From Judith Diamondstone,

>>>MY ENTHUSIASTIC CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL WHO CONTRIBUTED TO THE 3S
DOCUMENT.
>It's a rhetorical tour de force and WISE throughout, IMHO. I haven't
>actually read section IV, but thought I'd jump in here.

I haven't seen it.  What's in it?

>>> But I agree that it's all in the HOW --
>and this might be worth adding as well, that the exercises are just
>busywork unless they're linked to what they accomplish -- certain kinds of
>exercises for different kinds of textual work (description vs explanation
>etc).

I would submit that the HOW also needs to include multiple approaches -- not
just for different kinds of textual work, but also for different kinds of
learning.  I've developed some rather twisted views of the impact of
explicit and implicit learning (that is, direct teaching aimed at teaching
children to name and explain certain concepts, vs. indirect teaching using
exercises that get students to gain a "feel" for the language).  Sentence
combining, sentence imitation, reading and writing would be examples of
implicit learning; while Ed's KISS approach, traditional grammar
instruction, and much of the conversation on this list is much more geared
towards explicit learning.

I am coming to the conclusion that both types of learning are needed for
children to gain the most mastery of grammatical structures and sentence
syntax -- that either one without the other will ultimately fail kids.  I'm
thinking that each type of learning has different functions.  For example,
explicit instruction can serve the purpose of directing kids attention so
that they notice particular patterns, but then kids need to work with these
structures in ways that develops their feeling for them.  Once they have had
plenty of opportunity to develop this "feel," returning to explicit
instruction could help them gain better control over when to use them for
greatest effect and stylistic impact.  Activities geared towards language
play, experimentation, and developing implicit understanding can help refine
their impressions.  Thus, I envision a curriculum that goes back and forth
between these types of instruction.

I suspect that one of the biggest problems with traditional grammar
instruction is that it relies too much on explicit learning, while not
attending enough to the implicit learning (as well as the fact that
sometimes a writing program is geared towards exclusive grammar instruction,
instead of balancing it with other, equally important forms of writing
instruction -- seems we go from one extreme to the other).


>>>>>>But I also agree that imitation has advantages. I think it's powerful
and
>way under utilized because teachers think of it as copying. It ISN"T.. . .
.

Actually, I doubt it is under utilized because teachers object to it.  I
suspect is has more to do with teachers never having heard of it as an
instructional tool.  About the only other teacher I've known who has heard
of it, (the one who introduced it to me, BTW) tended to apply it in a much
more complicated manner than what I've done, and would not think of using it
for her freshmen, who would be overwhelmed by the types of sentences she
used.  After I tried her suggestion, I started developing a systematic
approach to it, starting with absurdly simple sentences and gradually adding
features -- but this was my own adaptation to what originally appeared to be
a complex procedure introduced to me by a high school teacher.  The only
references to it I've seen in the literature are brief mentions to it that
categorized it as a form of sentence combining (which I don't think it is).

I'm wondering if there are some readers out there who are wondering what I
mean by sentence structure imitation?

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/