You have actually gone beyond English grammar in your remarks. I have
taught across the curriculum at the secondary level and all over history,
English, French, Spanish, ESOL at the post-secondary level.
I have always had an open door office policy and have been the recipient
of numerous questions in and out of curriculum. Except for clear violations
of morality or ethics, the answer almost has always has depended upon
"approaches, context, and usage"--and I do not subscribe to situational
ethics.
Scott Catledge
P.S. In the mid-60's I attended a semester-long graduate extension class
from UTA on English Grammar for High School English teachers. The
instructor spent the term trying to explain why "to be" was not a verb in
English. He did not convince a single teacher. The few dodos who claimed
to agree with him could not explain his theory to the rest of us and
admitted that they had no plans to incorporate anything that he had said
into any of their English grammar classes.
P.P.S. My students never indicated a problem discerning phrases from
clauses on the infrequent occasions that they needed to do so. If it acts
as a single part of speech, it's a phrase; if it contains a subject and its
finite verb, it's a clause. "Reduced clause" has never been needed as an
explanation. Yes, a clause can act as a single part of speech--and I could
almost always count on a student to bring that point up--an extra daily
grade of A was always announced--even when daily grades were not given--it
came into play if needed to distinguish an A- and a B+, etc.
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ATEG automatic digest system
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 12:00 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: ATEG Digest - 16 Dec 2008 to 17 Dec 2008 (#2008-273)
There are 3 messages totalling 1247 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. scope and sequence: was clause or phrase (2)
2. The 'progressive view'
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/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 03:28:33 -0600
From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: scope and sequence: was clause or phrase
------=_Part_700_28864925.1229506113531
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
I think Bill makes some great points. Although I can sympathize with Ed's
great frustration over the lack of consistent terminology, I can't help but
feel that the myriad of approaches to grammar is an asset. Sure, it feels
like a strike against us sometimes, but it is a testament to the fact that
grammar, as an aspect of language, IS more than a single, codified rulebook
of etiquette. Trying to pretend like we've been able to package a nice and
neat grammar package for teachers (even if we were able to) seems like a
slight of hand, pulling the teachers'/students' attentions away from the
gray and ugly areas we don't want them to see.
All of my students, whether they be high schoolers or teachers-in-training
at the college level, squirm when they get a glimpse at the reality of
data/corpus-backed grammar. They squirm a lot. They ask for an answer
(singular) for each term, each construction analysis, etc. After a semester
(a meager beginning), they stop asking for the answer (although I'm sure
they still wish for it -- even I do that). They begin to realize that
answers depend on approaches, context, and usage. I never claim to run a
model classroom, but one thing I am proud of is honesty with my students,
and in the case of grammar, that honesty tends to lead to constructive
teaching opportunities.
Having said that, I certainly understand and advocate the need for some
semblance of consistency in terminology from a pedagogical perspective,
especially in a spiraled curriculum that would take a student from
elementary studies to advanced high school studies. I remain optimistic that
ATEG can offer such consistency. It would depend on concessions and
compromises from different theoretical camps as Bill points out. I think it
would also depend on a commitment to teaching flexibility (i.e. emphasis on
concept, not the label used to describe the concept) as a part of the
curriculum. A student who is aware that language ain't easy is much more
prepared for grammar than one who goes scrambling for a delineated rulebook
at every turn.
John Alexander
Austin, Texas
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Spruiell, William C
<[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> Ed, Craig, et al.:
>
> To some extent, what we're seeing is exactly the same process that
> resulted in Britain (and the U.S.) never having the equivalent of the
> French Academe, i.e. a "legislated" grammar of the language. France and
> Spain created their academies via a kind of top-down approach:
> regardless of what other grammarians thought, if the King liked you, you
> won. The British -- and we -- are grammatically Whiggish. Lack of a
> legislated grammar isn't necessarily a bad thing, but of course, it does
> cause problems in relation to curriculum.
>
>
> The solution may lie in a more open discussion of the process by which
> we work than by arguing from the start over specific terms. We'll be
> successful if we can reach consensus, but consensus (as we've seen) will
> *never* occur when it appears as if one person's, or one camp's,
> definitions and model are being proposed to the exclusion of others.
> Arguing in favor of any one approach, be it KISS or any other, can come
> across as a power move. There *are* multiple definitions of "clause,"
> and each is valid to the extent it works well within the approach that
> defines it -- but we do need to pick one if we want to define a scope
> and sequence, even loosely. We all have to realize we have emotional
> investments in our own positions, and be willing to attempt to back off
> from pushing too much.
>
> As I mentioned in a previous post, I think there's not *too* much
> disagreement over claims like "this construction is different from that
> one"; where the disagreement comes in is the terminology we attach to
> the difference, and the explanations we propose for it. We have to deal
> with terminology no matter what, but it's possible to adopt a more
> agnostic approach to the explanations (and yes, I realize fully that
> arguing for an agnostic approach is itself an approach, but I can't
> think of any other way out of this particular Klein bottle). From the
> standpoint of K12 grammar, it's enough that we recognize that
> constructions *are* different, and that we have some handy terms to use.
>
>
> It's possible that we could reach consensus on particular terms on the
> basis of pedagogic utility. I'd argue that a three-way split of "phrase
> vs. reduced clause vs. full clause" is handy in the classroom, since
> students frequently don't want to lump "giving Athelfrith some lutfisk"
> together with "a book." But I'd be willing to back down on that,
> especially if a lot of other people disagreed with me. We just need an
> organized way of resolving that kind of dispute, and (on an individual
> basis) be willing to accept compromises. Optimally, the same basic
> category terms would be used in 2nd and 11th grade, but with additional
> recognized subcategories at the higher grade levels.
