Ed,
   I wanted to say amen to the following, though more about writing
teachers in general than about those on the list:
"One of the things that makes me laugh (and cry) about this group is that
many members admit that students cannot master basic grammatical
constructions in one year, but all members seem to be interested only in
what they can teach in one year or semester."
   It is also very painful to have students show up in college knowing
very little and have such a short time to work with them. "What can you
do in a single semester" is a legitimate question, but it seems crazy
that we don't, as a discipline, think more in terms of what can be
accomplished K-12.
   It's interesting, too, that the studies of effectiveness of grammar
instruction also seem short term in scope, often a single semester in
which one group studies grammar, another group practices writing, and
then both are tested in writing. It's not hard to predict that the
group that practiced writing will do better. But the conclusion
routinely reached is that this proves that time is better spent on
writing.
   It would be interesting to have a study on whether knowledge about
language is useful for successful writers. I don't think that has ever
been done.

Craig
>


John, Bill, and Craig;
>      A teacher of fifth graders (who was and may still be on this list)
> suggested that I waste my time in addressing this list. That was
> several years ago, and helped me break the habit. Craig's comments on
> scope and sequence were the only thing that I have seen (in years)
> that is relevant to the major problems of teaching grammar in K-12.
> Thus I responded. I'm never sure whether people who respond to my
> comments just don't get it, or whether they intentionally start red
> herrings. I'll try briefly again.
>
>
> 1.       ATEG should support basic SEVERAL NAMED scope and sequence plans.
> Each plan should be centered on at least basic agreement on definition of
> terms. I'm trying to restrain myself here, so I'm not saying what is in my
> mind. Instead I'll simply say that those of you who advocate variety in
> definitions are being selfish and don't seem to care that teachers and
> students in K-12 do not want different names/definitions for the same
> thing. A "main clause" should not include subordinate clauses in one
> classroom and, in the next year's classroom, include them. An infinitive
> construction should not be called a "phrase" in one year, and a "clause"
> or "clausid" in the next. Those of you who think it should are, in
> essence, tickling your own toes. Consistent terminology enables students
> to use that terminology to discuss style and logic. KISS, for example,
> encourages exercises in which students statistically analyze their own
> writing. At the basic level, this can be for words per main clause and
> subordinate clauses per main clause. (These are two of the basic units of
> measurement suggested by  Hunt, O'Donnell, and Loban.) But if in one year
> main clauses to not include subordinate clauses, and in the next year they
> do, such studies would be nonsense. Note that these statistical studies
> have the students analyzing their own writing and comparing it to that
> from state standards documents and to that of their classmates. In KISS,
> teachers can begin this type of project in fourth grade and do one or more
> every year thereafter. See:
> http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/kiss/wb/LPlans/G04_WB_Write.htm#Stats_4th.
> With consistent terminology, in later years students working within KISS
> can add to their analysis such things as the embedded level of clauses,
> semi-reduced clauses, appositives, gerundives, etc.
> I've seen members of this group talking about teaching style, but in most
> cases I'm fairly certain that the instruction is largely sterile. In
> simplistic sentences students may be able to follow, and even do the
> exercise(s). But if the students cannot even identify the subjects and
> verbs in their own writing, they will have trouble transferring what has
> been taught to their own writing. And students who have major grammatical
> problems already in their writing will almost certainly add more problems
> as they try to incorporate the new material into their writing. (It would
> be interesting to know who on this list teaches writing as well as
> grammar. Most writing instructors are probably familiar with what I'm
> talking about. Teach a lesson on semicolons to join main clauses, and
> semicolons start appearing everywhere in sentences. Ask the students to
> identify the main clauses, and they can't.)
>
> 2.       "Power plays" are precisely what is needed to improve the
> teaching of grammar. My guess is that most members of ATEG would agree
> that there is a lot of useless (harmful?) instructional material in the
> classrooms. ATEG is not going to get rid of it if all the members do is to
> continue babbling about definitions. (I'm beginning to think of the group
> as the "Grammar Grannies.")
>
> 3.       I would support ATEG, even if it did not include the KISS
> Approach within its (several?) sequence plans, if ATEG starts to develop
> sequence plans. What constructions should be taught first, next, etc., and
> why? The suggestion of starting with main clauses is, I would suggest, not
> satisfactory. This too is a common problem in ATEG. Members want to
> "teach," but they do not really care what students "learn." To understand
> main clauses, to be able to use that understanding, one has to be able to
> identify main clauses in the first place. How are you going to enable
> students to do that?
>
> 4.       Note that by supporting SEVERAL NAMED plans, ATEG would
> forcefully be saying that there are different ways of looking at grammar.
> The group itself does not have to support any plan over the others. The
> power play comes in the acceptance of the plans by teachers and parents.
> The scope and sequence plan that works best should eventually displace the
> nonsense that is currently out there (and the ATEG plans that don't work
> well). (I'm including KISS in that.)
