Craig-
I am also working on how to word my pro-grammar feelings without being
terribly pendantic. My current point-of-view holds that treating the
learning of SWE in the same vein as learning any foreign language will avoid
the stigma/politics of "correctness" and still allow for students to
understand that there are rules, they follow certain patterns, and that
these patterns can be similar to those they are already familiar with (aka
"Code Switching"). I'm developing my thoughts in order to create a college
composition class that focuses on writing AND uses grammar as one more tool
in the tool box.
-patty
_____
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 1:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Supportive empirical evidence was Silly, rewarding grammar
period
Bill,
That's a very thoughtful correction. I have been trying to figure out how
to disagree with the anti-grammar approach without having to argue against
Chomsky or the whole language position, which has much to offer as well.
(Our students should be engaged in reading and writing activities that they
feel are important rather than just building skills out of workbooks.) I
think what we need is a new kind of synthesis, not just choosing sides in an
old debate.
As an alternative to Chomsky, I am increasingly appreciative of Michael
Tomasello's work, including "Constructing a Language: a Usage-Based Theory
of Language Acquisition" (Harvard University Press, 2003). He doesn't
believe we have innate rules that drive the system, but highly functional
patterns that rise from actual use. Children learn language in large part
because they understand the contexts being named. Because many language
decisions happen below the threshold of consciousness does not necessarily
mean they were not acquired or that conscious attention was not part of
that. To the extent that we understand language acquisition as a
socialization process (one we can be mentored into), it becomes easier to
value (and promote) conscious understanding.
I like the way Myhill frames the related questions. What aspects of
language are most relevant to writing--can direct teaching of those relevant
aspects improve writing--if so, what are the best ways to teach them.
All of this can be empirically grounded, which is I think Ron's point all
along.
Craig
Spruiell, William C wrote:
Craig, Ron, et al.,
In a sense, the anti-grammar movement isn't based on the innatist position
as it is developed in linguistics (with Chomsky being the most famous
example of one of its proponents) - it's based on a dramatic
overgeneralization of innatism. In defense of Chomsky - and as a
functionalist, I find myself feeling rather odd typing that phrase - his
theory simply claims that children acquire the language they're exposed to
in infancy and early childhood without conscious effort, etc. Additional
dialects (e.g. standard-ish English), and the written variants of the
language (which are in a sense dialect-like, but shaped by additional
factors such as distancing between writer and reader, etc.) would not be
"acquired" in the same way. In fact, Chomsky's use of innatism to support
the idea that language-learning ability drops off precipitously in early
adolescence implicitly contradicts the notion that innatism means you can
ignore conscious learning procedures in later development.
I don't happen to agree with Chomsky on the factors leading to "critical
period" effects, or on a number of other issues as well, but I also can't
see the antigrammarian position as being motivated by his notions of
innatism - it was, in a sense, seized upon as a science-y sounding rationale
for a position people wanted to adopt anyway. If anything, the strict
innatist position, along with the notion of a critical period, implies that
students can't achieve nativelike fluency in another dialect. I suppose that
could be used as a different excuse not to teach grammar, but pessimism
makes a lousy basis for educational policy.
Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 11:35 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Supportive empirical evidence was Silly, rewarding grammar
period
Ron,
The inherent or innate nature of grammar is, in fact, a theoretical
underpinning of the anti-grammar movement. Part of that means thinking of
grammar as a behavior, not as a body of knowledge, and as largely a neutral
conveyor of meaning. We now test grammar in terms of what students can do,
not what they know (even in the SAT test) because it is generally believed
that conscious knowledge is unnecessary and unhelpful.
You're right; the anti-grammar position that acquisition will just happen
through exposure has never been tested. Debra Myhill makes these points
nicely in an article in English Teaching: Practice and Critique (Dec. 2005.
You can access it online. Martha and I have an article in the same issue.)
Here's a few quotes.
from abstract: .there has never been a critical theorization of how grammar
might support the development of writing, and thus there has been very
limited research which has explored that relationship.. (77)
Quotes Tomlinson (1994, p26) that condemnation of grammar on flimsy evidence
was what many in the educational establishment wanted to hear. (80)
What would be so much more interesting, and valuable, would be to explore
in more subtly nuanced detail what research can tell us about what aspects
of grammar and knowledge about language are most relevant to writing,
whether direct teaching of these features can help children improve their
writing, and what teaching strategies are most successful in enabling this
to happen. (80)
The truth is that teaching grammar and knowledge about language in positive,
contextualised ways which make clear links with writing is not yet an
established way of teaching and it is, as yet, hugely under-researched.
(81)
The rejection of decontextualised, and with it by implication, prescriptive,
grammar teaching was rooted in insightful critique of what was happening in
English classrooms. In contrast, the "grammar in context" principle is both
less sharply critiqued and considerably less clearly conceptualised. There
has been little genuine discussion or consideration of what "in context"
means. Frequently, observations of classroom practice indicate that the
notion of "in context" means little more than grammar teaching which is
slotted into English lessons, where the focus is not grammar, but some other
feature of English learning. (82)
I think we are absolutely on the same wave length. The people who rely on
these empirical studies that critique the teaching of grammar have not done
empirical studies of their own. The cure has proven worse than the disease.
But we need to conceptualize a program before we can try it out.
Craig
Ronald Sheen wrote:
Thanks, Craig, for your thought-provoking post. It raises a number of
issues which demand careful responses.
Before providing any, I should clarify one or two things. First, my area of
experience is in SLA (second language acquisition) in which I have done most
of my research. However, I believe that in the field of SLA and FLA (first
language acquisition) teachers and students have been the victims of the
educational theorists who claimed that exposure to correct language in the
classroom will result in the students' acquisition thereof in spite of
massive exposure to non-standard language outside of the classroom.
