Received: from leordinateur ([97.100.23.246]) by cdptpa-omta06.mail.rr.com
with ESMTP
id <20070913051622.TKVK3972.cdptpa-omta06.mail.rr.com@leordinateur>
for <[log in to unmask]>; Thu, 13 Sep 2007 05:16:22 +0000
From: "Scott" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "'Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar'" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: RE: ATEG Digest - 11 Sep 2007 to 12 Sep 2007 (#2007-108)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 01:16:53 -0400
Message-ID: <002d01c7f5c5$4c87a930$0602a8c0@leordinateur>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Thread-Index: Acf1ux29Jv8WJuYqSM+St6NLC1lUgQACNTwg
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138
One such study was carried out in the late '60s/early '70s in the
Pennsylvania, which contrasted the Audio-Lingual method and the Cognitive
Code method in classrooms across Pennsylvania. I was on the governing board
of ACTFL at the time and our 1972 conference in New Orleans was dominated
by whether polyvariate or multivariate statistics was more applicable.
The Multivariate group claimed that the test results clearly showed the
superiority of cognitive code (i.e., grammar); the polyvariate adherents
claimed the opposite.
It can be done.
Scott Catledge
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ATEG automatic digest system
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 12:04 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: ATEG Digest - 11 Sep 2007 to 12 Sep 2007 (#2007-108)
There are 5 messages totalling 4199 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Supportive empirical evidence was Silly, rewarding grammar period (3)
2. Functional grammar definition (2)
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/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:26:37 -0700
From: Ronald Sheen <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Supportive empirical evidence was Silly, rewarding grammar
period
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C7F5F8.F2630A60
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Many thanks, Craig, for the leads and the clarifying comments. I agree =
that we are more or less on the same page in terms of the nature of =
future research.
What is of interest to me is the extent to which the research needs you =
have outlined have been heeded by the powers that be. In my own field =
of SLA, though the need for empirical comparative studies is recognised, =
few have been forthcoming and most of those that have been, have been =
too short-term.
The problems with the carrying out comparative studies are numerous. =
Here are just two:
1. Such studies necessarily entail at least two approaches. Now, =
unless one is lucky in having available two situations in which two =
approaches are being practised, one is obliged to form two groups and =
teach them in two different ways which raises all sorts of practical and =
ethical problems.
2. Even if one can solve these problems, one cannot do so in the long =
term which reduces the usefulness of the findings. I would argue that =
comparative studies aiming to compare the effect of teaching grammar on =
the quality of writing (assuming that one can solve the other problems =
entailed therein) need to be, at the very least, one-term long.
These two problems along with others make it very difficult for doctoral =
srudents to carry out such research thus depriving the field of a =
potentially useful source of important findings..
Ron Sheen
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Craig Hancock=20
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 8:34 AM
Subject: Re: Supportive empirical evidence was Silly, rewarding =
grammar period
Ron,
The inherent or innate nature of grammar is, in fact, a theoretical =
underpinning of the anti-grammar movement. Part of that means thinking =
of grammar as a behavior, not as a body of knowledge, and as largely a =
neutral conveyor of meaning. We now test grammar in terms of what =
students can do, not what they know (even in the SAT test) because it is =
generally believed that conscious knowledge is unnecessary and =
unhelpful.
You're right; the anti-grammar position that acquisition will just =
happen through exposure has never been tested. Debra Myhill makes these =
points nicely in an article in English Teaching: Practice and Critique =
(Dec. 2005. You can access it online. Martha and I have an article in =
the same issue.) Here's a few quotes.
from abstract: .there has never been a critical theorization of how =
grammar might support the development of writing, and thus there has =
been very limited research which has explored that relationship.. (77)
Quotes Tomlinson (1994, p26) that condemnation of grammar on flimsy =
evidence was what many in the educational establishment wanted to hear. =
(80)
What would be so much more interesting, and valuable, would be to =
explore in more subtly nuanced detail what research can tell us about =
what aspects of grammar and knowledge about language are most relevant =
to writing, whether direct teaching of these features can help children =
improve their writing, and what teaching strategies are most successful =
in enabling this to happen. (80)
The truth is that teaching grammar and knowledge about language in =
positive, contextualised ways which make clear links with writing is not =
yet an established way of teaching and it is, as yet, hugely =
under-researched. (81)
The rejection of decontextualised, and with it by implication, =
prescriptive, grammar teaching was rooted in insightful critique of what =
was happening in English classrooms. In contrast, the "grammar in =
context" principle is both less sharply critiqued and considerably less =
clearly conceptualised. There has been little genuine discussion or =
consideration of what "in context" means. Frequently, observations of =
classroom practice indicate that the notion of "in context" means little =
more than grammar teaching which is slotted into English lessons, where =
the focus is not grammar, but some other feature of English learning. =
(82)
I think we are absolutely on the same wave length. The people who =
rely on these empirical studies that critique the teaching of grammar =
have not done empirical studies of their own. The cure has proven worse =
than the disease.=20
But we need to conceptualize a program before we can try it out.
Craig
Ronald Sheen wrote:=20
Thanks, Craig, for your thought-provoking post. It raises a number =
of issues which demand careful responses.
Before providing any, I should clarify one or two things. First, my =
area of experience is in SLA (second language acquisition) in which I =
have done most of my research. However, I believe that in the field of =
SLA and FLA (first language acquisition) teachers and students have been =
the victims of the educational theorists who claimed that exposure to =
correct language in the classroom will result in the students' =
acquisition thereof in spite of massive exposure to non-standard =
language outside of the classroom.
I take the position that such theorists were (and are) guilty of =
unaccountable irresponsibility and this because they did not support =
their advocacy with empirical evidence. Thus, for reasons we need not =
go into here, educational authorities climbed aboard the bandwagon and =
suddenly teachers were forbidden to teach grammar and were made to feel =
quilty if they did.
Now, before coming to the details of your excellent post, I would =
appreciate your responding to the above remarks. I know that my =
assumption is correct in terms of SLA. Is it also correct in terms of =
FLA?
Ron.
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Craig Hancock=20
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 6:36 AM
Subject: Re: Supportive empirical evidence was Silly, rewarding =
grammar period
Ron,
My comments were rather unfocused and unclear, and I suspect =
you and I are not far apart on positions. I'll try again.
For the most part, empirical studies of grammar effectiveness =
that i have read measure their effect on writing as compared to students =
who have had writing instruction, but not grammar. Generally, this has =
been measured over the short term. Generally, this has measured students =
receiving grammar instruction, but not practice in writing. (What we =
would call control groups.) This implies that our only goal is =
improvement in writing and that this can be accurately measured in the =
short term, with grammar versus writing as an either/or choice.=20
In other words, under this pattern of accountability, Gretchen =
could excite her students about grammar, help them become explorers of =
language, deepen their understanding of what nouns are all about, and =
then have that determined to be "ineffective" because these students =
don't produce more "accurate grammar" (your term for it) or don't score =
better on holistically assessed writing samples after a semester or a =
year. For an accurate control group, they would have to be denied real =
writing practice. Perhaps a better test would measure their knowledge =
about nouns as opposed to students who have only memorized "person, =
place, and thing" as a definition. Perhaps we should find a way to test =
their confidence as language explorers or their deeper interest in the =
subject. We could compare knowledge about language between a group =
studying language and another merely writing. Everything depends on a =
match between the testing and the goals.
I don't know of a good empirical assessment of a knowledge =
based approach to grammar over a lengthy period of time. In both England =
and Australia, teachers now seem to believe that reintegrating language =
into the curriculum has been a good thing, but it's hard to test that =
out empirically. Perhaps the most direct test would measure knowledge =
about language, since that would be the central goal. We could then try =
to monitor how well that knowledge is put to work in reading, writing, =
speaking, listening, and so on. The problem is that we don't have a =
current consensus that knowing about language is a reasonable goal. =
Whether or not Gretchen's students can now produce more "accurate =
grammar" would be, I think, irrelevant, at least in the short term. Very =
real benefits will be ignored if they are not thought of as valuable =
goals in their own right.
Knowledge about language does not come quickly and easily, and =
putting it to work is not easy as well. We need empirical testing that =
does not diminish the value of knowing about language and does not =
demand short term results.=20
We need to envision a K-12 curriculum, not a single course with =
no other follow-up by other teachers. Once we do that, we can measure =
progress along the way.
Craig
Ronald Sheen wrote:=20
My comments on empirical evidence, Gretchen, were, as I think I =
made clear, in no way an expression of doubt in your success. My =
comments were both an implicit criticism of the proliferation of how to =
teach grammar books without including any attempt to demonstrate =
empirically that the approach proposed has been shown to be the optimal =
choice, and a suggestion to you that you consider doing some sort of =
comparative study yourself.in order to justify the publication of a =
book.
However, Craig Hancock claims that 'One of the problems with =
many "empirical" studies of grammar is that the outcomes have been so =
narrowly defined' and then, unfortunately, goes no further. The whole =
area of comparative studies is a minefield waiting to blow up in the =
face of anyone attempting them. This, however, is no reason to dismiss =
them with the sort of unsupported comment that Craig makes.
A discussion group such as this one provides a marvellous forum =
for teachers to engage in mutally helpful exchanges. This said, =
however, following such exchanges quickly reveals that the 'evidence ' =
provided is largely anecdotal and, therefore, unreliable. Though =
comparative empirical studies are not always reliable, it is undeniable =
that such studies rigorously carried out are the only way in which we =
can arrive at reliable findings which demonstrate for example that =
approach A is more effective than approach B in situation X with =
students of type Y with aim Z.
Now though the so-called action research carried out by =
practising teachers may sound seductive, we all should realise that the =
burden it imposes on teachers is enormous. Consequently, before =
teachers embark on such a project, they should make themselves aware of =
what is involved.
Ron Sheen
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Gretchen Lee=20
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 6:46 AM
Subject: Re: Supportive empirical evidence was Silly, =
rewarding grammar period
In a message dated 9/10/2007 5:45:53 A.M. Pacific Daylight =
Time, [log in to unmask] writes:
Though it is clearly desirable to trial approaches which =
engage students' interest and involvement, one should not confuse the =
latter with effectiveness in improving studens' production of more =
accurate grammar.
Hello,
I absolutely agree that empirical evidence is necessary. I'm =
a loooong way from a book. However, my students are lucky to be from =
the upper middle class and in some cases, the wealthy upper class. =
Their production of "correct" grammar is very good, barring a few =
"between you and I" and lesser/fewer problems. My aim is to engage them =
in analyzing grammar and making it seem interesting at the same time. I =
can't teach lesser/fewer with countable nouns if they don't know (and =
don't care) what a countable noun is.
At this point the class is less about error =
detection/prevention than it is about helping them find out that grammar =
is fascinating. With a little luck, they will stay interested enough to =
want to take a linguistics class in college, rather than avoiding it at =
all costs. My little class is obviously silly in many ways (see =
original subject line). But for the first time in many of their lives, =
grammar is a class to which they look forward. I hope that's worthwhile.
Thanks,
Gretchen
----------------------------------------------------------------------
See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.
