This message  was originally submitted  by [log in to unmask]  to the ATEG  list
 
I would like to respond to Bill Murdick:. In part, I share
his concerns, but here is how I answer his question.
Bill is, of course, asking for a book, and I can't give him
that here. Forgive me, therefore, for referring him to
Teaching Grammar as a Liberating Art and to my web
site.
 
"1] Besides teaching linguistics to grad and undergrad
English majors, who(m) else do you want to teach
linguistics to?"
 
In the curriculum I advocate, linguistics might be
taught to 12th grade students AFTER they had
completed their instruction in grammar. It is optional
because students do not really need linguistics. On
the other hand, they take entire courses in biology,
chemistry, physics, etc. Certainly a few hours devoted
to a brief survey of linguistics in a high school English
class would do no harm, particularly if the students
already had a good, conscious command of grammar.
 
"2] For each group mentioned in [1], what linguistics
(content) would you teach?"
 
Since I don't advocate teaching linguistics, this
question is irrelevant.
 
"3] For each content in [2], what would be your
purpose?"
 
Since I have already said that linguistics is irrelevant, I
need to change this to "syntax." As I suggest in TGLA
and on the web site, third grade students should learn
to identify all the prepositional phrases in randomly
selected passages of text, including their own. The
process would start with everyone working on the
same text; otherwise the teacher will go crazy. But
once students get the general sense of these phrases,
they should begin analyzing their own writing and
working in groups to check each others work.
     Prep phrases are the first step in the students'
overall objective, which is to be able to explain how
every word in ANY English sentence chunks to the
main S/V pattern. In fifth and sixth grades, students
would ADD subject/verb/complement identification to
their analysis. In seventh, they would ADD clauses; in
eighth or nineth, verbals; in tenth, seven additional
constructions. At each level there are aspects of
writing (and reading) that can be discussed. (See
TGLA and/or my web sites.
     Taught in this way, instruction in grammar will take
less time that what is currently spent on grammar in
many schools. Because the approach is cummulative,
nothing is ever left behind. As a result, we would not
have students arriving at college with no knowledge of
grammar (which is one of the things that Bill
complains about).
 
4] For each purpose in [3], how would you know if you
achieved those purposes? (What are your
pre-test/post-tests?)
 
      Bill asks for Pre-/post-tests, perhaps on the
assumption that there are such tests which show that
teaching  grammar is not effective. There is, however,
no such research. As I think I have noted on this list, I
have posted a 35-page summary of NCTE on
grammar. That summary includes examinations of
most of the major studies cited by the "anti-grammar"
people. ALL of those studies are seriously flawed. [Go
to http://www.sunlink.net/rpp. Chose "Teachers'
Section." The link is titled "Was NCTE Biased against
the Teaching of Grammar?"
     There are, of course, various pre- and post-tests
which could be designed and used, but Bill is looking
for a simplistic answer to a complex question.
Eventually I hope to have some research which will
satisfy him, but it will take years. One school in
Louisiana has just started using my approach,
beginning in the third grade. They (and I with them) are
looking for methods to evaluate the approach, but, as
anyone who has attempted such work knows, there
are numerous variables involved.
     In the mean time, all I have is anecdotal evidence.
Here at Penn College, I don't have the opportunity to
teach a grammar course for teachers, but  students
do ask me to teach a grammar course as an
independent study. These are usually sophomores or
seniors who feel that they can't write because they
can't control the grammar. Usually, they are right.
They take the course, find it somewhat frustrating, but
almost always end up feeling much more confident
about their writing. Not only do they make fewer
"errors," but their writing is usually much clearer.
Some of them have told me that other people have
noted the improvement in their writing. Perhaps one
way to convince people like Bill would be to require
these students to give me pre-course and post-course
samples of their writing which I could post on the web
site?????
 
 
5] How will you handle Blob Control? (How will your
program retain reading and writing as the main
activities of the English curriculum?)
 
As noted above, my program handles Bob Control by
focussing the grammar exercises on passages from
the students' own reading and writing. If my
suggestions are followed, a lot less time would be
spent on grammar per se, and more would be spent
on grammar in context. Obviously, I could not stop
anyone from using my program in such a way that
they did nothing but grammar, but Bill's question
overlooks the fact that Blob Control should concern
more than just grammar. One could even say that the
lack of Blob Control has resulted in the exclusion of
grammar from some classrooms.
     Of course, what goes on in the classrooms is an
interesting topic in itself. Each semester many of my
students tell me of all the writing they have NOT done.
I get reports of high school English classes in which
teachers read to the students for most of the
semester. (I believe some of this, by the way, because
teachers on NCTE-Talk themselves report doing so.)
My main point here is the argument against grammar
based on Blob Control is fallacious.
Ed V.