Paul,
I'm sorry. I probably did not make myself clear. I was aware of
the reviews and of Dave's participation in the conferences, but this
group could have done a lot more to promote the book. By God, the book
practically makes the case for the current "scope and sequence"
statement. What I had in mind is that Dave's ideas could have been
discussed much more fully on this list, and, among other things, ATEG
could have called for a letter writing campaign to promote the book. I
don't remember these things happening. My guess is that they did not
because the basic recommendation of the book is that we all go back to
traditional sentence diagramming exercises. How many member of ATEG
support that idea?
I never said that he referred to ATEG as "comical," but I would
suggest that his description of the ATEG and NCTE conferences presented
a David and Goliath image, an image in which David did not have a
slingshot.
I replied to one of your messages earlier today, a reply that I
hope you found acceptable, if not agreeable. Since then I have gone
through the remaining 100+ messages. This group cannot even agree on the
term "parts of speech." Once again, therefore, the only way in which I
can see this group being truly productive is if it establishes distinct
sub-groups for the development of scope and sequence statements. All the
people who agree that "parts of speech" is fine can be in one (or more)
group(s). Those who disagree can be in another. That will settle that
point. Once general groups are formed, each with a common terminology,
they can begin to address what concepts should be taught, when, how,
why, etc. If ATEG's only objective is to promote the teaching of grammar
(in some general sense), then it is already obsolete. The SAT and "No
Child Left Behind" have already accomplished that objective.
Best wishes,
Ed
>>> [log in to unmask] 7/28/2006 12:52:35 AM >>>
Ed,
Where'd you get the notion that ATEG members are not enthusiastic about
David's book? First of all, I (as I believe aome other members did as
well) gave the book a favorable review in ATEG Journal (a.k.a., Syntax
in the Schools); second, David was our keynote speaker a couple of years
ago (after the book came out) and has been a regular attendee at our
conferences (as I wish you would be); and third, I don't remember seeing
a single negative comment on this forum about his book (correct me if
I'm wrong). In spite of (and perhaps because of) his helpful criticisms
of ATEG, he is a welcome, wanted voice in our group. So is your voice,
Ed, even though you have lost faith with us.
For the record, although I do not presume to speak for David, he did
not refer to us a comical in his book. That is a gross exaggeration of
what he wrote (partly quoted in Eduard's psting of a few weeks ago);
ATEG is mentioned in two places: On pages 8-9, rather uncritically, and
on page 88, the somewhat critical comment you seem to be referring to. I
wish that you wouldn't let your feelings for ATEG cloud the accuracy of
your comments. I also wish that you'd see how much progress we have made
over the past few years: We have effectively changed NCTE's stance about
grammar, having a page of principles on the teaching of grammar on their
web site that we authored
(http://www.ncte.org/about/over/positions/category/gram/107646.htm), and
having had our introductory book on teaching grammar published by NCTE.
If these are signs that we are doomed to failure, then what does a step
toward success look like?
Personally, I'm getting a little tired of all the predictions of the
end of the world for ATEG. Either join the fight or don't, but don't
cloud the argument with empty threats and negativity. Sorry if this
sounds peevish, but it's late at night, I'm tired, and the useless ATEG
bashing is just getting too annoying for me to ignore.
Paul D.
----- Original Message ----
From: Edward Vavra <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 5:16:40 PM
Subject: The Question of Grammatical Errors
I expected to get some flak from my previous post, but I wasn't
expecting over a hundred messages on the site. I read e-mail once a week
from my office, and I do not have the time right now to go through all
the messages. I would, however, like to respond to Peter's message
regarding grammatical errors.
I do not regularly talk about the KISS Grammar site here, simply
because I've been criticized for doing so. (Another reason for my
looking for different audiences?) I will say, however, that KISS
approaches grammatical errors by teaching students how sentences work.
Most of the people on this list cannot approach the question this way
because their grammars are primarily definitions of terms rather than a
sequence for teaching students how to analyze sentences. For the KISS
Approach to errors, see:
http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/kiss/wb/IM/Errors.htm
The practical home page for KISS is now:
http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/kiss/wb/PBooks/index.htm
This summer I have been revising the "Instructional Books" for the five
KISS Levels. These are available, for free, as MS Word documents.
Although I have not been able to read all the messages, I would
like to clarify the terminological problem as I see it. I have no
problem with different grammarians using different terms. The problem
arises when teachers and students are presented with "grammar" books
that claim to be teaching the same thing ("grammar") but that use terms
differently without clearly indicating that they are doing so. Thus
teachers are confused, for example, about what a "clause" is because one
book defines "clause" one way and another book does so in another.
I finally found the time to read David Mulroy's The War against
Grammar, and I can see why ATEG members are not all that enthusiastic
about it. He points out that ATEG is an extremely small group, almost
comical when compared to NCTE. ATEG, I will suggest, will remain such a
small, and ineffective group, until it resolves it terminological
problem. Teachers (and professors) simply ignore ATEG because it
produces primarily mumbo-jumbo terminology that is not internally
consistent.
Once again, why can't ATEG support two, three, five named grammars?
WIthin each of these grammars, terms would be defined and internally
consistent. Once a grammar gets to that point, students and teachers can
begin to apply it to questions of reading, writing, errors, style,
logic, literature, etc. Once a grammar gets to that point, one can begin
to consider what constructions should be taught first, etc. There is
little discussion of the applications of grammar on the ATEG site,
primarily because ATEG members cannot agree on which tools (terms) to
use in such applications.
Although I will still, for obvious reasons, prefer KISS grammar, I
would certainly support ATEG's proposals for distinct, named,
pedagogical grammars. Unless that happens, however, ATEG will be a
target of criticism.
I apologize again for not having yet read all the messages. I'll try
to get to them on Monday.
Ed
>>> [log in to unmask] 7/8/2006 7:43:47 PM >>>
I understand that the ATEG position is that the teaching of grammar has
wider goals than simply "the avoidance of error." And over the years,
thanks to this list and to presentations at conferences, I have come to
embrace these wider goals. However, the ATEG position sometimes sounds
to me to suggest that any concern with the avoidance of error is
misguided. I would love to hear some ATEGers agree that reducing the
frequency and seriousness of error in student writing is a worthwhile
goal of grammar instruction, while recognizing that it should not be the
only goal.
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/
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/