Ed,
It's good to see a healthy, thoughtful response to the ATEG articles. We have had fine articles in SYNTAX in the past, and very little discussion of them on the ATEG list. It may be in part because the listserv is wider than the ATEG membership and therefore the journal has, historically, been unavailable. We have had a policy of trying to keep the journal as a member benefit, but one result has been to limit the readership for this important work. I'm not sure how to address that problem. But under Tim's stewardship, perhaps we can begin to grow an audience. For those of us thinking about homes for what we are writing, the number of readers is important. As is quality of response.
I liked Ms. Masselink's article more than you do, or perhaps that's just a misreading based on the balance between negative and positive comments. As you say, she shows very well how little time is being spent on language arts in general. (If you limited this down even further, to direct attention to syntax, we would be in "minuscule" territory.) It does seem to me that she acknowledges that much of this is due to a lack of knowledge on the teachers' part. (For that reason, advocating three language courses for preparation, though, if I read this correctly, a teacher would take only two, choosing between lower grades and higher rather than taking both.) And I didn't get the sense that she was presenting an anti literature view. I don't think there was room in this short article for answering all the objections you have raised, such as showing literature teachers how to integrate grammar into the study of literature. Your own views seem very compatible with hers, more an expansion than a disagreement thought it was/is a very helpful article.
The Scope and Sequence project is in momentary hiatus (I have had a very busy semester), but I'm hoping we can do a great deal of work on it leading up to our conference this summer (apparently we will still have our own, though Amy no doubt could verify that), and I would like to see it-- a formal presentation in time for the next NCTE. I have a sabbatical approved for the spring, and that's one place where I'll be directing energy. I can see where the presentations might have seemed "all over the place." This was partly to invite a number of participants into the fold, partly to pay attention to important questions. What are current practices, and which work best? What do we mean by "maturity" for a language user, and how does conscious knowledge enter into that? What exactly is "standard English", and what are the problems for "enforcement" if we're not sure what it is? I remember John Crow telling us that the mind is a pattern recognition device that shuts down from threats and opens to a challenge, and I thought how important that is in understanding why red penciling errors is demeaning, but understanding how syntax works can be exciting. Tim was able to fill us in on how faulty the anti grammar studies have been, and to fill is in with a more thoughtful view of it. Cornelia introduced us to the important studies of Katharine Perera. The Maryland contingent, with the help of Martha, gave us a progress report on one school district's attempt to embrace grammar. If our project is going to be thoughtfully grounded, we need all these perspectives. The ultimate goal, though, and I think we can do it in the next nine months, is to present a scope and sequence for K-12. We would have to, as part of that, address its place within the overall English curriculum, have recommendations for teacher training that would make its implementation realistically possible, and so on. I would like to think it's not "all over the place", but a comprehensive project, engaging a number of people and drawing on a wide range of expertise.
And you're right; we don't want to be thought of as anti literature. We also need to respect composition as a discipline and find ways to quiet their concerns that we're trying to let the same old grammar cat out of the bag.

Craig

Edward Vavra wrote:

