Peter,
You've put your finger on precisely the reason why the discussions of how much grammar students need to know tend break down. You write of Goal Two:
This is the goal that asserts that we require
students to know something about chemistry or biology, why shouldn't
they know something about that most fundamental aspect of our
humanity: our language?
But this rationale falls into the domain of linguists, not writing and language arts teachers. How much students should know about language is directly analogous to how much students should know about biology, US history, economics, math, etc. In contrast, the question of how much students should know about grammar does fall much more directly into the domain of the writing teacher and the language arts teacher. Unfortunately, most of these people are the beneficiaries of a half century of bad teaching of and about grammar, but, that problem aside, linguists and grammarians need the guidance of writing and language arts teachers, and vice versa, to understand the questions of scope and sequence that K12 teachers know about that linguists tend not to.
I must add that this thread, training wheels and its predecessor, is one of the most thoughtful and informative I've read on this list in quite a while. My thanks to all who have contributed of their knowledge, experience, and expertise. It confirms the sense of awe I have long felt towards good K12 teachers.
Herb
Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of English
Ball State University
Muncie, IN 47306
[log in to unmask]
________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Adams [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: May 29, 2009 10:24 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: training wheels
Craig,
I think you've put your finger on an important issue, one I have not
resolved in my own mind. Put simply, the question is how much grammar
should students know.
It seems to me the questions derives from two different goals for
grammar instruction:
Goal 1: To give students the capability to produce writing that
conforms reasonably to the constraints of Standard Written English.
Goal 2: To provide students with some level of understanding of how
language works. (This is the goal that asserts that we require
students to know something about chemistry or biology, why shouldn't
they know something about that most fundamental aspect of our
humanity: our language?)
Because these are two disparate goals, the answer to the simple
question of how much grammar should students know is difficult to
agree on. In addition, for those who espouse either of these goals,
it is still difficult to reach agreement on how much grammar it takes
to reach that goal.
And then there is a third goal for grammar instruction that
complicates the argument even further: students need to know grammar
so that they have more options for how to express their ideas.
I fear I have made absolutely no progress toward an answer to the
question I called "simple," but perhaps I have clarified what the
questions are.
Peter Adams
On May 29, 2009, at 9:45 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
> I think this has the potential to be a very rich and interesting
> thread, especially if we can keep it as a discussion and agree to
> disagree in patient ways. I can think of about ten points to add, so
> I'll resist that and try to keep it to a few.
> 1) Part of the problem is created by progressive views toward grammar
> that emphasize "in context" instruction with "minimal terminology."
> Advocates say the students don't need a wide understanding of
> grammar in
> order to use it, and this pressures what I would call "soft
> understandings" that are never meant as scaffolds to a deeper
> understanding. Some of these get communicated as "rules" and are
> difficult
> to displace.
> 2) We have to be careful about what we mean by "rule." As we observe
> language, we inevitably discover patterns (rules) that the languge
> itself
> follows: for example, that given tends to come first and new tends
> to come
> last in the information structure of a clause. This is an observation
> about patterned behavior in language, not a constraint on how to use
> it.
> Another example might be that "because" subordinates the clause that
> follows it. These are not rules we can choose to break any more than
> we
> can choose to break the law of gravity. (Though they are more
> dynamic than
> gravity, they can't be altered at the whim of an individual.) We can
> simply try to work in harmony with these patterns, to use them
> purposefully.
> 3) Scaffolding implies that there is a desirable level of
> understanding
> that we are working toward, but we don't have any kind of consensus
> about
> what that understanding might entail OR even that--for a typical
> educated
> adult--knowing about grammar is a desirable end. For the great bulk
> of the
> population, grammar is still about how we behave, not what we know,
> and it
> is primarily understood as a loose collection of constraints.
> 4) This does not have to be an either/or choice, since a deeper
> understanding of language allows someone to make reasoned judgements
> about
> other people's rules or advice. As it stands, the typical student is
> in
> some sort of limbo, not knowing enough about grammar to write either
> effectively or "correctly". >
>
> Craig
>
> Susan,
>>
>> I'm surprised that you thought I was "railing" and had "strict
>> anger." I
>> was feeling pretty mellow, actually. I'm dubious about what I called
>> "made-up rules"--and at times I even venture to be critical of
>> them--but I
>> do not hate them with the undying wrath that you seem to think you're
>> picking up from me.