>
> Bill Spruiell
> Dept. of English
> Central Michigan University
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Edward Vavra
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 5:51 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: scope and sequence: was clause or phrase
>
> Craig,
> Your post is very interesting, but it does not go far enough. I
> would say that ATEG is a dangerous organization. (There are times when
> I'm sorry that I started it.) Your explanations for the "hiatus" are
> good, but they underemphasize the self-interest of many of the ATEG
> members--their desire to defend their own brands of grammar. Are the
> numerous "explanations" ("clause or phrase") not poisonous for teachers
> and students? The major problem with instruction in grammar is the
> confusion in the terminology, but members of ATEG cannot even divide
> into sub-groups to establish different scope and sequence designs. Nor
> it seems, can they agree that students at a given grade level should be
> able to identify the clauses in typical writing by students in their own
> grade level. (A major part of this problem is that members cannot agree
> on the definition of a clause.)
> I basically gave up on ATEG after the first Seattle conference. (I
> believe it was in 2000?) At that conference, I suggested two or three
> separate groups (for different designs), but that was shot down. ATEG
> was going to make one "scope and sequence" design. We can see, almost a
> decade later, how that worked out. I remember pouting at the conference.
> (I'm a little boy at heart.) Meanwhile, of course, a decade's worth of
> students have gone through school with minimal, and usually poor
> instruction in grammar.
> I decided that ATEG is useless, or actually harmful. In that it
> claims to be teaching grammar, it appears to fill a void. But all it
> really does is add to the confusion. As you know, I've been spending my
> time on the KISS curriculum -- a very definite "scope and sequence"
> plan. http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/kiss/wb/PBooks/index.htm
> Thanks for bringing this question up, but I really don't see ATEG
> developing one plan, and it appears that members are afraid of the
> competition that would result from several plans.
>
> Ed V.
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
> Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 11:35 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: scope and sequence: was clause or phrase
>
> Richard,
> Scope and sequence is in a bit of hiatus. This might be a good time
> to talk about the reasons for that and the difficulties around doing
> that through ATEG.
> My own frustration dates back to two conferences ago, when I thought
> we would make great progress on scope and sequence at the conference. My
>
> plan, which I thought was agreed on by the conference committee, was to
> break into subgroups and have people make suggestions about what might
> be covered. We could have a sub-group making recommendations about
> Standard English, punctuation, and so on, focusing on the knowledge
> about language that wold be most helpful and useful. I was hoping people
>
> would then feel a vested interest in the project. There was resistance,
>
> though, from different sources. Some people questioned whether ATEG, as
> a sub-group of NCTE, should be taking a position on grammar at odds with
>
> our parent organization. That conflict of interest has been a constant
> issue in ATEG, and I don't fault anyone from bringing it up. One result
> was that we largely used our time to construct a position statement
> asking NCTE to endorse the systematic teaching of grammar. The position
> statement, which I thought was very thoughtful and nicely written, was
> simply tabled at the NCTE convention. In other words, ATEG tried to
> work through official channels as a sub-group of NCTE, ibut was stymied
> by those who feel they know more about this than we do and who, in
> effect, control our existence as an organization.
> The other problem came from those at the conference, including the
> leadership, who feel that scope and sequence already exists and that we
> have no need to construct one. My own tendency has been to lobby for new
>
> ways of looking at grammar, but ATEG has long been an organization made
> up of people with fairly conservative (not regressive, not by a long
> shot) views. This was hard on me because I felt I had a lot invested in
>
> the project, but would be asked to shut out from the conversation the
> new possibilities in grammar that excite me the most.
> But let me give a more friendly view of that. Many of us involved in
> the project have written books on the subject, and you can't really do
> that without engaging the issue in ways that you feel invested in. What
> happens if the group advocates a scope that doesn't fit those views?
> I sometimes feel I am shooting myself in the foot every time I move
> on in my thinking because I have a 2005 text that now constitutes an
> older position.
> This might be a way of saying that those of us who know the most tend
>
> to have an investment in particular approaches. For ATEG as a whole,
> those approaches have probably already been written.
> As many of you know, much of the conversation about scope and
> sequence was worked out by the New Public Grammar group. I have never
> wanted that group to be in conflict (to compete with) ATEG. So at that
> point, I didn't even feel comfortable airing these frustrations on the
> NPG list. I was, and still am, nervous about creating a rift in the
> public grammar community. I didn't want anyone to feel I was trying to
> pull people away from ATEG.
> The unfortunate result has been that Scope and sequence hasn't moved
> forward for some time. A few of us have been in discussion about
> starting it back up again as we restart talk on the NPG list.
> NPG has the benefit of being separate from NCTE. It can take a strong
>
> contrary perspective and not feel uncomfortable about that.
> It can also maintain friendly relationships with ATEG without the
> necessity of ATEG endorsing its views.
> I apologize if I have misrepresented anyone's views or anyone else's
>
> views about the history of the project. I don't think of it as anyone
> being at fault. These are very predictable difficulties given the nature
>
> of the project.
>
> Craig
>
> 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/
------=_Part_700_28864925.1229506113531
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
<div>I think Bill makes some great points. Although I can sympathize with
Ed's great frustration over the lack of consistent terminology, I
can't help but feel that the myriad of approaches to grammar is an
asset. Sure, it feels like a strike against us sometimes, but it is a
testament to the fact that grammar, as an aspect of language, IS more than a
single, codified rulebook of etiquette. Trying to pretend like we've
been able to package a nice and neat grammar package for teachers (even if
we were able to) seems like a slight of hand, pulling the
teachers'/students' attentions away from the gray and ugly areas we
don't want them to see. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>All of my students, whether they be high schoolers or
teachers-in-training at the college level, squirm when they get a glimpse at
the reality of data/corpus-backed grammar. They squirm a lot. They ask for
an answer (singular) for each term, each construction analysis, etc. After a
semester (a meager beginning), they stop asking for the answer (although
I'm sure they still wish for it -- even I do that). They begin to
realize that answers depend on approaches, context, and usage. I never claim
to run a model classroom, but one thing I am proud of is honesty with my
students, and in the case of grammar, that honesty tends to lead to
constructive teaching opportunities. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Having said that, I certainly understand and advocate the need for some
semblance of consistency in terminology from a pedagogical perspective,
especially in a spiraled curriculum that would take a student from
elementary studies to advanced high school studies. I remain optimistic that
ATEG can offer such consistency. It would depend on concessions and
compromises from different theoretical camps as Bill points out. I think it
would also depend on a commitment to teaching flexibility (i.e. emphasis on
concept, not the label used to describe the concept) as a part of the
curriculum. A student who is aware that language ain't easy is much more
prepared for grammar than one who goes scrambling for a delineated rulebook
at every turn. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>John Alexander</div>
<div>Austin, Texas<br><br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Spruiell, William
C <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px
0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Ed, Craig, et al.:<br><br>To some
extent, what we're seeing is exactly the same process that<br>resulted
in Britain (and the U.S.) never having the equivalent of the<br>
French Academe, i.e. a "legislated" grammar of the language.
