Last week, I read through at least 50 (?) ATEG messages & saved those I
wanted to comment on -- I've lost my notes of what I wanted to say, so I'll
proceed through individual messages.

Bob made some good points re: academic writing. YES, linking general to
specific and back, plus citation practices, are perhaps the ONLY
"universals" of academic writing. I would go so far as to say that relating
general to specific is the raison d'etre of the sciences and social
sciences. But all the research on academic writing over the last couple
decades shows that these "universals" are very different for different
disciplines and different genres within the discipline. So, insofar as that
is the case, I agree with Johanna's point that different KINDS of writing
are important for novice writers. And I would add that the required
grammatical structures which are, as Bob says, rare in spoken language, are
also different depending on what sorts of claims can be made, what counts as
data, what the background knowledge of the discipline might be, and they are
used differently depending on the task (the genre).

I also think it's important to admit narrative into the academic enterprise.
It's a part of any qualitative research report. Personal narrative in
particular is a kind of evidence that is more or less accepted depending on
the discipline and task -- the humanities and social sciences more so.

I agree with both Johanna and Bob re: the traditional rhetorical genres --
at the minimum, they should NOT be taught out of context of real tasks. I do
NOT agree that magazine articles and newspaper columns are inappropriate
kinds of writing for college students --- many of whom are more likely to be
writing for the media than writing for the academy.

Finally, Johanna, I notice a contradiction in your goal statements for
grammar instruction. At one point you say it is to raise awareness and
appreciation for language "itself" -- not to improve writing. Elsewhere you
write:

>Mainly, it will equip them with the terminology and analytical
>>> skills they can use to understand, evaluate, and improve every kind of
>>> writing they do, from poems to business reports.

I am most interested in grammar instruction that is useful for language
users - writers, speakers, social actors, whatever. That's why I am not
interested in formal analysis except where it is directly and explicitly
linked to rhetorical purpsoses and effects.

It's a good thing that members of the 3S committee have very different views
of what grammar is and what it is for. I think we should honor these
differences while acknowledging common ground. If we acknowledge differences
too instead of suppressing them, committee members are likely to feel better
about the document in the end.

  what do you think?

Judy

At 05:12 PM 12/4/99 -0600, you wrote:
>Johanna Rubba wrote:
>
>> Ed raises a good question: what kind of writing do we want our students
>> to do 'effectively'? I would say every kind, from personal letters to
>> short stories to expository texts of various genres.
>
>I would not answer this question this way.  I think at lower levels it
>is probably good for students to try to write short stories and letters
>and poems.  I teach at a university.  I don't care whether university
>graduates can write a short story, a poem, a love letter, a letter of
>thank you to a grandparent, or just any kind of expository text.
>
>I think the goal of writing instruction from high school on should be to
>provide the student with an understanding of how to make generalizations
>and support them.  This means an ability to move from the general to the
>specific and back again.  (I think it was Mina Shaunessey who talked
>about the problem basic writers have in doing this.)
>
>One of the important goals of any writing instruction from middle school
>on must be to have students control grammatical structures which are
>rare in the spoken language.  Because narratives can be effective with
>essentially the grammar of spoken English, they must not be the MAIN
>focus of any instruction on writing for students.
>
>One of the most difficult problems students who do not control
>grammatical structures that occur in writing have is in integrating
>written sources into their writing.  (See that last sentence for an
>example of a construction very rare in the oral language.)  Jim Kenkel
>and I gave a paper on this topic several years ago at ATEG.  It seems to
>me that every college graduate should have some facility in integrating
>written sources into their writing.
>
>Finally, I think we should have as a goal to provide high school
>graduates enough linguistic security to understand prescriptions about
>writing.  For example, I think about the Plain English movement in
>writing documents.  At a minimum, every college (high school?) graduate
>should have enough metalinguistic knowledge of English grammar to
>understand the prescriptions of Plain English and when those
>prescriptions can not be followed.  Another example would be for every
>high school graduate not to be baffled by the comments a grammar checker
>makes.
>
>> In spite of the
>> popular approach of teaching 'comparison & contrast' vs. 'process' etc.,
>> I find that actual formal writing varies pretty widely. Business texts,
>> material in magazines and newspapers, books ... there is great variety
>> out there, much of which does not conform to these rhetorical categories.
>
>Although the traditional rhetorical approach has limitations, it does
>provide students with a hook for organizing ideas in a particular kind
>of writing or within longer texts.  Again, I would observe that no
>college educated person has to be capable of being able to write a
>magazine article, let alone, a newspaper column.
>
>>
>> My vision, and I think that of some other 3S committee members, is
>> broader. The reason we want to re-examine and reformulate the whole
>> curriculum, K-12, is to achieve a broader goal for what grammar
>> instruction will be useful for. Grammar instruction, if it begins at the
>> appropriately early age and continues _consistently_ and in step with
>> children's developmental stages, will develop language awareness in
>> children. Mainly, it will equip them with the terminology and analytical
>> skills they can use to understand, evaluate, and improve every kind of
>> writing they do, from poems to business reports.
>
>This vision is very similar to the vision I have about grammar
>instruction for all students.  In the end, as writers, we all have
>choices.  To the degree we understand the range of choices available to
>us (I have to believe even in the absence of research) the choices that
>we make will be better.
>
>Bob Yates, Central Missouri State University
>


Judith Diamondstone  (732) 932-7496  Ext. 352
Graduate School of Education
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
10 Seminary Place
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183