The NPG group’s decision to
emphasize knowledge about language over knowledge about error correction should
not be taken as a sign that we don’t think the latter is important. Of course we want students to be able to adhere to the
conventions of standard English. The situation is not one of “teach either
A or B,” however; instead, it’s “understanding A is a
prerequisite to understanding B.”
In the absence of a rich, “organic”
knowledge of language and language use, students have to approach the conventions
of standard English as a kind of confusing hodgepodge of unrelated things to
memorize – it’s rather like what would happen in a math class if
the relation between division and subtraction were never, ever discussed. The
goal – or at least the hope – is that once a given level of basic
understanding is reached, the conventions can be discussed in a more compact
and effective way.
As an example, think of trying to explain
the usage of ‘whom’ in formal English to (a) a student who has no
idea of what a subject or object is, and (b) one who already knows (and is
comfortable with) those terms. In the first case, you’re in for a long
(and probably pointless) afternoon of trying to get the point across. In the second case, you don’t
really have to spend much time explaining anything; you just have to emphasize
the need for care when approaching sentences with multiple clause embedding,
etc.
The problem with trying to design
materials to get a student from zero to proficiency with standard English in
fourteen weeks is that, in practical terms, it can’t be done. No one in
math would expect a student to go from basic addition to algebra in fourteen
weeks; you have to build a knowledge base for each step. The problem is not
that teachers can’t lead students to full proficiency in one semester –
it’s that school systems sometimes really expect this, or that a teacher
faced with students who are far short of being able to perform according to a
criterion that has to be met by the end of the semester (because whoever is in
charge of curriculum wrote that criterion but didn’t work on the ones for
preceding grades) feels more responsibility than an outside observer would weigh
him/her down with.
Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
From:
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 11:31
AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Scope and Sequence
In a message dated 7/31/06 8:49:57 AM, [log in to unmask] writes:
As a coordinator of the project, I would like to say
first of all that
I have no interest in simply affirming the value of Warriner's, or even
of an approach that says once people fix all their errors, they can
learn something interesting about language. From the first, our
position has been that knowledge about language is the primary goal,
and that "error reduction" is something that will routinely fall into
place if we aim at this higher goal. (Not at all discrediting
"correctness," just believing that it doesn't happen with a shallow
knowledge base.)
As a newcomer to this list, I want to thank Craig for his clarifying message.
When he writes, "from the first, our position has been that knowledge
about language is the primary goal, and that "error reduction" is
something that will routinely fall into place if we aim at this higher
goal," he clears up a certain puzzlement I've experienced in my couple of
weeks on the list.
I teach, primarily developmental writing courses, at a community college
outside
From my perspective, of the two goals--"knowledge about language" and
"error reduction"--error reduction seems much more urgent and much
more important to my students' success as writers in a world where writing
ability is an essential component of success. I, of course, recognize
that there is more to effective writing than control over the conventions, but
I also recognize that a plethora of errors in any piece of writing will render
it ineffective, regardless of its other qualities. On the other hand, if
I were working on the Scope and Sequence Project, which I take to be a description
of twelve years of instruction, then I think I would be much more enthusiastic
about the position Craig describes.
I also see the value of "knowledge about language," by which I think
ATEG means something like the long list of terms Joanna posted a week or two
ago. In an ideal world, I would agree that providing that kind of
"knowledge about language" is a worthy goal, but in the real world my
students and I inhabit, I have to give priority to the more practical and
achievable (in 14 weeks) goal of helping them reduce the severity and frequency
of error in their writing.
I know there are some in our profession who share my goal and are trying to
develop, to use Rei Noguchi's term, a "writer's grammar," a grammar
that emphasizes just those terms and concepts that are necessary to eliminate
most errors. For example, the distinction between direct and indirect
objects is important in Latin, but not in English where there is no difference
in word forms in these two slots. So, I would leave that distinction out
of my version of a "writer's grammar." Joanna's list
includes more than sixty items; mine would include about a dozen.
I was particularly struck by Craig's pointing out that "from the first,
our position has been that knowledge about language is the primary goal, and
that "error reduction" is something that will routinely fall into
place if we aim at this higher goal."
I wasn't aware of that ATEG had made this commitment. I had
thought--without much actual knowledge to base this assumption on--that ATEG
was a "big tent" organization with members who agreed that the
teaching of grammar is important, but who might disagree about the goals of
that instruction and the means to accomplish it. The implication in
Craig's post seems to be that there are two approaches--the "knowledge
about language" approach and the "Warriner's" approach. It seems
to me that there is at least one more: an approach that recognizes the
weaknesses of the traditional approaches but that is trying to develop a more enlightened
way of teaching students a grammar that will empower them to write successfully
in the real world.
Peter Adams
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/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/