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"=20
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/=20
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"=20
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/=20
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"=20
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"=20
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/=20
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"=20
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/=20
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/
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C7F5F8.F2630A60
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type =
content=3Dtext/html;charset=3DISO-8859-1>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.16525" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY text=3D#000000 bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Many thanks, Craig, for the leads and =
the=20
clarifying comments. I agree that we are more or less on the same =
page in=20
terms of the nature of future research.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>What is of interest to me is the extent =
to which=20
the research needs you have outlined have been heeded by the powers that =
be. In my own field of SLA, though the need for empirical =
comparative=20
studies is recognised, few have been forthcoming and most of those that =
have=20
been, have been too short-term.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The problems with the carrying out =
comparative=20
studies are numerous. Here are just two:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>1. Such studies necessarily =
entail at least=20
two approaches. Now, unless one is lucky in having available two=20
situations in which two approaches are being practised, one is obliged =
to form=20
two groups and teach them in two different ways which raises all sorts =
of=20
practical and ethical problems.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>2. Even if one can solve these =
problems, one=20
cannot do so in the long term which reduces the usefulness of the=20
findings. I would argue that comparative studies aiming to =
compare=20
the effect of teaching grammar on the quality of writing (assuming that =
one can=20
solve the other problems entailed therein) need to be, at the very =
least,=20
one-term long.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>These two problems along with others =
make it very=20
difficult for doctoral srudents to carry out such research thus =
depriving the=20
field of a potentially useful source of important =
findings..</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Ron Sheen</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A [log in to unmask] href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">Craig =
Hancock</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
[log in to unmask]
href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</A> =
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, September 11, =
2007 8:34=20
AM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Supportive =
empirical=20
evidence was Silly, rewarding grammar period</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Ron,<BR> The inherent or innate nature of =
grammar=20
is, in fact, a theoretical underpinning of the anti-grammar movement. =
Part of=20
that means thinking of grammar as a behavior, not as a body of =
knowledge, and=20
as largely a neutral conveyor of meaning. We now test grammar in terms =
of what=20
students can do, not what they know (even in the SAT test) because it =
is=20
generally believed that conscious knowledge is unnecessary and=20
unhelpful.<BR> You're right; the anti-grammar position =
that=20
acquisition will just happen through exposure has never been tested. =
Debra=20
Myhill makes these points nicely in an article in English Teaching: =
Practice=20
and Critique (Dec. 2005. You can access it online. Martha and I have =
an=20
article in the same issue.) Here's a few quotes.<BR><BR>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>from abstract:<SPAN> </SPAN>=85<I>there has =
never been=20
a critical theorization of how grammar might support the development =
of=20
writing, and thus there has been very limited research which has =
explored that=20
relationship.. (77)</I></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>Quotes Tomlinson (1994, p26) that condemnation of =
grammar=20
on flimsy evidence was <I>what many in the educational establishment =
wanted to=20
hear</I>.<SPAN> </SPAN>(80)</P>
<P class=3DMsoBodyText><I>What would be so much more =
interesting,<SPAN> =20
</SPAN>and valuable, would be to explore in more subtly nuanced detail =
what=20
research can tell us about what aspects of grammar and knowledge about =
language are most relevant to writing,<SPAN> </SPAN>whether =
direct=20
teaching of these features can help children improve their writing, =
and what=20
teaching strategies are most successful in enabling this to =
happen</I>.=20
(80)</P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal><I><O:P></O:P></I></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal><I>The truth is that teaching grammar and =
knowledge about=20
language in positive, contextualised ways which make clear links with =
writing=20
is not yet an established way of teaching and it is, as yet, hugely=20
under-researched.<SPAN> </SPAN>(81)<BR></I></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal></P>
<P class=3DMsoBodyText>T<I>he rejection of decontextualised, and with =
it by=20
implication, prescriptive, grammar teaching was rooted in insightful =
critique=20
of what was happening in<SPAN> </SPAN>English =
classrooms.<SPAN> =20
</SPAN>In contrast, the =93grammar in context=94 principle is both =
less sharply=20
critiqued and considerably less clearly conceptualised.<SPAN> =20
</SPAN>There has been little genuine discussion or consideration of =
what =93in=20
context=94 means.<SPAN> </SPAN>Frequently, observations of =
classroom=20
practice indicate that the notion of =93in context=94 means little =
more than=20
grammar teaching which is slotted into English lessons, where the =
focus is not=20
grammar, but some other feature of English learning.</I><SPAN> =20
</SPAN>(82)<BR></P>
<P class=3DMsoBodyText> I think we are absolutely on the =
same wave=20
length. The people who rely on these empirical studies that critique =
the=20
teaching of grammar have not done empirical studies of their own. The =
cure has=20
proven worse than the disease. <BR> But we need to =
conceptualize a=20
program before we can try it out.<BR></P>
<P class=3DMsoNormal>Craig</P><BR><BR><BR>Ronald Sheen wrote:=20
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=3Dmid:000701c7f5a7$d19adfc0$87c6c957@Ron =
type=3D"cite">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.16525" name=3DGENERATOR>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Thanks, Craig, for your =
thought-provoking=20
post. It raises a number of issues which demand careful=20
responses.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Before providing any, I should =
clarify one or=20
two things. First, my area of experience is in SLA (second =
language=20
acquisition) in which I have done most of my research. =
However,=20
I believe that in the field of SLA and FLA (first language =
acquisition)=20
teachers and students have been the victims of the educational =
theorists who=20
claimed that exposure to correct language in the classroom will =
result in=20
the students' acquisition thereof in spite of massive exposure to=20
non-standard language outside of the classroom.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I take the position that such =
theorists were=20
(and are) guilty of unaccountable irresponsibility and this because =
they did=20
not support their advocacy with empirical evidence. Thus, for =
reasons=20
we need not go into here, educational authorities climbed aboard the =
bandwagon and suddenly teachers were forbidden to teach grammar and =
were=20
made to feel quilty if they did.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Now, before coming to the details =
of your=20
excellent post, I would appreciate your responding to the above=20
remarks. I know that my assumption is correct in terms =
of=20
SLA. Is it also correct in terms of FLA?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Ron.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: rgb(0,0,0) 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV=20
style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: =
normal">-----=20
Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: rgb(228,228,228) 0% 50%; FONT: 10pt arial; =
font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -moz-background-clip: =
-moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; =
-moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial"><B>From:</B>=20
<A [log in to unmask] href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]"=20
moz-do-not-send=3D"true">Craig Hancock</A> </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: =
normal"><B>To:</B>=20
<A [log in to unmask] =
href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]"=20
moz-do-not-send=3D"true">[log in to unmask]</A> </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: =
normal"><B>Sent:</B>=20
Tuesday, September 11, 2007 6:36 AM</DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: =
normal"><B>Subject:</B>=20
Re: Supportive empirical evidence was Silly, rewarding grammar=20
period</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Ron,<BR> My comments were rather =
unfocused and=20
unclear, and I suspect you and I are not far apart on positions. =
I'll try=20
again.<BR> For the most part, empirical studies of =
grammar=20
effectiveness that i have read measure their effect on writing as =
compared=20
to students who have had writing instruction, but not grammar. =
Generally,=20
this has been measured over the short term. Generally, this has =
measured=20
students receiving grammar instruction, but not practice in =
writing. (What=20
we would call control groups.) This implies that our only goal is=20
improvement in writing and that this can be accurately measured in =
the=20
short term, with grammar versus writing as an either/or choice.=20
<BR> In other words, under this pattern of =
accountability,=20
Gretchen could excite her students about grammar, help them become =
explorers of language, deepen their understanding of what nouns =
are all=20
about, and then have that determined to be "ineffective" because =
these=20
students don't produce more "accurate grammar" (your term for it) =
or don't=20
score better on holistically assessed writing samples after a =
semester or=20
a year. For an accurate control group, they would have to be =
denied real=20
writing practice. Perhaps a better test would measure their =
knowledge=20
about nouns as opposed to students who have only memorized =
"person, place,=20
and thing" as a definition. Perhaps we should find a way to test =
their=20
confidence as language explorers or their deeper interest in the =
subject.=20
We could compare knowledge about language between a group studying =
language and another merely writing. Everything depends on a match =
between=20
the testing and the goals.<BR> I don't know of a good=20
empirical assessment of a knowledge based approach to grammar over =
a=20
lengthy period of time. In both England and Australia, teachers =
now seem=20
to believe that reintegrating language into the curriculum has =
been a good=20
thing, but it's hard to test that out empirically. Perhaps the =
most direct=20
test would measure knowledge about language, since that would be =
the=20
central goal. We could then try to monitor how well that knowledge =
is put=20
to work in reading, writing, speaking, listening, and so on. The =
problem=20
is that we don't have a current consensus that knowing about =
language is a=20
reasonable goal. Whether or not Gretchen's students can now =
produce more=20
"accurate grammar" would be, I think, irrelevant, at least in the =
short=20
term. Very real benefits will be ignored if they are not thought =
of as=20
valuable goals in their own right.<BR> Knowledge about =
language does not come quickly and easily, and putting it to work =
is not=20
easy as well. We need empirical testing that does not diminish the =
value=20
of knowing about language and does not demand short term results.=20
<BR> We need to envision a K-12 curriculum, not a =
single=20
course with no other follow-up by other teachers. Once we do that, =
we can=20
measure progress along the way.<BR><BR>Craig<BR><BR><BR>Ronald =
Sheen=20
wrote:=20
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=3Dmid:000e01c7f53f$a55033b0$34c6c957@Ron =
type=3D"cite">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.16525" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000>My comments on empirical evidence, =
Gretchen,=20
were, as I think I made clear, in no way an expression of doubt =
in your=20
success. My comments were both an implicit criticism of =
the=20
proliferation of how to teach grammar books without including =
any=20
attempt to demonstrate empirically that the approach proposed =
has=20
been shown to be the optimal choice, and a suggestion to =
you that=20
you consider doing some sort of comparative study yourself.in =
order to=20
justify the publication of a book.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000>However, Craig Hancock claims that =
'One of the=20
problems with many "empirical" studies of grammar is that the =
outcomes=20
have been so narrowly defined' and then, unfortunately, goes no=20
further. The whole area of comparative studies is a =
minefield=20
waiting to blow up in the face of anyone attempting them. =
This,=20
however, is no reason to dismiss them with the sort of =
unsupported=20
comment that Craig makes.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000>A discussion group such as this one =
provides a=20
marvellous forum for teachers to engage in mutally helpful=20
exchanges. This said, however, following such exchanges =
quickly=20
reveals that the 'evidence ' provided is largely anecdotal and,=20
therefore, unreliable. Though comparative empirical =
studies=20
are not always reliable, it is undeniable that such studies =
rigorously=20
carried out are the only way in which we can arrive at reliable =
findings=20
which demonstrate for example that approach A is more effective =
than=20
approach B in situation X with students of type Y with aim=20
Z.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000>Now though the so-called action =
research=20
carried out by practising teachers may sound seductive, we all =
should=20
realise that the burden it imposes on teachers is =
enormous. =20
Consequently, before teachers embark on such a project, they =
should make=20
themselves aware of what is involved.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000>Ron Sheen</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: =
5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(0,0,0) 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV=20
style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial; font-size-adjust: none; =
font-stretch: normal">-----=20
Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: rgb(228,228,228) 0% 50%; FONT: 10pt =
arial; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; =
-moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: =
-moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial"><B>From:</B>=20
<A [log in to unmask] =
href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]"=20
moz-do-not-send=3D"true">Gretchen Lee</A> </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial; font-size-adjust: none; =
font-stretch: normal"><B>To:</B>=20
<A [log in to unmask]
href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]"=20
moz-do-not-send=3D"true">[log in to unmask]</A> </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial; font-size-adjust: none; =
font-stretch: normal"><B>Sent:</B>=20
Monday, September 10, 2007 6:46 AM</DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial; font-size-adjust: none; =
font-stretch: normal"><B>Subject:</B>=20
Re: Supportive empirical evidence was Silly, rewarding grammar =
period</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT id=3Drole_document face=3DArial =
color=3D#408080 size=3D2>
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 9/10/2007 5:45:53 A.M. Pacific =
Daylight Time,=20
<A href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]"=20
moz-do-not-send=3D"true">[log in to unmask]</A> writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: =
blue 2px solid"><FONT=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial =
color=3D#000000=20
size=3D2><FONT color=3D#000000>Though it is clearly =
desirable to trial=20
approaches which engage students' interest and involvement, =
one=20
should not confuse the latter with effectiveness in =
improving=20
studens' production of more accurate=20
grammar.</FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>Hello,</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>I absolutely agree that empirical evidence is=20
necessary. I'm a loooong way from a book. However, =
my=20
students are lucky to be from the upper middle class and in =
some=20
cases, the wealthy upper class. Their production of =
"correct"=20
grammar is very good, barring a few "between you and I" and=20
lesser/fewer problems. My aim is to engage them in =
analyzing=20
grammar and making it seem interesting at the same time. =
I can't=20
teach lesser/fewer with countable nouns if they don't know =
(and don't=20
care) what a countable noun is.</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>At this point the class is less about error=20
detection/prevention than it is about helping them find =
out that=20
grammar is fascinating. With a little luck, they will =
stay=20
interested enough to want to take a linguistics class in =
college,=20
rather than avoiding it at all costs. My little class is =
obviously silly in many ways (see original subject =
line). But=20
for the first time in many of their lives, grammar is a class =
to which=20
they look forward. I hope that's worthwhile.</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>Thanks,</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>Gretchen</STRONG></DIV></FONT><BR><BR><BR>
<DIV><FONT=20
style=3D"FONT: 10pt ARIAL,SAN-SERIF; COLOR: black; =
font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal">
<HR style=3D"MARGIN-TOP: 10px">
See what's new at <A=20
title=3Dhttp://www.aol.com?NCID=3DAOLCMP00300000001170=20
href=3D"http://www.aol.com?NCID=3DAOLCMP00300000001170" =
target=3D_blank=20
moz-do-not-send=3D"true">AOL.com</A> and <A=20
=
title=3Dhttp://www.aol.com/mksplash.adp?NCID=3DAOLCMP00300000001169=20
=
href=3D"http://www.aol.com/mksplash.adp?NCID=3DAOLCMP00300000001169"=20
target=3D_blank moz-do-not-send=3D"true">Make AOL Your=20
Homepage</A>.</FONT></DIV>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, =
please=20
visit the list's web interface at: <A =
class=3Dmoz-txt-link-freetext=20
href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html"=20
=
moz-do-not-send=3D"true">http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</A=
>=20
and select "Join or leave the list"=20
<P>Visit ATEG's web site at <A class=3Dmoz-txt-link-freetext=20
href=3D"http://ateg.org/" =
moz-do-not-send=3D"true">http://ateg.org/</A>=20
</P></BLOCKQUOTE>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please =
visit the=20
list's web interface at: <A class=3Dmoz-txt-link-freetext=20
href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html"=20
=
moz-do-not-send=3D"true">http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</A=
>=20
and select "Join or leave the list"=20
<P>Visit ATEG's web site at <A class=3Dmoz-txt-link-freetext=20
href=3D"http://ateg.org/" =
moz-do-not-send=3D"true">http://ateg.org/</A>=20
</P></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please =
visit the=20
list's web interface at: <A class=3Dmoz-txt-link-freetext=20
=
href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html">http://listserv.mu=
ohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</A>=20
and select "Join or leave the list"=20
<P>Visit ATEG's web site at <A class=3Dmoz-txt-link-freetext=20
href=3D"http://ateg.org/">http://ateg.org/</A></P></BLOCKQUOTE>To =
join or=20
leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: =
<A=20
class=3Dmoz-txt-link-freetext=20
=
href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html">http://listserv.mu=
ohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</A>=20
and select "Join or leave the list"=20
<P>Visit ATEG's web site at <A class=3Dmoz-txt-link-freetext=20
href=3D"http://ateg.org/">http://ateg.org/</A> =
</P></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>To join or=20
leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:=20
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or =
leave the=20
list"=20
<P>Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ =
</P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
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"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C7F5F8.F2630A60--
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:41:06 -0400
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Supportive empirical evidence was Silly, rewarding grammar
period
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------090009080501000006050002
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Ron,
I think the "one-term long" requirement, even as a minimum, is
indicative of where the problem lies. If we have approaches that may
take years to come to fruition, then these one term tests, or even one
year tests, will be grossly misleading.