France and<br>Spain created their academies via a kind of top-down
approach:<br>regardless of what other grammarians thought, if the King liked
you, you<br>
won. The British -- and we -- are grammatically Whiggish. Lack of
a<br>legislated grammar isn't necessarily a bad thing, but of course, it
does<br>cause problems in relation to curriculum.<br><br><br>The solution
may lie in a more open discussion of the process by which<br>
we work than by arguing from the start over specific terms. We'll
be<br>successful if we can reach consensus, but consensus (as we've
seen) will<br>*never* occur when it appears as if one person's, or one
camp's,<br>
definitions and model are being proposed to the exclusion of
others.<br>Arguing in favor of any one approach, be it KISS or any other,
can come<br>across as a power move. There *are* multiple definitions of
"clause,"<br>
and each is valid to the extent it works well within the approach
that<br>defines it -- but we do need to pick one if we want to define a
scope<br>and sequence, even loosely. We all have to realize we have
emotional<br>investments in our own positions, and be willing to attempt to
back off<br>
from pushing too much.<br><br>As I mentioned in a previous post, I think
there's not *too* much<br>disagreement over claims like "this
construction is different from that<br>one"; where the disagreement
comes in is the terminology we attach to<br>
the difference, and the explanations we propose for it. We have to
deal<br>with terminology no matter what, but it's possible to adopt a
more<br>agnostic approach to the explanations (and yes, I realize fully
that<br>
arguing for an agnostic approach is itself an approach, but I
can't<br>think of any other way out of this particular Klein bottle).
From the<br>standpoint of K12 grammar, it's enough that we recognize
that<br>constructions *are* different, and that we have some handy terms to
use.<br>
<br><br>It's possible that we could reach consensus on particular terms
on the<br>basis of pedagogic utility. I'd argue that a three-way split
of "phrase<br>vs. reduced clause vs. full clause" is handy in the
classroom, since<br>
students frequently don't want to lump "giving Athelfrith some
lutfisk"<br>together with "a book." But I'd be willing to
back down on that,<br>especially if a lot of other people disagreed with me.
We just need an<br>
organized way of resolving that kind of dispute, and (on an
individual<br>basis) be willing to accept compromises. Optimally, the same
basic<br>category terms would be used in 2nd and 11th grade, but with
additional<br>recognized subcategories at the higher grade levels.<br>
<br>Bill Spruiell<br>Dept. of English<br>Central Michigan University<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br><br><br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From:
Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar<br></div>
<div class="Ih2E3d">[mailto:<a
href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</a>] On
Behalf Of Edward Vavra<br>Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 5:51 PM<br>To: <a
href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</a><br>
</div>
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="Wj3C7c">Subject: Re: scope and sequence: was clause or
phrase<br><br>Craig,<br> Your post is very interesting, but it
does not go far enough. I<br>would say that ATEG is a dangerous
organization. (There are times when<br>
I'm sorry that I started it.) Your explanations for the
"hiatus" are<br>good, but they underemphasize the self-interest of
many of the ATEG<br>members--their desire to defend their own brands of
grammar. Are the<br>
numerous "explanations" ("clause or phrase") not
poisonous for teachers<br>and students? The major problem with instruction
in grammar is the<br>confusion in the terminology, but members of ATEG
cannot even divide<br>
into sub-groups to establish different scope and sequence designs. Nor<br>it
seems, can they agree that students at a given grade level should be<br>able
to identify the clauses in typical writing by students in their own<br>
grade level. (A major part of this problem is that members cannot
agree<br>on the definition of a clause.)<br> I basically gave
up on ATEG after the first Seattle conference. (I<br>believe it was in
2000?) At that conference, I suggested two or three<br>
separate groups (for different designs), but that was shot down. ATEG<br>was
going to make one "scope and sequence" design. We can see, almost
a<br>decade later, how that worked out. I remember pouting at the
conference.<br>
(I'm a little boy at heart.) Meanwhile, of course, a decade's worth
of<br>students have gone through school with minimal, and usually
poor<br>instruction in grammar.<br> I decided that ATEG is
useless, or actually harmful. In that it<br>
claims to be teaching grammar, it appears to fill a void. But all
it<br>really does is add to the confusion. As you know, I've been
spending my<br>time on the KISS curriculum -- a very definite "scope
and sequence"<br>
plan. <a href="http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/kiss/wb/PBooks/index.htm"
target="_blank">http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/kiss/wb/PBooks/index.htm</a><br>
Thanks for bringing this question up, but I really don't
see ATEG<br>
developing one plan, and it appears that members are afraid of
the<br>competition that would result from several plans.<br><br>Ed
V.<br><br><br><br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: Assembly for the
Teaching of English Grammar<br>
[mailto:<a
href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</a>] On
Behalf Of Craig Hancock<br>Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 11:35 AM<br>To:
<a href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</a><br>
Subject: scope and sequence: was clause or phrase<br><br>Richard,<br>
Scope and sequence is in a bit of hiatus. This might be a good time<br>to
talk about the reasons for that and the difficulties around doing<br>that
through ATEG.<br>
My own frustration dates back to two conferences ago, when I
thought<br>we would make great progress on scope and sequence at the
conference. My<br><br>plan, which I thought was agreed on by the conference
committee, was to<br>
break into subgroups and have people make suggestions about what might<br>be
covered. We could have a sub-group making recommendations about<br>Standard
English, punctuation, and so on, focusing on the knowledge<br>about language
that wold be most helpful and useful. I was hoping people<br>
<br>would then feel a vested interest in the project. There was
resistance,<br><br>though, from different sources. Some people questioned
whether ATEG, as<br>a sub-group of NCTE, should be taking a position on
grammar at odds with<br>
<br>our parent organization. That conflict of interest has been a
constant<br>issue in ATEG, and I don't fault anyone from bringing it up.
