I expected to get some flak from my previous post, but I wasn't
expecting over a hundred messages on the site. I read e-mail once a week
from my office, and I do not have the time right now to go through all
the messages. I would, however, like to respond to Peter's message
regarding grammatical errors.
    I do not regularly talk about the KISS Grammar site here, simply
because I've been criticized for doing so. (Another reason for my
looking for different audiences?) I will say, however, that KISS
approaches grammatical errors by teaching students how sentences work.
Most of the people on this list cannot approach the question this way
because their grammars are primarily definitions of terms rather than a
sequence for teaching students how to analyze sentences. For the KISS
Approach to errors, see:
http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/kiss/wb/IM/Errors.htm
 
The practical home page for KISS is now:
http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/kiss/wb/PBooks/index.htm
This summer I have been revising the "Instructional Books" for the five
KISS Levels. These are available, for free, as MS Word documents.
 
     Although I have not been able to read all the messages, I would
like to clarify the terminological problem as I see it. I have no
problem with different grammarians using different terms. The problem
arises when teachers and students are presented with "grammar" books
that claim to be teaching the same thing ("grammar") but that use terms
differently without clearly indicating that they are doing so. Thus
teachers are confused, for example, about what a "clause" is because one
book defines "clause" one way and another book does so in another.
     I finally found the time to read David Mulroy's The War against
Grammar, and I can see why ATEG members are not all that enthusiastic
about it. He points out that ATEG is an extremely small group, almost
comical when compared to NCTE. ATEG, I will suggest, will remain such a
small, and ineffective group, until it resolves it terminological
problem. Teachers (and professors) simply ignore ATEG because it
produces primarily mumbo-jumbo terminology that is not internally
consistent. 
    Once again, why can't ATEG support two, three, five named grammars?
WIthin each of these grammars, terms would be defined and internally
consistent. Once a grammar gets to that point, students and teachers can
begin to apply it to questions of reading, writing, errors, style,
logic, literature, etc. Once a grammar gets to that point, one can begin
to consider what constructions should be taught first, etc. There is
little discussion of the applications of grammar on the ATEG site,
primarily because ATEG members cannot agree on which tools (terms) to
use in such applications.
    Although I will still, for obvious reasons, prefer KISS grammar, I
would certainly support ATEG's proposals for distinct, named,
pedagogical grammars. Unless that happens, however, ATEG will be a
target of criticism.
   I apologize again for not having yet read all the messages. I'll try
to get to them on Monday.
Ed
 


>>> [log in to unmask] 7/8/2006 7:43:47 PM >>>

I understand that the ATEG position is that the teaching of grammar has
wider goals than simply "the avoidance of error."  And over the years,
thanks to this list and to presentations at conferences, I have come to
embrace these wider goals.  However, the ATEG position sometimes sounds
to me to suggest that any concern with the avoidance of error is
misguided.  I would love to hear some ATEGers agree that reducing the
frequency and seriousness of error in student writing is a worthwhile
goal of grammar instruction, while recognizing that it should not be the
only goal.



Peter Adams

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/