Example: One group of third graders does routine mathematics (I
assume multiplication, division, maybe fractions, decimals.. I'm not
sure what the usual third grade curriculum is.) Another group does
hands on engineering. At the end, both groups are given an engineering
post test. The engineering group, lets assume, does better. Therefore,
we have "proven" that math has no carry over to engineering and that it
is a harmful distraction. Education groups then make policy statements
condemning the teaching of math "in isolation."
We know the value of math in many areas of adult life, and we also
know that it takes many years to set the background for adult "literacy"
in math. What we test in the short term are the concepts we feel are
important in the order we are trying to teach them. And math, of course,
is about much more than avoiding error. We can certainly do the same
thing with knowledge about language. If a concept like "finite verb" is
important, then we can find a place in the curriculum for it and then
test whether or not it is being learned through whatever approaches we
are using. At a certain point along the line, teachers will assume all
students know "finite verb" and can make it part of classroom
conversation. And so on.
Ed's points in an earlier post are on target. We don't have a
consensus that it is useful to know ANYTHING about grammar, and many
people confuse USING finite verbs (acquiring them) with knowing about
them, or at least believe that using them is enough.
The ATEG Scope and Sequence project is an attempt to outline what
every adult should know and give some functional ground for that.
Without this sort of theoretical model, there is nothing reasonable to test.
If we decided that students at Gretchen's level should be allowed to
be language explorers and should explore ways in which the concept of
"noun" is more complicated than "person,. place, and thing," then we
could routinely test whether those goals were being carried out through
her innovative approaches. Without a clear sense of the big picture, it
would be easy to dismiss what she is doing on the basis of, let's say,
continued surface error or a lack of holisticly measured improvement in
writing. It may very well be that those improvements require a
scaffolding of understanding and are still a few years away.
Craig
Ronald Sheen wrote:
> Many thanks, Craig, for the leads and the clarifying comments. I
> agree that we are more or less on the same page in terms of the nature
> of future research.
>
> What is of interest to me is the extent to which the research needs
> you have outlined have been heeded by the powers that be. In my own
> field of SLA, though the need for empirical comparative studies is
> recognised, few have been forthcoming and most of those that have
> been, have been too short-term.
>
> The problems with the carrying out comparative studies are numerous.
> Here are just two:
>
> 1. Such studies necessarily entail at least two approaches. Now,
> unless one is lucky in having available two situations in which two
> approaches are being practised, one is obliged to form two groups and
> teach them in two different ways which raises all sorts of practical
> and ethical problems.
>
> 2. Even if one can solve these problems, one cannot do so in the long
> term which reduces the usefulness of the findings. I would argue
> that comparative studies aiming to compare the effect of teaching
> grammar on the quality of writing (assuming that one can solve the
> other problems entailed therein) need to be, at the very least,
> one-term long.
>
> These two problems along with others make it very difficult for
> doctoral srudents to carry out such research thus depriving the field
> of a potentially useful source of important findings..
>
> Ron Sheen
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Craig Hancock <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 11, 2007 8:34 AM
> *Subject:* Re: Supportive empirical evidence was Silly, rewarding
> grammar period
>
> Ron,
> The inherent or innate nature of grammar is, in fact, a
> theoretical underpinning of the anti-grammar movement. Part of
> that means thinking of grammar as a behavior, not as a body of
> knowledge, and as largely a neutral conveyor of meaning. We now
> test grammar in terms of what students can do, not what they know
> (even in the SAT test) because it is generally believed that
> conscious knowledge is unnecessary and unhelpful.
> You're right; the anti-grammar position that acquisition will
> just happen through exposure has never been tested. Debra Myhill
> makes these points nicely in an article in English Teaching:
> Practice and Critique (Dec. 2005. You can access it online. Martha
> and I have an article in the same issue.) Here's a few quotes.
>
> from abstract: .../there has never been a critical theorization
> of how grammar might support the development of writing, and thus
> there has been very limited research which has explored that
> relationship.. (77)/
>
> Quotes Tomlinson (1994, p26) that condemnation of grammar on
> flimsy evidence was /what many in the educational establishment
> wanted to hear/. (80)
>
> /What would be so much more interesting, and valuable, would be
> to explore in more subtly nuanced detail what research can tell us
> about what aspects of grammar and knowledge about language are
> most relevant to writing, whether direct teaching of these
> features can help children improve their writing, and what
> teaching strategies are most successful in enabling this to
> happen/. (80)
>
> //
>
> /The truth is that teaching grammar and knowledge about language
> in positive, contextualised ways which make clear links with
> writing is not yet an established way of teaching and it is, as
> yet, hugely under-researched. (81)
> /
>
> T/he rejection of decontextualised, and with it by implication,
> prescriptive, grammar teaching was rooted in insightful critique
> of what was happening in English classrooms. In contrast, the
> "grammar in context" principle is both less sharply critiqued and
> considerably less clearly conceptualised. There has been little
> genuine discussion or consideration of what "in context" means.
> Frequently, observations of classroom practice indicate that the
> notion of "in context" means little more than grammar teaching
> which is slotted into English lessons, where the focus is not
> grammar, but some other feature of English learning./ (82)
>
> I think we are absolutely on the same wave length. The people
> who rely on these empirical studies that critique the teaching of
> grammar have not done empirical studies of their own. The cure has
> proven worse than the disease.
> But we need to conceptualize a program before we can try it out.
>
> Craig
>
>
>
>
> Ronald Sheen wrote:
>> Thanks, Craig, for your thought-provoking post. It raises a
>> number of issues which demand careful responses.
>>
>> Before providing any, I should clarify one or two things. First,
>> my area of experience is in SLA (second language acquisition) in
>> which I have done most of my research. However, I believe that
>> in the field of SLA and FLA (first language acquisition) teachers
>> and students have been the victims of the educational theorists
>> who claimed that exposure to correct language in the classroom
>> will result in the students' acquisition thereof in spite of
>> massive exposure to non-standard language outside of the classroom.
>>
>> I take the position that such theorists were (and are) guilty of
>> unaccountable irresponsibility and this because they did not
>> support their advocacy with empirical evidence. Thus, for
>> reasons we need not go into here, educational authorities climbed
>> aboard the bandwagon and suddenly teachers were forbidden to
>> teach grammar and were made to feel quilty if they did.
>>
>> Now, before coming to the details of your excellent post, I would
>> appreciate your responding to the above remarks. I know that my
>> assumption is correct in terms of SLA. Is it also correct in
>> terms of FLA?
>>
>> Ron.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Craig Hancock <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 11, 2007 6:36 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: Supportive empirical evidence was Silly,
>> rewarding grammar period
>>
>> Ron,
>> My comments were rather unfocused and unclear, and I
>> suspect you and I are not far apart on positions. I'll try again.
>> For the most part, empirical studies of grammar
>> effectiveness that i have read measure their effect on
>> writing as compared to students who have had writing
>> instruction, but not grammar. Generally, this has been
>> measured over the short term. Generally, this has measured
>> students receiving grammar instruction, but not practice in
>> writing. (What we would call control groups.) This implies
>> that our only goal is improvement in writing and that this
>> can be accurately measured in the short term, with grammar
>> versus writing as an either/or choice.
>> In other words, under this pattern of accountability,
>> Gretchen could excite her students about grammar, help them
>> become explorers of language, deepen their understanding of
>> what nouns are all about, and then have that determined to be
>> "ineffective" because these students don't produce more
>> "accurate grammar" (your term for it) or don't score better
>> on holistically assessed writing samples after a semester or
>> a year. For an accurate control group, they would have to be
>> denied real writing practice. Perhaps a better test would
>> measure their knowledge about nouns as opposed to students
>> who have only memorized "person, place, and thing" as a
>> definition. Perhaps we should find a way to test their
>> confidence as language explorers or their deeper interest in
>> the subject. We could compare knowledge about language
>> between a group studying language and another merely writing.
>> Everything depends on a match between the testing and the goals.
>> I don't know of a good empirical assessment of a knowledge
>> based approach to grammar over a lengthy period of time. In
>> both England and Australia, teachers now seem to believe that
>> reintegrating language into the curriculum has been a good
>> thing, but it's hard to test that out empirically. Perhaps
>> the most direct test would measure knowledge about language,
>> since that would be the central goal. We could then try to
>> monitor how well that knowledge is put to work in reading,
>> writing, speaking, listening, and so on. The problem is that
>> we don't have a current consensus that knowing about language
>> is a reasonable goal. Whether or not Gretchen's students can
>> now produce more "accurate grammar" would be, I think,
>> irrelevant, at least in the short term. Very real benefits
>> will be ignored if they are not thought of as valuable goals
>> in their own right.
>> Knowledge about language does not come quickly and easily,
>> and putting it to work is not easy as well. We need empirical
>> testing that does not diminish the value of knowing about
>> language and does not demand short term results.
>> We need to envision a K-12 curriculum, not a single course
>> with no other follow-up by other teachers. Once we do that,
>> we can measure progress along the way.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
>> Ronald Sheen wrote:
>>> My comments on empirical evidence, Gretchen, were, as I
>>> think I made clear, in no way an expression of doubt in your
>>> success. My comments were both an implicit criticism of the
>>> proliferation of how to teach grammar books without
>>> including any attempt to demonstrate empirically that the
>>> approach proposed has been shown to be the optimal choice,
>>> and a suggestion to you that you consider doing some sort of
>>> comparative study yourself.in order to justify the
>>> publication of a book.
>>>
>>> However, Craig Hancock claims that 'One of the problems with
>>> many "empirical" studies of grammar is that the outcomes
>>> have been so narrowly defined' and then, unfortunately, goes
>>> no further. The whole area of comparative studies is a
>>> minefield waiting to blow up in the face of anyone
>>> attempting them. This, however, is no reason to dismiss
>>> them with the sort of unsupported comment that Craig makes.
>>>
>>> A discussion group such as this one provides a marvellous
>>> forum for teachers to engage in mutally helpful exchanges.
>>> This said, however, following such exchanges quickly reveals
>>> that the 'evidence ' provided is largely anecdotal and,
>>> therefore, unreliable. Though comparative empirical
>>> studies are not always reliable, it is undeniable that such
>>> studies rigorously carried out are the only way in which we
>>> can arrive at reliable findings which demonstrate for
>>> example that approach A is more effective than approach B in
>>> situation X with students of type Y with aim Z.
>>>
>>> Now though the so-called action research carried out by
>>> practising teachers may sound seductive, we all should
>>> realise that the burden it imposes on teachers is enormous.
>>> Consequently, before teachers embark on such a project, they
>>> should make themselves aware of what is involved.
>>>
>>> Ron Sheen
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> *From:* Gretchen Lee <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>> *Sent:* Monday, September 10, 2007 6:46 AM
>>> *Subject:* Re: Supportive empirical evidence was Silly,
>>> rewarding grammar period
>>>
>>> In a message dated 9/10/2007 5:45:53 A.M. Pacific
>>> Daylight Time, [log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> writes:
>>>
>>> Though it is clearly desirable to trial approaches
>>> which engage students' interest and involvement, one
>>> should not confuse the latter with effectiveness in
>>> improving studens' production of more accurate grammar.
