Is there any room in this discussion for the concepts of multiple
intelligences, or is that something people would rather not get into? Isn't
it possible that for students with a strong logical-mathematical
intelligence, the patterns and form or grammar make a wonderful amount of
sense? Or that teachers who have an intuitive intelligence for spatial
relations might teach things like sentence trees more effectively? In short,
I don't think it is the subject but the relationship between one teacher's
take on language and the learning styles of the twenty-five people in the
class.
It seems like we have spent the better part of two decades recognizing that
different people learn and teach differently, but many people still want to
rush in to one-size-fits-all education. Of course grammar instruction won't
help a lot of students. Of course it will help a lot of students. But what
would probably help most is teaching matters of style (whether it be
subject-verb agreement or reducing wordiness) in a variety of ways rather
than just tossing a book to students and assuming they will absorb the
information they failed to absorb the first five times it was introduced to
them.
The thing about this discussion that interests me is that it really seems
like preaching to the choir - there isn't going to be a soul on the Assembly
for the Teaching of English Grammar list who doesn't think teaching grammar
is important. The question facing most of us is how to do it effectively for
the largest number of students - particularly those for whom traditional
instruction has failed so far.
Maureen Fitzpatrick
Associate Professor, English
Johnson County Community College
-----Original Message-----
From: David D Mulroy [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 9:18 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: A Blow for Grammar
Dear Mr. Reis,
I am in complete sympathy with your alarm and disgust at a the prevalent
educational philosophy holding that systematic instruction in grammar is
either a waste of time or even counterproductive. I have been looking
into the research on which this belief is founded. Essentially, it has
been demonstrated repeatedly that formal instruction in grammar does not
produce any measurable, short-term benefits. In other words, if you start
teaching students about parts of speech and the conjugation of verbs they
do not demonstrably become better writers or students of a second language
immediately or even within a year or two. Personally, I am convinced that
systematic instruction in grammar is an indispensable foundation for real
mastery of the "language arts" but that its beneficial effects take longer
to show up. I believe that I was able to do well in college writing and
in the study of foreign language because of all the time that I spent
studying grammar (God bless those nuns!) in grade school. Still, to give
the devil his due, it is difficult to produce empirical proof of the
benefits of the study of formal grammar. I would be extremely grateful
for your thoughts on this problem, either on or off list.
Best wishes,
David Mulroy
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Robert Reis wrote:
> Tomorrow, the principal at my school is presenting the following letter to
the English department.
> R. Reis, BA, MA
> Foreign Language Teacher
> XXXXX High School
> October 25, 2000
> Dr. XXX.
> Principal
> XXXXX High School
> Dear Dr. XXX,
> In the private high schools that I have attended or which I have visited
or in which I have taught in the United States it is standard practice to
the teach English grammar in a systematic manner.
> Normally, the schools use the famous Warrinerâ€(tm)s English Composition
and Grammar series or
> something similar throughout all four years.
> In Europe and Latin America it is standard practice to teach the grammar
of the native language systematically by means of standardized textbooks.
Palestinian students have confirmed that textbooks are provided in the study
of Arabic as well. My sonâ€(tm)s secondary education in England and Sweden
confirms that textbooks of grammar and its systematic study are the norm in
these countries.
> Yesterday, I casually asked a member of the English faculty at XXX what
was the grammar textbook used at this school. I was told that the English
department did not use grammar textbooks and had not used them for years,
This teacher even mocked the old fashioned ideas traditional grammar books
represented in this teacherâ€(tm)s mind.
> Astonished at this state of affairs and finding it difficult to believe
that the English teacher was not pulling my leg I asked my students what
English grammar books they used or had used at
> XXX High School. The only students who reported that they had used actual
grammar books were students in Mrs. XXXâ€(tm)s room. None of the other
students recalled seeing or using anything called a grammar book. Although
the Polish immigrant students were familiar with actual grammar books in
Polish schools and the Mexican immigrant students were familiar with actual
grammar books seen in the homes of relatives when they visited Mexico, only
those in Mrs. Dalyâ€(tm)s program had seen them here at XXX.
> Now it is possible that the English faculty has some persuasive research
by genuine scientists that proves that the teaching of English grammar is
unnecessary to a multicultural student body like our own, but I would like
to be shown that research.
