Thank you so much for this excellent summary.  This email is a definite
"keeper," and going right into my "Outlook Express ATEG folder."

Carla

----- Original Message -----
From: "William J. McCleary" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 10:43 AM
Subject: The Grammar Debate


> I suggest that this is not an appropriate forum in which to discuss
> literature, the canon, and young adult literature. The move to reduce or
> eliminate the teaching of grammar in secondary schools predates
> multi-culturalism, ebonics, etc. anyway.
>
> We have, of course, discussed to the point of exhaustion the issues
> concerning language instruction raised by Robert Reis. However, since the
> membership of this listserv changes continually, perhaps a restatement of
> some of the results of that discussion is in order. (This is my own take
on
> the matter, so corrections and additions will be welcome.)
>
> 1. Discussions about the teaching of grammar are subject to confusion over
> terminology, for few writers take the time to explain whether they are
> referring to traditional (schoolbook) grammar, a scientific grammar,
> usage/mechanics, or stylistic preferences.
>
> 2. The teaching of grammar suffers from its connection to the teaching of
> correctness in writing. For many teachers, if grammar (however ones
defines
> the term) cannot be proven to help students reduce the errors in their
> writing, then it can be safely eliminated from the curriculum. I think
that
> it is the position of ATEG that grammar should be taught as a liberal
> art--as a subject with many potential uses, not just the elimination of
> errors from one's writing.
>
> 3. The teaching of grammar also suffers from the dominance of literature
in
> the English department. Prospective English teachers cannot get adequate
> training in grammar from most college English departments. Indeed, some
> English departments offer none. (Composition has the same problem.)
>
> 4. For many years much of the secondary English curriculum was consumed
> with the teaching of grammar (defined as traditional grammar and
> mechanics/usage). This was certainly true when I taught ninth grade in the
> 1960s. Furthermore, this approach was defined not as the teaching of
> grammar but as the teaching of composition. In other words, grammar and
> composition were considered the "same thing" in many ways. There has been
a
> strong backlash against that approach. Composition is now treated as the
> practice of actual writing first and foremost, with mechanics/usage taking
> a strong secondary position and grammar-as-syntax a distant third. I think
> everyone agrees that this reform was long overdue, though many lament how
> far grammar-as-syntax has been demoted.
>
> 5. There is abundant (though hotly disputed) evidence that the teaching of
> grammar (defined as the teaching of syntax) does not improve student
> writing. In particular, it does not help students improve the correctness
> of their writing. Drills on matters of correctness also aren't very
> effective. I think that the most accepted view at the moment is that
direct
> teaching of usage/mechanics within the context of the students' own
writing
> is the most effective way of improving correctness.
>
> 6. We speculate that one reason students have difficult learning and
> applying grammar (defined as syntax) is that they are being taught
> traditional schoolbook grammar and that this kind of grammar is an
> inadequate and often incorrect description of English syntax. Efforts to
> teach a more scientific grammar have not caught on, possibly because there
> are no secondary school textbooks that use them, or the scientific
grammars
> are too technical.
>
> 7. To counter the problems of traditional grammar, we have discussed
> developing what we have called a "pedagogical grammar." This would retain
> traditional terminology to the extent possible, reduce coverage to the
most
> essential concepts, and eliminate the inadequacies of traditional grammar.
> At least one such grammar, Ed Vavra's KISS approach, has been run up the
> flagpole, but so far has not achieved widespread acceptance.
>
> 7. Presently ATEG is in the process of developing a grammar curriculum
that
> could be proposed for K-12. I'm not familiar with the present status of
> this work, but I assume that it will have wider purposes than the
> traditional version.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> William J. McCleary
> 3247 Bronson Hill Road
> Livonia, NY 14487
> 716-346-6859
>
> 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/