>>>
>>> *Hello,*
>>> **
>>> *I absolutely agree that empirical evidence is
>>> necessary. I'm a loooong way from a book. However, my
>>> students are lucky to be from the upper middle class and
>>> in some cases, the wealthy upper class. Their
>>> production of "correct" grammar is very good, barring a
>>> few "between you and I" and lesser/fewer problems. My
>>> aim is to engage them in analyzing grammar and making it
>>> seem interesting at the same time. I can't teach
>>> lesser/fewer with countable nouns if they don't know
>>> (and don't care) what a countable noun is.*
>>> **
>>> *At this point the class is less about error
>>> detection/prevention than it is about helping them find
>>> out that grammar is fascinating. With a little luck,
>>> they will stay interested enough to want to take a
>>> linguistics class in college, rather than avoiding it at
>>> all costs. My little class is obviously silly in many
>>> ways (see original subject line). But for the first
>>> time in many of their lives, grammar is a class to which
>>> they look forward. I hope that's worthwhile.*
>>> **
>>> *Thanks,*
>>> *Gretchen*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> See what's new at AOL.com
>>> <http://www.aol.com?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001170> and Make
>>> AOL Your Homepage
>>> <http://www.aol.com/mksplash.adp?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001169>.
>>> 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/
>>
>> 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/
>
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/
--------------090009080501000006050002
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Ron,<br>
I think the "one-term long" requirement, even as a minimum, is
indicative of where the problem lies. If we have approaches that may
take years to come to fruition, then these one term tests, or even one
year tests, will be grossly misleading. <br>
Example: One group of third graders does routine mathematics (I
assume multiplication, division, maybe fractions, decimals.. I'm not
sure what the usual third grade curriculum is.) Another group does
hands on engineering. At the end, both groups are given an engineering
post test. The engineering group, lets assume, does better. Therefore,
we have "proven" that math has no carry over to engineering and that it
is a harmful distraction. Education groups then make policy statements
condemning the teaching of math "in isolation." <br>
We know the value of math in many areas of adult life, and we
also
know that it takes many years to set the background for adult
"literacy" in math. What we test in the short term are the concepts we
feel are important in the order we are trying to teach them. And math,
of course, is about much more than avoiding error. We can certainly do
the same thing with knowledge about language. If a concept like "finite
verb" is important, then we can find a place in the curriculum for it
and then test whether or not it is being learned through whatever
approaches we are using. At a certain point along the line, teachers
will assume all students know "finite verb" and can make it part of
classroom conversation. And so on.<br>
Ed's points in an earlier post are on target. We don't have a
consensus that it is useful to know ANYTHING about grammar, and many
people confuse USING finite verbs (acquiring them) with knowing about
them, or at least believe that using them is enough.<br>
The ATEG Scope and Sequence project is an attempt to outline
what
every adult should know and give some functional ground for that.
Without this sort of theoretical model, there is nothing reasonable to
test.<br>
If we decided that students at Gretchen's level should be
allowed to
be language explorers and should explore ways in which the concept of
"noun" is more complicated than "person,. place, and thing," then we
could routinely test whether those goals were being carried out through
her innovative approaches. Without a clear sense of the big picture, it
would be easy to dismiss what she is doing on the basis of, let's say,
continued surface error or a lack of holisticly measured improvement in
writing. It may very well be that those improvements require a
scaffolding of understanding and are still a few years away.<br>
<br>
Craig<br>
<br>
<br>
Ronald Sheen wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:000801c7f633$9eea7900$e1c6c957@Ron" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<meta content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16525" name="GENERATOR">
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Many thanks, Craig, for the leads
and the clarifying comments. I agree that we are more or less on the
same page in terms of the nature of future research.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">What is of interest to me is the
extent to which the research needs you have outlined have been heeded
by the powers that be. In my own field of SLA, though the need for
empirical comparative studies is recognised, few have been forthcoming
and most of those that have been, have been too short-term.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">The problems with the carrying out
comparative studies are numerous. Here are just two:</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">1. Such studies necessarily entail
at least two approaches. Now, unless one is lucky in having available
two situations in which two approaches are being practised, one is
obliged to form two groups and teach them in two different ways which
raises all sorts of practical and ethical problems.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">2. Even if one can solve these
problems, one cannot do so in the long term which reduces the
usefulness of the findings. I would argue that comparative
studies
aiming to compare the effect of teaching grammar on the quality of
writing (assuming that one can solve the other problems entailed
therein) need to be, at the very least, one-term long.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">These two problems along with others
make it very difficult for doctoral srudents to carry out such research
thus depriving the field of a potentially useful source of important
findings..</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Ron Sheen</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote dir="ltr"
style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); padding-right: 0px;
padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px;">
<div
style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust:
none; font-stretch: normal;">-----
Original Message ----- </div>
<div
style="background: rgb(228, 228, 228) none repeat scroll 0%;
-moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial;
-moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial; font-family: arial; font-style:
normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt;
line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch:
normal;"><b>From:</b>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" title="[log in to unmask]"
href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">Craig Hancock</a> </div>
<div
style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust:
none; font-stretch: normal;"><b>To:</b>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" title="[log in to unmask]"
href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</a> </div>
<div
style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust:
none; font-stretch: normal;"><b>Sent:</b>
Tuesday, September 11, 2007 8:34 AM</div>
<div
style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust:
none; font-stretch: normal;"><b>Subject:</b>
Re: Supportive empirical evidence was Silly, rewarding grammar period</div>
<div><br>
</div>
Ron,<br>
The inherent or innate nature of grammar is, in fact, a
theoretical
underpinning of the anti-grammar movement. Part of that means thinking
of grammar as a behavior, not as a body of knowledge, and as largely a
neutral conveyor of meaning. We now test grammar in terms of what
students can do, not what they know (even in the SAT test) because it
is generally believed that conscious knowledge is unnecessary and
unhelpful.<br>
You're right; the anti-grammar position that acquisition will
just
happen through exposure has never been tested. Debra Myhill makes these
points nicely in an article in English Teaching: Practice and Critique
(Dec. 2005. You can access it online. Martha and I have an article in
the same issue.) Here's a few quotes.<br>
<br>
<p class="MsoNormal">from abstract:<span> </span>…<i>there
has
never been a critical theorization of how grammar might support the
development of writing, and thus there has been very limited research
which has explored that relationship.. (77)</i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Quotes Tomlinson (1994, p26) that condemnation
of grammar on flimsy evidence was <i>what many in the educational
establishment wanted to hear</i>.<span> </span>(80)</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"><i>What would be so much more
interesting,<span>
</span>and valuable, would be to explore in more subtly nuanced
detail what research can tell us about what aspects of grammar and
knowledge about language are most relevant to writing,<span>
</span>whether
direct teaching of these features can help children improve their
writing, and what teaching strategies are most successful in enabling
this to happen</i>. (80)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><O:P></O:P></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>The truth is that teaching grammar and
knowledge about language in positive, contextualised ways which make
clear links with writing is not yet an established way of teaching and
it is, as yet, hugely under-researched.<span> </span>(81)<br>
</i></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">T<i>he rejection of decontextualised, and
with it by implication, prescriptive, grammar teaching was rooted in
insightful critique of what was happening in<span> </span>English
classrooms.<span> </span>In contrast, the “grammar in
context”
principle is both less sharply critiqued and considerably less clearly
conceptualised.<span> </span>There has been little genuine discussion
or consideration of what “in context” means.<span>
</span>Frequently,
observations of classroom practice indicate that the notion of “in
context” means little more than grammar teaching which is slotted into
English lessons, where the focus is not grammar, but some other feature
of English learning.</i><span> </span>(82)<br>
</p>
<p class="MsoBodyText"> I think we are absolutely on the
same
wave length. The people who rely on these empirical studies that
critique the teaching of grammar have not done empirical studies of
their own. The cure has proven worse than the disease. <br>
But we need to conceptualize a program before we can try it
out.<br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Craig</p>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Ronald Sheen wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:000701c7f5a7$d19adfc0$87c6c957@Ron"
type="cite">
<meta content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16525" name="GENERATOR">
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Thanks, Craig, for your
thought-provoking post. It raises a number of issues which demand
careful responses.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Before providing any, I should
clarify one or two things. First, my area of experience is in SLA
(second language acquisition) in which I have done most of my
research. However, I believe that in the field of SLA and FLA
(first
language acquisition) teachers and students have been the victims of
the educational theorists who claimed that exposure to correct language
in the classroom will result in the students' acquisition thereof in
spite of massive exposure to non-standard language outside of the
classroom.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">I take the position that such
theorists were (and are) guilty of unaccountable irresponsibility and
this because they did not support their advocacy with empirical
evidence. Thus, for reasons we need not go into here, educational
authorities climbed aboard the bandwagon and suddenly teachers were
forbidden to teach grammar and were made to feel quilty if they
did.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Now, before coming to the
details of your excellent post, I would appreciate your responding to
the above remarks. I know that my assumption is correct in terms
of
SLA. Is it also correct in terms of FLA?</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Ron.</font></div>
<blockquote dir="ltr"
style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); padding-right: 0px;
padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px;">
<div
style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust:
none; font-stretch: normal;">-----
Original Message ----- </div>
<div
style="background: rgb(228, 228, 228) none repeat scroll 0% 50%;
font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none;
font-stretch: normal; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial;
-moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy:
-moz-initial;"><b>From:</b>
<a title="[log in to unmask]" href="mailto:[log in to unmask]"
moz-do-not-send="true">Craig Hancock</a> </div>
<div
style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust:
none; font-stretch: normal;"><b>To:</b>
<a title="[log in to unmask]"
href="mailto:[log in to unmask]"
moz-do-not-send="true">[log in to unmask]</a>
</div>
<div
style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust:
none; font-stretch: normal;"><b>Sent:</b>
Tuesday, September 11, 2007 6:36 AM</div>
<div
style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust:
none; font-stretch: normal;"><b>Subject:</b>
Re: Supportive empirical evidence was Silly, rewarding grammar period</div>
<div><br>
</div>
Ron,<br>
My comments were rather unfocused and unclear, and I suspect
you and
I are not far apart on positions. I'll try again.<br>
For the most part, empirical studies of grammar effectiveness
that i
have read measure their effect on writing as compared to students who
have had writing instruction, but not grammar. Generally, this has been
measured over the short term. Generally, this has measured students
receiving grammar instruction, but not practice in writing. (What we
would call control groups.) This implies that our only goal is
improvement in writing and that this can be accurately measured in the
short term, with grammar versus writing as an either/or choice. <br>
In other words, under this pattern of accountability, Gretchen
could
excite her students about grammar, help them become explorers of
language, deepen their understanding of what nouns are all about, and
then have that determined to be "ineffective" because these students
don't produce more "accurate grammar" (your term for it) or don't score
better on holistically assessed writing samples after a semester or a
year. For an accurate control group, they would have to be denied real
writing practice. Perhaps a better test would measure their knowledge
about nouns as opposed to students who have only memorized "person,
place, and thing" as a definition. Perhaps we should find a way to test
their confidence as language explorers or their deeper interest in the
subject. We could compare knowledge about language between a group
studying language and another merely writing. Everything depends on a
match between the testing and the goals.<br>
I don't know of a good empirical assessment of a knowledge
based
approach to grammar over a lengthy period of time. In both England and
Australia, teachers now seem to believe that reintegrating language
into the curriculum has been a good thing, but it's hard to test that
out empirically. Perhaps the most direct test would measure knowledge
about language, since that would be the central goal. We could then try
to monitor how well that knowledge is put to work in reading, writing,
speaking, listening, and so on. The problem is that we don't have a
current consensus that knowing about language is a reasonable goal.
Whether or not Gretchen's students can now produce more "accurate
grammar" would be, I think, irrelevant, at least in the short term.
Very real benefits will be ignored if they are not thought of as
valuable goals in their own right.<br>
Knowledge about language does not come quickly and easily, and
putting it to work is not easy as well. We need empirical testing that
does not diminish the value of knowing about language and does not
demand short term results. <br>
We need to envision a K-12 curriculum, not a single course with
no
other follow-up by other teachers. Once we do that, we can measure
progress along the way.<br>
<br>
Craig<br>
<br>
<br>
Ronald Sheen wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:000e01c7f53f$a55033b0$34c6c957@Ron"
type="cite">
<meta content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16525" name="GENERATOR">
<style></style>
<div><font color="#000000">My comments on empirical evidence,
Gretchen, were, as I think I made clear, in no way an expression of
doubt in your success. My comments were both an implicit criticism of
the proliferation of how to teach grammar books without including any
attempt to demonstrate empirically that the approach proposed has
been shown to be the optimal choice, and a suggestion to you that you
consider doing some sort of comparative study yourself.in order to
justify the publication of a book.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font color="#000000">However, Craig Hancock claims that
'One of the problems with many "empirical" studies of grammar is that
the outcomes have been so narrowly defined' and then, unfortunately,
goes no further. The whole area of comparative studies is a minefield
waiting to blow up in the face of anyone attempting them. This,
however, is no reason to dismiss them with the sort of unsupported
comment that Craig makes.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font color="#000000">A discussion group such as this
one provides a marvellous forum for teachers to engage in mutally
helpful exchanges. This said, however, following such exchanges
quickly reveals that the 'evidence ' provided is largely anecdotal and,
therefore, unreliable. Though comparative empirical studies are
not
always reliable, it is undeniable that such studies rigorously carried
out are the only way in which we can arrive at reliable findings which
demonstrate for example that approach A is more effective than approach
B in situation X with students of type Y with aim Z.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font color="#000000">Now though the so-called action
research carried out by practising teachers may sound seductive, we all
should realise that the burden it imposes on teachers is enormous.