>>
>> We do seem to agree that something that is sometimes called "training
>> wheels" can be useful--but I think we define that "something"
>> differently,
>> and we may have different perspectives on the amount of damage that
>> has
>> been caused by misapplication of training wheels. I think that
>> training
>> wheels in teh form of scaffolding (modelling and guided practice of
>> skills
>> just at the edge of students' reach) can be grat, while training
>> wheels
>> in the form of made-up (or, to be more precise, unwarranted) rules
>> can do
>> more harm than good. (I would not, however, agree with you that
>> teachers
>> who misuse training wheels are "stupid." "Rigid" and "dogmatic,"
>> OK, but
>> "stupid" seems over the top, don't you think?)
>>
>> I didn't say that you personally teach students not to begin
>> sentences
>> with "because." My point was that, whoever is teaching this "rule,"
>> some
>> students seem to believe in it for a long time without learning
>> what it
>> was presumably intended to teach (writing in complete sentences).
>> These
>> students get an unintended drawback of the training wheels without
>> getting
>> much of the intended benefit--so this is one instance of training
>> wheels
>> doing mroe harm than good. (Your point that professional writers use
>> sentence fragment is true, of course. But I hope we can agree that
>> "avoid
>> sentence fragments," or "write in complete sentences," is not a
>> made-up
>> rule in quite the same way that something like "never start a
>> sentence
>> with 'because'" is a made-up rule. The former is a norm of effective
>> writing, though it can be strategically and effectively deviated
>> from; the
>> latter is not even a norm.
>>
>> Also, I wasn't "changing your argument"; I wasn't even
>> characterizing your
>> argument. (Actually, I avoided characterizing it, because it hasn't
>> always
>> been been completely clear to me; at one point, if I remember
>> right, you
>> quoted a handout that said that experienced writers vary their
>> sentence
>> starts 50% of the time, and I thought you were encouraging students
>> to try
>> to match that hallmark; but lately your more moderate position has
>> become
>> more evident.) Anyway, I didn't say that *you* "tell students that
>> using a
>> large amount of sentence starter variation is a hallmark of good
>> writers";
>> I said that *I* would not want to tell students that. My point was
>> that I
>> wouldn't want to make "vary sentence structures often" a rule,
>> which would
>> be one kind of "training wheels," because I don't think such a rule
>> is
>> borne out by the practices of strong writers. But I wouldn't mind
>> modelling the effective use of sentence straters and having students
>> practice it, which is another kind of "training wheels," or
>> scaffolding.
>> What I'm describing may not really be very different from what you
>> practice; I'll leave that for you to judge.
>>
>> I think this conversation started, just about, when Craig said that
>> he
>> considered "vary sentence starters" an example of bad advice. As I
>> now
>> understand your argument, you might actually agree with Craig's
>> statement,
>> IF "very sentence structures" is interpreted as an absolute or
>> near-absolute commandment. So I don't think the different sides of
>> this
>> conversation are as far apart as they may sometimes have seemed to
>> be.
>> They're just different enough to make things interesting.
>>
>> Brian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Brian O'Sullivan, Ph.D.
>> Assistant Professor of English
>> Director of the Writing Center
>> St. Mary’s College of Maryland
>> Montgomery Hall 50
>> 18952 E. Fisher Rd.
>> St. Mary’s City, Maryland
>> 20686
>> 240-895-4242
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
>> Susan van
>> Druten
>> Sent: Thu 5/28/2009 11:41 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: training wheels
>>
>> On May 28, 2009, at 9:15 PM, O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote:
>>
>> I don't think that everything that gets called "training wheels" in
>> education is bad. On the contrary, "training wheels" are often used
>> as an
>> example of the important educational techniques called
>> "scaffolding." In
>> scaffolding, an instructor offers modeling, guided practice and
>> finally
>> independent practice to help a student master tasks
>>
>>
>> I'm glad you to argue my point with me. Training wheels are helpful.
>> They are a good thing if they are needed. They are a bad thing if a
>> dogmatic instructor is too stupid too see that her student is
>> trying to
>> fly. Training wheels ARE made-up rules. The teacher who presents
>> any
>> "rule" as rigid and true is what you are railing against. However,
>> under
>> your strict anger against all "made-up" rules, a teacher who asks his
>> students to write complete sentences is risking that his students
>> will
>> "internalize certain made-up rules without actually having
>> internalized
>> the underlying skills." Professional writers use fragments, after
>> all.
>>
>>
>> But if a college student avoids starting sentences with because
>> but still
>> writes sentence fragments--and yes, I have known such students--
>> then I'm
>> thinking that, yes, those training wheels did more harm than good.