One result<br>was that we largely used our time to construct a position
statement<br>
asking NCTE to endorse the systematic teaching of grammar. The
position<br>statement, which I thought was very thoughtful and nicely
written, was<br>simply tabled at the NCTE convention. In other words,
ATEG tried to<br>
work through official channels as a sub-group of NCTE, ibut was
stymied<br>by those who feel they know more about this than we do and who,
in<br>effect, control our existence as an organization.<br> The other
problem came from those at the conference, including the<br>
leadership, who feel that scope and sequence already exists and that
we<br>have no need to construct one. My own tendency has been to lobby for
new<br><br>ways of looking at grammar, but ATEG has long been an
organization made<br>
up of people with fairly conservative (not regressive, not by a
long<br>shot) views. This was hard on me because I felt I had a lot
invested in<br><br>the project, but would be asked to shut out from the
conversation the<br>
new possibilities in grammar that excite me the most.<br> But let me
give a more friendly view of that. Many of us involved in<br>the project
have written books on the subject, and you can't really do<br>that
without engaging the issue in ways that you feel invested in. What<br>
happens if the group advocates a scope that doesn't fit those
views?<br> I sometimes feel I am shooting myself in the foot every
time I move<br>on in my thinking because I have a 2005 text that now
constitutes an<br>
older position.<br> This might be a way of saying that those of us who
know the most tend<br><br>to have an investment in particular approaches.
For ATEG as a whole,<br>those approaches have probably already been
written.<br>
As many of you know, much of the conversation about scope
and<br>sequence was worked out by the New Public Grammar group. I have
never<br>wanted that group to be in conflict (to compete with) ATEG. So at
that<br>point, I didn't even feel comfortable airing these frustrations
on the<br>
NPG list. I was, and still am, nervous about creating a rift in
the<br>public grammar community. I didn't want anyone to feel I was
trying to<br>pull people away from ATEG.<br> The unfortunate result
has been that Scope and sequence hasn't moved<br>
forward for some time. A few of us have been in discussion about<br>starting
it back up again as we restart talk on the NPG list.<br> NPG has the
benefit of being separate from NCTE. It can take a strong<br><br>contrary
perspective and not feel uncomfortable about that.<br>
It can also maintain friendly relationships with ATEG without
the<br>necessity of ATEG endorsing its views.<br> I apologize if I
have misrepresented anyone's views or anyone
else's<br><br>views about the history of the project. I don't think
of it as anyone<br>
being at fault. These are very predictable difficulties given the
nature<br><br>of the project.<br><br>Craig<br><br>To join or leave this
LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web<br>interface at:<br>
<a href="http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html"
target="_blank">http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a><br>
and select "Join or leave the list"<br><br>Visit ATEG's web
site at <a href="http://ateg.org/"
target="_blank">http://ateg.org/</a><br><br>To join or leave this LISTSERV
list, please visit the list's web interface at:<br>
<a href="http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html"
target="_blank">http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a><br>and
select "Join or leave the list"<br><br>Visit ATEG's web site
at <a href="http://ateg.org/" target="_blank">http://ateg.org/</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>
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"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
------=_Part_700_28864925.1229506113531--
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 08:55:01 -0600
From: Michael Dee <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: The 'progressive view'
--============_-982596793==_ma============
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Edmond, your eloquent reply confirms my impression that we do agree
about the educational principle. (Incidentally, I apologize for the
snappish tone of my reply--some of us have very raw political nerves
here.) I especially like your concluding sentence, "We are not
condemned, are we, to
say nothing but 'Ooo!' as explanatory of how the enchantment works
upon us?" That's just it: I'm trying to unpack the "ooo" with the
help of grammatical terms.
If I understand Brad Johnston's reply, my effort to encourage my
students to consider the rhetorical effects created by, for example,
Orwell's use of dashes (which have been prohibited to them by past
teachers) and fragments and comma-less polysyndeton (not to mention
the entire menu of solecisms deployed by Wolfe or Sillitoe in their
literary impersonations, or the brilliant solecism evident in the
final line of Stanza 8 in Whitman's "Lilacs...") is "a brick or two
shy of a load." Please let me know, Brad, if I have that right. It's
been my experience that grammar really does come alive for middle
school and highschool students when it is dedicated to rhetorical
analysis and then applied to their own writing. They understand
without too much difficulty that great writers are as concerned with
sound and rhythm as they are with rules. The artful deployment of
punctuation is one way to manage these musical qualities (and most of
my students are better musicians than writers), the deliberate use of
fragments and amplifying effects (like comma-less polysyndeton) would
be another. Most of my colleagues teach a form of grammatically
standard writing which simply doesn't conform to the literature we
actually read in class. Not to mention the grammar of student speech
outside of class.
With regard to Craig's reply, I am reminded of an article Stanley
Fish wrote a few years ago for the New York Times. In it, he
described his success teaching grammar by having students invent
languages of their own and, in their reports describing their
efforts, provide grammatical analyses of those languages. This
approach seems to me to represent a constructive solution to the
problem we're entertaining. I wonder if anyone has tried something
like this. I'd love to--I just don't know how to set it up.