Consequently, before teachers embark on such a project, they should
make themselves aware of what is involved.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font color="#000000">Ron Sheen</font></div>
<blockquote dir="ltr"
style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); padding-right: 0px;
padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px;">
<div
style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust:
none; font-stretch: normal;">-----
Original Message ----- </div>
<div
style="background: rgb(228, 228, 228) none repeat scroll 0% 50%;
font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none;
font-stretch: normal; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial;
-moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy:
-moz-initial;"><b>From:</b>
<a title="[log in to unmask]"
href="mailto:[log in to unmask]" moz-do-not-send="true">Gretchen Lee</a>
</div>
<div
style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust:
none; font-stretch: normal;"><b>To:</b>
<a title="[log in to unmask]"
href="mailto:[log in to unmask]"
moz-do-not-send="true">[log in to unmask]</a>
</div>
<div
style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust:
none; font-stretch: normal;"><b>Sent:</b>
Monday, September 10, 2007 6:46 AM</div>
<div
style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust:
none; font-stretch: normal;"><b>Subject:</b>
Re: Supportive empirical evidence was Silly, rewarding grammar period</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<font id="role_document" color="#408080" face="Arial"
size="2">
<div>
<div>In a message dated 9/10/2007 5:45:53 A.M. Pacific
Daylight Time, <a href="mailto:[log in to unmask]"
moz-do-not-send="true">[log in to unmask]</a> writes:</div>
<blockquote
style="border-left: 2px solid blue; padding-left: 5px; margin-left:
5px;"><font
style="background-color: transparent;" color="#000000" face="Arial"
size="2"><font color="#000000">Though it is clearly desirable to trial
approaches which engage students' interest and involvement, one should
not confuse the latter with effectiveness in improving studens'
production of more accurate grammar.</font></font></blockquote>
</div>
<div><strong>Hello,</strong></div>
<div><strong></strong> </div>
<div><strong>I absolutely agree that empirical evidence is
necessary. I'm a loooong way from a book. However, my students
are
lucky to be from the upper middle class and in some cases, the wealthy
upper class. Their production of "correct" grammar is very good,
barring a few "between you and I" and lesser/fewer problems. My aim is
to engage them in analyzing grammar and making it seem interesting at
the same time. I can't teach lesser/fewer with countable nouns if they
don't know (and don't care) what a countable noun is.</strong></div>
<div><strong></strong> </div>
<div><strong>At this point the class is less about error
detection/prevention than it is about helping them find out that
grammar is fascinating. With a little luck, they will stay interested
enough to want to take a linguistics class in college, rather than
avoiding it at all costs. My little class is obviously silly in many
ways (see original subject line). But for the first time in many of
their lives, grammar is a class to which they look forward. I hope
that's worthwhile.</strong></div>
<div><strong></strong> </div>
<div><strong>Thanks,</strong></div>
<div><strong>Gretchen</strong></div>
</font><br>
<br>
<br>
<div><font
style="font-family: ARIAL,SAN-SERIF; font-style: normal; font-variant:
normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; color:
black; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;">
<hr style="margin-top: 10px;"> See what's new at <a
title="http://www.aol.com?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001170"
href="http://www.aol.com?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001170" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">AOL.com</a> and <a
title="http://www.aol.com/mksplash.adp?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001169"
href="http://www.aol.com/mksplash.adp?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001169"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Make AOL Your
Homepage</a>.</font></div>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a>
and select "Join or leave the list"
<p>Visit ATEG's web site at <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://ateg.org/"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://ateg.org/</a> </p>
</blockquote>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a>
and select "Join or leave the list"
<p>Visit ATEG's web site at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://ateg.org/" moz-do-not-send="true">http://ateg.org/</a> </p>
</blockquote>
<br>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html">http://listserv.muohio.
edu/archives/ateg.html</a>
and select "Join or leave the list"
<p>Visit ATEG's web site at <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://ateg.org/">http://ateg.org/</a></p>
</blockquote>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html">http://listserv.muohio.
edu/archives/ateg.html</a>
and select "Join or leave the list"
<p>Visit ATEG's web site at <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://ateg.org/">http://ateg.org/</a>
</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html">http://listserv.muohio.
edu/archives/ateg.html</a> and select
"Join or leave the list"
<p>Visit ATEG's web site at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://ateg.org/">http://ateg.org/</a> </p>
</blockquote>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html">http://listserv.muohio.
edu/archives/ateg.html</a>
and select "Join or leave the list"
<p>Visit ATEG's web site at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://ateg.org/">http://ateg.org/</a>
</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
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"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--------------090009080501000006050002--
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:33:01 -0400
From: Patricia Lafayllve <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Supportive empirical evidence was Silly, rewarding grammar
period
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_00F2_01C7F51F.E9C23A40
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Craig-
I am also working on how to word my pro-grammar feelings without being
terribly pendantic. My current point-of-view holds that treating the
learning of SWE in the same vein as learning any foreign language will avoid
the stigma/politics of "correctness" and still allow for students to
understand that there are rules, they follow certain patterns, and that
these patterns can be similar to those they are already familiar with (aka
"Code Switching"). I'm developing my thoughts in order to create a college
composition class that focuses on writing AND uses grammar as one more tool
in the tool box.
-patty
_____
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 1:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Supportive empirical evidence was Silly, rewarding grammar
period
Bill,
That's a very thoughtful correction. I have been trying to figure out how
to disagree with the anti-grammar approach without having to argue against
Chomsky or the whole language position, which has much to offer as well.
(Our students should be engaged in reading and writing activities that they
feel are important rather than just building skills out of workbooks.) I
think what we need is a new kind of synthesis, not just choosing sides in an
old debate.
As an alternative to Chomsky, I am increasingly appreciative of Michael
Tomasello's work, including "Constructing a Language: a Usage-Based Theory
of Language Acquisition" (Harvard University Press, 2003). He doesn't
believe we have innate rules that drive the system, but highly functional
patterns that rise from actual use. Children learn language in large part
because they understand the contexts being named. Because many language
decisions happen below the threshold of consciousness does not necessarily
mean they were not acquired or that conscious attention was not part of
that. To the extent that we understand language acquisition as a
socialization process (one we can be mentored into), it becomes easier to
value (and promote) conscious understanding.
I like the way Myhill frames the related questions. What aspects of
language are most relevant to writing--can direct teaching of those relevant
aspects improve writing--if so, what are the best ways to teach them.
All of this can be empirically grounded, which is I think Ron's point all
along.
Craig
Spruiell, William C wrote:
Craig, Ron, et al.,
In a sense, the anti-grammar movement isn't based on the innatist position
as it is developed in linguistics (with Chomsky being the most famous
example of one of its proponents) - it's based on a dramatic
overgeneralization of innatism. In defense of Chomsky - and as a
functionalist, I find myself feeling rather odd typing that phrase - his
theory simply claims that children acquire the language they're exposed to
in infancy and early childhood without conscious effort, etc. Additional
dialects (e.g. standard-ish English), and the written variants of the
language (which are in a sense dialect-like, but shaped by additional
factors such as distancing between writer and reader, etc.) would not be
"acquired" in the same way. In fact, Chomsky's use of innatism to support
the idea that language-learning ability drops off precipitously in early
adolescence implicitly contradicts the notion that innatism means you can
ignore conscious learning procedures in later development.
I don't happen to agree with Chomsky on the factors leading to "critical
period" effects, or on a number of other issues as well, but I also can't
see the antigrammarian position as being motivated by his notions of
innatism - it was, in a sense, seized upon as a science-y sounding rationale
for a position people wanted to adopt anyway. If anything, the strict
innatist position, along with the notion of a critical period, implies that
students can't achieve nativelike fluency in another dialect. I suppose that
could be used as a different excuse not to teach grammar, but pessimism
makes a lousy basis for educational policy.
Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 11:35 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Supportive empirical evidence was Silly, rewarding grammar
period
Ron,
The inherent or innate nature of grammar is, in fact, a theoretical
underpinning of the anti-grammar movement. Part of that means thinking of
grammar as a behavior, not as a body of knowledge, and as largely a neutral
conveyor of meaning. We now test grammar in terms of what students can do,
not what they know (even in the SAT test) because it is generally believed
that conscious knowledge is unnecessary and unhelpful.
You're right; the anti-grammar position that acquisition will just happen
through exposure has never been tested. Debra Myhill makes these points
nicely in an article in English Teaching: Practice and Critique (Dec. 2005.
You can access it online. Martha and I have an article in the same issue.)
Here's a few quotes.
from abstract: .there has never been a critical theorization of how grammar
might support the development of writing, and thus there has been very
limited research which has explored that relationship.. (77)
Quotes Tomlinson (1994, p26) that condemnation of grammar on flimsy evidence
was what many in the educational establishment wanted to hear. (80)
What would be so much more interesting, and valuable, would be to explore
in more subtly nuanced detail what research can tell us about what aspects
of grammar and knowledge about language are most relevant to writing,
whether direct teaching of these features can help children improve their
writing, and what teaching strategies are most successful in enabling this
to happen. (80)
The truth is that teaching grammar and knowledge about language in positive,
contextualised ways which make clear links with writing is not yet an
established way of teaching and it is, as yet, hugely under-researched.
(81)
The rejection of decontextualised, and with it by implication, prescriptive,
grammar teaching was rooted in insightful critique of what was happening in
English classrooms. In contrast, the "grammar in context" principle is both
less sharply critiqued and considerably less clearly conceptualised. There
has been little genuine discussion or consideration of what "in context"
means. Frequently, observations of classroom practice indicate that the
notion of "in context" means little more than grammar teaching which is
slotted into English lessons, where the focus is not grammar, but some other
feature of English learning. (82)
I think we are absolutely on the same wave length. The people who rely on
these empirical studies that critique the teaching of grammar have not done
empirical studies of their own. The cure has proven worse than the disease.
But we need to conceptualize a program before we can try it out.
Craig
Ronald Sheen wrote:
Thanks, Craig, for your thought-provoking post. It raises a number of
issues which demand careful responses.
Before providing any, I should clarify one or two things. First, my area of
experience is in SLA (second language acquisition) in which I have done most
of my research. However, I believe that in the field of SLA and FLA (first
language acquisition) teachers and students have been the victims of the
educational theorists who claimed that exposure to correct language in the
classroom will result in the students' acquisition thereof in spite of
massive exposure to non-standard language outside of the classroom.
I take the position that such theorists were (and are) guilty of
unaccountable irresponsibility and this because they did not support their
advocacy with empirical evidence. Thus, for reasons we need not go into
here, educational authorities climbed aboard the bandwagon and suddenly
teachers were forbidden to teach grammar and were made to feel quilty if
they did.
Now, before coming to the details of your excellent post, I would appreciate
your responding to the above remarks. I know that my assumption is correct
in terms of SLA. Is it also correct in terms of FLA?
Ron.
----- Original Message -----
From: Craig Hancock <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 6:36 AM
Subject: Re: Supportive empirical evidence was Silly, rewarding grammar
period
Ron,
My comments were rather unfocused and unclear, and I suspect you and I
are not far apart on positions. I'll try again.
For the most part, empirical studies of grammar effectiveness that i have
read measure their effect on writing as compared to students who have had
writing instruction, but not grammar. Generally, this has been measured over
the short term. Generally, this has measured students receiving grammar
instruction, but not practice in writing. (What we would call control
groups.) This implies that our only goal is improvement in writing and that
this can be accurately measured in the short term, with grammar versus
writing as an either/or choice.
In other words, under this pattern of accountability, Gretchen could
excite her students about grammar, help them become explorers of language,
deepen their understanding of what nouns are all about, and then have that
determined to be "ineffective" because these students don't produce more
"accurate grammar" (your term for it) or don't score better on holistically
assessed writing samples after a semester or a year. For an accurate control
group, they would have to be denied real writing practice. Perhaps a better
test would measure their knowledge about nouns as opposed to students who
have only memorized "person, place, and thing" as a definition. Perhaps we
should find a way to test their confidence as language explorers or their
deeper interest in the subject. We could compare knowledge about language
between a group studying language and another merely writing. Everything
depends on a match between the testing and the goals.
