Thank you, Robert, for your vote of confidence in Understanding English
Grammar.  I'd like to mention that the sixth edition (with co-author Robert
Funk) has just been published by Longman, along with a supplementary
Exercise book.  (I'm sure that interested teachers can get a copy:
www.ablongman.com)

I especially would like to support Nancy Patterson's call for definitions
of not only "grammar" but "direct instruction" in any discussion of
teaching grammar.  She says that, yes, she herself uses direct instruction;
but, no, she's not teaching traditional grammar.  In other words, there are
ways to make direct instruction useful.

In the great grammar debate, if we can call it that, I don't think that
anyone on the pro-grammar side is arguing for traditional grammar as it has
been taught for generations (and is apparently still being taught
nationwide): a separate unit, perhaps four weeks or so, covering parts of
speech, types of sentences, etc., using, for the most part, error
correction exercises--and, unfortunately, treating the students as if they
were blank grammar slates rather than the grammar experts that they are.

All (yes, ALL) of the research studies that are cited over and over again
to prove that teaching grammar is a waste of time (even the highly praised
Australian study by Elley et al. that looked at transformational grammar)
compared students who studied grammar IN ISOLATION with those who had spent
that time doing something else, usually writing.  The conclusion?  If the
students who spent all that time studying grammar (and in the Australian
study it was three years!) didn't write notably better at the end of the
treatment, then obviously that time spent on grammar was wasted; it was, in
fact, downright harmful!

Isn't it too bad that, instead of falling for that conclusion, the leaders
of our profession had said, "Wait a minute."  Maybe we should be asking a
different question:  If direct instruction in traditional grammar doesn't
help student write better, what does work?  Grammar integrated in the
writing classroom, for example?  Grammar integrated with reading and
writing and revising?  Grammar that makes use of what the linguists have
taught us?  Grammar that brings to a conscious level the subconscious
grammar that we as human beings have internalized?

Let's hope that such questions are being asked now.  Certainly we in ATEG
are asking, and trying to answer, them.


One more thought, in response to Ed and others, regarding grammar books and
methodology.  My text that Robert mentioned is for teacher training; it is
used in college English and English Ed classes.  It is not intended as a
grammar curriculum for K-12 students.  There are a number of other books
available for the purpose of teacher training, including Dick Veit's
Discovering English Grammar and Max Morenberg's Doing Grammar.  It is in
the K-12 (or, perhaps, 5-12) grades that help is needed.  From what I have
seen of various series displayed at NCTE, traditional grammar still reigns,
with its emphasis on error avoidance and error correction.  But it's very
difficult to make inroads into those books with the concept of grammar as a
tool for the reader and writer.  One problem, a big one, is Texas. The
publishers of those series will not change if the Texas textbook selection
committee rejects such change.  Texas adoptions are statewide!  Publishers
say they can't afford to offend them!

Let's hope that all the assessment measures we're hearing about these days,
including yearly testing for grades 3 through 8, don't impede our goal of
helping teachers integrate grammar into the language arts curriculum.

Martha Kolln







>Ed Vavra writes:
>
>> As the members of the ATEG list know, I propose burning their
>> grammar books. Well, not literally, but the things are useless.
>Obviously,
>> I want to invite the unknown guest to the KISS web site:
>> http://curie.pct.edu/courses/evavra/KISS.htm She can tell her
>district
>> Language consultant that she has found an approach to teaching
>grammar,
>> based on theory and research, that does not require the
>purchase of any
>> books. Ed Vavra
>
>
>As I argued in a little conference paper, grammar books today are
>more like reference works or technical dictionaries, and less like
>actual teaching textbooks.
>
>The difference is that textbooks build the subject concept by
>concept, and teach the reader.  Reference books, on the other
>hand, simply compile the information in an arbitrary and fragmented
>way.  For example, alphabetical order is not the best choice for
>organizing an subject that you intend to teach (whereas it might be
>a good order for a reference work intended for informed users).
>
>Almost all of the grammar books that I get in the mail are actually
>reference books.  They are potentially useful for me but not for my
>students.  In a _textbook,_ on the other hand, students ccould
>start with no knowledge and have the whole subject explained to
>them in an incremental way.
>
>It seems to me that the last great grammar textbook (in the true
>sense of the word) was written by Martha Kolln:  Understanding
>English Grammar.
>
>Ed Vavra also presents grammar in a textbook form on the KISS
>web site.
>
>Here is the link to my conference paper:
>
>http://www.artsci.gmcc.ab.ca/people/einarssonb/elac.html
>
>-----------------------------------------------------
>Sincerely, Robert Einarsson
>please visit me at
>http://www.artsci.gmcc.ab.ca/people/einarssonb
>
>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/