ATEG Archives

November 2007

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:
Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 9 Nov 2007 12:23:31 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (57 lines)
Scott,
   I would pretty much say yes to all the questions, even the last.
   The current "theory" is that knowledge about language is NOT 
essential or important, and what little bit may be necessary (to avoid 
error) can be handled "in context." That theory has simply been 
asserted, not tested. It is built on the foundation of the studies that 
fail to show a connection between formal grammar and writing in short 
term. The fact that people BELIEVE that theory is what makes it so hard 
to dislodge it. It seems clearly just a matter of faith, or perhaps a 
matter of believing there is no credible alternative.
   We can and should propose a counter theory, find someone willing to 
give it a try, and then monitor the results. But we would clearly have 
to test whether we were building the knowledge as separate from whether 
it can be applied.
   For a first step, though, we have to say that it's not just an error 
focused traditional grammar that we are after.

Craig

Scott Woods wrote:
> */Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>/* wrote:
>
>
>     At the moment, we simply do not have an agreed upon theory of how
>     knowledge about language might carry over into both reading and
>     writing.
>     If we did, then we could measure the acquisition of knowledge as a
>     separate step.
>
> Craig,
> Shouldn't evidence of knowledge about language carrying over into both 
> reading and writing form the basis of a theory?  Starting with the 
> hypothesis that specific knowledge about language may improve reading 
> and writing, couldn't we then gather evidence to support this 
> hypothesis?  Can't we just measure the acquisition of knowledge and 
> relate it to changes in reading and writing in order to develop a 
> theory?  Does it matter if people agree with the theory?
>  
> Scott
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.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/
>

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