I don't know of a good empirical assessment of a knowledge based approach
to grammar over a lengthy period of time. In both England and Australia,
teachers now seem to believe that reintegrating language into the curriculum
has been a good thing, but it's hard to test that out empirically. Perhaps
the most direct test would measure knowledge about language, since that
would be the central goal. We could then try to monitor how well that
knowledge is put to work in reading, writing, speaking, listening, and so
on. The problem is that we don't have a current consensus that knowing about
language is a reasonable goal. Whether or not Gretchen's students can now
produce more "accurate grammar" would be, I think, irrelevant, at least in
the short term. Very real benefits will be ignored if they are not thought
of as valuable goals in their own right.
Knowledge about language does not come quickly and easily, and putting it
to work is not easy as well. We need empirical testing that does not
diminish the value of knowing about language and does not demand short term
results.
We need to envision a K-12 curriculum, not a single course with no other
follow-up by other teachers. Once we do that, we can measure progress along
the way.
Craig
Ronald Sheen wrote:
My comments on empirical evidence, Gretchen, were, as I think I made clear,
in no way an expression of doubt in your success. My comments were both an
implicit criticism of the proliferation of how to teach grammar books
without including any attempt to demonstrate empirically that the approach
proposed has been shown to be the optimal choice, and a suggestion to you
that you consider doing some sort of comparative study yourself.in order to
justify the publication of a book.
However, Craig Hancock claims that 'One of the problems with many
"empirical" studies of grammar is that the outcomes have been so narrowly
defined' and then, unfortunately, goes no further. The whole area of
comparative studies is a minefield waiting to blow up in the face of anyone
attempting them. This, however, is no reason to dismiss them with the sort
of unsupported comment that Craig makes.
A discussion group such as this one provides a marvellous forum for teachers
to engage in mutally helpful exchanges. This said, however, following such
exchanges quickly reveals that the 'evidence ' provided is largely anecdotal
and, therefore, unreliable. Though comparative empirical studies are not
always reliable, it is undeniable that such studies rigorously carried out
are the only way in which we can arrive at reliable findings which
demonstrate for example that approach A is more effective than approach B in
situation X with students of type Y with aim Z.
Now though the so-called action research carried out by practising teachers
may sound seductive, we all should realise that the burden it imposes on
teachers is enormous. Consequently, before teachers embark on such a
project, they should make themselves aware of what is involved.
Ron Sheen
----- Original Message -----
From: Gretchen Lee <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 6:46 AM
Subject: Re: Supportive empirical evidence was Silly, rewarding grammar
period
In a message dated 9/10/2007 5:45:53 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
Though it is clearly desirable to trial approaches which engage students'
interest and involvement, one should not confuse the latter with
effectiveness in improving studens' production of more accurate grammar.
Hello,
I absolutely agree that empirical evidence is necessary. I'm a loooong way
from a book. However, my students are lucky to be from the upper middle
class and in some cases, the wealthy upper class. Their production of
"correct" grammar is very good, barring a few "between you and I" and
lesser/fewer problems. My aim is to engage them in analyzing grammar and
making it seem interesting at the same time. I can't teach lesser/fewer
with countable nouns if they don't know (and don't care) what a countable
noun is.
At this point the class is less about error detection/prevention than it is
about helping them find out that grammar is fascinating. With a little
luck, they will stay interested enough to want to take a linguistics class
in college, rather than avoiding it at all costs. My little class is
obviously silly in many ways (see original subject line). But for the first
time in many of their lives, grammar is a class to which they look forward.
I hope that's worthwhile.
Thanks,
Gretchen
_____
See what's new at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001170>
and Make AOL Your Homepage
<http://www.aol.com/mksplash.adp?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001169> .
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/
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/
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/
------=_NextPart_000_00F2_01C7F51F.E9C23A40
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" =
xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:st1=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]--><o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" =
name=3D"State"/>
<o:SmartTagType =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name=3D"PlaceType"/>
<o:SmartTagType =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name=3D"PlaceName"/>
<o:SmartTagType =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name=3D"country-region"/>
<o:SmartTagType =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name=3D"place"/>
<o:SmartTagType =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name=3D"PersonName"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--p.MSOBODYTEXT
{mso-style-priority:99;}
li.MSOBODYTEXT
{mso-style-priority:99;}
div.MSOBODYTEXT
{mso-style-priority:99;}
a:link
{mso-style-priority:99;}
span.MSOHYPERLINK
{mso-style-priority:99;}
a:visited
{mso-style-priority:99;}
span.MSOHYPERLINKFOLLOWED
{mso-style-priority:99;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;}
span.BODYTEXTCHAR
{mso-style-priority:99;}
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;}
p.MsoBodyText, li.MsoBodyText, div.MsoBodyText
{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;}
span.BodyTextChar
{font-family:Calibri;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body bgcolor=3Dwhite lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple>
<div class=3DSection1>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Craig-<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>I am also working on how to word my
pro-grammar feelings without being terribly pendantic. My current
point-of-view holds that treating the learning of SWE in the same vein =
as
learning any foreign language will avoid the stigma/politics of =
“correctness”
and still allow for students to understand that there are rules, they =
follow
certain patterns, and that these patterns can be similar to those they =
are
already familiar with (aka “Code Switching”). =
I’m developing
my thoughts in order to create a college composition class that focuses =
on
writing AND uses grammar as one more tool in the tool =
box…<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>-patty<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<div class=3DMsoNormal align=3Dcenter style=3D'text-align:center'><font =
size=3D3
color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext'>
<hr size=3D2 width=3D"100%" align=3Dcenter tabindex=3D-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><b><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DTahoma><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;color:windowtext;font-weight=
:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font
size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DTahoma><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;
color:windowtext'> <st1:PersonName w:st=3D"on">Assembly for the Teaching =
of
English Grammar</st1:PersonName> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] =
<b><span
style=3D'font-weight:bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>Craig Hancock<br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Tuesday, September =
11, 2007
1:03 PM<br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> =
[log in to unmask]<br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: Supportive =
empirical
evidence was Silly, rewarding grammar period</span></font><font =
color=3Dblack><span
style=3D'color:windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>Bill,<br>
That's a very thoughtful correction. I have been trying to =
figure
out how to disagree with the anti-grammar approach without having to =
argue
against Chomsky or the whole language position, which has much to offer =
as
well. (Our students should be engaged in reading and writing activities =
that
they feel are important rather than just building skills out of =
workbooks.) I
think what we need is a new kind of synthesis, not just choosing sides =
in an
old debate. <br>
As an alternative to Chomsky, I am increasingly =
appreciative of
Michael Tomasello's work, including "Constructing a Language: a
Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition" (Harvard University =
Press,
2003). He doesn't believe we have innate rules that drive the system, =
but
highly functional patterns that rise from actual use. Children learn =
language
in large part because they understand the contexts being named. Because
many language decisions happen below the threshold of =
consciousness does
not necessarily mean they were not acquired or that conscious attention =
was not
part of that. To the extent that we understand language acquisition as a
socialization process (one we can be mentored into), it becomes easier =
to value
(and promote) conscious understanding. <br>
I like the way Myhill frames the related questions. What =
aspects
of language are most relevant to writing--can direct teaching of those =
relevant
aspects improve writing--if so, what are the best ways to teach them. =
<br>
All of this can be empirically grounded, which is I think =
Ron's
point all along. <br>
<br>
Craig<br>
<br>
Spruiell, William C wrote: <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3D"#1f497d" =
face=3DCalibri><span
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1F497D'><!--[if gte =
mso 9]><xml>
<u1:shapedefaults u2:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026"/>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<u3:shapelayout u4:ext=3D"edit">
<u3:idmap u4:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1"/>
</u3:shapelayout>
</xml><![endif]-->Craig, Ron, et =
al.,<u5:p></u5:p></span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3D"#1f497d" =
face=3DCalibri><span
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1F497D'><u5:p> =
</u5:p></span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3D"#1f497d" =
face=3DCalibri><span
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1F497D'>In a sense, =
the
anti-grammar movement isn’t based on the innatist position as it =
is
developed in linguistics (with Chomsky being the most famous example of =
one of
its proponents) – it’s based on a dramatic =
overgeneralization of
innatism. In defense of Chomsky – and as a functionalist, I find =
myself
feeling rather odd typing that phrase – his theory simply claims =
that
children acquire the language <i><span =
style=3D'font-style:italic'>they’re
exposed to in infancy and early childhood</span></i> without conscious =
effort,
etc. Additional dialects (e.g. standard-ish English), and the written =
variants
of the language (which are in a sense dialect-like, but shaped by =
additional
factors such as distancing between writer and reader, etc.) would not be =
“acquired”
in the same way. In fact, Chomsky’s use of innatism to support the =
idea
that language-learning ability drops off precipitously in early =
adolescence
implicitly contradicts the notion that innatism means you can ignore =
conscious
learning procedures in later development. =
<u5:p></u5:p></span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3D"#1f497d" =
face=3DCalibri><span
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1F497D'><u5:p> =
</u5:p></span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3D"#1f497d" =
face=3DCalibri><span
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1F497D'>I =
don’t happen
to agree with Chomsky on the factors leading to “critical =
period”
effects, or on a number of other issues as well, but I also can’t =
see the
antigrammarian position as being motivated by his notions of innatism =
–
it was, in a sense, seized upon as a science-y sounding rationale for a
position people wanted to adopt anyway. If anything, the strict innatist
position, along with the notion of a critical period, implies that
students <i><span style=3D'font-style:italic'>can’t</span></i> =
achieve
nativelike fluency in another dialect. I suppose that could be used as a
different excuse not to teach grammar, but pessimism makes a lousy basis =
for
educational policy.<u5:p></u5:p></span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3D"#1f497d" =
face=3DCalibri><span
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1F497D'><u5:p> =
</u5:p></span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3D"#1f497d" =
face=3DCalibri><span
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1F497D'>Bill =
Spruiell<u5:p></u5:p></span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3D"#1f497d" =
face=3DCalibri><span
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1F497D'><u5:p> =
</u5:p></span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3D"#1f497d" =
face=3DCalibri><span
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1F497D'>Dept. of =
English<u5:p></u5:p></span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><st1:place w:st=3D"on"><st1:PlaceName =
w:st=3D"on"><font size=3D2
color=3D"#1f497d" face=3DCalibri><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;
color:#1F497D'>Central</span></font></st1:PlaceName><font size=3D2
color=3D"#1f497d" face=3DCalibri><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;
color:#1F497D'> <st1:PlaceName w:st=3D"on">Michigan</st1:PlaceName> =
<st1:PlaceType
=
w:st=3D"on">University<u5:p></u5:p></st1:PlaceType></span></font></st1:pl=
ace><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3D"#1f497d" =
face=3DCalibri><span
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:#1F497D'><u5:p> =
</u5:p></span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style=3D'border:none;border-top:solid windowtext =
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;
border-color:-moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color'>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><b><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DTahoma><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;color:windowtext;font-weight=
:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font
size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DTahoma><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;
color:windowtext'> <st1:PersonName w:st=3D"on">Assembly for the Teaching =
of
English Grammar</st1:PersonName> [<a =
href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">mailto:[log in to unmask]<=
/a>]
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>Craig =
Hancock<br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Tuesday, September =
11, 2007
11:35 AM<br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> <a
href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]</a><br>=
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: Supportive =
empirical
evidence was Silly, rewarding grammar =
period<u5:p></u5:p></span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><u5:p><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times =
New Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></u5:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3D3 =
color=3Dblack
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>Ron,<br>
The inherent or innate nature of grammar is, in fact, a
theoretical underpinning of the anti-grammar movement. Part of that =
means
thinking of grammar as a behavior, not as a body of knowledge, and as =
largely a
neutral conveyor of meaning. We now test grammar in terms of what =
students can
do, not what they know (even in the SAT test) because it is generally =
believed
that conscious knowledge is unnecessary and unhelpful.<br>
You're right; the anti-grammar position that acquisition =
will just
happen through exposure has never been tested. Debra Myhill makes these =
points
nicely in an article in English Teaching: Practice and Critique (Dec. =
2005. You
can access it online. Martha and I have an article in the same issue.) =
Here's a
few quotes.<o:p></o:p></span></font><u5:p></u5:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>from abstract: …<i><span =
style=3D'font-style:
italic'>there has never been a critical theorization of how grammar =
might
support the development of writing, and thus there has been very limited
research which has explored that relationship.. =
(77)</span></i><o:p></o:p></span></font><u5:p></u5:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>Quotes Tomlinson (1994, p26) that =
condemnation of
grammar on flimsy evidence was <i><span style=3D'font-style:italic'>what =
many in
the educational establishment wanted to hear</span></i>. =
(80)<o:p></o:p></span></font><u5:p></u5:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoBodyText><i><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-style:italic'>What would be so much more
interesting, and valuable, would be to explore in more subtly =
nuanced
detail what research can tell us about what aspects of grammar and =
knowledge
about language are most relevant to writing, whether direct =
teaching of
these features can help children improve their writing, and what =
teaching
strategies are most successful in enabling this to =
happen</span></font></i>.
