The NPG group's decision to emphasize knowledge about language over
knowledge about error correction should not be taken as a sign that we
don't think the latter is important. Of course we want students to be
able to adhere to the conventions of standard English. The situation is
not one of "teach either A or B," however; instead, it's "understanding
A is a prerequisite to understanding B."
In the absence of a rich, "organic" knowledge of language and language
use, students have to approach the conventions of standard English as a
kind of confusing hodgepodge of unrelated things to memorize - it's
rather like what would happen in a math class if the relation between
division and subtraction were never, ever discussed. The goal - or at
least the hope - is that once a given level of basic understanding is
reached, the conventions can be discussed in a more compact and
effective way.
As an example, think of trying to explain the usage of 'whom' in formal
English to (a) a student who has no idea of what a subject or object is,
and (b) one who already knows (and is comfortable with) those terms. In
the first case, you're in for a long (and probably pointless) afternoon
of trying to get the point across. In the second case, you don't really
have to spend much time explaining anything; you just have to emphasize
the need for care when approaching sentences with multiple clause
embedding, etc.
The problem with trying to design materials to get a student from zero
to proficiency with standard English in fourteen weeks is that, in
practical terms, it can't be done. No one in math would expect a student
to go from basic addition to algebra in fourteen weeks; you have to
build a knowledge base for each step. The problem is not that teachers
can't lead students to full proficiency in one semester - it's that
school systems sometimes really expect this, or that a teacher faced
with students who are far short of being able to perform according to a
criterion that has to be met by the end of the semester (because whoever
is in charge of curriculum wrote that criterion but didn't work on the
ones for preceding grades) feels more responsibility than an outside
observer would weigh him/her down with.
Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University
________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Adams
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 11:31 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Scope and Sequence
In a message dated 7/31/06 8:49:57 AM, [log in to unmask] writes:
As a coordinator of the project, I would like to say first of all
that
I have no interest in simply affirming the value of Warriner's, or even
of an approach that says once people fix all their errors, they can
learn something interesting about language. From the first, our
position has been that knowledge about language is the primary goal,
and that "error reduction" is something that will routinely fall into
place if we aim at this higher goal. (Not at all discrediting
"correctness," just believing that it doesn't happen with a shallow
knowledge base.)
As a newcomer to this list, I want to thank Craig for his clarifying
message. When he writes, "from the first, our position has been that
knowledge about language is the primary goal, and that "error reduction"
is something that will routinely fall into place if we aim at this
higher goal," he clears up a certain puzzlement I've experienced in my
couple of weeks on the list.
I teach, primarily developmental writing courses, at a community college
outside Baltimore. Many of my students are bright and have interesting
ideas to express, but make so many errors with the conventions of
standard written English, that the effectiveness of their writing is
seriously compromised. And I have one fourteen-week semester to help
them get ready for college-level writing courses.
From my perspective, of the two goals--"knowledge about language" and
"error reduction"--error reduction seems much more urgent and much more
important to my students' success as writers in a world where writing
ability is an essential component of success. I, of course, recognize
that there is more to effective writing than control over the
conventions, but I also recognize that a plethora of errors in any piece
of writing will render it ineffective, regardless of its other
qualities. On the other hand, if I were working on the Scope and
Sequence Project, which I take to be a description of twelve years of
instruction, then I think I would be much more enthusiastic about the
position Craig describes.
I also see the value of "knowledge about language," by which I think
ATEG means something like the long list of terms Joanna posted a week or
two ago. In an ideal world, I would agree that providing that kind of
"knowledge about language" is a worthy goal, but in the real world my
students and I inhabit, I have to give priority to the more practical
and achievable (in 14 weeks) goal of helping them reduce the severity
and frequency of error in their writing.
I know there are some in our profession who share my goal and are trying
to develop, to use Rei Noguchi's term, a "writer's grammar," a grammar
that emphasizes just those terms and concepts that are necessary to
eliminate most errors. For example, the distinction between direct and
indirect objects is important in Latin, but not in English where there
is no difference in word forms in these two slots. So, I would leave
that distinction out of my version of a "writer's grammar." Joanna's
list includes more than sixty items; mine would include about a dozen.
I was particularly struck by Craig's pointing out that "from the first,
our position has been that knowledge about language is the primary goal,
and that "error reduction" is something that will routinely fall into
place if we aim at this higher goal."
I wasn't aware of that ATEG had made this commitment. I had
thought--without much actual knowledge to base this assumption on--that
ATEG was a "big tent" organization with members who agreed that the
teaching of grammar is important, but who might disagree about the goals
of that instruction and the means to accomplish it. The implication in
Craig's post seems to be that there are two approaches--the "knowledge
about language" approach and the "Warriner's" approach. It seems to me
that there is at least one more: an approach that recognizes the
weaknesses of the traditional approaches but that is trying to develop a
more enlightened way of teaching students a grammar that will empower
them to write successfully in the real world.
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/
|