>>
>>
>> This is a strawman. I teach my students to write sentences
>> beginning with
>> "because" AND I teach them to try different sentence starts. If
>> you have
>> a student who writes unsuccessful fragments, you can't really blame
>> training wheels because the biggest "training wheel" of them all is
>> don't
>> use sentence fragments! Clearly this student is falling off the
>> bike with
>> the training wheels still attached. You take those training wheels
>> off
>> and you will get more fragments--not fewer. That student needs to
>> understand rules before she goes free-wheeling down a hill.
>>
>>
>> I wouldn't want to tell students that using a large amount of
>> sentence
>> starter variation is a hallmark of good writers.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, see, here's the problem. You have just changed my argument.
>> Don't
>> be doin' that no more, 'kay? It's gettin' boring. I have never
>> advocated
>> "a large amount" of different starts. What I have said is (barring
>> those
>> who have a rhetorical purpose) students who start five sentences in
>> a row
>> with the same start need to change up one or more more of them.
>> If there
>> is no rhetorical purpose to five sentences that start with "he" or
>> "there
>> is," then it's a good training wheel to ask students to reconsider
>> what
>> they wrote. If they can come up with a purpose, fine. The rule
>> allows
>> for that. But if they can't, then the rule has worked.
>>
>> Susan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
>> Susan van
>> Druten
>> Sent: Thu 5/28/2009 8:09 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: training wheels
>>
>> So weak writers suffer from training wheels?
>>
>> A lovely metaphor which I started and to which I subscribe.
>> So...let'e
>> be clear, what are all the training wheels you abhor? Sentence
>> starts
>> has been deemed damaging. Let's mix metaphors and open up the
>> spigots.
>> What else? What other tactics that are commonly found in writing
>> texts
>> do you find harmful?
>>
>> Have at it.
>>
>> But you do know what the biggest "training wheel" is, don't you?
>>
>> I'll give you a hint it has been condemned since the late 70's. Our
>> district curriculum director won't allow us to purchase books with
>> its
>> name in the title. And (the dead give away) it's in the name of this
>> listserv.
>>
>> Jenkies, how's that for irony?
>>
>> Hurts, donut?
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 28, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>
>>
>> Brian,
>> I just wanted to say that I find your contributions very
>> thoughtful and
>> helpful. I especially like the way you bring this back to the opening
>> discussion, whether weaker writers needed 'training wheels". I would
>> echo what I see as the core of your position: they do more harm than
>> good.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, Susan. Maybe I need to be more clear, too--I didn't mean
>> that
>> boring essays are a short-term problem; I meant that some solutions
>> to
>> the problem of boring essays are short term (or superficial)
>> solutions.
>> As I meant to imply, I read plenty of boring essays by college
>> students(though I'm sure I read fewer, even as a percentage of my
>> total
>> haul of papers, than high school teachers read--just because my
>> students'
>> high school teachers have done a good job with them). I could come up
>> with silly solutions to this problem--use a world from a funny
>> vocabulary
>> list every few lines, or write in rhyming couplets--which might
>> amuse me
>> (I have a dumb sense of humor) but would probably not make for more
>> effective writing.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Your solution, on the other hand, isn't silly--after all, good
>> writers do
>> include some variant sentence starts, even if it's only 25% of the
>> time,
>> and it's not outlandish to teach students how good writers go about
>> doing
>> this. I actually do not think that sentence starts and coherence
>> are an
>> either/or--you've made it clear that you teach coherence, and I
>> don't see
>> how that could be totally negated by the little time you spend
>> teaching
>> sentence start variation. At the same time, i would not in any way
>> put
>> coherence and sentence start variation on the same level. Coherence
>> is ,
>> pretty much by definition, a fundamental aspect of a reader's
>> experience
>> of a text. Sentence start variation is...not. Most of the time, if a
>> revision with more varied sentence starts is better than the draft,
>> that
>> variation is probably an epiphenomenon of some more significant
>> change--like improved coordination or subordination, or improved
>> topic
>> focus in general. If a student thinks that her revision
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> is better is simply because she started her sentences in more
>> various
>> ways, she may understand what really made the revision better, and
>> thus
>> she may be less likely to transfer her learning to the next context
>> and
>> do even better in the future. And she may not be helped on the path
>> to
>> the (even) longer-term goal of greater syntactical maturity (as you
>> put
>> it) or greater rhetorical awareness and control (as I put it).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree with you that our goal (or, one of our goals) is for our
>> students
>> to produce easy to read and pleasurable,
>> informative reading--eventually. But not necessarily while they're
>> in a
