I found Craig Hancock's recent post about the discussion on this list very helpful in understanding what this list is "about," but it also left me with a question.
Apparently, ATEG has agreed on "knowledge of grammar" is the prime goal and that the development of a recommended "scope and sequence" for grades K through 12 or perhaps through 16 is the way to accomplish this goal.
I find the arguments for this position impressive, and, if I knew more about the approach, would endorse them enthusiastically. I do worry a little that the project may become encumbered with too much terminology, too many new terms in place of more familiar (if less accurate ones), and too much depth of analysis. But perhaps these concerns will prove to be unwarranted.
However, as I have made clear in earlier posts, my concerns are different. I am not opposed to the emphasis on "knowledge of grammar" as a goal for long term instruction in the school system. In fact, I agree that its success will go a long way toward solving the problem I am concerned about: that the writing of many adults I teach at my community college is marred by serious and frequent errors in grammar, punctuation, and usage. A long-term project to emphasize "knowledge of grammar" in our schools will not help this generation of students, and it is they that I am focused on.
In the few weeks I have to assist them, I need to focus on helping them reduce the error in their writing (and, of course, work on other large writing issues like focus, coherence, development, and organization--but on this list I want to focus on the grammar issues). To make progress on this task, I think my goal should be developing a minimalist grammar--emphasizing those terms and concepts that are helpful in mastering control over the conventions of formal writing.
What I hope to find on the ATEG list is others who would like to discuss strategies for doing this. I would like to discuss questions like the following. What would constitute such a "writer's grammar"? How might such basic concepts as subject and verb, sentence and independent clause be explained more clearly than the way they are in traditional handbooks, which my students find incomprehensible. How might students be encouraged to transfer whatever we can teach them about eliminating error into their own writing?
However, I wonder if I've come to right place when I read Craig's observation that, "The Scope and Sequence I would like to help work on, the one endorsed by the ATEG conference, takes 'knowledge of grammar' as a prime goal. Once that is set in motion, then anyone who believes that conscious knowledge is not important or that traditional grammar already solves all our needs should simply work on a different set of goals or get out of the way." And later when he adds, " If someone interrupts to say that this is not important to them, so it shouldn't be important to us, or that traditional grammar never included it, then the work can't get done."
Please note that I have no objection to Craig and others working on their goals, but I am startled by the suggestion that my having a different goal means I am "getting in the way" and "interrupting." The ATEG web site states that "ATEG, an Assembly of the National Council of Teachers of English, is a national forum for discussing the teaching of grammar, and welcomes all views on the role of grammar in our schools." If, in fact, it has been decided that this list is a place to discuss the "knowledge of grammar" goal and others are not welcome, I would appreciate that being made explicit.
Peter Adams
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/