited December 22, 2019 by Little Green Leaves

[8filltheheart]

4 minutes ago, Little Green Leaves said:

I think the 5 paragraph essay has developmental value. I find it's a really useful tool for learning how to create an argument. 

We may mean something different by "5 paragraph essay" I guess. What I mean is the structure of thesis plus three supporting pieces of evidence.

To this day, whenever I sit down to start writing any kind of article, I take down a piece of paper and jot down a rough thesis and supporting arguments. It's an ingrained habit. I may even not stick to any of those points when writing, or I may bury the structure. But I lean on that old tool. I don't think I'm the only one because I see that rough structure everywhere. So I think of the 5 paragraph essay (if it's taught generously, loosely, without silly restrictions) is one way to practice that. 

It begs the question, why 3? And what about incorporating counterpoints that dont support your thesis that need to be acknowledged and addressed?

For a younger student or a struggling student, it can be a simple model for development, but it is far from a good example of academic writing.

FWIW, I think the 5 paragraph essay took root in high school bc of standardized testing. My siblings, my dh, and I were never taught the 5 paragraph essay. 

[Farrar]

I didn't exhaustively read through the thread, but I definitely have thoughts about the 5 paragraph essay.

It's... weird? interesting? that this thread went there first since obviously it's not the classical approach.

I do teach the 5 paragraph essay when I teach. And I do it because after years of seeing kids in class be a bit all over the map in terms of writing, I came to the conclusion that it is the best basic format to build from. Ruth, you're exactly right that it's not a real world format and that the audience is poorly defined. I'm super up front with students about that. Every single time I talk about it with students, I tend to say things about how as they grow as writers, they'll outgrow this format and break the "rules" it imposes. I always tell them that it does not need to have five paragraphs and that it's just a starter format. I especially talk a lot about how the format has a falseness to it because they're writing for a mystery audience who are a little bit thick and need everything defined for them. And I never just teach that - I do mix it up with other formats, other types of assignments. Like, I would never exclusively teach a 5 paragraph format.

But there are several things here. First, kids do have to write these on assessments and for other classes, so it's a format students going an academic route need to learn. Second, learning to write for a particular style, with particular conventions, is a useful skill - while it's a flawed format, I think the skills, if taught well, translate to learning to do that in other formats. And finally... I have tried to do some other approaches and not seen students who are struggling to understand how to organize their thoughts really move toward anything useful. I do think that students I've worked with who are more naturally able to emulate writing and organize their thoughts can potentially benefit from bypassing it - assuming they're not doing any of the assessments that need it (or that they circle around and just practice it a bit before they do). But I also don't think it kills them - not if it's not taught to exclusion and is taught in a flexible way. See, that's what I see as one of its biggest failings in the American classroom - teachers teach it and say things like, "Your thesis must always be the first sentence of your introductory paragraph." Well, that's just poor instruction immediately.

One of the problems I see with many of the more real formats that are out there don't allow students to write for content as effectively in a classroom situation. The classroom is already a false, not real world situation in which to learn a thing. You've got students studying history or geography or literature or what have you. You want them to process and organize and practice debating and researching and so forth around these topics through writing. So sometimes that can yield something that approaches a more real world writing situation. But people who actually write and argue around those topics out in the wild typically spend months and months on research. Or they write about personal experience. Those aren't options most of the time in the classroom - at least not in a classroom where the goals are around reading great literature, learning a survey of history or a social science, learning about science, etc. They could be in a course just about writing... And finding ways for them to be is positive. And students can and should do deep dives with research... But also, there are real benefits to survey courses. There are real benefits to covering a lot of ground so that you have the background knowledge to dive deep at some later point. So then there's only so much you can have to say. One of the things that I often tell my students about using the first person is that it's absolutely allowed... when you have something to contribute to the topic that is based in personal experience. If I give a writing assignment about African history... they probably just don't and that's okay.

[Xahm]

25 minutes ago, 8FillTheHeart said:

Teens arent authorities and this young man is simply wrong. There is an entire volume devoted to Dostoevsky in Britannica's Great Books of Western Civ. He is considered part of the Western canon. 

I am wary of making generalized assumptions based on small sample sizes. In my own homeschool, outcomes vary radically bc they are individuals, not stereotypes.

Very true. I was giving that as one example of the results I saw. I don't think that all students of the classics would be as arrogant as many of those I saw were, and I think that other types of education that promote themselves as The Best and Most Proper will lead to the same flaw.