Geof's description of "sentence stuffing" matches what Faigley
called "sentence-construction" exercises. I read about it in the
Hillocks report and have sent for the original Faigley article. Hillocks
reports it as a very good, and a very promising study. He does not
indicate if the students in Faigley's project were (or were not)
required to use grammatical terms.
Several people advocated sentence-combining, but I have serious
questions about that. Have those of you who advocate it ever analyzed a
set of your students' papers to see what kinds of constructions (and
what variety of constructions) your students already use? Are you aware
of the research that indicates that the same results (in both length and
variety) can be obtained, in far less time, simply by asking students to
write longer (or more varied) sentences? Have you thought of the
possible harm that sentence combining exercises can have if they include
constructions that are not developmentally appropriate?
I love the way that Nancy Patterson regularly argues that grammar
should not be taught "systematically" and then, in one sense,
contradicts herself by noting that learning must take place in context.
A system IS a context, or at least requires one. I also wonder why,
although she talks about teaching grammar individually, to students
within the context of their own writing, she never gives any detailed
examples of how it works or what she teaches. She has noted, if I
remember correctly, that Connie Weaver is her grammar authority, but
Weaver's texts are all built on that traditional approach to grammar
that all the research has shown to be ineffective, if not harmful. Could
we have some specific examples, please?
As for my original request for help, I thank those of you who
suggested specific texts, especially the poems. (I want to add a few
analyzed poems to the KISS site.) As for my disturbing question, I'm
still bothered by the fact that so much of the discussion on this list
involves definitions of constructions and/or what people are doing in
their individual classes (at different grade levels). Shouldn't we have
more discussion about what we could do as a group, across grade levels?
If grammar is to be taught systematically, all the research (as well as
practical experience) indicates that it cannot be done successfully
within the span of one year. Several comparisons were made to the
teaching of math. Might I suggest that trying to teach a TOTAL
systematic approach to grammar within one year is comparable to trying
to teach students geometry to students who have not learned how to add
and subtract. In a systematic approach to grammar, one level is going to
have to build on previous levels.
I know that the 3S committee was working on a position statement
and that Brock submitted the idea to someone at NCTE. He received the
reply that indicating specific grade levels conflicts with NCTE policy.
I forwarded that message to Peter Feely, suggesting that it would kill
my book as well. His response was that my book simply poses suggestions
and it is backed by research and theory. That takes me back to the
Seattle conference where I suggested that ATEG should have two or three
different groups working on the curriculum. With two or three groups
suggesting different curriculum designs, perhaps NCTE could not take the
ATEG suggestions as advocating specific grade levels?
Ed V.
|
