ATEG Archives

January 2001

ATEG@LISTSERV.MIAMIOH.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Pam Dykstra <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 8 Jan 2001 10:30:43 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (148 lines)
Hi Pat and Gretchen,
I  teach developmental writing at a community college.  I am not sure if this fits
the grammar/linguistic approach you are looking for, but here is what works for my
students.

1.  I begin with the differences between talking and writing.  During the first
class, I ask students which they would rather do: talk or write.  Then I ask
Why?   The discussion uncovers many differences between talking and writing, one
of which is that they have different structures.  I explain that we talk in chunks
of information, stringing them along until we have gotten our point across.  We
write in sentences.  This is important for students to know because it explains
why they write fragments and runons: they are writing the way they talk. When
talking, many phrases and clauses can stand as complete thoughts; when writing,
they are fragments.  A run-on is simply stringing along information, often by
connecting ideas with the words and and so, and then using a period when they have
completed that thought.
 As an aside, this writing-talking framework is helpful throughout the course.
When we talk, the person is right with us.  When we write, the reader is absent,
necessitating the writing conventions.  We need punctuation (readers need to know
how our ideas connect and where they begin and end),  correct spelling (we know
what word we mean, but readers don’t), paragraphing and clarifying rambling
discourse (readers cannot keep track of our ideas and will be confused or bored).

2. I then teach how sentences work.  A sentence has two parts: a subject and
predicate.  The subject gives the "who or what.”  The predicate gives the "what
about it?”   This simple formula helps them dissect and understand all kinds of
sentences.  For example, "Whatever goes around comes around.”  This would confuse
most of my students if I asked them to find the subject and verb.  Asking them to
find the subject (who or what) and the predicate (what about it) helps them see
these words as a sentence.

3. I use the image of a bicycle.  A subject and predicate connect (without a
comma– one of my basic writers’ errors) to form a stable structure.  That stable
structure can hold a variety of additions: on the front, in the middle, or at the
end (starters, interrupters, enders).  We mark these additions with commas because
readers need to know where the additions begin and end.  Readers are always
looking for the subject and predicate so they can understand the point of the
sentence. The commas help them see the core sentence, the bike.

4.  We then practice a variety of additions that can be added to the bike,
including -ing additions, -ed additions, and definition additions.  Understanding
how sentences work helps my students improve their writing, and according to them,
their reading.  Much of this can be found in The Rhythms of Writing, which I must
be honest, I wrote.  You can get a free desk copy at Houghton Mifflin.  Hope this
helps.

Pam Dykstra
South Suburban College
South Holland, Illinois

Gretchen Lee wrote:

> Hi Again,
>
> I should have added to my previous post (asking for grammar curriculum) that
> I will be forwarding the posts all you experts send in to her/NCTE unless you
> tell me that you object to this in your post.  There was quite a bit of
> enthusiasm on NCTE about the whole idea, and several people asked to me to
> share anything you advise Pat.
>
> Okay, folks.  You have the attention of some English teachers.  Have at it!
> Just let me know if you object to me forwarding anything you post.
>
> Thanks again,
> Gretchen in San Jose
> [log in to unmask]
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Setting up a Grammar Class
> Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 18:36:16 EST
> From: [log in to unmask]
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Hi, Everyone,
>
> A friend of mine is setting up a grammar class at the high school level.  She
> is planning on it being a class on analyzing the language - not a
> grammar-to-improve-writing class.  I've pasted her post to NCTE (with
> permission) here and am requesting any advice you have for her.  She's not
> sure how to structure the class.
>
> What should a high school grammar/linguists class curriculum look like?
>
> Thanks,
> Gretchen in San Jose
> *************
> Jan, LouAnn and others,
>     I will send you stuff as soon as I know what I am doing.  I mean, I
> know I am going to be teaching grammar, and I know we will cover
> sentence structure, fragments, run ons, simple, compound, complex,
> compound-complex and try to write a Henry James sentence (Or Jack
> Kerouac sentence for that matter).  Also all sorts of phrases, clauses,
> verb and pronoun usage, general usage problems, coordination and
> subordination and other logical type stuff.
>     Just thinking of how to approach it.  I want to incorporate technology,
> use the friday writing and still see that the kids learn what they want
> to learn.  I am thinking of jigsawing some of the information so that
> certain groups become "experts" and present to the rest of the class.
> Might be where we can incorporate  technology there.  Powerpoint etc.  I
> think, in light of Brenda's thread, the friendly little gerund deserves
> his own web site don't you?
>
> Pat Schulze in SD who is getting ideas as I type this.
>
> Louann Reid wrote:
> >
> > I agree that when students want to learn something they will, and that's
> one of
> > the key features of the class Pat describes--besides Pat's own spirit and
> > enthusiasm, as Jan points out.  Another key feature is that grammar is being
> > taught just as I believe it should be--as a study of language structure to
> > students able to deal with that kind of conceptual thinking.  Too often the
> > debate over teaching grammar focuses only on the qualifier that such
> teaching
> > has little effect on writing.  I agree that teaching grammar in order to
> improve
> > students' writing has probably not been worth the time it takes.  HOWEVER,
> > teaching grammar so that people will understand their language ought to be
> > highly effective.  Good luck and keep us posted!
> >
> > Louann
> >
> > Monica Bomengen wrote:
> >
> > > Jan posted,
> > >
> > > <<PATS! - send syllabus/lesson plans or post on your web page or let me
> send
> > > you postage! I'm interested in seeing how you tackle this.
> > >
> > > I think what may make the difference in this is that kids are choosing to
> > > sign up for it, rather than having it thrust upon them. That--plus your
> own
> > > special spirit and enthusiasm--will make it work just fine.>>
> > >
> > > Absolutely correct.  When kids WANT and NEED to learn something, they'll
> > > seek it out.  What a great thing, that 30 kids signed up for this course.
> > >
> > > Monica B
> > > ______

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/

ATOM RSS1 RSS2