Ed and others concerned about the scope/sequence project:

 

 I understand the
concern about terminology, but I don’t share the fundamental belief that
nothing about scope/sequence can be resolved until we resolve the issues with
terminology.  Instead of starting from
isolated examples that have not allowed us to move in our scope/sequence
project, I believe it is more productive to first establish a general framework
and then look at specifics.  

 

For the general framework, it is useful to look at state
standards:  almost all states have fairly
explicit guidelines regarding students’ knowledge of “grammar,” and these
guidelines are fairly consistent across states. 
These guidelines must be considered as we decide what to include in our
project;  otherwise, each state will
dismiss our project as being irrelevant to their own standards.  

 

In addition to state standards, information from the
National Curriculum has been extremely useful; 
that  document provides general
guidelines regarding scope/sequence, leaving specific details to each
school.  

 

The general framework includes what should students know
generally about language, why should they know it and when should they know it.

 

First, the ‘what’: 
they need to know basic structure and to understand how  structural choices affect meaning. Most
current research dealing with the grammar/writing interface (including
punctuation) considers clauses to be the fundamental unit—not sentences—and
that is useful for a basic understanding of grammar, one that encourages
students to see the general, underlying structure of any construction:  a clause, then, is any subject/verb pairing
–finite or non finite.  A construction
headed by an infinitive, then, is a clause if it has a subject—explicit or
implicit.  Now, one  might argue that all non-finite constructions
are phrases and not clauses.  A quick
look at established reference grammars like Huddleston’s newest book should
solve that problem.  Our terms will
follow from our current understanding of language structure in conjunction with
traditional terminology;   where the two
differ, an explanation should suffice to make the differences clear.

 

‘Why” should they know it? 
Because –using the example with infinitives—understanding about
finite/non-finite constructions can be useful in their writing, as they try to
move from less fluent to more fluent syntactic constructions.

 

“When” should they know it? 
Obviously, after they have mastered basic structure in writing;  the sequence of learning is becoming clearer
in recent years through the work of scholars like Katharine  Perera who has been researching the
development of writing abilities in young students.

 

 I believe that any scope/sequence project
should not be rigidly prescriptive; 
rather, it should consider our current understanding about language
structure, our knowledge about writing abilities and text development as well
as general state requirements.   In other
words, “good old grammar” is not enough to give students the kinds of knowledge
we want them to have.  A final
request—there’s no need to badmouth linguists. 
We are professionally trained to understand the structure and functions
of language—just like biologists are trained to understand living
organisms.  

 

Cornelia Paraskevas

 



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/