Michael Dee
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/
--============_-982596793==_ma============
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: The 'progressive view'</title></head><body>
<div>Edmond, your eloquent reply confirms my impression that we do
agree about the educational principle. (Incidentally, I apologize for
the snappish tone of my reply--some of us have very raw political
nerves here.) I especially like your concluding sentence,
"We are not condemned, are we, to</div>
<div>say nothing but 'Ooo!' as explanatory of how the enchantment
works upon us?" That's just it: I'm trying to unpack the
"ooo" with the help of grammatical terms.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>If I understand Brad Johnston's reply, my effort to encourage my
students to consider the rhetorical effects created by, for example,
Orwell's use of dashes (which have been prohibited to them by past
teachers) and fragments and comma-less polysyndeton (not to mention
the entire menu of solecisms deployed by Wolfe or Sillitoe in their
literary impersonations, or the brilliant solecism evident in the
final line of Stanza 8 in Whitman's "Lilacs...") is "a
brick or two shy of a load." Please let me know, Brad, if I have
that right. It's been my experience that grammar really does come
alive for middle school and highschool students when it is dedicated
to rhetorical analysis and then applied to their own writing. They
understand without too much difficulty that great writers are as
concerned with sound and rhythm as they are with rules. The artful
deployment of punctuation is one way to manage these musical qualities
(and most of my students are better musicians than writers), the
deliberate use of fragments and amplifying effects (like comma-less
polysyndeton) would be another. Most of my colleagues teach a form of
grammatically standard writing which simply doesn't conform to the
literature we actually read in class. Not to mention the grammar of
student speech outside of class.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>With regard to Craig's reply, I am reminded of an article Stanley
Fish wrote a few years ago for the<i> New York Times</i>. In it, he
described his success teaching grammar by having students invent
languages of their own and, in their reports describing their efforts,
provide grammatical analyses of those languages. This approach seems
to me to represent a constructive solution to the problem we're
entertaining. I wonder if anyone has tried something like this. I'd
love to--I just don't know how to set it up.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Michael Dee</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><x-tab> </x-tab></div>
<div><br></div>
</body>
</html>
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"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--============_-982596793==_ma============--
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:03:32 -0500
From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: scope and sequence: was clause or phrase
--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431163F8F08BEMAILBACKEND0_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Perhaps one solution to our excess of terminology lies in the sequence part=
of scope and sequence. Taking the main clause as a beginning definition o=
f sentence, one that fourth graders, for example, might understand, makes i=
t possible to cover relative clauses and tensed adverbial and "that" clause=
s. Understanding why certain participial and infinitival structures are cl=
auses requires a higher level of sophistication that might come in the uppe=
r grades or high school, and introducing the idea that those phrases have c=
lausal properties would follow naturally after the necessary grammatical ba=
ckground knowledge has been established. I suspect the same could be done =
with grammatical relations like subject and indirect object, where both str=
uctural and functional considerations are involved.
This sequencing approach won't work in all cases of terminological conflict=
, but it certainly would cover a lot of them, and one very beneficial effec=
t of it would be that these terms would be presented in context, not in con=
flict.
Herb
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]
OHIO.EDU] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander
Sent: 2008-12-17 04:29
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: scope and sequence: was clause or phrase
I think Bill makes some great points. Although I can sympathize with Ed's g=
reat frustration over the lack of consistent terminology, I can't help but =
feel that the myriad of approaches to grammar is an asset. Sure, it feels l=
ike a strike against us sometimes, but it is a testament to the fact that g=
rammar, as an aspect of language, IS more than a single, codified rulebook =
of etiquette. Trying to pretend like we've been able to package a nice and =
neat grammar package for teachers (even if we were able to) seems like a sl=
ight of hand, pulling the teachers'/students' attentions away from the gray=
and ugly areas we don't want them to see.
All of my students, whether they be high schoolers or teachers-in-training =
at the college level, squirm when they get a glimpse at the reality of data=
/corpus-backed grammar. They squirm a lot. They ask for an answer (singular=
) for each term, each construction analysis, etc. After a semester (a meage=
r beginning), they stop asking for the answer (although I'm sure they still=
wish for it -- even I do that). They begin to realize that answers depend =
on approaches, context, and usage. I never claim to run a model classroom, =
but one thing I am proud of is honesty with my students, and in the case of=
grammar, that honesty tends to lead to constructive teaching opportunities=
.
Having said that, I certainly understand and advocate the need for some sem=
blance of consistency in terminology from a pedagogical perspective, especi=
ally in a spiraled curriculum that would take a student from elementary stu=
dies to advanced high school studies. I remain optimistic that ATEG can off=
er such consistency. It would depend on concessions and compromises from di=
fferent theoretical camps as Bill points out. I think it would also depend =
on a commitment to teaching flexibility (i.e. emphasis on concept, not the =
label used to describe the concept) as a part of the curriculum. A student =
who is aware that language ain't easy is much more prepared for grammar tha=
n one who goes scrambling for a delineated rulebook at every turn.
John Alexander
Austin, Texas
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask]<ma=
ilto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Ed, Craig, et al.:
To some extent, what we're seeing is exactly the same process that
resulted in Britain (and the U.S.) never having the equivalent of the
French Academe, i.e. a "legislated" grammar of the language. France and
Spain created their academies via a kind of top-down approach:
regardless of what other grammarians thought, if the King liked you, you
won. The British -- and we -- are grammatically Whiggish. Lack of a
legislated grammar isn't necessarily a bad thing, but of course, it does
cause problems in relation to curriculum.
The solution may lie in a more open discussion of the process by which
we work than by arguing from the start over specific terms. We'll be
successful if we can reach consensus, but consensus (as we've seen) will
*never* occur when it appears as if one person's, or one camp's,
definitions and model are being proposed to the exclusion of others.
Arguing in favor of any one approach, be it KISS or any other, can come
across as a power move. There *are* multiple definitions of "clause,"
and each is valid to the extent it works well within the approach that
defines it -- but we do need to pick one if we want to define a scope
and sequence, even loosely. We all have to realize we have emotional
investments in our own positions, and be willing to attempt to back off
from pushing too much.
As I mentioned in a previous post, I think there's not *too* much
disagreement over claims like "this construction is different from that
one"; where the disagreement comes in is the terminology we attach to
the difference, and the explanations we propose for it. We have to deal
with terminology no matter what, but it's possible to adopt a more
agnostic approach to the explanations (and yes, I realize fully that
arguing for an agnostic approach is itself an approach, but I can't
think of any other way out of this particular Klein bottle). From the
standpoint of K12 grammar, it's enough that we recognize that
constructions *are* different, and that we have some handy terms to use.