>> particular class that we happen to be teaching. Sometimes, as a
>> student
>> experiments with more complex thoughts and expressions, that
>> student's
>> writing may have to get more convoluted before it gets clearer and
>> more
>> pleasureable. I wouldn't want to give the student advice that would
>> privilege a clear and enjoyable product today over a more
>> deliberate and
>> effective writing process tomorrow.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I guess my question for your student would be whether, and why, he
>> or she
>> really wanted to switch the focus of the second sentence of the
>> revision
>> from the Landon's perception to Jamie's condition. Was there a
>> rhetorical
>> purpose, other than simply variation, for switching from "he" to
>> "she" as
>> a subject, only to then switch back again? If so--and there could
>> be such
>> a purpose--great. If not, maybe this revision is one instance where
>> sentence start variation and coherence really did conflict, and I
>> would
>> have favored coherence.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Still, your student is revising and experimenting and certainly not
>> learning a pointless, inflexible rule, like "every sentence must
>> have a
>> different subject." I don't think the different sides in this
>> Great War
>> of Sentence Starters are really all that far apart.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Brian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
>> Susan van
>> Druten
>> Sent: Wed 5/27/2009 7:40 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks, Brian, for some insight. Maybe I need to be more clear
>> about
>> how much (how little) I ask students to vary their sentence starts.
>> Usually, it occurs when I walk around the room as they are writing.
>> I'll read over a shoulder and notice lots of similar sentence starts
>> (which are not interesting parallel structure). I'll mention it to
>> them and they'll read it it back and notice how it sounds to them.
>> They don't want to sound "head-thumpingly boring to read." So they
>> get it, and they change it on their own, or they'll ask for advice.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Head-thumpingly boring" essays are short-term problems?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Really??! Really. Really??!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bad writing is a long-term problem, period. Bad essays are problems
>> for a high school teacher who has to read 150. They are problems
>> for
>> a college instructor who doesn't have to read 150. The amount one
>> must read is irrelevant. There should be no difference of opinion
>> between high school or college instructor: if an essay is boring to
>> a high school teacher, it should be boring to a college instructor.
>> The boring might come from uninspired sentence starts or from
>> chaotic
>> coherence problems. It doesn't matter what the problem is. We can
>> all spot the problem and help our students with whatever is
>> causing it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This argument has now shifted to a fallacious either-or. It is
>> simply
>> not true that we must pit sentence start variation against
>> coherence. Both are important.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Class size is irrelevant. An exposure to more writing does not make
>> one unable to distinguish easier reading from head-thumping reading.
>> The goal is that our students produce easy to read and pleasurable,
>> informative reading.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Brian asks about my student's revision, "I'm curious; how might
>> the passage's author respond to this kind of advice [show me how
>> each sentence connects]?"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Brian, that is good advice which often includes considering varying
>> sentence starts. So I do have an answer of sorts. It's
>> inconclusive
>> (it is very hard to get students to revise). But here is her
>> revision:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Landon is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves falling. She has
>> become
>> so sick that she has lost a lot of weight, and he has really started
>> to notice it. He had to support her as they stood there because she
>> could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing just her
>> change in weight, but it really hits him at this point how much her
>> leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period of
>> time. He realizes that she doesn't have that much longer.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I have better writers than this. But it's all about taking a writer
>> from where she is at and suggesting ideas that her writing shows she
>> has not been considering.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Susan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 27, 2009, at 8:21 AM, O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> It seems like one of the differences of opinion here is what a
>> teacher should do with students who "do not have a mature style,"
>> as Susan puts it. Should we give them "training wheels" (aka,
>> "triage" them, give them "bandaids," etc.) to make their writing
>> more presentable in the short term, or should we try to set them on
>> a path towards developing a more mature style in the long run?
>> These goals don't *necessarily* conflict, but do they "sometimes*
>> conflict? And when do they do conflict, which should take priority?
