Susan, I agree with everything you say. I do start with understanding the
grammatical structure and then practice it rather than vice versa, but then
I am dealing with adults not children--and that order may not be necessary
to adults either! As I have reported before on the listserv, students in the
grammar class at North Seattle Community College report during the quarter
and for years afterward that they now read better than they did before, so
yes, the right kind of grammar instruction can improve reading and writing.
Yes, the sentence combining needs to begin with easy sentences and be very
guided. Ed, there is also a lot of research showing that sentence combining
does improve writing; maybe the tests were not done on the same kind of
exercises, guided and open.
Edith Wollin

-----Original Message-----
From: Susan Witt [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 3:00 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: My dog moaned, its tail stuck...


>>>I don't think circling things in a worksheet gets students to where they
>actually learn the structure. They need to do sentence combining to get the
>language part of the brain to figure the structure out. Then they can write
>their own sentences using the structure. <<<<<

I agree that circling things in a worksheet doesn't help much (nor most
exercises in grammar textbooks).  However, sentence combining has its
limitations, depending on how it is approached. I think a really structured
form of sentence combining is most effective.

I started working with a series of exercises, starting with sentence
structure imitation, as well as sentence combining and sentence
deconstruction, and a modified form of diagramming for compounds, followed
by paragraph or journal writing where kids were expected to use certain
constructions.  I found it worked if I started with really simple sentences,
to get down the process, and gradually increased the complexity of the
sentences.  I also have kids identify different types of modifiers, and
locate the word(s) that are being modified.

Once the kids learn how to use particular structures, learning the names of
the structures is more useful, and easier to achieve.

Interestingly, I believe that once kids learn to recognize certain
structures, their reading comprehension while reading those structures seems
to improve.  I haven't tested this out objectively.  I do know that the kids
I used these activities did start to pay better attention to what they were
reading, as measured by some multiple guess tests required by the school at
which I was teaching, but that may have been due to a number of other
factors as well.  I know that when I looked at how effectively they were
able to imitate sentence structures, their reading comprehension fell off at
about the same level of complexity -- the longer sentences confused them.

I suspect that SOME FORMS of grammar instruction can improve reading
comprehension -- but that does not cover most grammar instruction as taught
in traditional grammar textbooks.

I'm also interested in the relationship between implicit and explicit
teaching of grammar.  I suspect that each type of teaching has something to
contribute to a student's learning, but that children lose out if one or the
other is missing.

From what I've gathered, explicit teaching can attract a child's attention
to certain elements, but they need opportunities for implicit learning (such
as contained in sentence combining, sentence structure imitation, as well as
plain old reading, listening, speaking, and writing) for this explicit
instruction to become ingrained.  Once this has happened, I think that
further explicit instruction can help the child gain more conscious control
of his/her use of specific structures.

If this theory is correct, then the most effective grammatical instruction
would contain elements of explicit instruction as well as activities that
develop implicit understanding.  Knowing the name of something and being
able to describe it, does not of itself enable a child to use the
construction effectively.  A child can learn to use constructions
effectively without being able to explain it, but may not happen upon this
knowledge by him/herself, and further, will not gain the conscious control
that can be gained through the ability to explain those structures.

I suggest that the teaching of grammar needs to be rethought.  If previous
studies have proven that grammar instruction is not effective (arguable as
that is), perhaps it is the type of grammar instruction that was tested,
rather than the whole idea of grammar instruction.  If teachers were
introduced to more useful forms of grammar instruction, perhaps they would
be more open to incorporating it into their lessons.

Susan

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/