How I Teach Outlining*
Friday, March 11, 2011 at 11:54AM The Goobs are first introduced to outlining in the Rod & Staff Building Christian English Series. Rod & Staff does a fine job of teaching how to outline and how to write a composition from a prepared outline. The problem is that the outlining exercises themselves are really too simple to do much good. They are very short and well organized and fit the “perfect outline” format. You might be wondering, “Well, why would that be a problem?”
It’s a problem because real life isn’t like that. Few, if any, authors write with the goal of following the perfect outline format presented in Rod & Staff English. I want my Goobs to be able to outline anything. So, I turned to The Well-Trained Mind by Jessie Wise and Susan Wise-Bauer. (I know I talk about The Well-Trained Mind a lot. I’m not trying to start a cult, really. I just love their methods for English and history.) This is the basic process:
- Start with one-level outlines.
- When those are mastered, move on to two-level outlines.
- When those are mastered, move on to three-level outlines.
- If the kid can explain his choice of points, don’t nitpick.
- Do 2-3 outlines per week.
- Do not outline fiction.
At the beginning of 5th grade, I sit down with a Goober and pull out the year’s science or history text. (For this example, I’ll use DK’s History: The Definitive Visual Guide.) The Goober is naturally suspicious; what fresh hell is this? I read the first paragraph aloud, and I say, “Okay, Goober. What is the most important idea in that paragraph?”
The Goober says, “The Celts weren’t a cohesive people.”
I say, “Okay, that is an important part of the paragraph. But how many sentences do they use to talk about how the Celts weren’t a cohesive people?”
“Um, one.”
“Right. What are the rest of the sentences in the paragraph about?”
“Um, their common culture.”
“Okay, so the Celts weren’t a cohesive people, but they did have a common culture.”
“Yeah.”
“And the common culture is what the paragraph devotes the most sentences to.”
“Yeah.”
“So what is the most important idea in this paragraph?”
“The Celts weren’t a cohesive people.”
“Okay. Why do you think that is the most important idea?”
“Mom, if they were a cohesive people, it wouldn’t be a big deal that they had a common culture.”
“Okay. I feel you, dawg.”
The Goober relaxes; there’s no “right” answer, I’m not going to argue with him, this is just another one of Mom’s pointless conversations about history. Then I spring it on him:
“Let’s write that down.”
“Nooooooo!”
“Oh, it’s not so bad. Look.”
I. Celts not a cohesive people
The Goober relaxes again; Mom is going to do the writing, and besides, it’s just an outline. Outlines don’t even require complete sentences! We move on to the next paragraph, repeat the process, and end up with:
I. Celts not a cohesive people
II. Celts spread across Europe by 200 BCE
The Goober is feeling pretty good at this point. This is the simplest outline ever: the one-level outline. This is awesome. We continue reading through the text, and eventually our outline looks like this:
I. Celts not a cohesive people
II. Celts spread across Europe by 200 BCE
III. Celts lived in tribes
IV. Celtic mythology featured an afterlife
V. Celts skilled in metalworking
VI. Celts were warriors
VII. Celtic culture survives today
Easy, right? Well, sure, when Mom is there. As soon as I expect The Goober to complete one on his own, the lowly one-level outline becomes the most tedious, pointless, and difficult piece of writing EVER. I ignore all the drama, of course, and continue to expect The Goober to produce 2-3 outlines each week until the one-level outline is thoroughly mastered. How do I know The Goober has mastered the one-level outline? When he can consistently produce one without bursting into tears over the injustice of it all.
When that happens, we move on to the two-level outline. I sit down next to a Goober, pull out his history text (he’ll be on a different page by now, of course, but I’m using the same outline for demonstration purposes), and read the first paragraph.
“Goober, what’s the most important idea about this paragraph?”
“The Celts weren’t a cohesive people.”
“Yep. Now, are there any other important ideas that talk about (support) that main idea?”
“Um, they were united by a common culture?”
“Yes! Let’s write that down.”
“Nooooooo!”
The Goob relaxes as he sees that I’m the one doing the writing. And it’s just another outline! He can handle this. It’s not bad at all.