It's possible that we could reach consensus on particular terms on the
basis of pedagogic utility. I'd argue that a three-way split of "phrase
vs. reduced clause vs. full clause" is handy in the classroom, since
students frequently don't want to lump "giving Athelfrith some lutfisk"
together with "a book." But I'd be willing to back down on that,
especially if a lot of other people disagreed with me. We just need an
organized way of resolving that kind of dispute, and (on an individual
basis) be willing to accept compromises. Optimally, the same basic
category terms would be used in 2nd and 11th grade, but with additional
recognized subcategories at the higher grade levels.
Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behal=
f Of Edward Vavra
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 5:51 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: scope and sequence: was clause or phrase
Craig,
Your post is very interesting, but it does not go far enough. I
would say that ATEG is a dangerous organization. (There are times when
I'm sorry that I started it.) Your explanations for the "hiatus" are
good, but they underemphasize the self-interest of many of the ATEG
members--their desire to defend their own brands of grammar. Are the
numerous "explanations" ("clause or phrase") not poisonous for teachers
and students? The major problem with instruction in grammar is the
confusion in the terminology, but members of ATEG cannot even divide
into sub-groups to establish different scope and sequence designs. Nor
it seems, can they agree that students at a given grade level should be
able to identify the clauses in typical writing by students in their own
grade level. (A major part of this problem is that members cannot agree
on the definition of a clause.)
I basically gave up on ATEG after the first Seattle conference. (I
believe it was in 2000?) At that conference, I suggested two or three
separate groups (for different designs), but that was shot down. ATEG
was going to make one "scope and sequence" design. We can see, almost a
decade later, how that worked out. I remember pouting at the conference.
(I'm a little boy at heart.) Meanwhile, of course, a decade's worth of
students have gone through school with minimal, and usually poor
instruction in grammar.
I decided that ATEG is useless, or actually harmful. In that it
claims to be teaching grammar, it appears to fill a void. But all it
really does is add to the confusion. As you know, I've been spending my
time on the KISS curriculum -- a very definite "scope and sequence"
plan. http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/kiss/wb/PBooks/index.htm
Thanks for bringing this question up, but I really don't see ATEG
developing one plan, and it appears that members are afraid of the
competition that would result from several plans.
Ed V.
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behal=
f Of Craig Hancock
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 11:35 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: scope and sequence: was clause or phrase
Richard,
Scope and sequence is in a bit of hiatus. This might be a good time
to talk about the reasons for that and the difficulties around doing
that through ATEG.
My own frustration dates back to two conferences ago, when I thought
we would make great progress on scope and sequence at the conference. My
plan, which I thought was agreed on by the conference committee, was to
break into subgroups and have people make suggestions about what might
be covered. We could have a sub-group making recommendations about
Standard English, punctuation, and so on, focusing on the knowledge
about language that wold be most helpful and useful. I was hoping people
would then feel a vested interest in the project. There was resistance,
though, from different sources. Some people questioned whether ATEG, as
a sub-group of NCTE, should be taking a position on grammar at odds with
our parent organization. That conflict of interest has been a constant
issue in ATEG, and I don't fault anyone from bringing it up. One result
was that we largely used our time to construct a position statement
asking NCTE to endorse the systematic teaching of grammar. The position
statement, which I thought was very thoughtful and nicely written, was
simply tabled at the NCTE convention. In other words, ATEG tried to
work through official channels as a sub-group of NCTE, ibut was stymied
by those who feel they know more about this than we do and who, in
effect, control our existence as an organization.
The other problem came from those at the conference, including the
leadership, who feel that scope and sequence already exists and that we
have no need to construct one. My own tendency has been to lobby for new
ways of looking at grammar, but ATEG has long been an organization made
up of people with fairly conservative (not regressive, not by a long
shot) views. This was hard on me because I felt I had a lot invested in
the project, but would be asked to shut out from the conversation the
new possibilities in grammar that excite me the most.
But let me give a more friendly view of that. Many of us involved in
the project have written books on the subject, and you can't really do
that without engaging the issue in ways that you feel invested in. What
happens if the group advocates a scope that doesn't fit those views?
I sometimes feel I am shooting myself in the foot every time I move
on in my thinking because I have a 2005 text that now constitutes an
older position.
This might be a way of saying that those of us who know the most tend
to have an investment in particular approaches. For ATEG as a whole,
those approaches have probably already been written.
As many of you know, much of the conversation about scope and
sequence was worked out by the New Public Grammar group. I have never
wanted that group to be in conflict (to compete with) ATEG. So at that
point, I didn't even feel comfortable airing these frustrations on the
NPG list. I was, and still am, nervous about creating a rift in the
public grammar community. I didn't want anyone to feel I was trying to
pull people away from ATEG.
The unfortunate result has been that Scope and sequence hasn't moved
forward for some time. A few of us have been in discussion about
starting it back up again as we restart talk on the NPG list.
NPG has the benefit of being separate from NCTE. It can take a strong
contrary perspective and not feel uncomfortable about that.
It can also maintain friendly relationships with ATEG without the
necessity of ATEG endorsing its views.
I apologize if I have misrepresented anyone's views or anyone else's
views about the history of the project. I don't think of it as anyone
being at fault. These are very predictable difficulties given the nature
of the project.
