Ed Vavra wrote:
> Wheeler (I guess we are no longer on first-name basis) assumes
> that I make a number of assumptions and then "upon this foundation of
> ignorance" I hurl accusations. Well, I may hurl accusations, but I'm
> not so sure of the ignorance part.
Well, Ed. When someone accuses me of being "irresponsible and
unethical," they declare themselves no longer in the friend domain.
Besides, your email required professional response, hence the
professional demeanor.
>
> The fundamental problem with Morenberg's approach is that ten
> week is simply not enough time for current students to develop an
> effective conscious command of syntactic structures.
We are on the semester system. Hence 15 weeks, not 10.
> Wheeler writes, "Thus, while it is indeed untested, I suspect that
> students engaging in such life-long (K - 16) discovery learning of
> language structure would indeed emerge with a 'strong analytical grasp
> of sentence structure.' Nobody ever claimed such mastery would emerge
> after one semester." But the future teachers that Wheeler is teaching
> were not brought up in such an environment. They have almost no
> conscious analytical sense of grammar when they enter their college
> courses. Indeed, it would not surprise me if many of these students
> think, as many of my Freshman do, that "of" is a verb, and "is" is
> not. In effect, what I am asking is if she has any proof that they
> have it when they leave her courses?
performance on exams would show that, and does.
>
> If we want these future teachers to believe that syntax is
> systematic, and that a knowledge of it will indeed help them and their
> students, the first thing we need to do is to convince them of that
> fact. And the only way to do that, I would suggest, is to give them as
> much control of the "system" as possible.
completely agreed. Have you worked with Morenberg's book, Ed? I got to
it after Herb Stalke recommended it, saying that his students could
command any sentence thrown at them afterward.
> Take, for example, the question of clauses. It is fairly easy to teach
> students definitions and the ability to identify clauses in "selected"
> sentences. Teaching them to untangle the clause structure in any
> sentence that their students may read or write is quite another
> matter. It takes much longer, and it requires going over numerous
> texts, randomly selected by the students, as well as by the
> instructor. But without such an analytical ability, the future
> teachers will find themselves unable to effectively apply what they
> have learned in any of the courses taught by people on this list.
my courses consistently rate in the top 2% nationwide for critical
thinking, as shown on the IDEA assessment tool.
>
> Wheeler claims that what she teaches "goes to challenge their
> erroneous, and damaging presumption that there is one and only one
> 'proper English' and that all others are flawed, imperfect renditions
> of the Standard. Students emerge from Language & Teaching
> understanding at a deep and personal level that the structure of
> language varies by time, place, audience and communicative purpose,
> knowledge which they then are able to use with their students to help
> students code-switch between language
> varieties in their speech and writing." Challenge, it may. Convince,
> I'm not so sure.
> Of course they will tell her that they are convinced. She is giving
> the grades.
actually, what DO you know, about this, Ed? Flat out nothing. You're not
in my classes, you don't know how I engage with my students. And frankly
you appear utter lacking in curiousity.
> I would suggest that this "lesson" can be taught much more
> economically, in terms of time, and I still question her students'
> final ability to discuss, intelligently, such things as clause
> structure in any text
You do realize that you are bringing this up in the context of the class
that is not geared to teach clause structure.
>
>
> As I think I noted in my original post, when there was a debate
> in Syntax on main ideas in main clauses, several teachers told me that
> the entire discussion was beyond them because they did not understand
> clauses. Similarly, from something I read, teachers in England
> complained about their new standards because the teachers themselves
> could not understand clauses. Most of these teachers had been required
> to take a course in grammar, perhaps even two courses. The problem, I
> think, is that too many of the people teaching teachers insist on
> "teaching" lots of stuff that is interesting (for the "professors"),
> or that fits an ideological/politcal framework.
And what ideological/political framework inheres in a 300 level class in
which students learn linguistic techniques to analyze the contrast
between spoken and written language, the very contrast which turns up
repeatedly as kids write in the cadences of speech?
-
signing off on this.
rebecca
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Rebecca S. Wheeler, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Linguistics
Department of English
1 University Place
Christopher Newport University
Newport News, VA 23606-2998
Telephone: 757-594-8891
Fax: 757-594-8870
Rebecca S. Wheeler is Editor of Syntax in the Schools, the quarterly
journal of the Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar (ATEG), an
assembly of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
www.ateg.org.
Research Interests:
* dialects and language varieties in the schools,
* reducing the achievement gap between inner city minority children and
middle class children,
* discovery learning of grammar in the classroom
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