>> I say that they do sometimes conflict, and that when they do, long-
>> term improvement should take priority.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I believe Susan when she says that her young and struggling writers
>> hand in more readable prose when they follow her advice to "change
>> up your sentence starters." But I also agree with Craig that having
>> been trained this way may make it hard for college writers to think
>> in terms of coherence and see the value of repetition. If, as I
>> think, both Susan and Craig are right, then the student's short
>> term gain (i.e., papers that their high school teachers found a
>> little easier and head-thumpingly boring to read) may not have been
>> worth their long-term loss (i.e, greater difficulty in ultimately
>> attaining a mature style).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Easy for me to say. As a college teacher, I have smaller class
>> sizes and fewer classes than Susan, and, by and large, I probably
>> read fewer of those head-thumpingly boring papers. (Was that "good"
>> repetition or "bad," by the way?)But college teachers, too, face
>> tradeoffs between immediate improvement of a paper and long-term
>> improvement of a writer. For example, I've had plenty of students--
>> often but not always English Language Learners--who can write
>> simple sentence clearly but get very tangled up when they start
>> combining clauses. I'm sure none of us would encourage students
>> like that to only write in simple sentences. We put up with reading
>> convoluted sentences so that students can practice, and eventually
>> improve at, coordination and subordination.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Vary sentences starters," I rush to admit, is not nearly such bad
>> advice as "only use simple sentences" would be! The similarity, in
>> my mind, is that neither piece of advice acts as a scaffold to help
>> eventually students reach "mature" levels of rhetorical awareness
>> and control.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> At least I'm probably getting Susan and John to agree; they're
>> probably both thinking that I'm being too abstract and talking
>> about what should be, not what is! So I'll say how I might respond
>> to the student who wrote the "Landon says Jamie..." paragraph:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "[Student], when I read this, I feel like each thought is separate
>> from the next, and there's nothing to show me how they connect,
>> which is more important than the other, which depends on which. One
>> of the ways that writers fix that kind of problem for their readers
>> is by combining sentences. Before next class, can you try a few
>> different ways of combining those seven sentences into three to
>> five sentences, and tell me which way you like best and why? If you
>> take another look at that "sentence combining" chapter we read,
>> that will make this easier."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The results would be less predictible then if I just told the
>> student to very sentence starters, but at least I'd be asking the
>> student to realize that he or she has stylistic choices to make and
>> to think about the effects of those choices on readers. And
>> consistently asking students to do that can make a difference over
>> the long one.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> But Susan, I defer to you as an expert on pre-college writers, and
>> I'm curious; how might the passage's author respond to this kind of
>> advice?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Brian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Brian O'Sullivan, Ph.D.
>> Assistant Professor of English
>> Director of the Writing Center
>> St. Mary's College of Maryland
>> Montgomery Hall 50
>> 18952 E. Fisher Rd.
>> St. Mary's City, Maryland
>> 20686
>> 240-895-4242
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
>> Susan van Druten
>> Sent: Tue 5/26/2009 8:56 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> John, you have actually made my point.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> You say you would "work with this writer to subordinate,
>> coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to
>> consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging
>> of verb choice."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> If I said what you just said to my students, they would look at me
>> like I was trying to be condescending. So, of course, I don't say
>> that. Instead I just use plain-speak and ask them to change up
>> their sentence starts.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Is the student "likely [to] produce confusing sentences
>> (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is
>> what teachers want"? No. I am there in the high school
>> classroom. They do not create twisted syntax. Instead they fix
>> the core problem.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I have expertise in this area. I have adjusted my lofty ideas to
>> reflect what works with my struggling student writers. You can
>> keep trying to justify what you think should work, but it conflicts
>> with what I have experienced.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 26, 2009, at 6:48 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I would not encourage this student to vary sentence openers as
>> there is no problem with the sentence openers. The writer clearly
>> has a focused topic in mind that will carry forward as given
>> information throughout the paragraph (if that is not an appropriate
>> topic for that length of time, then that is the problem, not the
>> structure).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I would work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and
>> complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more
>> carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Focusing on sentence opener variation here would seem (to me)
>> quite a distraction from the real problems that indicate the
>> maturity of the writing. The writer would not improve the core
>> problems and would likely produce confusing sentences
>> (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is
>> what teachers want.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> John Alexander
>> Austin, Texas
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Susan van Druten
>> <[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Craig, you are ignoring my concern when you continue to bring up
>> Frost, Obama, and Silko. We agree that purposeful repetition is
>> the mark of a mature style. You should now drop that out of your
>> argument. In fact you should have dropped that on after May 18th
>> when I acknowledged and refuted your point. I said, "When I cover
>> parallel structure in AP and honors classes, we talk about the
>> difference between purposeful repetition (emphasis, humor, known-
>> new, hooks, etc.) and repetition born by uninspired, lazy writing."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I am teaching students who do not have a mature style. I went to
>> school today to find you an example. Do you or do you not agree
>> that the writer below could use some advice on changing up her
>> sentence starts?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had
>> fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves
>> falling. He has really started to notice it that she has become so
>> sick that she has lost a lot of weight. He had to support her
>> because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing
>> just her change in weight. He sees how much her leukemia has taken
>> over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He
>> realizes that she doesn't have that much longer.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 26, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Susan,
>> I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid
>> understanding of how language works. If we tell students that
>> varying
>> sentence openings (using something other than the subject as
>> opening)is
>> a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of those
>> variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't.