>
>
> As I think  I mentioned once before on this list, I've got a lot of work
> yet to be done on the KISS site, but the basic layout is fairly set, some
> printable books are already available, and it should not take too long
> before at least one complete book is ready for each of the five KISS
> levels. Once that is done, I intend to devote some of my time to articles,
> perhaps a book about the teaching of grammar. My initial thought for a
> book title was "Deadly Grammar Instruction."  Part of the book would
> explain why it is deadly. As it stands now, ATEG is among the killers. I
> would, of course, like to see that change. Stop thinking about yourselves
> and your own brand of grammar, and start thinking about how to help
> students. One of the things that makes me laugh (and cry) about this group
> is that many members admit that students cannot master basic grammatical
> constructions in one year, but all members seem to be interested only in
> what they can teach in one year or semester.
>
> Have a Merry Christmas and Happy New year.
> Ed
>
>
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander
> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:29 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: scope and sequence: was clause or phrase
>
> I think Bill makes some great points. Although I can sympathize with Ed's
> great frustration over the lack of consistent terminology, I can't help
> but feel that the myriad of approaches to grammar is an asset. Sure, it
> feels like a strike against us sometimes, but it is a testament to the
> fact that grammar, as an aspect of language, IS more than a single,
> codified rulebook of etiquette. Trying to pretend like we've been able to
> package a nice and neat grammar package for teachers (even if we were able
> to) seems like a slight of hand, pulling the teachers'/students'
> attentions away from the gray and ugly areas we don't want them to see.
>
> All of my students, whether they be high schoolers or teachers-in-training
> at the college level, squirm when they get a glimpse at the reality of
> data/corpus-backed grammar. They squirm a lot. They ask for an answer
> (singular) for each term, each construction analysis, etc. After a
> semester (a meager beginning), they stop asking for the answer (although
> I'm sure they still wish for it -- even I do that). They begin to realize
> that answers depend on approaches, context, and usage. I never claim to
> run a model classroom, but one thing I am proud of is honesty with my
> students, and in the case of grammar, that honesty tends to lead to
> constructive teaching opportunities.
>
> Having said that, I certainly understand and advocate the need for some
> semblance of consistency in terminology from a pedagogical perspective,
> especially in a spiraled curriculum that would take a student from
> elementary studies to advanced high school studies. I remain optimistic
> that ATEG can offer such consistency. It would depend on concessions and
> compromises from different theoretical camps as Bill points out. I think
> it would also depend on a commitment to teaching flexibility (i.e.
> emphasis on concept, not the label used to describe the concept) as a part
> of the curriculum. A student who is aware that language ain't easy is much
> more prepared for grammar than one who goes scrambling for a delineated
> rulebook at every turn.
>
> John Alexander
> Austin, Texas
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Spruiell, William C
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> Ed, Craig, et al.:
>
> To some extent, what we're seeing is exactly the same process that
> resulted in Britain (and the U.S.) never having the equivalent of the
> French Academe, i.e. a "legislated" grammar of the language. France and
> Spain created their academies via a kind of top-down approach:
> regardless of what other grammarians thought, if the King liked you, you
> won. The British -- and we -- are grammatically Whiggish. Lack of a
> legislated grammar isn't necessarily a bad thing, but of course, it does
> cause problems in relation to curriculum.
>
>
> The solution may lie in a more open discussion of the process by which
> we work than by arguing from the start over specific terms. We'll be
> successful if we can reach consensus, but consensus (as we've seen) will
> *never* occur when it appears as if one person's, or one camp's,
> definitions and model are being proposed to the exclusion of others.
> Arguing in favor of any one approach, be it KISS or any other, can come
> across as a power move. There *are* multiple definitions of "clause,"
> and each is valid to the extent it works well within the approach that
> defines it -- but we do need to pick one if we want to define a scope
> and sequence, even loosely. We all have to realize we have emotional
> investments in our own positions, and be willing to attempt to back off
> from pushing too much.
>
> As I mentioned in a previous post, I think there's not *too* much
> disagreement over claims like "this construction is different from that
> one"; where the disagreement comes in is the terminology we attach to
> the difference, and the explanations we propose for it. We have to deal
> with terminology no matter what, but it's possible to adopt a more
> agnostic approach to the explanations (and yes, I realize fully that
> arguing for an agnostic approach is itself an approach, but I can't
> think of any other way out of this particular Klein bottle). From the
> standpoint of K12 grammar, it's enough that we recognize that
> constructions *are* different, and that we have some handy terms to use.
>
>
> It's possible that we could reach consensus on particular terms on the
> basis of pedagogic utility. I'd argue that a three-way split of "phrase
> vs. reduced clause vs. full clause" is handy in the classroom, since
> students frequently don't want to lump "giving Athelfrith some lutfisk"
> together with "a book." But I'd be willing to back down on that,
> especially if a lot of other people disagreed with me. We just need an
> organized way of resolving that kind of dispute, and (on an individual
> basis) be willing to accept compromises. Optimally, the same basic
> category terms would be used in 2nd and 11th grade, but with additional
> recognized subcategories at the higher grade levels.
