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