>> As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that
>> students
>> sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences in a
>> row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this quite
>> often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which
>> starts
>> every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie
>> Silko's
>> much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great majority of
>> the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and
>> copied
>> a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he
>> effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening for
>> long
>> stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing with
>> mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and
>> repeating
>> sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature style.
>> There are good reasons for this. If you look at information
>> flow in a
>> text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is almost
>> always
>> last. The most important function of a sentence opener (usually the
>> subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The
>> opening
>> establishes connection with what went before. One obvious way to
>> accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit
>> repetition
>> for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on much too
>> quickly.
>> The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of different
>> structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students should
>> have those available as resources. I believe they should be used
>> for
>> continuity, though, not for variation.
>> I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what
>> kind of
>> variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is one. A
>> variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is
>> another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open
>> sentences is
>> another.
>> Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting
>> that most
>> sentences will start with the subject and that when we have
>> variation
>> form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple
>> adverbials.
>> As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is
>> harmful to
>> imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence
>> openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them
>> to see
>> how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of
>> subjects, to
>> build coherence into texts.
>> I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good
>> teaching
>> practices, not a personal criticism.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand. Do you still
>> believe
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various ways to
>> start sentences? Is it harmful to have them try changing up
>> sentences on a worksheet? (I don't know how you got the idea
>> that I
>> was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I enjoy the spirit of the conversation. Just because I thought
>> you
>> were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't mean I am
>> not enjoying myself.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Susan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Susan,
>> I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward
>> a mature
>> literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should
>> all be
>> constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far,
>> far from
>> perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our
>> profession
>> as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if
>> what we
>> are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you
>> posted to
>> the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings
>> to keep
>> from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of
>> conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at
>> all to do
>> with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad
>> teacher. We
>> simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an
>> open mind.
>> I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was
>> never
>> intended to be personal.
>> That being said, I would ask you to question seriously
>> whether the
>> "style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate.
>> It says,
>> first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50%
>> of the
>> time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly
>> study. The
>> studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a
>> professional
>> writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an
>> average of
>> about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, the
>> highest
>> about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the
>> case,
>> then
>> students already vary sentence openings more than mature
>> writers. I
>> would add that the writers in the study were successful, not
>> boring.
>> I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical
>> Grammar" as a
>> more linguistically sound source of advice.
>> But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I
>> apologize if
>> anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a
>> teacher.
>> As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully
>> grounded,
>> effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful
>> of each
>> other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any failures
>> on my
>> part to do that.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style
>> guides.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a writing
>> Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same
>> starting word
>> in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots more
>> outrage, tar, and feathers!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sentence Beginnings
>> Vary the beginnings of your sentences.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject-
>> far
>> more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But
>> overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous
>> writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your
>> sentences.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> WORDS
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice resolved to
>> fight back.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and
>> clattering came
>> from the heights around us.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> A connecting word: For students who have just
>> survived the
>> brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere
>> is all
>> too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high
>> school,
>> find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is just as
>> important as a healthy mind.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> A series of words: Light, water, temperature,
>> minerals-
>> these affect the health of plants.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> PHRASES
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of
>> athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For
>> one
>> thing, it can be ruthless.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched all of
>> their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this
>> existence.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> An infinitive: To be really successful, you will
>> have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and computer.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise
>> program
>> is essential.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> A participle: Looking out of the window high
>> over
>> the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse
>> surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead
>> surrounded
>> by fields.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission
>> provides
>> food and shelter for Springfield's homeless.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat went
>> on the
>> attack.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> CLAUSES
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> An adverbial clause: When you first start writing-and
>> I think
>> it's true for a lot of beginning writers-you're scared to
>> death that
>> if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never
>> going to
>> show up again.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a
>> joiner of
>> organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of
>> a group
>> of animal lovers.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a
>> questions to
>> ask a geologist.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Susan,
>> This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the students
>> HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression that you
>> just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they do it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> What method do you use to teach the different possible
>> variations?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jean Waldman
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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/
>>
>>
>> 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/
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/
|
