ATEG Archives

August 1999

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:
"William J. McCleary" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 20 Aug 1999 15:30:27 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (89 lines)
Dear Cathy Holmes,

You raise several interesting questions here, most of them already much
debated on this list. One is the problem of what you mean when you say that
someone was attempting to pound "grammar rules" into your head. If you mean
that you were being taught formal grammar of the nouns-and-pronouns ilk,
that probably never improved anyone's writing. If you mean the rules of
correct usage, punctuation, capitalization, and so on, that probably didn't
do much good either, although it had a better chance than the grammar.

Another issue is what you mean by better writing. Many teachers mean
writing that is more correct rather than more complete, more logical, more
graceful, more organized, and/or more perceptive. One sometimes gets the
impression that a lot of teachers would be perfectly happy with correct
writing that has little content. One also gets the impression that some
teachers of the process approach would be happy with writing that has great
content but many errors. And, of course, given the slim chance one has of
being able to teach correct writing, settling for better content does have
its appeal.

Then there is your claim that "today's process-driven composition," in your
opinion, "is not producing any better writers than those of my generation."
Now there's a real can of worms, starting with the possibility that your
opinion might be based on very little evidence. If so, it doesn't mean that
you're wrong, just that you can't honestly claim to know whether you're
right or wrong.

Then there's the question of whether "process-driven composition" really
exists today in any substantial amount. Just because everybody's talking
about the process approach doesn't mean that everybody is doing it. I've
observed a lot of certified teachers and supervised a lot of student
teachers who were teaching a curriculum assigned to them. There was
virtually no process-driven composition being done. A few THOUGHT they were
doing the process approach because they had students write a rough draft
one day and "revise" the draft the next day and hand it in. Revision nearly
always mean correcting the errors. Two drafts does not make a process
approach.

The process approach is like most educational reforms. (1) The term means
different things to different teachers. This allows all of us to say we are
doing it while at the same time doing something very different. (2) Seldom
do you find anyone who has worked out how to use the process approach
successfully having the chance to teach the method to other teachers. (3)
Typically, the administration brings in an "expert" for a one-shot
workshop, leaving the teachers to implement the method on their own (or
not). (4) No one bothers to define what is meant by "better writing" or to
prove that this or that method leads to better writing.

Finally, the process approach is only a METHOD of teaching. The CONTENT of
the curriculum, rhetorical theory, is usually taken for granted. That is,
few of us are taught what the features of the various kinds of essay should
be. That may be the biggest mistake of all.

Bill McCleary



>Greetings,
>
>I am a senior English major at the Univ. of Washington. Although my
>academic emphasis is on writing, I am also taking composition classes
>for the a secondary teaching minor. I graduated in 1972 from a small
>rural high school and can remember a 5th grade teacher and a
>college-prep English teacher pounding (or attempting to) grammar rules
>into my head.
>
>As both a composition process student and the parent of a 20 yr-old, I
>find myself struggling between two schools of thought: (1) the old
>1960s "you're going to learn "good" grammar and use it or else!"
>methodology; and (2) today's process-driven composition, which, in my
>opinion, is not producing any better writers than those of my
>generation.
>
>Any thoughts and/or feedback on this subject would be very helpful to
>me.
>
>Thank you kindly,
>
>Cathy Holmes
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com


William J. McCleary
3247 Bronson Hill Road
Livonia, NY 14487
716-346-6859

ATOM RSS1 RSS2