Below is a message forw
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: scope and sequence
From: "Johanna Rubba" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, February 6, 2006 12:04 pm
To: "Craig Hancock" <[log in to unmask]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
I haven't had a lot of time to participate in the current discussion,
but I do want to express my strong interest in being part of the
scope-and-sequence project.
I think I posted some broad principles for method a while ago, to the
NPG list. I will try to hunt that down and post it again, if it has
gotten lost in the shuffle.
Attending conferences is a bit problematic for me, due to funding
limits at my U. I can generally afford only one conference per year,
unless there is one in California. All the same, I would like to
contribute. My main interest areas are the content of the grammar
curriculum itself, and method/pedagogy. I have special interests in
tying grammar to meaning and discourse organization, and in approaches
to students whose native English is a nonstandard dialect.
Perhaps someone has said this already, but one thing that is crucial is
that we sequence the curriculum appropriately, in accordance with
children's developmental stages in both language structure and
readiness for metalinguistics (for talking _about_ language, rather
than doing language). There are state standards that are inappropriate
in this way. For instance, CA requires kindergarteners to "speak in
complete sentences", and appositives are taught well before they emerge
naturally in children's writing.
Yesterday, I was reading some background materials for teachers in the
Open Court language arts program, the program most strongly favored by
the state. They repeat the usual stuff about grammar instruction
possibly being harmful, and not being very effective in helping
students write well. They explicitly say that grammar is useful mainly
for the editing/proofreading stage of writing, and give a nod to the
idea that it is helpful for students and teachers to have a vocabulary
for talking about language. They do recommend "contextualizing"
grammar, by having students work with grammar in relation to their
reading selections, and by having students use grammar topics in their
own writing immediately. Clearly, one of our main jobs is to inform
curriculum designers of the fallacy of these positions.
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
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/
|