Craig
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/
--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431163F8F08BEMAILBACKEND0_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-micr=
osoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns=3D"http:=
//www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii">
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple>
<div class=3DSection1>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",=
"sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Perhaps one solution to our excess of terminology lies in th=
e
sequence part of scope and sequence. Taking the main clause as a
beginning definition of sentence, one that fourth graders, for example, mig=
ht
understand, makes it possible to cover relative clauses and tensed adverbia=
l
and “that” clauses. Understanding why certain participial=
and
infinitival structures are clauses requires a higher level of sophisticatio=
n
that might come in the upper grades or high school, and introducing the ide=
a
that those phrases have clausal properties would follow naturally after the
necessary grammatical background knowledge has been established. I
suspect the same could be done with grammatical relations like subject and
indirect object, where both structural and functional considerations are in=
volved.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",=
"sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",=
"sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>This sequencing approach won’t work in all cases of
terminological conflict, but it certainly would cover a lot of them, and on=
e
very beneficial effect of it would be that these terms would be presented i=
n
context, not in conflict.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",=
"sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",=
"sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Herb<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",=
"sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style=3D'border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in =
0in 0in'>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><b><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma=
","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Assembly for =
the
Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] <b>On Behalf =
Of </b>John
Dews-Alexander<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 2008-12-17 04:29<br>
<b>To:</b> [log in to unmask]<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: scope and sequence: was clause or phrase<o:p></o:p></sp=
an></p>
</div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>I think Bill makes some great points. Although I can
sympathize with Ed's great frustration over the lack of consistent terminol=
ogy,
I can't help but feel that the myriad of approaches to grammar is an
asset. Sure, it feels like a strike against us sometimes, but it is a testa=
ment
to the fact that grammar, as an aspect of language, IS more than a single,
codified rulebook of etiquette. Trying to pretend like we've been able to
package a nice and neat grammar package for teachers (even if we were able =
to)
seems like a slight of hand, pulling the teachers'/students' attentions awa=
y
from the gray and ugly areas we don't want them to see. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>All of my students, whether they be high schoolers or
teachers-in-training at the college level, squirm when they get a glimpse a=
t
the reality of data/corpus-backed grammar. They squirm a lot. They ask for =
an
answer (singular) for each term, each construction analysis, etc. After a
semester (a meager beginning), they stop asking for the answer (although I'=
m
sure they still wish for it -- even I do that). They begin to realize that
answers depend on approaches, context, and usage. I never claim to run a mo=
del
classroom, but one thing I am proud of is honesty with my students, and in =
the
case of grammar, that honesty tends to lead to constructive teaching
opportunities. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Having said that, I certainly understand and advocate =
the
need for some semblance of consistency in terminology from a pedagogical
perspective, especially in a spiraled curriculum that would take a student =
from
elementary studies to advanced high school studies. I remain optimistic tha=
t
ATEG can offer such consistency. It would depend on concessions and comprom=
ises
from different theoretical camps as Bill points out. I think it would also
depend on a commitment to teaching flexibility (i.e. emphasis on concept, n=
ot
the label used to describe the concept) as a part of the curriculum. A stud=
ent
who is aware that language ain't easy is much more prepared for grammar tha=
n
one who goes scrambling for a delineated rulebook at every turn. <o:p></o:p=
></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>John Alexander<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Austin, Texas<o:p></o:p=
></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Spruiell, William C &=
lt;<a
href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</a>> wrote:<o:p></=
o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Ed, Craig, et al.:<br>
<br>
To some extent, what we're seeing is exactly the same process that<br>
resulted in Britain (and the U.S.) never having the equivalent of the<br>
French Academe, i.e. a "legislated" grammar of the language. Fran=
ce
and<br>
Spain created their academies via a kind of top-down approach:<br>
regardless of what other grammarians thought, if the King liked you, you<br=
>
won. The British -- and we -- are grammatically Whiggish. Lack of a<br>
legislated grammar isn't necessarily a bad thing, but of course, it does<br=
>
cause problems in relation to curriculum.<br>
<br>
<br>
The solution may lie in a more open discussion of the process by which<br>
we work than by arguing from the start over specific terms. We'll be<br>
successful if we can reach consensus, but consensus (as we've seen) will<br=
>
*never* occur when it appears as if one person's, or one camp's,<br>
definitions and model are being proposed to the exclusion of others.<br>
Arguing in favor of any one approach, be it KISS or any other, can come<br>
across as a power move. There *are* multiple definitions of "clause,&q=
uot;<br>
and each is valid to the extent it works well within the approach that<br>
defines it -- but we do need to pick one if we want to define a scope<br>
and sequence, even loosely. We all have to realize we have emotional<br>
investments in our own positions, and be willing to attempt to back off<br>
from pushing too much.<br>
<br>
As I mentioned in a previous post, I think there's not *too* much<br>
disagreement over claims like "this construction is different from tha=
t<br>
one"; where the disagreement comes in is the terminology we attach to<=
br>
the difference, and the explanations we propose for it. We have to deal<br>
with terminology no matter what, but it's possible to adopt a more<br>
agnostic approach to the explanations (and yes, I realize fully that<br>
arguing for an agnostic approach is itself an approach, but I can't<br>
think of any other way out of this particular Klein bottle). From the<br>
standpoint of K12 grammar, it's enough that we recognize that<br>
constructions *are* different, and that we have some handy terms to use.<br=
>
<br>
<br>
It's possible that we could reach consensus on particular terms on the<br>
basis of pedagogic utility. I'd argue that a three-way split of "phras=
e<br>
vs. reduced clause vs. full clause" is handy in the classroom, since<b=
r>
students frequently don't want to lump "giving Athelfrith some
lutfisk"<br>
together with "a book." But I'd be willing to back down on that,<=
br>
especially if a lot of other people disagreed with me. We just need an<br>
organized way of resolving that kind of dispute, and (on an individual<br>
basis) be willing to accept compromises. Optimally, the same basic<br>
category terms would be used in 2nd and 11th grade, but with additional<br>
recognized subcategories at the higher grade levels.<br>
<br>
Bill Spruiell<br>
Dept. of English<br>
Central Michigan University<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>[mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">AT=
[log in to unmask]</a>]
On Behalf Of Edward Vavra<br>
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 5:51 PM<br>
To: <a href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</a=
><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Subject: Re: scope and sequence: was clause or phrase<=
br>
<br>
Craig,<br>
Your post is very interesting, but it does not go far enough. =
I<br>
would say that ATEG is a dangerous organization. (There are times when<br>
I'm sorry that I started it.) Your explanations for the "hiatus" =
are<br>
good, but they underemphasize the self-interest of many of the ATEG<br>
members--their desire to defend their own brands of grammar. Are the<br>
numerous "explanations" ("clause or phrase") not poison=
ous
for teachers<br>
and students? The major problem with instruction in grammar is the<br>
confusion in the terminology, but members of ATEG cannot even divide<br>
into sub-groups to establish different scope and sequence designs. Nor<br>
it seems, can they agree that students at a given grade level should be<br>
able to identify the clauses in typical writing by students in their own<br=
>
grade level. (A major part of this problem is that members cannot agree<br>
on the definition of a clause.)<br>
I basically gave up on ATEG after the first Seattle conferenc=
e.
