ATEG Archives

January 1998

ATEG@LISTSERV.MIAMIOH.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
MIKE MEDLEY <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 28 Jan 1998 12:07:31 +0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (45 lines)
Reply to part of Ed Vavra's comments:
 
> And, although I appreciate the participation of
> linguists in the group, my sense is that they will want
> more terms -- and more complicated concepts -- than
> the K-12 curriculum will be able to handle.>
 
Ed,
Should K-12 history and social studies teachers ignore the
methodology and findings of professional historians or college &
university historians?
Should K-12 math and science teaching ignore college & university
specialists in math & science?
The teaching of English grammar in K-12 has to be informed as much by
the methodology and findings of professional linguists as the
teaching of  other subjects has to be informed by what their more
advanced students say.  It is rather uncharitable to suggest of
linguists that they are all essentially ignorant of the cognitive
constraints on children at various stages of mental & social
development and would insist on more terminology or more complex
terminology than can be handled.
A part of the question is : "How can we simplify without unduly
distorting?"   Since I tend to get a few  students who have been
drilled in "traditional grammar" I know how frustrating it is to get
them to unlearn some of the distortions they have come to believe in.
What kinds of simplification will do the least damage?
 
Another question I raise also has a bearing on what you might want to
include in the "core concepts" that we all agree should be
taught.  Do we study grammar (linguistics) because it is valuable in
its own right for children/young people to understand this very
basic, very powerful (apparently unique) human artifact/tool--how
it's put together and how it works?   Or do we study grammar for its
utilitarian value--because it is useful for something else?  I
sometimes get the feeling that some ATEG members would like grammar
to be viewed merely as "the handmaiden of composition."
 
 
 
**********************************************************************
R. Michael Medley       VPH 211                Ph: (712) 737-7047
Assistant Professor     Northwestern College
Department of English   Orange City, IA  51041
**********************************************************************

ATOM RSS1 RSS2