>
> Bill Spruiell
> Dept. of English
> Central Michigan University
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On
> Behalf Of Edward Vavra
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 5:51 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: scope and sequence: was clause or phrase
>
> Craig,
>    Your post is very interesting, but it does not go far enough. I
> would say that ATEG is a dangerous organization. (There are times when
> I'm sorry that I started it.) Your explanations for the "hiatus" are
> good, but they underemphasize the self-interest of many of the ATEG
> members--their desire to defend their own brands of grammar. Are the
> numerous "explanations" ("clause or phrase") not poisonous for teachers
> and students? The major problem with instruction in grammar is the
> confusion in the terminology, but members of ATEG cannot even divide
> into sub-groups to establish different scope and sequence designs. Nor
> it seems, can they agree that students at a given grade level should be
> able to identify the clauses in typical writing by students in their own
> grade level. (A major part of this problem is that members cannot agree
> on the definition of a clause.)
>     I basically gave up on ATEG after the first Seattle conference. (I
> believe it was in 2000?) At that conference, I suggested two or three
> separate groups (for different designs), but that was shot down. ATEG
> was going to make one "scope and sequence" design. We can see, almost a
> decade later, how that worked out. I remember pouting at the conference.
> (I'm a little boy at heart.) Meanwhile, of course, a decade's worth of
> students have gone through school with minimal, and usually poor
> instruction in grammar.
>    I decided that ATEG is useless, or actually harmful. In that it
> claims to be teaching grammar, it appears to fill a void. But all it
> really does is add to the confusion. As you know, I've been spending my
> time on the KISS curriculum -- a very definite "scope and sequence"
> plan. http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/kiss/wb/PBooks/index.htm
>    Thanks for bringing this question up, but I really don't see ATEG
> developing one plan, and it appears that members are afraid of the
> competition that would result from several plans.
>
> Ed V.
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On
> Behalf Of Craig Hancock
> Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 11:35 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: scope and sequence: was clause or phrase
>
> Richard,
>   Scope and sequence is in a bit of hiatus. This might be a good time
> to talk about the reasons for that and the difficulties around doing
> that through ATEG.
>   My own frustration dates back to two conferences ago, when I thought
> we would make great progress on scope and sequence at the conference. My
>
> plan, which I thought was agreed on by the conference committee, was to
> break into subgroups and have people make suggestions about what might
> be covered. We could have a sub-group making recommendations about
> Standard English, punctuation, and so on, focusing on the knowledge
> about language that wold be most helpful and useful. I was hoping people
>
> would then feel a vested interest in  the project. There was resistance,
>
> though, from different sources. Some people questioned whether ATEG, as
> a sub-group of NCTE, should be taking a position on grammar at odds with
>
> our parent organization. That conflict of interest has been a constant
> issue in ATEG, and I don't fault anyone from bringing it up. One result
> was that we largely used our time to construct a position statement
> asking NCTE to endorse the systematic teaching of grammar. The position
> statement, which I thought was very thoughtful and nicely written, was
> simply tabled at the NCTE convention. In other words,  ATEG tried to
> work through official channels as a sub-group of NCTE, ibut was stymied
> by those who feel they know more about this than we do and who, in
> effect, control our existence as an organization.
>   The other problem came from those at the conference, including the
> leadership, who feel that scope and sequence already exists and that we
> have no need to construct one. My own tendency has been to lobby for new
>
> ways of looking at grammar, but ATEG has long been an organization made
> up of people with fairly conservative (not regressive, not by a long
> shot) views.  This was hard on me because I felt I had a lot invested in
>
> the project, but would be asked to shut out from the conversation the
> new possibilities in grammar that excite me the most.
>   But let me give a more friendly view of that. Many of us involved in
> the project have written books on the subject, and you can't really do
> that without engaging the issue in ways that you feel invested in. What
> happens if the group advocates a scope that doesn't fit those views?
>   I sometimes feel I am shooting myself in the foot every time I move
> on in my thinking because I have a 2005 text that now constitutes an
> older position.
>   This might be a way of saying that those of us who know the most tend
>
> to have an investment in particular approaches. For ATEG as a whole,
> those approaches have probably already been written.
>   As many of you know, much of the conversation about scope and
> sequence was worked out by the New Public Grammar group. I have never
> wanted that group to be in conflict (to compete with) ATEG. So at that
> point, I didn't even feel comfortable airing these frustrations on the
> NPG list. I was, and still am, nervous about creating a rift in the
> public grammar community. I didn't want anyone to feel I was trying to
> pull people away from ATEG.
>   The unfortunate result has been that Scope and sequence hasn't moved
> forward for some time. A few of us have been in discussion about
> starting it back up again as we restart talk on the NPG list.
>   NPG has the benefit of being separate from NCTE. It can take a strong
>
> contrary perspective and not feel uncomfortable about that.
>   It can also maintain friendly relationships with ATEG without the
> necessity of ATEG endorsing its views.
>   I apologize if I have  misrepresented anyone's views or anyone else's
>
> views about the history of the project. I don't think of it as anyone
> being at fault. These are very predictable difficulties given the nature
>
> of the project.
>
> Craig
>
> 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/