(I<br>
believe it was in 2000?) At that conference, I suggested two or three<br>
separate groups (for different designs), but that was shot down. ATEG<br>
was going to make one "scope and sequence" design. We can see, al=
most
a<br>
decade later, how that worked out. I remember pouting at the conference.<br=
>
(I'm a little boy at heart.) Meanwhile, of course, a decade's worth of<br>
students have gone through school with minimal, and usually poor<br>
instruction in grammar.<br>
I decided that ATEG is useless, or actually harmful. In that i=
t<br>
claims to be teaching grammar, it appears to fill a void. But all it<br>
really does is add to the confusion. As you know, I've been spending my<br>
time on the KISS curriculum -- a very definite "scope and sequence&quo=
t;<br>
plan. <a href=3D"http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/kiss/wb/PBooks/index.htm"
target=3D"_blank">http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/kiss/wb/PBooks/index.htm</a><=
br>
Thanks for bringing this question up, but I really don't see A=
TEG<br>
developing one plan, and it appears that members are afraid of the<br>
competition that would result from several plans.<br>
<br>
Ed V.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar<br>
[mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
U</a>]
On Behalf Of Craig Hancock<br>
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 11:35 AM<br>
To: <a href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</a=
><br>
Subject: scope and sequence: was clause or phrase<br>
<br>
Richard,<br>
Scope and sequence is in a bit of hiatus. This might be a good time<=
br>
to talk about the reasons for that and the difficulties around doing<br>
that through ATEG.<br>
My own frustration dates back to two conferences ago, when I thought=
<br>
we would make great progress on scope and sequence at the conference. My<br=
>
<br>
plan, which I thought was agreed on by the conference committee, was to<br>
break into subgroups and have people make suggestions about what might<br>
be covered. We could have a sub-group making recommendations about<br>
Standard English, punctuation, and so on, focusing on the knowledge<br>
about language that wold be most helpful and useful. I was hoping people<br=
>
<br>
would then feel a vested interest in the project. There was resistanc=
e,<br>
<br>
though, from different sources. Some people questioned whether ATEG, as<br>
a sub-group of NCTE, should be taking a position on grammar at odds with<br=
>
<br>
our parent organization. That conflict of interest has been a constant<br>
issue in ATEG, and I don't fault anyone from bringing it up. One result<br>
was that we largely used our time to construct a position statement<br>
asking NCTE to endorse the systematic teaching of grammar. The position<br>
statement, which I thought was very thoughtful and nicely written, was<br>
simply tabled at the NCTE convention. In other words, ATEG tried to<b=
r>
work through official channels as a sub-group of NCTE, ibut was stymied<br>
by those who feel they know more about this than we do and who, in<br>
effect, control our existence as an organization.<br>
The other problem came from those at the conference, including the<b=
r>
leadership, who feel that scope and sequence already exists and that we<br>
have no need to construct one. My own tendency has been to lobby for new<br=
>
<br>
ways of looking at grammar, but ATEG has long been an organization made<br>
up of people with fairly conservative (not regressive, not by a long<br>
shot) views. This was hard on me because I felt I had a lot invested =
in<br>
<br>
the project, but would be asked to shut out from the conversation the<br>
new possibilities in grammar that excite me the most.<br>
But let me give a more friendly view of that. Many of us involved in=
<br>
the project have written books on the subject, and you can't really do<br>
that without engaging the issue in ways that you feel invested in. What<br>
happens if the group advocates a scope that doesn't fit those views?<br>
I sometimes feel I am shooting myself in the foot every time I move<=
br>
on in my thinking because I have a 2005 text that now constitutes an<br>
older position.<br>
This might be a way of saying that those of us who know the most ten=
d<br>
<br>
to have an investment in particular approaches. For ATEG as a whole,<br>
those approaches have probably already been written.<br>
As many of you know, much of the conversation about scope and<br>
sequence was worked out by the New Public Grammar group. I have never<br>
wanted that group to be in conflict (to compete with) ATEG. So at that<br>
point, I didn't even feel comfortable airing these frustrations on the<br>
NPG list. I was, and still am, nervous about creating a rift in the<br>
public grammar community. I didn't want anyone to feel I was trying to<br>
pull people away from ATEG.<br>
The unfortunate result has been that Scope and sequence hasn't moved=
<br>
forward for some time. A few of us have been in discussion about<br>
starting it back up again as we restart talk on the NPG list.<br>
NPG has the benefit of being separate from NCTE. It can take a stron=
g<br>
<br>
contrary perspective and not feel uncomfortable about that.<br>
It can also maintain friendly relationships with ATEG without the<br=
>
necessity of ATEG endorsing its views.<br>
I apologize if I have misrepresented anyone's views or anyone
else's<br>
<br>
views about the history of the project. I don't think of it as anyone<br>
being at fault. These are very predictable difficulties given the nature<br=
>
<br>
of the project.<br>
<br>
Craig<br>
<br>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web<br>
interface at:<br>
<a href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html"
target=3D"_blank">http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a><br>
and select "Join or leave the list"<br>
<br>
Visit ATEG's web site at <a href=3D"http://ateg.org/" target=3D"_blank">htt=
p://ateg.org/</a><br>
<br>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface =
at:<br>
<a href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html"
target=3D"_blank">http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a><br>
and select "Join or leave the list"<br>
<br>
Visit ATEG's web site at <a href=3D"http://ateg.org/" target=3D"_blank">htt=
p://ateg.org/</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><br>
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 leav=
e
the list" <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>
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"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431163F8F08BEMAILBACKEND0_--
------------------------------
End of ATEG Digest - 16 Dec 2008 to 17 Dec 2008 (#2008-273)
***********************************************************
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/
|
