I just want to add a comment that might relate to the Scope and Sequence discussion.
Unlike Paul, I find that it is not too late to teach grammar in high school--minds mature at different rates and much of the higher level grammar I teach to my seniors requires a cognitive development that simply is not present in an 8th-grader. I find that high schoolers usually need to review some basic concepts they failed to grasp in junior high, but they do so very quickly and can proceed to the next level--every year (and I teach 10 through 12), my students make progress in their grammar. I tell the teacher of the lower grades that they do finally "get it." I also think that junior high students are not reading rich, complex texts--high schoolers are (or should be), and they have greater opportunity to recognize how writers play with language, with and against the "rules."
So, I guess what I'm trying to do is make a case for grammar instruction that continues throughout the K-12 years. Too many teachers stop teaching grammar at the high school level, and that, I believe, is a serious mistake.
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
The Scope and Sequence approach to the anti-grammar attitude is vital, I think, and perhaps the only way that we will convince others in the field that the problems are both serious and solvable.
As a high school teacher, I am constantly confronted with the paradoxical comments from fellow teachers about grammar instruction. The wisest realize that the students DO need to be taught grammar, but that by the time they reach high school, it's quite late. I have one colleague who simply says that it is TOO late to teach them grammar in high school. While I don't wholly agree, I do see that it is extremely difficult -- and for a variety of reasons -- and that there is some truth in that idea.
I often feel that I'm playing catch-up with grammar instruction -- these are the problems that I see in their writing; these are the difficulties they have understanding texts; how can I instruct them in language so that they can overcome their difficulties? How do I turn them into better readers/listeners and writers/speakers (and thinkers!), and how much of that instruction is grammar-based? And of course, there's always the thorny questions of terminology (as Ed Vavra often reminds us). The clause/phrase issue that Craig mentions, for example, just came up in one of my classes this week, and I had to stop and explain the difference AGAIN -- of course, for such instruction to work, the students have to KNOW what a verb is. I still have students who can't define sentence boundaries (I see more comma splices than I can count). I still have students who believe that "You can't start a sentence with 'because'!" I mostly still have students who can't or won't play with langua!
ge
because they lack the understanding of what it can do -- and I think that understanding MUST come from close study of great texts and the structures/conventions of language (including grammar and rhetoric --which nobody teaches ! in K-12 schools as far as I can see).
Anyway, I'm ranting. I just want to conclude by reiterating something I've said often in the past: As a high school English teacher (at least two-fifths of me is), I feel overwhelmed by the quantity of material that I am expected to teach in any given year, and finding time to include grammar instruction is a serious challenge. If there were better, more complete, more coordinated and scaffolded and organized teaching of the subject in the earlier grades (when kids are more willing to do that kind of work anyway), perhaps things would be different in the upper grades. It seems to me that we really need to get the NCTE on board with this idea. They need to change their attitude towards Scope and Sequence.
Of course, then there's the problem of teacher training and what the colleges and universities require of teacher candidates! I won't even start on that here!
Anyway, thanks for getting this conversation back up and running.
Paul D>
Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Phil,
I'm delighted to read the responses from Martha and Tim, which have
helped me fill in some blanks in my own understanding of the history
of the struggle.
One reason almost for SIDESTEPPING NCTE is that we can go ahead with
something sensible with or without their blessing. In other words,
they can and probably should call it as they see it and we can do the
same. I guess I'm saying we shouldn't wait for them to come aboard
before we move ahead.
NCTE does not believe there SHOULD be a scope and sequence for grammar
teaching. We believe there should. Let's do it.
As you describe traditional grammar, I'm pretty much with you.
There! 's an important difference between acquiring a language and
acquiring knowledge about that language. The progressive position is
that knowledge about language is not necessary, eve3n "harmful" if it
takes time from real reading and writing. (When I went to school, we
were rarely asked to write and it was taught very badly.) They
advocate responding to grammar (largely error) in context, with as
little metalanguage as possible. My sense is that it is becoming
increasingly clear to composition people (who work the front lines of
teaching) that this approach is inadequate. We have much to gain by
addressing their questions and offering a thoughtful way out of the
present bind while acknowledging and supporting the things they feel
are important.
