Craig,
 
Dr. Rubba seems to be saying that high school students do not read very much, and if they read more, they would become better readers.  Unless I misread Dr. Rubba's post, what she suggests is demonstrably true.  People who read more become better readers.  Those who read more and get careful, explicit instruction in how to read increasingly difficult texts become even better readers.  Texts differ in their structure; students who are explicitly taught how to understand the structure and purpose of the different kinds of texts they are expected to comprehend will improve their reading more than those who receive no such instruction.  But students who who do not read very much, regardless of the instruction they receive, do not improve nearly as much in their reading skill as those who read more.  Could this really be in dispute?  Reading well requires a combination of knowledge acquisition and skill development, both of which take time and effort. 
 
Scott W. Woods
Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Johanna,
I'm surprised you would fall back on the "if they read it will rub off"
argument for difficult texts.>It seems out of place with all the rest.
One problem, I think, is that students mainly read literature in their
English classes. Texts in the technical disciplines, even history and
the social sciences, can be organized quite differently. The other
problem is that we are asking students to make changes that we do not
understand. It doesn't help to simply say it will happen from exposure.
I have been reading Mary Schleppegrell's "The Language of Schooling",
and I highly recommend it for anyone interested in these issues. It's a
rich discussion of the way that language functions within the technical
registers. Our first tendency, I think, is to believe that these are
superficial differences, as in your example, but they are not. She
makes a good case that students can be much better served if we have a
better understanding of the kind of changes that have to happen and if
we make those changes explicit. I'm working my way toward a full review
of the book, but that's a quick summary of the reasons for my comments.
From a functional perspective, these are not just formal differences in
the texts, but highly functional differences. Technical texts do a
different kind of work than we find in a typical narrative.
Schleppegrel also focuses in on the kinds of texts that are valued in
high stakes testing, where we read passages and respond. Again, it's
not just a matter of conventional correctness, and I don't think the
school population is well served by teachers who are unconscious of
their own decisions and unaware of what they are asking students to do.
She is writing out of a systemic functional linguistics tradition, but
does a nice job of summarizing other research.

Craig



Paul,
>
> I favor using the "-al" suffix to distinguish class from function. It
> is a little subtle, and hard for older students who aren't used to
> studying about language, and for people who have internalized
> traditional grammar. But I can't think of an alternative, and it should
> work well if it is introduced and maintained in a long-term (over
> years!) grammar curriculum.
>
> I also believe it's important to go to even-more superordinate levels,
> like "head", "modifier", and "complement". All at the appropriate age,
> of course.
>
> Craig raised the issue of the complexity of written texts in an earlier
> post. I believe a major reason students have trouble with these texts
> is that they don't read enough -- not enough of such texts, and not
> enough, period. I think we will find that studying grammar helps with
> reading ability, but I believe the main way to become fluent at reading
> is by reading, and progressing incrementally from easier to harder
> levels (like we used to do in school). (Granted, school readers still
> advance incrementally, but too many kids aren't doing enough reading to
> become fluent at the higher levels.)
>
> I also remain firmly convinced that reading high-level texts is
> necessary to being able to write them. No grammar course can teach the
> full range of structures used in high-level writing. Not only is there
> variety in grammar, but there is a very large number of fixed
> expressions that occur in formal writing (such as "I remain firmly
> convinced"). Language learning doesn't stop at age 5. People continue
> to learn unconsciously probably all of their lives, but certainly very
> actively in childhood and adolescence.
>
> Dr. Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics
> Linguistics Minor Advisor
> English Department
> California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> Tel.: 805.756.2184
> Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596
> Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374
> URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
>
> 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/

Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less. 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/