Craig,
I see certification and scope and sequence (curriculum) as inextricably
linked. Certification has got to come out of curriculum or it's
inappropriate, unfair, and possibly outside the law. We can't test
people on things we don't clearly state that they should know. But I
agree with Phil that certification has to be an important part of
improving the teaching of grammar in the schools, and also that
certification is a powerful was to bring teachers along with us.
Phil asserts that the traditional grammar that's out there is what
students need to know, that it's adequate, and that it should be the
basis of curriculum and certification. This is an interesting claim,
and it has some merit, since much of the world that is aware of grammar
identifies it with something they call traditional grammar, whatever
that might be. However, Phil remains vague about what this traditional
grammar is. It is, apparently, not Jespersen or Quirk. It is,
apparently, more like what's found in the average freshman writing
handbook. I'm not comfortable with this because it's too vague.
Handbooks aren't consistent, aren't always right--but that can be said
of any textbook in any field, and, as far as their treatment of grammar
is concerned, are reference works rather than textbooks. If Phil can
point us to what he considers to be a solid, representative textbook
presentation of what he sees as traditional grammar, then we would have
something to work from, if that proved to be productive.
That there is much of value in traditional grammar I don't question.
That contemporary grammatical studies have much to contribute to what
traditional grammar offers is also pretty clear. But we need to be more
precise in the claims we're making, myself included.
Herb
Herb,
Amen to your thoughts on polarization.
I think the proposal for a "certification" program SEEMs like an
attempt to derail scope and sequence, and I'm saying that in the hope
that we can disagree clearly and directly and respectfully when we do.
Scope and sequence is an ongoing project; is it failing? If it is, that
might be because there is a great deal of difficulty moving ahead with
such a disparate group. Do we need a certification program, along
Phil's lines (not too exuberant or youthful, not closely connected to
writing and literature, much more conservative and traditional than the
path we were taking) to replace it and fold it in? If so, let's address
that issue directly.
I think that there were reasons why the old grammar was called into
question. The teaching of writing is now much, much better than it was
when the prime focus was on correcting error. A good deal of grammar
instruction has been inaccurate (descriptively) and somewhat arbitrary
and dysfunctional (prescriptively), not well connected to meaningful
writing or a meaningful interaction with text. In good conscience, I
can't go to my colleagues in composition and say we have decided that
Warriner's has been OK all along, and we want to test you to see if you
know what's in there before you can continue to teach. We would be
simply extending the contentiousness from our group to the larger
field. We would be saying, in effect, that there was nothing of
substance in the movement away from grammar. It would seem like a war
against reading and writing from the grammar side.
The path we were on--a fairly careful rethinking of traditional
grammar, with attention to how grammar might be integrated into
reading and writing in a substantive way--I believe has the potential
to win over converts. It would also offer a systematic approach (both
scope and sequence) for any group interested in that kind of advice.
We can certainly make recommendations for teacher training, both
long-term (for new teachers) and short term (for current teachers not
well versed in the field, often through no fault of their own.)
The conference enthusiastically endorsed the program with a clear
sense
of its direction and its goals. It may very well be that the ATEG
membership doesn't buy into that approach. If so, lets say so openly
and directly.
Are we too polarized to come up with a consensus? That was Ed Vavra's
prediction when we started this talk. If that's the case, we don't
necessarily need to feel bad about that. The world needs a place where
people who disagree fundamentally can somewhat collegially discuss
their approaches and differences. To me, it just means that I will
create continuing problems by trying to coordinate a more progressive
program for a group that is not unified enough to endorse it.
The project could continue outside the umbrella of ATEG. Perhaps a
Certification program could as well. As it stands now, we would
probably keep each other from happening because of fundamental
disagreements about the nature of grammar and its role within the
curriculum.
Craig
There has been some hint of polarization on the list, and I interpreted
> Rebecca Watson's "jangle my nerves" in that context. If I have done
> Rebecca a disservice I apologize, but I'm more concerned that there
may in
> fact be some polarization, which leads to partisanship, which is, as
we
> see too often in Congress and in political debate, the point at which
> critical thinking shuts down.
>
> I hope I'm wrong about this, because we need all the critical thinking
we
> can get on the tasks we've set for ourselves.
>
> Herb
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
Johanna
> Rubba
> Sent: Thu 8/31/2006 5:04 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Grammar Certification
>
> I'm trying to understand why the book Rebecca Watson refers to would
> "jangle my nerves". I don't know what IEP stands for; that might help
> me understand.
>
> Anyone who has read my posts on this list knows that I advocate
> teaching grammar in effective ways. For beginning students (for all
> students, really), visuals are great. I believe in nouns, verbs,
> capitalization, and punctuation. How they're defined and how and when
> they're taught is what concerns me. I use my own manuscript in my
> structure-of-English classes, and most of my students consistently
rate
> it between 8 and 10 (10-high) on two criteria: (1) clarity and
> accessibility of the information and (2) usefulness of the information
> for their future careers as teachers.
>
> I don't recall anyone posting to this list who doesn't want
> schoolchildren to come out of K-12 fluent in standard English. It's
the
> HOW and the WHAT and the WHEN that are at issue.
>
> As to The ESL Grammar Book, I stated clearly in my post that I was
> referring to teacher trainees, not ESL students. Maybe it's better as
a
> reference book than a textbook. I haven't taught from it myself; I'm
> just familiar with its contents. Students apparently find it
> accessible, since it was in use at MT and Herb has testified to that
> effect, and I imagine it is in use elsewhere, or else it wouldn't be
on
> the market anymore. I do believe that ESL teachers should have
Master's
> degrees, and that they should have a full year of linguistics, from
> phonetics to discourse. If you're going to teach language, you'd
better
> know your subject.
>
> As to learning linguistic theories when preparing to teach ESL, I
don't
> see what's wrong with it. Much of teacher education is _background
> knowledge_, not necessarily stuff that you will translate directly
into
> classroom lessons. Teachers need good classroom materials that are
> informed by linguistics, too, but those materials will not be theory
> books. Such materials aren't widely available right now; that's one
> thing some of us are working on. Teachers have also been known to
> design their own teaching materials. Understanding how language works
> is very useful for that endeavor.
>
> History majors who go on to be high school or middle school history
> teachers learn more history in college than they ever teach, I assume.
> I know much, much, much more about language than I ever teach, because
> all of my classes are introductory, and I have no linguistics MA or
PhD
> students. A good number of students in our elementary-school teacher
ed
> program seem to believe that they don't need to know more about the
> subjects they will teach than what is in the teaching materials they
> will use for their students. This isn't good.
>
> Dr. Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics
> Linguistics Minor Advisor
> English Department
> California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> Tel.: 805.756.2184
> Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596
> Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374
> URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
>
> 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/
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/
|
