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/