(80)<u5:p></u5:p><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><i><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-style:italic'> </span></font></i><u5:=
p></u5:p><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><i><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-style:italic'>The truth is that teaching =
grammar
and knowledge about language in positive, contextualised ways which make =
clear
links with writing is not yet an established way of teaching and it is, =
as yet,
hugely under-researched. =
(81)</span></font></i><u5:p></u5:p><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoBodyText><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>T<i><span style=3D'font-style:italic'>he =
rejection of
decontextualised, and with it by implication, prescriptive, grammar =
teaching
was rooted in insightful critique of what was happening in English
classrooms. In contrast, the “grammar in context” =
principle
is both less sharply critiqued and considerably less clearly
conceptualised. There has been little genuine discussion or =
consideration
of what “in context” means. Frequently, observations =
of
classroom practice indicate that the notion of “in context” =
means
little more than grammar teaching which is slotted into English lessons, =
where
the focus is not grammar, but some other feature of English =
learning.</span></i>
(82)<o:p></o:p></span></font><u5:p></u5:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoBodyText><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'> I think we are absolutely on the =
same
wave length. The people who rely on these empirical studies that =
critique the
teaching of grammar have not done empirical studies of their own. The =
cure has
proven worse than the disease. <br>
But we need to conceptualize a program before we can try it =
out.<o:p></o:p></span></font><u5:p></u5:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>Craig<o:p></o:p></span></font><u5:p></u5:p></p=
>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'><br>
<br>
<br>
Ronald Sheen wrote: <o:p></o:p></span></font><u5:p></u5:p></p>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>Thanks, Craig, for your thought-provoking =
post.
It raises a number of issues which demand careful =
responses.</span></font><u5:p></u5:p><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font><u5:p></u5:p></=
p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>Before providing any, I should clarify one or =
two
things. First, my area of experience is in <st1:place =
w:st=3D"on">SLA</st1:place>
(second language acquisition) in which I have done most of my
research. However, I believe that in the field of SLA and =
<st1:State
w:st=3D"on"><st1:place w:st=3D"on">FLA</st1:place></st1:State> (first =
language
acquisition) teachers and students have been the victims of the =
educational
theorists who claimed that exposure to correct language in the classroom =
will
result in the students' acquisition thereof in spite of massive exposure =
to
non-standard language outside of the =
classroom.</span></font><u5:p></u5:p><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font><u5:p></u5:p></=
p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>I take the position that such theorists were =
(and
are) guilty of unaccountable irresponsibility and this because they did =
not
support their advocacy with empirical evidence. Thus, for reasons =
we need
not go into here, educational authorities climbed aboard the bandwagon =
and
suddenly teachers were forbidden to teach grammar and were made to feel =
quilty
if they did.</span></font><u5:p></u5:p><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font><u5:p></u5:p></=
p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>Now, before coming to the details of your =
excellent
post, I would appreciate your responding to the above =
remarks. I
know that my assumption is correct in terms of <st1:place =
w:st=3D"on">SLA</st1:place>.
Is it also correct in terms of <st1:State w:st=3D"on"><st1:place =
w:st=3D"on">FLA</st1:place></st1:State>?</span></font><u5:p></u5:p><o:p><=
/o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font><u5:p></u5:p></=
p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>Ron.</span></font><u5:p></u5:p><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style=3D'border:none;border-left:solid windowtext =
1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;
margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;=
border-color:-moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color =
black'>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>----- Original Message ----- =
<u5:p></u5:p></span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'background:#E4E4E4;-moz-background-clip: =
-moz-initial;
-moz-background-origin: -moz-initial;-moz-background-inline-policy: =
-moz-initial;
background-attachment:scroll;background-position-x:0%;background-position=
-y:
50%'><b><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font =
size=3D2
face=3DArial><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'> <a
href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]" title=3D"[log in to unmask]"
moz-do-not-send=3Dtrue>Craig Hancock</a> =
<u5:p></u5:p></span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><b><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold'>To:</span><=
/font></b><font
size=3D2 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'> <a
href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]" =
title=3D"[log in to unmask]"
moz-do-not-send=3Dtrue>[log in to unmask]</a> =
<u5:p></u5:p></span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><b><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span=
></font></b><font
size=3D2 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'> Tuesday,
September 11, 2007 6:36 AM<u5:p></u5:p></span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><b><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold'>Subject:</s=
pan></font></b><font
size=3D2 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'> Re:
Supportive empirical evidence was Silly, rewarding grammar =
period<u5:p></u5:p></span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><u5:p><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times =
New Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></u5:p></p>
</div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>Ron,<br>
My comments were rather unfocused and unclear, and I =
suspect you
and I are not far apart on positions. I'll try again.<br>
For the most part, empirical studies of grammar =
effectiveness that
i have read measure their effect on writing as compared to students who =
have
had writing instruction, but not grammar. Generally, this has been =
measured
over the short term. Generally, this has measured students receiving =
grammar
instruction, but not practice in writing. (What we would call control =
groups.)
This implies that our only goal is improvement in writing and that this =
can be
accurately measured in the short term, with grammar versus writing as an
either/or choice. <br>
In other words, under this pattern of accountability, =
Gretchen
could excite her students about grammar, help them become explorers of
language, deepen their understanding of what nouns are all about, and =
then have
that determined to be "ineffective" because these students =
don't
produce more "accurate grammar" (your term for it) or don't =
score
better on holistically assessed writing samples after a semester or a =
year. For
an accurate control group, they would have to be denied real writing =
practice.
Perhaps a better test would measure their knowledge about nouns as =
opposed to
students who have only memorized "person, place, and thing" as =
a
definition. Perhaps we should find a way to test their confidence as =
language
explorers or their deeper interest in the subject. We could compare =
knowledge
about language between a group studying language and another merely =
writing.
Everything depends on a match between the testing and the goals.<br>
I don't know of a good empirical assessment of a knowledge =
based
approach to grammar over a lengthy period of time. In both =
<st1:country-region
w:st=3D"on">England</st1:country-region> and <st1:country-region =
w:st=3D"on"><st1:place
w:st=3D"on">Australia</st1:place></st1:country-region>, teachers now =
seem to
believe that reintegrating language into the curriculum has been a good =
thing,
but it's hard to test that out empirically. Perhaps the most direct test =
would
measure knowledge about language, since that would be the central goal. =
We
could then try to monitor how well that knowledge is put to work in =
reading,
writing, speaking, listening, and so on. The problem is that we don't =
have a
current consensus that knowing about language is a reasonable goal. =
Whether or
not Gretchen's students can now produce more "accurate =
grammar" would
be, I think, irrelevant, at least in the short term. Very real benefits =
will be
ignored if they are not thought of as valuable goals in their own =
right.<br>
Knowledge about language does not come quickly and easily, =
and
putting it to work is not easy as well. We need empirical testing that =
does not
diminish the value of knowing about language and does not demand short =
term
results. <br>
We need to envision a K-12 curriculum, not a single course =
with no
other follow-up by other teachers. Once we do that, we can measure =
progress
along the way.<br>
<br>
Craig<br>
<br>
<br>
Ronald Sheen wrote: <o:p></o:p></span></font><u5:p></u5:p></p>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>My comments on empirical evidence, Gretchen, =
were, as
I think I made clear, in no way an expression of doubt in your =
success.
My comments were both an implicit criticism of the proliferation of how =
to
teach grammar books without including any attempt to demonstrate =
empirically
that the approach proposed has been shown to be the optimal choice, =
and a
suggestion to you that you consider doing some sort of comparative study
yourself.in order to justify the publication of a =
book.<o:p></o:p></span></font><u5:p></u5:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font><u5:p></u5:p></=
p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>However, Craig Hancock claims that 'One of =
the
problems with many "empirical" studies of grammar is that the
outcomes have been so narrowly defined' and then, unfortunately, goes no
further. The whole area of comparative studies is a minefield =
waiting to
blow up in the face of anyone attempting them. This, however, is =
no
reason to dismiss them with the sort of unsupported comment that Craig =
makes.<o:p></o:p></span></font><u5:p></u5:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font><u5:p></u5:p></=
p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>A discussion group such as this one provides =
a
marvellous forum for teachers to engage in mutally helpful =
exchanges.
This said, however, following such exchanges quickly reveals that the =
'evidence
' provided is largely anecdotal and, therefore, unreliable. =
Though
comparative empirical studies are not always reliable, it is undeniable =
that
such studies rigorously carried out are the only way in which we can =
arrive at
reliable findings which demonstrate for example that approach A is more =
effective
than approach B in situation X with students of type Y with aim =
Z.<o:p></o:p></span></font><u5:p></u5:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font><u5:p></u5:p></=
p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>Now though the so-called action research =
carried out
by practising teachers may sound seductive, we all should realise that =
the
burden it imposes on teachers is enormous. Consequently, before =
teachers
embark on such a project, they should make themselves aware of what is =
involved.<o:p></o:p></span></font><u5:p></u5:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font><u5:p></u5:p></=
p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>Ron =
Sheen<o:p></o:p></span></font><u5:p></u5:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style=3D'border:none;border-left:solid windowtext =
1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;
margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;=
border-color:-moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color =
black'>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>----- Original Message ----- =
<u5:p></u5:p></span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'background:#E4E4E4;-moz-background-clip: =
-moz-initial;
-moz-background-origin: -moz-initial;-moz-background-inline-policy: =
-moz-initial;
background-attachment:scroll;background-position-x:0%;background-position=
-y:
50%'><b><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font =
size=3D2
face=3DArial><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'> <a
href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]" title=3D"[log in to unmask]"
moz-do-not-send=3Dtrue>Gretchen Lee</a> =
<u5:p></u5:p></span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><b><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold'>To:</span><=
/font></b><font
size=3D2 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'> <a
href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]" =
title=3D"[log in to unmask]"
moz-do-not-send=3Dtrue>[log in to unmask]</a> =
<u5:p></u5:p></span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><b><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span=
></font></b><font
size=3D2 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'> Monday,
September 10, 2007 6:46 AM<u5:p></u5:p></span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><b><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold'>Subject:</s=
pan></font></b><font
size=3D2 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'> Re:
Supportive empirical evidence was Silly, rewarding grammar =
period<u5:p></u5:p></span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><u5:p><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times =
New Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></u5:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3D"#408080" face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:#408080'>In a message =
dated
9/10/2007 5:45:53 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, <a
href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]" =
moz-do-not-send=3Dtrue>[log in to unmask]</a>
writes:<u5:p></u5:p></span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style=3D'border:none;border-left:solid windowtext =
1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;
margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;border-color:-moz=
-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color blue'>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>Though it is clearly desirable to trial =
approaches
which engage students' interest and involvement, one should not confuse =
the
latter with effectiveness in improving studens' production of more =
accurate
grammar.</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<u5:p></u5:p>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><strong><b><font size=3D2 color=3D"#408080" =
face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:#408080'>Hello,</span><=
/font></b></strong><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<u5:p></u5:p>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3D"#408080" face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:#408080'> <u5:p></=
u5:p></span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><strong><b><font size=3D2 color=3D"#408080" =
face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:#408080'>I absolutely =
agree
that empirical evidence is necessary. I'm a loooong way from a
book. However, my students are lucky to be from the upper middle =
class
and in some cases, the wealthy upper class. Their production of
"correct" grammar is very good, barring a few "between =
you and
I" and lesser/fewer problems. My aim is to engage them in =
analyzing
grammar and making it seem interesting at the same time. I can't =
teach
lesser/fewer with countable nouns if they don't know (and don't care) =
what a
countable noun is.</span></font></b></strong><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<u5:p></u5:p>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3D"#408080" face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:#408080'> <u5:p></=
u5:p></span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><strong><b><font size=3D2 color=3D"#408080" =
face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:#408080'>At this point =
the
class is less about error detection/prevention than it is about =
helping
them find out that grammar is fascinating. With a little luck, =
they will
stay interested enough to want to take a linguistics class in college, =
rather
than avoiding it at all costs. My little class is obviously silly =
in many
ways (see original subject line). But for the first time in many =
of their
lives, grammar is a class to which they look forward. I hope that's =
worthwhile.</span></font></b></strong><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<u5:p></u5:p>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3D"#408080" face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:#408080'> <u5:p></=
u5:p></span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><strong><b><font size=3D2 color=3D"#408080" =
face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:#408080'>Thanks,</span>=
</font></b></strong><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<u5:p></u5:p>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><strong><b><font size=3D2 color=3D"#408080" =
face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:#408080'>Gretchen</span=
></font></b></strong><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<u5:p></u5:p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3D3 =
color=3Dblack
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<u5:p></u5:p>
<div>
<div style=3D'margin-top:7.5pt'>
<div class=3DMsoNormal align=3Dcenter style=3D'text-align:center'><font =
size=3D2
color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>
<hr size=3D2 width=3D"100%" align=3Dcenter>
</span></font></div>
</div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-top:7.5pt'><font size=3D2 =
color=3Dblack
face=3DArial><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>See =
what's new at <a
href=3D"http://www.aol.com?NCID=3DAOLCMP00300000001170" =
target=3D"_blank"
title=3D"http://www.aol.com?NCID=3DAOLCMP00300000001170" =
moz-do-not-send=3Dtrue>AOL.com</a>
and <a =
href=3D"http://www.aol.com/mksplash.adp?NCID=3DAOLCMP00300000001169"
target=3D"_blank"
title=3D"http://www.aol.com/mksplash.adp?NCID=3DAOLCMP00300000001169"
moz-do-not-send=3Dtrue>Make AOL Your =
Homepage</a>.</span></font><u5:p></u5:p><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-top:7.5pt'><font size=3D3 =
color=3Dblack
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>To join or =
leave this
LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: <a
href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html" =
moz-do-not-send=3Dtrue>http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a>
and select "Join or leave the list" =
<o:p></o:p></span></font><u5:p></u5:p></p>
<p><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>Visit
ATEG's web site at <a href=3D"http://ateg.org/" =
moz-do-not-send=3Dtrue>http://ateg.org/</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></font><u5:p></u5:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please =
visit the
list's web interface at: <a =
href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html"
moz-do-not-send=3Dtrue>http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a> =
and
select "Join or leave the list" =
<o:p></o:p></span></font><u5:p></u5:p></p>
<p><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>Visit
ATEG's web site at <a href=3D"http://ateg.org/" =
moz-do-not-send=3Dtrue>http://ateg.org/</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></font><u5:p></u5:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'><br>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web =
interface at: <a
href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html" =
moz-do-not-send=3Dtrue>http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a>
and select "Join or leave the list" =
<o:p></o:p></span></font><u5:p></u5:p></p>
<p><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>Visit
ATEG's web site at <a href=3D"http://ateg.org/" =
moz-do-not-send=3Dtrue>http://ateg.org/</a><o:p></o:p></span></font><u5:p=
></u5:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please =
visit the
list's web interface at: <a =
href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html"
moz-do-not-send=3Dtrue>http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a> =
and
select "Join or leave the list" =
<o:p></o:p></span></font><u5:p></u5:p></p>
<p><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>Visit
ATEG's web site at <a href=3D"http://ateg.org/" =
moz-do-not-send=3Dtrue>http://ateg.org/</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></font><u5:p></u5:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><u5:p><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times =
New Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></u5:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;color:windowtext'>To join or leave this =
LISTSERV list,
please visit the list's web interface at: <a
href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html">http://listserv.mu=
ohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a>
and select "Join or leave the list" =
<u5:p></u5:p></span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;
color:windowtext'>Visit ATEG's web site at <a =
href=3D"http://ateg.org/">http://ateg.org/</a>
<u5:p></u5:p></span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please =
visit the
list's web interface at: <a =
href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html">http://listserv.mu=
ohio.edu/archives/ateg.html</a>
and select "Join or leave the list" =
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>Visit
ATEG's web site at <a href=3D"http://ateg.org/">http://ateg.org/</a> =
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>
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"
<p>
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"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
------=_NextPart_000_00F2_01C7F51F.E9C23A40--
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:24:01 -0400
From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Functional grammar definition
Warren,
Like a good linguist, Bill is trying to give you a definition that=20
all functionalists would agree on. Since I=E2=80=99m not a linguist, I ca=
n be=20
more idiosyncratic.
