This 3S project is starting to look more clear to me, a lot of work
and extremely conmprehensive, but, fundamentally, more clear.

For anyone who wants to get up to date quickly, I recommend
Johanna's posting (copied below) and a visit to the 3S document
now taking shape:

http://www.multimedia.calpoly.edu/libarts/jrubba/3S_ATEG99.html

I presume that all members of ATEG will be invited to revise the
document on the above page.  There should be an approval
process to get the sanction of the ATEG at large.

And if it takes the above form, the 3S document will have a lot of
impact and will contain really concrete guidance when circulated to
all kinds of education departments / officials / interest groups.

I hope that the committee has the stamina to keep going on it.  I
long to see the final report.  I haven't lifted a finger to help, mind
you, but I long to see the report!

> Johanna Rubba writes:
> Keep the scope of the project in mind: it's not intended as a remedial for
> the gaps in current grammar education, but as a program assuming K-12
> application. I'm not sure how we can address the issue of remediating
> current lack of grammatical knowledge among teachers and students, which
> is an urgent need. Ed's KISS curriculum is a good start, though.
>
> As to desired outcomes, here is objective B of the 3S objectives I
> proposed lo these many months ago:
>
> "B  Every student will leave school with the ability to analyze the
> grammatical structure of a text in English, using grammatical
> terminology correctly, and showing knowledge of the relationship
> between grammatical structure and sentence- and text-level
>function."
>
> This is about as ambitious as it gets! This means a total parse of a
> text, including discourse functions of sentence constituents. Some
> people might consider this college-level material (if not grad school!),
> and perhaps it is better reserved for the advanced placement/honors
> courses. Or perhaps we want to moderate it period. But again, keep in mind
> that the objectives assume a good grammar curriculum grades 4-12. The
> objectives were proposed as material for discussion!
>
> As to terminology, I made a foray into this by suggesting some
> meta-terminology first, as well as terms for 12 parts of speech. I
> figured the area D people (description of the language) would haggle
> over definitions of grammatical terms first, then submit a result to the
> whole committee for discussion. Perhaps I need to do some more delineating
> of how the various task forces could go forward.
>
> There has been vanishing little discussion/response from most members of
> the committee on these proposals. Also, very few committee members have
> responded to my 'basic stuff' message of 1/14/00. I realize not a lot of
> time has passed, but I urge committee members to get a discussion going.
> If things are unclear, let me know.
>
> I urge 3S members to do two things as soon as possible:
> 1) visit the 3S site,
> http://www.multimedia.calpoly.edu/libarts/jrubba/3S.html
> and read what little is there, AND RESPOND TO IT.
> 2) Look over Ed's KISS curriculum (I spent about an hour with it, and felt
> quite acquainted with its approach and content after that time.)
>
> For reminders of the 3S task structure, go to
> http://www.multimedia.calpoly.edu/libarts/jrubba/3S_ATEG99.html
>
> As to 'morphology': I have never suggested teaching this term to anyone.
> Acquisition of morphology must be taken into account in _our_
> recommendations for what categories of inflections (plural, past tense,
> etc.) should be taught when and how; for how to address dialect
> differences in inflection; and for how vocabulary can relate to grammar
> (prefixes and suffixes that create new words, such as '-ness' and '-ation'
> change the word class of the word they attach to).
>
> Where dialect differences and language change are concerned, 'errors' in
> grammar are quite systematic. As to philosophy, if we all agree that
> de-motivational teaching tactics are undesirable, and if we all agree that
> we should teach linguistic fact, not social myth, then the approach to
> 'error' will need to be modified in the new program. Also, the current
> grammar curriculum, including tests, puts nonstandard dialect speakers at
> a true disadvantage; it discriminates against them. There are test items
> on which a standard speaker will intuitively choose only the one correct
> answer, while a nonstandard speaker will see more than one answer that
> 'sounds right'. Who's at a disadvantage here? Such tests are unfair, plain
> and simple.
>
> Johanna
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Johanna Rubba   Assistant Professor, Linguistics
> English Department, California Polytechnic State University
> One Grand Avenue  • San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
> Tel. (805)-756-2184  •  Fax: (805)-756-6374 • Dept. Phone.  756-259
> • E-mail: [log in to unmask] •  Home page: http://www.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
>                                      **
> "Understanding is a lot like sex; it's got a practical purpose,
> but that's not why people do it normally"  -            Frank  Oppenheimer
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~