We could get into an interesting talk about the shortcomings of the
old grammar you and I were exposed to when it was still taught. (It
was a wonderful base to amend and build on.) Unfortunately, the
"parts of speech" are taught, but not taught well, and students coming
out of high school don't know what you are talking about if you talk
about "phrases" or "clauses." In Martha's half of our joint article
("English Teaching Practice and Critique": you can access it on-line),
she mentions C. C. Fries' Structural Grammar (which dates to the
'50's) and praises it as a grammar more descriptive of what happens
within language. I have mined very practical wisdom from systemic
functional grammar, which is very much central to the reintegration of
grammar in the school systems of Australia and has had lots of
influence in England. It's a linguistic grammar (morew scientifically
based) that gives us a different understanding of the basics you are
talking about and makes it ewasier to apply them to critical reading
and writing. I think we do terrible damage when we present soft
understandings (such as a sentence is a complete thought) ! in trying to
eliminate error. And many of the "rules" in traditional grammar are
what Ed Schuster calls "mythrules", not particularly sensible and
broken even by their proponents. In other words, there's lots of ways
we can improve on school grammar and still accomplish what you are
calling for, a look at what happens when words come together to form
meanings.
As you can tell from the lively response, you have hit a live topic.
I was particularly impressed with how tenacious Martha has been. (I'm
a fairly recent member of ATEG, as is Tim.)
I echo Martha's invitation. Come join us this summer. I have a
feeling our conversation has just started.
Craig
> I don't think I disagree with you at all but there are some clarifications
> required. I don't know what you mean by
> "linguistic grammars". Let me draw a little map independent of other
> works and I suspect we will agree quite abit.
>
> Traditional g! rammar deals with the parts of speech, the parts of sentence,
> and sentence types (including clauses) to create structure. Traditional
> grammar also describes sentence relations such as active to passive,
> question to statement and so forth.
>
> The entirety of traditional grammar exists in theoretical syntax without
> modification. In fact it is assumed that syntacticians have a good
> knowledge of traditional grammar in both their native and hopefully a
> couple of other languages. What theoretical grammar then does is add a
> level of sophistication to the mix that rarely has much use at the
> traditional level. I believe this is the distinction that Mulroy uses as
> well.
>
> Calling oneself a functionalist or shaping public grammar is fine, but it
> doesn't change the core taxonomy and functionality that must be taught as
> outlined in the previous paragraph. Pedagogical concerns abou! t how these
> are taught are another matter. Sentence diagramming could be used, as
> could interactive exercises, lectures and drills. I think most agree that
> the coming age in FL, ESL and the traditional grammar classroom is a
> combination of all of these. Probably the biggest underlying fear for all
> concerned is that their personal, favorite style may get underplayed. For
> example, an analytic type teacher might worry the interactivity will cheat
> his students of sound grammatical principles and the more global teacher
> may fear that students will lose their opportunities to have a direct
> interaction with the grammar if the lectures turn up too much. Digramming
> is a form of interactivity that makes parts of speech come alive for some
> people. Especially if you work on it pairs or teams and have the students
> present the results the classroom. It is learned quickly and it imparts a
> pro! found understanding of sentence structure. One which will undoubtedly
> result in more precise speech and writing.
>
> I don't think there is a person alive who honestly attacks new approaches
> or is looking for a return to some sort of archaic and ineffective
> teaching method, but the teaching of parts of speech, parts of the
> sentence and sentence type cannot fail to improve students minds as well
> as their use of language in all areas. The NCTE position is absurd when
> it intimates that a knowledge of grammar somehow interferes with writing
> skills or any other language skills. It makes grammar into the only study
> on the planet that would not benefit your writing. You could equally well
> argue that writing classes have no direct benefit on your knowledge of
> grammar.
>
> As for a rich offerings in language programs -- well that is all fine and
> a positive contribution but you a! re a little far afield of that very
> narrrow NCTE position which argues that the teaching of parts of speech,
> parts of sentence, sentence types is somehow going to distract from your
> writing.
>
>>Everyone in ATEG who wants to should
>>have a look at the Scope and Sequence project while still in draft
>>form. It should be something we are all proud of.
>
> Where is this located?
>
>
> Phil Bralich
>
> 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/
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128). 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/
---------------------------------
Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!
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/