When I gave the newsletter the title Syntax in the Schools, I
was thinking of grades K-12. (Some schools teach parts of speech in kindergarten.
Don't ask me why.) The newsletter, however, is almost 18 years old, and
the discussion still focuses on "What I can do in my course," and often
those are college courses.
If my book does get published, I am obviously
hoping that at least some teachers will like and be able to use the KISS
Approach, but perhaps even more important, I am hoping that it will show
the need for a coordinated "concept by concept" (as Robert puts it) "curriculum"
for grammar. Even if they don't like The KISS Approach, if schools buy
into that idea (which is apparently causing Gretchen problems with the
KISS Approach), then more teachers, and more school systems, will start
contributing specific ideas and suggestions for a KISS-like approach. (By
"KISS-like" I mean a coordinated curriculum that builds, concept by concept,
across several grade levels, along the way teaching students how to use
their ability to identify various constructions in order to evaluate (and
thus improve) their writing -- and reading. The research clearly shows
that this cannot be done effectively within a single year. Parts of it
can be, but that raises all sorts of questions about which parts.)
Gretchen, have you looked at Anne Obenchain's LINKS
TO FORCEFUL WRITING? It's not a complete approach, but it may be a good
place to start. From what I have seen, it is an eighth grade program that
concentrates on clauses. I still have to get my hands on the book, so I
can't be certain.
Ed V.
Robert Einarsson wrote:
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 VavraAs 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/einarssonbTo 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/