Tim (Hadley) quite rightly writes:
'My point is that even though Hartwell's article has been seen by some as one of the "definitive" statement on the "classification" of grammar and as one of the major pillars against the teaching of grammar in the writing classroom, its conclusions are disputed. It's long past time for someone to write a thorough critique and refutation of Hartwell's article.'
Hasn't this already been partly done by Thomas N. Huckin in 'A comment on 'Grammar, grammars, and the teaching of grammar' in College English, Vol 48/4, pp 397-400.
This said, however, as Bob Dylan sings, 'I've been through this movie before', in an inchoative discussion we had on the issue some weeks back, no member objected to the claim that teachers should not expect there to be a direct relationship between the learning of grammar and the quality of writing and this because they entail very different skills. In other words, the effect of learning grammar on writing ability is probably manifested on the micro- rather than the macro-level.
An example may illustrate this. Were any members to read in an essay of let's say an intermediate level student, 'Had I known about the consequences of my action, I would not have done it.', I suspect an immediate reaction to the use of inversion in place of the usual 'if' clause would be very positive particularly if it is known that this is not how the student usually speaks. Now, such an improvement in micro-style is almost certainly a result of the explicit teaching of variation of conditional expressions.
Now, such multiple micro-improvements would certainly have an overall positive effect on a student's essay writing but they would have little effect on the essentals of essay-writing by native speakers.
Isn't this something of a no-brainer?
However, see Bill McCleary's recent detailed account of his teaching and his implicit claim that his detailed and repeated correction of grammatical errors resulted in overall improvement in writing skills. However, I leave it to him to clarify exactly what his claim is.
Ron Sheen
----- Original Message -----
From: Hadley, Tim
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 8:03 PM
Subject: Re: Patrick Hartwell's Article
Carol and other ATEGers,
I wonder if I might be the "devil's advocate" in response to Carol's statement that Hartwell's article "seems quite important." It has indeed been granted a great deal of importance by many people since its 1985 publication, and it continues to be referred to reverentially by those who, like Hartwell, despise(d) the teaching of grammar and wish to see it removed from the English curriculum.
However, I think that even a cursory reading of Hartwell's 1985 article easily reveals (1) the serious flaws in his arguments against the teaching of grammar, and (2) the major inaccuracies in his handling of other scholarly sources, especially those who do not agree with his point of view. At the time the article was published, serious objections were raised against his positions by several reputable scholars.
My point is that even though Hartwell's article has been seen by some as one of the "definitive" statement on the "classification" of grammar and as one of the major pillars against the teaching of grammar in the writing classroom, its conclusions are disputed. It's long past time for someone to write a thorough critique and refutation of Hartwell's article.
Tim
Timothy D. Hadley
Assistant Professor of Professional Writing
English Department
Missouri State University
Springfield, MO 65897
office 417.836.5332, fax 417.836.4226
[log in to unmask]
Editor, ATEG Journal
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carol Morrison
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 5:17 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Patrick Hartwell's Article
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/
|