[log in to unmask]"> Dear Tim,
     First of all, I want to thank you for your kind words in the latest issue of ATEG Journal. I appreciate the thought, and I wish you well. You have convinced me to do something that I said I never would -- to pay for the publication. (My dues are in the mail.) The articles in this issue are interesting, even if they are somewhat disappointing.
     Noralyn Masselink's article was interesting and useful in that it demonstrates, fairly effectively, how little time many K-12 teachers spend on grammar. Unfortunately, it is not very clear on why teachers should spend time on it, or how they should do so. Thus, for example, she notes that "fewer than one-fifth of all of the English Language Arts teachers in the study engage their students in sentence manipulation." (4) This leads me to wonder if Dr. Masselink is aware of the various types of, and problems associated with, sentence manipulation exercises. Perhaps the teachers do not use them because they (the teachers) are better informed than Dr. Masselink?
     Even more disappointing is her complaint about teachers who are "teaching literature, literature, and more literature in isolation from instruction in language." (6) Advocates for teaching grammar have sufficient opponents. Is she trying to turn teachers who love literature against us also? She ends her article by noting that "opportunities to play with language are non-existent (or at best, infrequent) in our classrooms." (6) While I have no objections to playing with language, is there any research to support that such play is effective? And what type of play does she have in mind?
     She noted that when teachers were asked why they did not "engage in direct language instruction," the most common answers were that 1) the students had done that before the observers came to the class, or 2) research shows that such instruction is "useless." What she did not note is that most teachers have an extremely poor formal command of grammar. Thus, I would suggest that the reasons given to her students were, in effect, "covers" for the real reason. (It would be interesting to know what grammar Dr. Masselink teaches her own students. Does she enable them to identify the subjects and verbs in students' writing? More importantly, does she give her students exercises based on literature so that her students, and their supervising teachers, can use them in the classroom?
     Rather than berating teachers who love literature, perhaps we should be showing them, very specifically, how formal instruction in grammar can be integrated into the study of literature. The KISS site includes hundreds of exercises based on literature. These include excerpts from stories, and complete poems. In the primary grades, teachers are encouraged to have the students read and discuss the story or poem and then do grammatical exercises based on the text. They also include writing assignments, but for primary school children, the best writing assignments are probably those that simply ask the students to retell the story or poem in their own words, in as much detail as they can. I'm particularly enthusiastic about the exercises based on E.B. White's The Trumpet of the Swan. It is a superb book for teaching style and grammar to primary school students. White's use of compounded verbs and compounded direct objects borders on the hilarious. See:
http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/kiss/wb/G04/Apr/D04/Notes.htm
     For upper grade levels, I have tended to provide just exercises and analysis keys, on the assumption that teachers already have, or can easily find, instructional materials about the literature. Eventually I would like to add more analysis and discussion to the seven sonnets by Shakespeare that are already on the site. I also intend to add more sonnets. See:
http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/kiss/wb/G11/Apr/D09/Notes.htm
There is a fairly decent set of exercises on Maupassant's "The Necklace. See:
http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/kiss/wb/G11/Mar/D10/Notes.htm
I probably went too far with my syntactic, stylistic exercises and discussion of "Squire Toby’s Will," by J. Sheridan Le Fanu. See:
http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/kiss/wb/G10/Apr/D10/Notes.htm
     The preceding are just a few examples. For a fairly complete list of authors and works, see the "KISS Workbooks Anthology" at:
http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/kiss/wb/Anthology/index.htm
     Note that many of the preceding are comparable in aim, if not in quality, to Leech and Short's Style in Fiction, which was reviewed in the Fall issue by Fr. Laurence Kriegshauser. (11) Note also, however, that the KISS approach invites and enables teachers and students to do this type of analysis themselves.
     In spite of these questions about the article, I do want to thank Dr. Masselink for suggesting to me that the literary exercises on the KISS site should be supported by more, not less, suggestions for literary analysis. (My tendency has been to supply the syntactic analysis, and, at times, a few suggestions about how the syntax supports the theme, but more discussion of themes, symbols, etc. might make the works more appealing to teachers for use in the classroom.) My primary point, of course, is that if we want teachers to integrate the study of grammar into the study of literature, we have to provide teachers with examples of practical exercises.
     Wes Davis's article is, I would suggest, flawed by ATEG's pretension to being a "journal." His format, which would be more appropriate for Research in the Teaching of English, doesn't leave him enough space to deal with the critical issues for members of ATEG. He gives, for example, the "instructional procedure" for teaching grammar as "(1) correctness in students' writing by teaching rules of grammar and mechanics; (2) instruction in standard written English by using a workbook ...." (8) This, however, begs the questions. What "rules of grammar and mechanics"? What "workbook"? The only approach to teaching grammar that is really, strongly supported by research is Lester Faigley's use of Christensen and Christensen's A New Rhetoric. This was praised in the 1986 Hillocks' Report, primarily because Hillocks did not realize that Faigley was actually teaching grammar. Thus Faigley's study is highly praised by Hillocks, who then claims that teaching grammar is harmful! (For more on this, see "Why the Anti-Grammarians are Wrong: The Problems with Previous Research on Grammar" at: http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/ED498/Essay015_Ressearch.htm.) By reading Faigley's articles and the Christensens' book, it is not too difficult to see fairly clearly what was going on in the classroom. I hope, therefore, that you will encourage Dr. Davis to contribute more, and more specific, articles to the journal about his methods and instruction.

     I must admit that I have not yet read David Mulroy's The War Against Grammar. I do intend to, but my impression is that the book does not address the fundamental problems regarding what grammar to teach, when, how, and why. The two reviews suggest that it is a very important book -- for those people who are either unaware of the grammar war, or who are on the other side. Is there any way to get Dr. Mulroy on those TV programs in which authors discuss their books? The issue of the newsletter suggests that he is a very entertaining speaker, and he could have a major role in informing the general public about the "war."

    Last, but most important, I hope that Craig Hancock and Paul Doniger will be sharing more information about the "Scope and Sequence Project." The list of speakers and topics for their session suggests that the group is going in all sorts of directions, and it will be interesting to see if they can shape some sort of consensus. As I have long argued, this is the most important issue that ATEG can address.

     Thank you again for your kind words. As the preceding comments suggest, I found the Fall issue of the journal to be substantial.

Ed Vavra

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/