Tim,
For the record, I agree with you. Perhaps my choice of the word 'battle' was a poor one. I, too, believe that we should work within the system to make change. We are, after all, an assembly of the NCTE.
Paul D.
P.S. When the CEA Convention is over, will we be able to get copies of your report? Can we post them on the ATEG website?
"Hadley, Tim" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
At our conference last summer, vice-president Kathryn Rogers pointed out--wisely, I thought--that many people have worked very hard, for many years, to improve ATEG's position in NCTE, and that we won't benefit by positioning ourselves as enemies attacking as outsiders. I feel this tension also as the editor of our journal. On the one hand, we vigorously object to the NCTE position on grammar. Phil is right-- it IS "reprehensible" (great word).
But on the other hand, we have to see the wisdom, and the positive results, of Martha's (and others') patient "working within the system" through the years to make inroads when and where they can be made. I see this happening with Craig's Scope and Sequence project as well. So, while we fight to educate NCTE, we also attempt to wisely use the political skills at our disposal to make the battle as easy as possible.
BTW--Martha's comment about me uncovering some new things is correct. I keep stumbling across things that indict the anti-grammar positions of Braddock, Hartwell, Hillocks, and others. My latest discovery is a new book titled _Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis_, which details the many ways in which the author of a meta-analysis can prejudice the results by, among other things, suppressing the results of studies that do not agree with the conclusion that they prefer. For example, few people realize that in Hillocks's 1986 meta-analysis, the section that contained the condemnation of grammar was based on only 3 studies, or that he eliminated 16 studies that showed a positive relationship between grammar and writing because of various flaws (according to Hillocks) in the studies' research design. In this new book, this would be called "outcome bias" or "selection bias" and would never pass muster today. But at the time, meta-analysis was a new thing, and few people (especially !
in
English) understood it, so virtually no objection was raised to what Hillocks did.
I will be presenting this material at the 2006 national convention of the College English Association in San Antonio April 2-6.
Tim
Tim Hadley
Research Assistant, The Graduate School
Ph.D. candidate, Technical Communication and Rhetoric
Texas Tech University
Editor, ATEG Journal
________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Paul E. Doniger
Sent: Fri 2/3/2006 9:08 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: That Reprehensible NCTE Position Statement
Just a minor correction: I didn't mean to sound so optimistic! Sorry about that. I still think that the battle to educate NCTE is going to be difficult and long.
Paul
Craig Hancock wrote:
Phil,
I want to echo Paul's points and give more info on Scope and
Sequence.>The project is an attempt to give thoughtful, professional
advice about the teaching of grammar for anyone looking for an
alternative to minimalist approaches. We were given a large part of
the ATEG conference last summer and at that point approached the task
on a more general level, coming to a consensus of what the advice
should entail. Tim Hadley, whose dissertation has focused on the NCTE
position, gave us a fine talk on its shortcomings, and he has agreed
to be the point person for our own of! ficial response. I suspect he
would be very happy to have you involved. My own sense is that we
should put most of our energy on our own recommendations, that we
should stop arguing for the need for a grammar and simply advocate a
sensible one. But it's clear that people will bring up the supposedly
conclusive NCTE position, and we should have a direct response to it.
Once again, we have been given substantial time at the ATEG conference
for this project. My hope is that we can roll up our sleeves and fill
in the details, not just take positions on the kind of grammar that
should be taught, but make recommendations about the SCOPE (what
should be covered) and SEQUENCE (when), teacher training, more
reasonable assessment practices, and so on. We have proposed a panel
for next year's NCTE (without using grammar in the title, but focused
on these issues from the perspective of state standards, assessments,
teacher training, and the disjunctio! n among them. Martha Kolln and I
are listed as presenters of the Scope and Sequence report, and it
would be nice to have a fait accompli to present. If not, we can talk
about current state of the project.)
Paul is more optimistic than I am about progress through NCTE. I
think they deeply believe that direct instruction in grammar is
harmful, and anyone who advocates otherwise is a threat to progressive
education. Most English teachers are trained to teach literature.
It's hard to talk about grammar with people who have very little
background in it. But I agree very much with what i take to be your
position, that we should present a clear and thoughtful alternative.
If a school system in Ohio wants to change, they will have a
professional position statement to help them out and a recommended
program. If we wait for the blessing of NCTE, it will probably never
happen. But the time is right. There's a grassroots interest in this,
in part ! because NCTE hasn't adequately responded to the challenge of
No child Left Behind.
The big plan is to get lots of people involved and to delegate
drafting of the big parts of it. You are most welcome.
Craig
Phil,
>
> We've been working on this issue for some time and have made a good deal
> of progress. There is still a long way to go, and that's part of what
> ATEG is all about. We did get NCTE to publish our book, Grammar Alive: A
> Guide for Teachers, a couple of years ago. We've been gradually
> improving our posture at the NCTE Conventions, too.
>
> A few years back, NCTE began to backpeddle a bit on their 1985 position
> by including our "Questions and Answers" page on it's website; you might
> want ot check it out:
> http://www.ncte.org/about/over/positions/category/gram/107646.htm.
>
> Perhaps you'd like to participate in the Scope and Sequence group that
> Craig Hancock s! tarted; we could definitely use more assistance.
>
> Welcome into the fray,
>
> Paul D.
>
> Phil Bralich wrote:
> As everyone here is aware, the NCTE 1985 Position Statement about
> teaching
> grammar advocates against it to the detrimant of all language training
> native or foreign. While it seems to couch its criticism in the form of
> the supposed lack of benefit that grammar study has on writing alone, it
> seems to presuppose that there would be no other sufficiently useful
> reason for teaching grammar. The position thereby has the effect of
> shutting down all grammar teaching.
>
> It strikes me that of all the groups that exist in academe today, the one
> most appropriate to address this embarassment to American education is
> ATEG. Is there currently a working group within ATEG which specifically
> addresses this issue with the goal of g! etting NCTE to renege and replace
> this statement with something more accurate and more consonant with the
> wishes of parents and many, many educators, business men and politicians?
>
> If there is such a group, I would like to participate. If there is no
> current group, I would be happy to take responsibility for setting one up,
> chairing, and spearheading such a group. If there is no current provision
> within ATEG for this sort of a group, perhaps interested parties could
> form an informal, ad hoc group, put together some joint research and
> positions papers, and offer this to ATEG/NCTE at a later point.
>
> Phil Bralich
>
> 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/
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).
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/
|
