Thank you so much for this excellent summary. This email is a definite "keeper," and going right into my "Outlook Express ATEG folder." Carla ----- Original Message ----- From: "William J. McCleary" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 10:43 AM Subject: The Grammar Debate > I suggest that this is not an appropriate forum in which to discuss > literature, the canon, and young adult literature. The move to reduce or > eliminate the teaching of grammar in secondary schools predates > multi-culturalism, ebonics, etc. anyway. > > We have, of course, discussed to the point of exhaustion the issues > concerning language instruction raised by Robert Reis. However, since the > membership of this listserv changes continually, perhaps a restatement of > some of the results of that discussion is in order. (This is my own take on > the matter, so corrections and additions will be welcome.) > > 1. Discussions about the teaching of grammar are subject to confusion over > terminology, for few writers take the time to explain whether they are > referring to traditional (schoolbook) grammar, a scientific grammar, > usage/mechanics, or stylistic preferences. > > 2. The teaching of grammar suffers from its connection to the teaching of > correctness in writing. For many teachers, if grammar (however ones defines > the term) cannot be proven to help students reduce the errors in their > writing, then it can be safely eliminated from the curriculum. I think that > it is the position of ATEG that grammar should be taught as a liberal > art--as a subject with many potential uses, not just the elimination of > errors from one's writing. > > 3. The teaching of grammar also suffers from the dominance of literature in > the English department. Prospective English teachers cannot get adequate > training in grammar from most college English departments. Indeed, some > English departments offer none. (Composition has the same problem.) > > 4. For many years much of the secondary English curriculum was consumed > with the teaching of grammar (defined as traditional grammar and > mechanics/usage). This was certainly true when I taught ninth grade in the > 1960s. Furthermore, this approach was defined not as the teaching of > grammar but as the teaching of composition. In other words, grammar and > composition were considered the "same thing" in many ways. There has been a > strong backlash against that approach. Composition is now treated as the > practice of actual writing first and foremost, with mechanics/usage taking > a strong secondary position and grammar-as-syntax a distant third. I think > everyone agrees that this reform was long overdue, though many lament how > far grammar-as-syntax has been demoted. > > 5. There is abundant (though hotly disputed) evidence that the teaching of > grammar (defined as the teaching of syntax) does not improve student > writing. In particular, it does not help students improve the correctness > of their writing. Drills on matters of correctness also aren't very > effective. I think that the most accepted view at the moment is that direct > teaching of usage/mechanics within the context of the students' own writing > is the most effective way of improving correctness. > > 6. We speculate that one reason students have difficult learning and > applying grammar (defined as syntax) is that they are being taught > traditional schoolbook grammar and that this kind of grammar is an > inadequate and often incorrect description of English syntax. Efforts to > teach a more scientific grammar have not caught on, possibly because there > are no secondary school textbooks that use them, or the scientific grammars > are too technical. > > 7. To counter the problems of traditional grammar, we have discussed > developing what we have called a "pedagogical grammar." This would retain > traditional terminology to the extent possible, reduce coverage to the most > essential concepts, and eliminate the inadequacies of traditional grammar. > At least one such grammar, Ed Vavra's KISS approach, has been run up the > flagpole, but so far has not achieved widespread acceptance. > > 7. Presently ATEG is in the process of developing a grammar curriculum that > could be proposed for K-12. I'm not familiar with the present status of > this work, but I assume that it will have wider purposes than the > traditional version. > > Bill > > > > William J. McCleary > 3247 Bronson Hill Road > Livonia, NY 14487 > 716-346-6859 > > 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/