I must add my agreement to the statements of Craig and Paul regarding the wonderful conference that we just concluded. It was filled with terrific presentations, stimulating discussions, and also disagreement (yet at all times cordial) over concepts, purposes, and--yes--terminology. It was a fabulous experience in every respect.
Also, I am not in agreement with those who feel that they are not welcome to post comments on this listserv, or with those who fear that others might "violently" respond to what they have to say. It is true that online forums occasionally render written words into tones and implied meanings that are unintentionally harsh, beyond what the writer wanted to convey, and people sometimes get their feelings hurt unnecessarily. But in comparison to other professional groups I have regular contact with, even within the English field, I have found ATEG to be a remarkably cordial and welcoming group. No one should feel unwelcome, and if you could have attended our most recent conference, you would have seen that demonstrated in a much more personal way.
As Paul said, in our efforts to reinvigorate grammar instruction in both the public schools and in the colleges, there will certainly and unavoidably be some disagreement among us as to methods, strategies, terminologies, and all sorts of other things. In some of these areas we are just in the beginning stages of formulating action plans and formal documents. Disagreements should not disturb us; they are the grist in the mill of progress, the motivation to press on, the impetus for more and better ideas, the stimulus that keeps us alert and thinking. (How's that for a good Christensen sentence, eh, Don Stewart?)
So, as Craig, in his usual eloquent and gentle way, said, let's not be sidetracked simply because we are not at this point in 100% agreement about everything, especially terminology. This year's conference made amazing progress toward some very worthy goals. Let's build on that foundation and move forward.
Tim
Tim Hadley
Research Assistant, The Graduate School
Ph.D. candidate, Technical Communication and Rhetoric
Texas Tech University
Editor, ATEG Journal
________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Paul E. Doniger
Sent: Tue 7/18/2006 12:52 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: ATEG conference, Scope and Sequence project
If anyone thinks we are "drifting back to the NCTE perspective on grammar," perhaps it would have been a good idea to attend the recentl ATEG Conference and listen to Martha Kolln's eloquent keynote speech. Such an experience would have disabused you of this very wrong notion. We agree to disagree about terminology and perhaps methodology, but we very much are making strong efforts to reinvigorate grammar instruction in both the public schools and in teacher education.
Paul E. Doniger
----- Original Message ----
From: Eduard C. Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 10:04:30 AM
Subject: Re: ATEG conference, Scope and Sequence project
Ed,
I have to agree with you. It seems that this group has lost its focus
and is drifting back to the NCTE perspective on grammar. There is an
amazing confusion concerning the metalanguage of grammar, or what you
call a " specific set of defined terms." Grammar perspectives are all
mixed-up into a hodge-podge of traditional, structural, generative,
cognitive and anti-grammatical dogmas. A forum participant even wrote
in a post that he did not know what grammar was.
What is worse, I believe, is that there is no discussion openness in
the forum. People sent messages to me stating that they were afraid
to post on the forum because they were afraid of the violent reaction
they would get from a few individuals who believe that they have a
monopoly on the exchange of ideas.
Quite often discussions drift into linguistic diatribes which I don't
believe benefit in any way those who struggle to put together a
coherent approach to teaching grammar in public school. I wonder
sometimes what are the "experts" in Linguistics doing on this forum
which is dedicated to the "good old grammar." If they want to engage
in deep linguistic discussions, why don't they post on the Linguist
List, or some other specilized linguistic forums? I am a member of
the Linguist List, and I go there for linguistics. On the other hand,
I come here for practical suggestions teachers and instructors need
when they teach English Composition.
I recognize that some messages I posted on the forum have not been
very friendly, but the vicious reaction to them and the fact that
from that moment I became a persona non grata is evidence to me that
the forum has lost its fundamental scientific characteristic - the
free circulation of ideas, and open participation and coooperation
among its members.
If 20 years of existence and activity of this forum has had so little
effect on the grammar education of teachers and instructors, what is
that we should expect from the future when there appears to be less
and less consensus about the major objectives and approaches to the
goal of changes the current anti-grammarian perspective in the NCTE
and in the American education in general?
Eduard
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Edward Vavra wrote...
> I basically lost interest in this group (even though I'm
primarily the one who started it), at the first Seattle conference *
when there was the first serious discussion of scope and sequence. At
that conference I suggested that ATEG establish three, perhaps four
distinct groups, each of which could develop a named scope and
sequence, based on a specific set of defined terms. It does not make
any sense to have one group that considers infinitives to be clauses
and another that considers them to be phrases, both working within
the same scope and sequence, and both claiming that they are
teaching "grammar." Most members of this list realize that there are
fundamental differences among traditional, structural,
transformational, etc. grammars. Put them all in one "grammar" pot
and the public has an indigestible mess--the current state of affairs.
> Let me note here that I would have been (and to a certain
extent still am) open to changes in KISS terminology, but none of the
members of ATEG has shown any specific interest in working with me.
Indeed, I started the newsletter and the first conferences with the
idea of getting suggestions and improvements for KISS.
> As long as this group refuses to make such distinctions, it will
fail. In effect, it is speaking and writing nonsense (as I understand
Hobbes to call it), since different members use the same terms to
refer to different constructions, and different terms to refer to the
same constructions. Clear definitions are first principles of
philosophy and of the natural sciences. It amazes me that this group
cannot understand that.
>Ed
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
