Craig, 

you write that

>there were reasons why the old grammar was called into
>question. The teaching of writing is now much, much better than it 
>was when the prime focus was on correcting error. A good deal of 
>grammar instruction has been inaccurate (descriptively) and somewhat 
>arbitrary and dysfunctional (prescriptively), not well connected to 
>meaningful writing or a meaningful interaction with text.

The reasons why grammar teaching was banned by NCTE was not due to 
improper teaching methods or issues related to descriptive 
innacuracies, but on the basis of pseudoresearch which seemed to 
indicate that grammar is essentially and fundamentally harmful to the 
intellectual development of the students no matter how is taught. 
Again, it is amazing that the "old grammar" which is blamed so much 
for all sorts of "evils" is still good abroad, and produces excellent 
writers, even though the methods of instruction are not the best. 


Any explanation, please?

Eduard 



On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Craig Hancock wrote...

>Herb,
>
>   Amen to your thoughts on polarization.
>   I think the proposal for a "certification" program SEEMs like an
>attempt to derail scope and sequence, and I'm saying that in the hope
>that we can disagree clearly and directly and respectfully when we 
do.
>Scope and sequence is an ongoing project; is it failing? If it is, 
that
>might be because there is a great deal of difficulty moving ahead 
with
>such a disparate group. Do we need a certification program, along
>Phil's lines (not too exuberant or youthful, not closely connected to
>writing and literature, much more conservative and traditional than 
the
>path we were taking) to replace it and fold it in? If so, let's 
address
>that issue directly.
>   I think that there were reasons why the old grammar was called 
into
>question. The teaching of writing is now much, much better than it 
was
>when the prime focus was on correcting error. A good deal of grammar
>instruction has been inaccurate (descriptively) and somewhat 
arbitrary
>and dysfunctional (prescriptively), not well connected to meaningful
>writing or a meaningful interaction with text. In good conscience, I
>can't go to my colleagues in composition and say we have decided that
>Warriner's has been OK all along, and we want to test you to see if 
you
>know what's in there before you can continue to teach. We would be
>simply extending the contentiousness from our group to the larger
>field. We would be saying, in effect, that there was nothing of
>substance in the movement away from grammar. It would seem like a war
>against reading and writing from the grammar side.
>    The path we were on--a fairly careful rethinking of traditional
>grammar, with attention to how grammar might be integrated into
>reading and writing in a substantive way--I believe has the potential
>to win over converts. It would also offer a systematic approach (both
>scope and sequence) for any group interested in that kind of advice.
>We can certainly make recommendations for teacher training, both
>long-term (for new teachers) and short term (for current teachers not
>well versed in the field, often through no fault of their own.)
>   The conference enthusiastically endorsed the program with a clear 
sense
>of its direction and its goals. It may very well be that the ATEG
>membership doesn't buy into that approach. If so, lets say so openly
>and directly.
>   Are we too polarized to come up with a consensus? That was Ed 
Vavra's
>prediction when we started this talk. If that's the case, we don't
>necessarily need to feel bad about that. The world needs a place 
where
>people who disagree fundamentally can somewhat collegially discuss
>their approaches and differences. To me, it just means that I will
>create continuing problems by trying to coordinate a more progressive
>program for a group that is not unified enough to endorse it.
>   The project could continue outside the umbrella of ATEG. Perhaps a
>Certification program could as well. As it stands now, we would
>probably keep each other from happening because of fundamental
>disagreements about the nature of grammar and its role within the
>curriculum.
>
>Craig
>
> There has been some hint of polarization on the list, and I 
interpreted
>> Rebecca Watson's "jangle my nerves" in that context.  If I have 
done
>> Rebecca a disservice I apologize, but I'm more concerned that 
there may in
>> fact be some polarization, which leads to partisanship, which is, 
as we
>> see too often in Congress and in political debate, the point at 
which
>> critical thinking shuts down.
>>
>> I hope I'm wrong about this, because we need all the critical 
thinking we
>> can get on the tasks we've set for ourselves.
>>
>> Herb
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of 
Johanna
>> Rubba
>> Sent: Thu 8/31/2006 5:04 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Grammar Certification
>>
>> I'm trying to understand why the book Rebecca Watson refers to 
would
>> "jangle my nerves". I don't know what IEP stands for; that might 
help
>> me understand.
>>
>> Anyone who has read my posts on this list knows that I advocate
>> teaching grammar in effective ways. For beginning students (for all
>> students, really), visuals are great. I believe in nouns, verbs,
>> capitalization, and punctuation. How they're defined and how and 
when
>> they're taught is what concerns me. I use my own manuscript in my
>> structure-of-English classes, and most of my students consistently 
rate
>> it between 8 and 10 (10-high) on two criteria: (1) clarity and
>> accessibility of the information and (2) usefulness of the 
information
>> for their future careers as teachers.
>>
>> I don't recall anyone posting to this list who doesn't want
>> schoolchildren to come out of K-12 fluent in standard English. 
It's the
>> HOW and the WHAT and the WHEN that are at issue.
>>
>> As to The ESL Grammar Book, I stated clearly in my post that I was
>> referring to teacher trainees, not ESL students. Maybe it's better 
as a
>> reference book than a textbook. I haven't taught from it myself; 
I'm
>> just familiar with its contents. Students apparently find it
>> accessible, since it was in use at MT and Herb has testified to 
that
>> effect, and I imagine it is in use elsewhere, or else it wouldn't 
be on
>> the market anymore. I do believe that ESL teachers should have 
Master's
>> degrees, and that  they should have a full year of linguistics, 
from
>> phonetics to discourse. If you're going to teach language, you'd 
better
>> know your subject.
>>
>> As to learning linguistic theories when preparing to teach ESL, I 
don't
>> see what's wrong with it. Much of teacher education is _background
>> knowledge_, not necessarily stuff that you will translate directly 
into
>> classroom lessons. Teachers need good classroom materials that are
>> informed by linguistics, too, but those materials will not be 
theory
>> books. Such materials aren't widely available right now; that's one
>> thing some of us are working on. Teachers have also been known to
>> design their own teaching materials. Understanding how language 
works
>> is very useful for that endeavor.
>>
>> History majors who go on to be high school or middle school history
>> teachers learn more history in college than they ever teach, I 
assume.
>> I know much, much, much more about language than I ever teach, 
because
>> all of my classes are introductory, and I have no linguistics MA 
or PhD
>> students. A good number of students in our elementary-school 
teacher ed
>> program seem to believe that they don't need to know more about the
>> subjects they will teach than what is in the teaching materials 
they
>> will use for their students. This isn't good.
>>
>> Dr. Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics
>> Linguistics Minor Advisor
>> English Department
>> California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
>> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>> Tel.: 805.756.2184
>> Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596
>> Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374
>> URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
>>
>> 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/