Craig, et all,
I have two separate thoughts to relate based on recent postings:
1. Regarding error correction, as a high school English teacher, I too am faced with many errors in student writing that inerfere with everything. But it becomes abundantly clearer to me every year that a large percentage of students' errors are the result of rushing through deadlines, last minute work, and a severe lack of proofreading. I marvel at how much better student writing can be when students take the time to go through the whole process (yes, process is a loaded word, I know). I think most students are capable of better than they give. Naturally, there will still be some error on proofread papers, but not so many dibilitating ones, and perhaps the majority of errors would be more logical and easier to repair.
Granted, I do run across an ocassional student who claims to have proofreadand still not be able to make corrections (although most, when confronted, will admit to being rushed or not bothering to spend the time). However, this student, if he or she is not being disingenuous, is rare. Also, on the college level at least, most of these problems could be dealt with in writing labs, where the student can get one-on-one instruction. At my school, we have writing conference time built into our teaching schedule (probably a rare thing in high schools), but not enough students take advantage of the time. Those who do conference, however, solve many of their errors before handing in final papers.
2. In regard to this and Craig's earlier posting, I think we need to keep the S & S conversations on the ATEG list and not move over to the NPG list. Frankly, I don't really understand why we need to have a separate group since the membership and goals are almost identical. If there are those who would derail the process or offer nothing but negativity and doomsaying -- or those who threaten flight if their ideas are not dominant, then we can simply ignore such naysayers and move on with the work we need to do. Silence can be deadly to those who wish to engage in angry discourse. We can even follow Ed's suggestion and have separate groups working on different approaches or subgroups -- the internet makes it very easy to do such things: Off-list contacts; the delete button; and subject headings are three useful tools to help us accomplish our task. But I hope to see the task done under the broad tent of ATEG. And once again, I call for us to bring more K-12 teachers under
that tent.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Paul D.
----- Original Message ----
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2006 11:21:20 AM
Subject: Re: The Purpose of the ATEG List
John, (Peter),
You speak for me enormously well. It seems to me the two projects
might even be mutually supporting. For those who say "I need a short
term solution", we can say that this is not at all an either/or choice.
>For someone who objects to short term thinking, we can say we have
made recommendations for a long-term solution.
I have been workiing on a short-term solution for some time, even
promising a few times that I was getting close, and I feel that way
again; I'm rewriting the curriculum in my own program for next summer
in ways I tried out this time through. We need to embrace knowledge,
reclaim context, and give a deep enough base of understanding to handle
standard English and standard discourse conventions. Once you begin to
understand how hard that is for a teacher in Peter's position (or
mine), inheriting underprepared students that need to be brought
quickly up to spped, we have an even greater case for much better
preparation in the public schools.
The big enemy right now, I think, is the myth that it's all about
error, that conscious knowledge isn't needed (or useful), and that this
knowledge is simply "acquired" while attention is on other things.
Maybe a few people do OK with that, but the vast majority of students
are not well served. Peter is to be commended for being very open about
this problem. I think a task force is a wonderful suggestion.
Craig
Peter,
>
> I, like you, work with adult products of the current little-to-no-grammar
> ELA philosophy. I, like you, work to develop a writer's grammar for them,
> while at the same time appreciating the need for greatly improved K-12
> grammar instruction in the future. ATEG is supportive of both goals.
>
> I don't mean to speak for Craig--he can, and probably will do so very
> eloquently. However, I will say with great confidence that the text that
> you quoted was not directed at people like us at all. Instead, he was
> trying to move the scope and sequence project past an inertia caused by
> the
> occasionally strident bickering of a very vocal, but very small minority
> who
> refuse to respond to cogent counterargument or refuse to move on when
> their
> position isn't widely held.
>
> I have been with ATEG and this listserv for four years now and have
> learned
> much from the discussions and profited greatly from the conferences. ATEG
> is, as Craig calls it, a very broad tent, welcoming a wide variety of
> views. I, like many others here, wrestle with the same problems that you
> do. You are a clear and welcome voice for us.
>
> John
>
> On 8/6/06, Peter Adams <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> I found Craig Hancock's recent post about the discussion on this list
>> very
>> helpful in understanding what this list is "about," but it also left me
>> with
>> a question.
>>
>> Apparently, ATEG has agreed on "knowledge of grammar" is the prime
>> goaland that the development of a recommended "scope and sequence" for
>> grades K
>> through 12 or perhaps through 16 is the way to accomplish this goal.
>>
>> I find the arguments for this position impressive, and, if I knew more
>> about the approach, would endorse them enthusiastically. I do worry a
>> little that the project may become encumbered with too much terminology,
>> too
>> many new terms in place of more familiar (if less accurate ones), and
>> too
>> much depth of analysis. But perhaps these concerns will prove to be
>> unwarranted.
>>
>> However, as I have made clear in earlier posts, my concerns are
>> different. I am not opposed to the emphasis on "knowledge of grammar"
>> as a
>> goal for long term instruction in the school system. In fact, I agree
>> that
>> its success will go a long way toward solving the problem I am concerned
>> about: that the writing of many adults I teach at my community college
>> is
>> marred by serious and frequent errors in grammar, punctuation, and
>> usage. A
>> long-term project to emphasize "knowledge of grammar" in our schools
>> will
>> not help this generation of students, and it is they that I am focused
>> on.
>>
>> In the few weeks I have to assist them, I need to focus on helping them
>> reduce the error in their writing (and, of course, work on other large
>> writing issues like focus, coherence, development, and organization--but
>> on
>> this list I want to focus on the grammar issues). To make progress on
>> this
>> task, I think my goal should be developing a minimalist
>> grammar--emphasizing
>> those terms and concepts that are helpful in mastering control over the
>> conventions of formal writing.
>>
>> What I hope to find on the ATEG list is others who would like to discuss
>> strategies for doing this. I would like to discuss questions like the
>> following. What would constitute such a "writer's grammar"? How might
>> such
>> basic concepts as subject and verb, sentence and independent clause be
>> explained more clearly than the way they are in traditional handbooks,
>> which
>> my students find incomprehensible. How might students be encouraged to
>> transfer whatever we can teach them about eliminating error into their
>> own
>> writing?
>>
>> However, I wonder if I've come to right place when I read Craig's
>> observation that, "*The Scope and Sequence I would like to help work on,
>> the one endorsed by the ATEG conference, takes 'knowledge of grammar' as
>> a
>> prime goal. Once that is set in motion, then anyone who believes that
>> conscious knowledge is not important or that traditional grammar already
>> solves all our needs should simply work on a different set of goals or
>> get
>> out of the way." And later when he adds, "* If someone interrupts to
>> say
>> that this is not important to them, so it shouldn't be important to us,
>> or
>> that traditional grammar never included it, then the work can't get
>> done."
>>
>> Please note that I have no objection to Craig and others working on
>> their
>> goals, but I am startled by the suggestion that my having a different
>> goal
>> means I am "getting in the way" and "interrupting." The ATEG web site
>> states that "ATEG, an Assembly of the National Council of Teachers of
>> English, is a national forum for discussing the teaching of grammar, and
>> welcomes all views on the role of grammar in our schools." If, in fact,
>> it
>> has been decided that this list is a place to discuss the "knowledge of
>> grammar" goal and others are not welcome, I would appreciate that being
>> made
>> explicit.
>>
>>
>> Peter Adams
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Peter Adams
>> 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/
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/
|
