Edith,
That sounds like a good description of what I did routinely with my
own children--taking time to name things. One variant would be sitting
with a picture book and naming the various things in the pictures.
I think we also socialize our children into language in other ways.
We ask them to say please and thank you, to say they are sorry when they
have done something wrong, to "ask nicely," and so on.
If language is a "social semiotic," then we learn about the world and
learn the language that goes with that at the same time.
Craig
Wollin, Edith wrote:
> On #1, I think there is quite a bit of brain research that shows that children learn language much better/faster when they hear what I think is called reduced speech. We don't show a child a ball and say, "This is an orange and red ball with white stripes." We say,"ball." This is really direct instruction. I was also thinking this morning about how long it takes for children to get many sounds in the language right, even when they hear them over and over. (not unlike adults learning a new language) I have also noticed with my two granddaughters that they often do not say a word until they are sure they can say it, so they seem to have some self-monitoring going on.
> Edith Wollin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 10:52 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: how heavy a lift is grammar
>
> I will resist the temptation to jump in and try to do a good faith
> summary of what I have so far from respondents. My apologies if I am
> leaving something substantial out. Feel free to correct or comment.
>
> I have received some posts that didn't go out to the list, and I'll try
> to include those in a blanket response.
>
> 1) There seems a general consensus (all yes votes) to the notion that
> people learn naturally the language they are exposed to as they are
> growing up. Bill cautions us (I think rightly) that it may be wrong to
> assume that it comes easily just because it looks that way from the
> outside. It's also not clear what kind of modeling or interaction might
> be part of it.
>
> 2) The general consensus seems to be that reaching high levels of
> literacy is rare. There's not a clear consensus on how "direct
> instruction" might influence that. A few people mention ability and
> motivation as factors. Others mention lots of reading and engagement
> with complex texts or 'being interactively read to." In those cases, it
> would seem to me that literacy is an indirect result, but perhaps the
> result of being in the right kind of language environment.
>
> 3) There seems a pretty good consensus on Standard English: that it
> comes easily to those who hear it around them as they acquire language,
> but not so easily to those who don't. Standard English is hard for those
> students whose primary use of language is non-standard, and they seem to
> require some attention and instruction.
>
> 4) High levels of reading competence often come without direct
> instruction, though most seem to believe that extensive reading and
> conversations about what we are reading are very helpful. One person off
> list mentioned that he has developed much more effective strategies for
> reading complex texts "later in life" and wishes he had been given them
> earlier. I like John's observation, that readers are often "instructed
> directly by the texts" they are reading. I'm not sure I agree, but it's
> a thoughtful possibility. Perhaps it rubs off? We pick it up intuitively?
> The lack of input from elementary school teachers may be worth noting.
> It seems to me that we are taught reading early on, but then doing
> reading takes over. By high school, English classes seem to focus on
> literary texts. What's the current status of the phonics versus whole
> language debate?
>
> 5) There seems a much stronger belief that writing requires direct
> instruction, especially for those who don't do it well. One respondent
> says it can happen without direct instruction, but usually doesn't.
> Another says that students often overvalue their writing and need a
> wake-up call. Another implies that interactive talk about what they are
> writing would create an environment in which they might learn to write
> without direct instruction. In general, though, the consensus is that
> writing seems to require more direct teaching than reading does.
>
> 6) There were some differences in the way this statement was
> interpreted. For those who interpreted "leaning about language" as
> somewhat analytical, the consensus seems to be that direct instruction
> is needed (though an individual can discover some of that on their own.)
> There was some questioning of the value of learning about language
> outside the context of reading and writing. Some aspects can be easy,
> but much of it is hard.
>
> Craig
>
> 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/
|