I take the position that such theorists were (and are) guilty of
unaccountable irresponsibility and this because they did not support their
advocacy with empirical evidence. Thus, for reasons we need not go into
here, educational authorities climbed aboard the bandwagon and suddenly
teachers were forbidden to teach grammar and were made to feel quilty if
they did.
Now, before coming to the details of your excellent post, I would appreciate
your responding to the above remarks. I know that my assumption is correct
in terms of SLA. Is it also correct in terms of FLA?
Ron.
----- Original Message -----
From: Craig Hancock <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 6:36 AM
Subject: Re: Supportive empirical evidence was Silly, rewarding grammar
period
Ron,
My comments were rather unfocused and unclear, and I suspect you and I
are not far apart on positions. I'll try again.
For the most part, empirical studies of grammar effectiveness that i have
read measure their effect on writing as compared to students who have had
writing instruction, but not grammar. Generally, this has been measured over
the short term. Generally, this has measured students receiving grammar
instruction, but not practice in writing. (What we would call control
groups.) This implies that our only goal is improvement in writing and that
this can be accurately measured in the short term, with grammar versus
writing as an either/or choice.
In other words, under this pattern of accountability, Gretchen could
excite her students about grammar, help them become explorers of language,
deepen their understanding of what nouns are all about, and then have that
determined to be "ineffective" because these students don't produce more
"accurate grammar" (your term for it) or don't score better on holistically
assessed writing samples after a semester or a year. For an accurate control
group, they would have to be denied real writing practice. Perhaps a better
test would measure their knowledge about nouns as opposed to students who
have only memorized "person, place, and thing" as a definition. Perhaps we
should find a way to test their confidence as language explorers or their
deeper interest in the subject. We could compare knowledge about language
between a group studying language and another merely writing. Everything
depends on a match between the testing and the goals.
I don't know of a good empirical assessment of a knowledge based approach
to grammar over a lengthy period of time. In both England and Australia,
teachers now seem to believe that reintegrating language into the curriculum
has been a good thing, but it's hard to test that out empirically. Perhaps
the most direct test would measure knowledge about language, since that
would be the central goal. We could then try to monitor how well that
knowledge is put to work in reading, writing, speaking, listening, and so
on. The problem is that we don't have a current consensus that knowing about
language is a reasonable goal. Whether or not Gretchen's students can now
produce more "accurate grammar" would be, I think, irrelevant, at least in
the short term. Very real benefits will be ignored if they are not thought
of as valuable goals in their own right.
Knowledge about language does not come quickly and easily, and putting it
to work is not easy as well. We need empirical testing that does not
diminish the value of knowing about language and does not demand short term
results.
We need to envision a K-12 curriculum, not a single course with no other
follow-up by other teachers. Once we do that, we can measure progress along
the way.
Craig
Ronald Sheen wrote:
My comments on empirical evidence, Gretchen, were, as I think I made clear,
in no way an expression of doubt in your success. My comments were both an
implicit criticism of the proliferation of how to teach grammar books
without including any attempt to demonstrate empirically that the approach
proposed has been shown to be the optimal choice, and a suggestion to you
that you consider doing some sort of comparative study yourself.in order to
justify the publication of a book.
However, Craig Hancock claims that 'One of the problems with many
"empirical" studies of grammar is that the outcomes have been so narrowly
defined' and then, unfortunately, goes no further. The whole area of
comparative studies is a minefield waiting to blow up in the face of anyone
attempting them. This, however, is no reason to dismiss them with the sort
of unsupported comment that Craig makes.
A discussion group such as this one provides a marvellous forum for teachers
to engage in mutally helpful exchanges. This said, however, following such
exchanges quickly reveals that the 'evidence ' provided is largely anecdotal
and, therefore, unreliable. Though comparative empirical studies are not
always reliable, it is undeniable that such studies rigorously carried out
are the only way in which we can arrive at reliable findings which
demonstrate for example that approach A is more effective than approach B in
situation X with students of type Y with aim Z.
Now though the so-called action research carried out by practising teachers
may sound seductive, we all should realise that the burden it imposes on
teachers is enormous. Consequently, before teachers embark on such a
project, they should make themselves aware of what is involved.
Ron Sheen
----- Original Message -----
From: Gretchen Lee <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 6:46 AM
Subject: Re: Supportive empirical evidence was Silly, rewarding grammar
period
In a message dated 9/10/2007 5:45:53 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
Though it is clearly desirable to trial approaches which engage students'
interest and involvement, one should not confuse the latter with
effectiveness in improving studens' production of more accurate grammar.
Hello,
I absolutely agree that empirical evidence is necessary. I'm a loooong way
from a book. However, my students are lucky to be from the upper middle
class and in some cases, the wealthy upper class. Their production of
"correct" grammar is very good, barring a few "between you and I" and
lesser/fewer problems. My aim is to engage them in analyzing grammar and
making it seem interesting at the same time. I can't teach lesser/fewer
with countable nouns if they don't know (and don't care) what a countable
noun is.
At this point the class is less about error detection/prevention than it is
about helping them find out that grammar is fascinating. With a little
luck, they will stay interested enough to want to take a linguistics class
in college, rather than avoiding it at all costs. My little class is
obviously silly in many ways (see original subject line). But for the first
time in many of their lives, grammar is a class to which they look forward.
I hope that's worthwhile.
Thanks,
Gretchen
_____
See what's new at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001170>
and Make AOL Your Homepage
<http://www.aol.com/mksplash.adp?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001169> .
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/
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/
|