We go on to the next paragraph, and the next, and eventually our outline looks like this:
I. Celts not a cohesive people
A. Had a common culture
II. Celts spread across Europe by 200 BCE
A. Sacked Rome in 4th century BCE
B. Sacked Delphi in 279 BCE
III. Celts lived in tribes
A. Tribes had heirarchical structure
B. Tribes were separate
C. Separate tribes connected by common culture
IV. Celtic mythology featured an Afterlife
A. They believed in an “otherworld”
B. Stories were told orally
V. Celts skilled in metalworking
A. Used iron for weapons
B. Used gold and bronze for art
C. Designs borrowed from different cultures
VI. Celts were warriors
A. Much effort put into weapons
B. They had horses
VII. Celtic culture survives today
A. Celtic languages spoken
Now The Goob is expected to come up with two-level outline on his own, 2-3 times per week, until he stops crying about it and is ready to graduate to the three-level outline, which, after a process much like the ones above, might look like this:
I. Celts not a cohesive people
A. Had common culture
1. Lived in tribes or clans
2. Were nomads or lived in villages
3. Were warriors
II. Celts spread across Europe by 200 BCE
A. Sacked Rome in 4th Century BCE
B. Sacked Delphi in 279 BCE
III. Celts lived in tribes
A. Tribes had heirarchical structure
1. King
2. Noble-warriors and priests
3. Commoners
4. Druids
B. Tribes were separate
1. No political unity
IV. Celtic mythology featured an afterlife
A. They believed in an “otherworld”
1. “Otherworld” was parallel to natural world
2. Filled with spirits and monsters
3. close ties to nature
B. Stories were told orally
1. Celts were illiterate
2. Mythology and epic poems recited
V. Celts skilled in metalworking
A. Used iron for weapons
1. Shields, swords, and spears
B. Used gold and bronze for jewelry
1. Gold torcs
2. Bracelets
3. Brooches
C. Designs borrowed from different cultures
1. Greeks
2. Etruscans
3. Scythians
VI. Celts were warriors
A. Much effort put into weaponry
1. Ceremonial weapons
2. Decorative shields
3. Body painting
B. They had horses
1. Chariots used in battles
VII. Celtic culture survives today
A. Celtic languages still spoken
1. Brittany, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Isle of Man
After The Goob has proved capable of writing a three-level outline without crying, hiding, begging, pleading, refusing, or threatening to run away and join the circus, I change things up a little bit. The Goober will only write one three-level outline per week, but he will then write a summary of the passage using just his outline for reference.
“Noooooooo!”
Yes. After he writes the summary, he should check it against the original piece, making sure he included all important points. The summary should be in his own words, with very few “borrowings” from the original text. (Sometimes a Goober with a good memory will write the outline in his own words, but when he writes the summary, a nice turn of phrase from the original work will pop into his head. He’ll use it, not consciously plagiarizing, but plagiarizing all the same. This is why checking against the original piece is so important.) The Goober hates me for this at first, and there are more histrionics, but he will thank me later when he starts studying for college exams and doing formal research. (That’s the answer to the question I know you’re dying to ask: Yeah, but what the hell is all this for?)
Anemone has recently graduated to three-level outlines. She has been doing very well up to now, but this week she ran across a two page spread in History: The Definitive Visual Guide about the scientific revolution. About two hundred years of scientific progress are crammed into a very short article; I think it just overwhelmed her. Here is the outline she wrote. (You can definitely tell where her interests lie; notice how briefly she treated astronomy, and how much detail she tried to pack into the biology section.)
I. New way of scientific thinking in the 1500s
A. Church reigned supreme in religious affairs and “natural philosophy”
B. Arab scholars continued to develop Greek ideas
C. In 18th century, failings exposed in many areas
1. new method of philosophy established
II. Knowledge Explosion
A. Printing press
1. rapid spread of information
B. Discovery of Americas
1. exotic plants found, cultivated in botanical gardens
2. new specimens became important part of explorations
C. Growing interest in novelty undermined reliance on ancients
1. classical geographers had nothing to say about new lands
2. scholars had no choice but to investigate for themselves
III. Written in Stars
A. Galileo Galilei discovered four moons orbiting Jupiter
1. showed Earth not center of all motion
B. Galileo observed moon-like phases of Venus
1. showed Earth must be orbiting the Sun
C. Johannes Kepler developed set of laws
1. showed planets follow elliptical orbits around Sun
IV. Advances in Biology
A. Discovery of text by Galen in 16th century intrigued Flemish anatomist Andreas Vesalius, who discovered Galen never dissected humans
1. Vesalius’ De Humani Corporis Fabrica inspired generation to continue study of anatomy
B. Galen thought blood rose and fell in body
1. William Harvey announced valves in blood vessels only worked in one direction
a. discovery met with fierce resistance
i. with no connection between arteries and veins, it relied on invisible capillaries
ii. recently invented microscope allowed observation of capillaries, confirming supremecy of new method of observation, experiment, and deduction
There are all SORTS of problems with this outline. For one, it’s much too wordy, and the words used are most definitely not her own. Her main points are simply the titles of the sections within the article. She ignored several important details in the astronomy section. She would never be able to write a summary of the first paragraph with that sketchy outline. There are capitalization issues. In short, it’s an epic fail. I can’t accept this as written, but if I sent her back to fix it on her own, there would be angst and drama and bleeding eyes, and I don’t want that. So what I’ll do is sit down with her and go over the three-level outlining process again. I’ll read the original text aloud, and I’ll do all the writing. We’ll compare her first outline with the outline we’ll do together, and she’ll try again next week.
Sometimes homeschooling is hard.
*This post was written in response to a question from Deb of Not Inadequate. Blogging for Deb is turning into a full time job! Keep the questions coming, Deb. I could talk about homeschooling all day long.