> I suspect that most people would be shocked to learn that English grammar
does not merit a textbook of its own and a substantial part of the teaching
time in the English department of our school.
> Perhaps I have been misinformed as to the role grammar instruction plays
in the program of Kennedyâ€(tm)s English departments. It is even possible
that the English department is following a scientifically verified
methodology that they have justified to you rather than a pathetic fad. I
would not, however, be surprised to discover that the more conservative
among the parents and the local community would find this state affairs - in
the absence of compelling scientific proof - to be a matter of gross
educational malpractice.
> I do know that the foreign language teachers have long observed that
generality of the non - foreign educated students at Kennedy cannot be
expected to have a minimal grasp of grammatical terminology.
> Perhaps George Bernard Shawâ€(tm)s remark about Christianity can be
extended to the teaching of English grammar. Shaw observed that in general
Christianity was not tried and found wanting - it was found to be difficult
and not tried.
> Very respectfully yours,
>
>
> R Reis
> CC: Files
> SENT BY FAX
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Robert Reis
> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 6:32 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Great site, run by a brilliant Black lady
>
>
> It is not a reactionary agenda. The abolition of grammar teaching is pure
political correctness at work. Instead of teaching substantive material the
English teacher gets to assign multicultural and alternative sexuality
propaganda trash and condemn students who do not parrot the approved
nonsense. At my high school students are condemned to repeated readings of
"To Kill a Mocking Bird", the "Diary of Ann Frank" and Ebonic dialect novels
along with pro-homosexuality tracts. Lot's more fun for English teachers
with low I.Q.'s and axes to grind than teaching grammar, logical thinking,
and classical literature.
> One of my division room students has seen theactrical versions of the
Diary of Ann Frank
> five times on school sponsored trips since first grade. A balanced
introduction to Western civilization, Âżno? In the larger view, the
abolition of grammar instruction guarantees that the economically deprived
will get inferior educations so that they can replicate the under and lower
classes and not threaten the upper class kids who get more genuine
educations in private schools. Who really wants a larger population of
critcal thinkers who might question the policies of their masters?
> The favorite TV show in one of our faculty lounges is a game show in which
people compete to show that they are most like the average TV viewer. How
dumb do you have to be to want to prove that you are in no way exceptional?
Watching some fellow teachers compete against the TV screen is a real
"treat" for me.
> Cheers,
> R.Reis
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Haussamen, Brock
> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 2:20 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Great site, run by a brilliant Black lady
>
>
> I agree that grammar--formal grammar as a component of education--is
> political, because the standardizing of language is an aspect of social
> power. But I'm bad at politics. A popular perception of the last two
> decades is that traditional grammar has been elitist, contrary to cultural
> diversity, etc., and I can understand that complex
perception/misperception.
> But what would be the reactionary political agenda behind the abolition of
> grammar?
>
> Brock Haussamen
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Reis
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: 11/27/00 8:04 PM
> Subject: Re: Great site, run by a brilliant Black lady
>
> The abolition of the teaching of English grammar is a political program.
> As a linguist, certified teacher of three foreign languages, it is
> inconceivable to me that the simple fact that the longer my immigrant
> students have been in the American public school system the less likely
> it is that they have any idea how grammars work is an accident. This
> decision not to teach grammar can only have political motives. Stay
> pure, stay useless.
> Bye,
> Bob
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul E. Doniger
> Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 6:52 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Great site, run by a brilliant Black lady
>
> This makes two in one day! PLEASE: DO NOT USE THIS LIST AS A FORUM FOR
> PROMOTING A POLITICAL AGENDA! This is a scholarly group, dedicated to
> the improvement of English Grammar education. If you're not interested
> in this, you should leave this list and seek recruits elsewhere.
>
> Not quite as respectfully yours as last time,
>
> Paul E. Doniger
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Robert Reis <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2000 8:45 PM
> Subject: Great site, run by a brilliant Black lady
>
>
> http://www.issues-views.com/Focus.htm
> <http://www.issues-views.com/Focus.htm>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
> http://explorer.msn.com <http://explorer.msn.com/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
> http://explorer.msn.com <http://explorer.msn.com>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
http://explorer.msn.com<br clear=all><hr>Get more from the Web. FREE MSN
Explorer download : <a
href="http://explorer.msn.com">http://explorer.msn.com</a><br></p>
>
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/
|