Functionalists believe that grammar itself is highly meaningful. It=20
is not a neutral conveyor of meaning, but an integral part of the making=20
of meaning. They also tend to extend meaning out beyond representing the=20
world to include the interpersonal and the construction of =E2=80=9Ctext.=
=E2=80=9D
A functional approach allows us to connect what is happening at the=20
level of the sentence with what is happening through the whole text.=20
Language gives us resources that help us represent the world. Language=20
gives us resources that help us establish relationships with a reader or=20
readers. Language gives us resources that help us carry out work that=20
extends beyond the boundaries of a single sentence. (Constructing an=20
argument. Making an apology. Telling a story. And so on)
I think most functionalists would say that language has evolved to=20
accomplish these purposes.
It=E2=80=99s hard to know for sure what kind of traditionalist you are=
=20
talking to, and that might change the kinds of comparisons you might=20
make to what he/she already knows. For a formalist, you might say that a=20
functional approach helps us understand =E2=80=9Chow=E2=80=9D something m=
eans. It might=20
be similar to looking at image patterns in a poem. The meaning doesn=E2=80=
=99t=20
happen without them. For a prescriptivist, you might say it helps give=20
sufficient background to tie choice to context, including the context of=20
academic writing.
When you focus on effectiveness, correctness follows easily. If you=20
focus just on correctness, you tend to fail on both counts. =20
Hope that helps.
Craig
Warren Sieme wrote:
> I've been challenged by the Curriculum Co-ordinator for my department=20
> to present a definition of functional grammar that "takes thirty=20
> seconds or less." He strikes me as quite a traditionalist who rolls=20
> his eyes at the very mention of grammar instruction. I'd appreciate=20
> any concise definitions anyone would care to provide.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Warren
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 1:02 pm
> Subject: Re: Supportive empirical evidence was Silly, rewarding=20
> grammar period
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Bill,
>
> That's a very thoughtful correction. I have been trying to figure
> out how to disagree with the anti-grammar approach without having to
> argue against Chomsky or the whole language position, which has much to
> offer as well. (Our students should be engaged in reading and writing
> activities that they feel are important rather than just building
> skills out of workbooks.) I think what we need is a new kind of
> synthesis, not just choosing sides in an old debate.
>
> As an alternative to Chomsky, I am increasingly appreciative of
> Michael Tomasello's work, including "Constructing a Language: a
> Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition" (Harvard University Press,
> 2003). He doesn't believe we have innate rules that drive the system,
> but highly functional patterns that rise from actual use. Children
> learn language in large part because they understand the contexts being
> named. Because many language decisions happen below the threshold of
> consciousness does not necessarily mean they were not acquired or that
> conscious attention was not part of that. To the extent that we
> understand language acquisition as a socialization process (one we can
> be mentored into), it becomes easier to value (and promote) conscious
> understanding.
>
> I like the way Myhill frames the related questions. What aspects of
> language are most relevant to writing--can direct teaching of those
> relevant aspects improve writing--if so, what are the best ways to
> teach them.
>
> All of this can be empirically grounded, which is I think Ron's
> point all along.
>
>
>
> Craig
>
>
>
> Spruiell, William C wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Craig,
> Ron, et al.,
> =20
> In
> a sense, the anti-grammar movement isn=E2=80=99t based on the
> innatist position as it is developed in linguistics (with Chomsky being
> the
> most famous example of one of its proponents) =E2=80=93 it=E2=80=99s ba=
sed on a
> dramatic overgeneralization of innatism. In defense of Chomsky =E2=80=93=
and as
> a
> functionalist, I find myself feeling rather odd typing that phrase =E2=80=
=93
> his theory
> simply claims that children acquire the language they=E2=80=99re expose=
d to
> in
> infancy and early childhood without conscious effort, etc.
> Additional
> dialects (e.g. standard-ish English), and the written variants of the
> language
> (which are in a sense dialect-like, but shaped by additional factors
> such as
> distancing between writer and reader, etc.) would not be =E2=80=9Cacqui=
red=E2=80=9D
> in the same way. In fact, Chomsky=E2=80=99s use of innatism to support =
the idea
> that language-learning ability drops off precipitously in early
> adolescence
> implicitly contradicts the notion that innatism means you can ignore
> conscious
> learning procedures in later development.
> =20
> I
> don=E2=80=99t happen to agree with Chomsky on the factors
> leading to =E2=80=9Ccritical period=E2=80=9D effects, or on a number of=
other
> issues as well, but I also can=E2=80=99t see the antigrammarian positio=
n as
> being
> motivated by his notions of innatism =E2=80=93 it was, in a sense, seiz=
ed upon
> as
> a science-y sounding rationale for a position people wanted to adopt
> anyway. If
> anything, the strict innatist position, along with the notion of a
> critical
> period, implies that students can=E2=80=99t achieve nativelike
> fluency in another dialect. I suppose that could be used as a different
> excuse
> not to teach grammar, but pessimism makes a lousy basis for educational
> policy.
> =20
> Bill
> Spruiell
> =20
> Dept.
> of English
> Central
> Michigan University
> =20
>
>
> From:
> Assembly for the Teaching of English
> Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig
> Hancock
>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 11:35 AM
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Subject: Re: Supportive empirical evidence was Silly,
> rewarding grammar
> period
>
>
> =20
> Ron,
>
> The inherent or innate nature of grammar is, in fact, a
> theoretical underpinning of the anti-grammar movement. Part of that
> means
> thinking of grammar as a behavior, not as a body of knowledge, and as
> largely a
> neutral conveyor of meaning. We now test grammar in terms of what
> students can
> do, not what they know (even in the SAT test) because it is generally
> believed
> that conscious knowledge is unnecessary and unhelpful.
>
> You're right; the anti-grammar position that acquisition will just
> happen through exposure has never been tested. Debra Myhill makes these
> points
> nicely in an article in English Teaching: Practice and Critique (Dec.
> 2005. You
> can access it online. Martha and I have an article in the same issue.)
> Here's a
> few quotes.
> from
> abstract: =E2=80=A6there has never been a critical theorization of how
> grammar might support the development of writing, and thus there has
> been very
> limited research which has explored that relationship.. (77)
> Quotes
> Tomlinson (1994, p26) that condemnation of grammar on flimsy evidence
> was what
> many in the educational establishment wanted to hear. (80)
> What would be so much more interesting,=20
> and
> valuable, would be to explore in more subtly nuanced detail what
> research can
> tell us about what aspects of grammar and knowledge about language are
> most
> relevant to writing, whether direct teaching of these features can
> help
> children improve their writing, and what teaching strategies are most
> successful in enabling this to happen. (80)
> =20
> The
> truth is that teaching grammar and knowledge about language in
> positive,
> contextualised ways which make clear links with writing is not yet an
> established way of teaching and it is, as yet, hugely
> under-researched.=20
> (81)
> The rejection of decontextualised, and with
> it by
> implication, prescriptive, grammar teaching was rooted in insightful
> critique
> of what was happening in English classrooms. In contrast, the
> =E2=80=9Cgrammar in context=E2=80=9D principle is both less sharply cri=
tiqued and
> considerably less clearly conceptualised. There has been little
> genuine
> discussion or consideration of what =E2=80=9Cin context=E2=80=9D means.=
=20
> Frequently, observations of classroom practice indicate that the notion
> of
> =E2=80=9Cin context=E2=80=9D means little more than grammar teaching wh=
ich is
> slotted into English lessons, where the focus is not grammar, but some
> other
> feature of English learning. (82)
> I think we are absolutely on the same wave
> length. The people who rely on these empirical studies that critique
> the
> teaching of grammar have not done empirical studies of their own. The
> cure has
> proven worse than the disease.
>
> But we need to conceptualize a program before we can try it out.
> Craig
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ronald Sheen wrote:
>
> Thanks,
> Craig, for your thought-provoking post. It raises a number of issues
> which demand careful responses.
>
>
> =20
>
>
> Before
> providing any, I should clarify one or two things. First, my area of
> experience is in SLA (second language acquisition) in which I have done
> most of
> my research. However, I believe that in the field of SLA and FLA
> (first language acquisition) teachers and students have been the
> victims of the
> educational theorists who claimed that exposure to correct language in
> the
> classroom will result in the students' acquisition thereof in spite of
> massive
> exposure to non-standard language outside of the classroom.
>
>
> =20
>
>
> I
> take the position that such theorists were (and are) guilty of
> unaccountable
> irresponsibility and this because they did not support their advocacy
> with
> empirical evidence. Thus, for reasons we need not go into here,
> educational authorities climbed aboard the bandwagon and suddenly
> teachers were
> forbidden to teach grammar and were made to feel quilty if they did.
>
>
> =20
>
>
> Now,
> before coming to the details of your excellent post, I would appreciate
> your
> responding to the above remarks. I know that my assumption is
> correct in terms of SLA. Is it also correct in terms of FLA?
>
>
> =20
>
>
> Ron.
>
>
>
> -----
> Original Message -----
>
>
> From: Craig Hancock
>
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> Sent: Tuesday,
> September
> 11, 2007 6:36 AM
>
>
> Subject: Re:
> Supportive empirical
> evidence was Silly, rewarding grammar period
>
>
> =20
>
> Ron,
>
> My comments were rather unfocused and unclear, and I suspect you
> and I are not far apart on positions. I'll try again.
>
> For the most part, empirical studies of grammar effectiveness that
> i have read measure their effect on writing as compared to students who
> have
> had writing instruction, but not grammar. Generally, this has been
> measured
> over the short term. Generally, this has measured students receiving
> grammar
> instruction, but not practice in writing. (What we would call control
> groups.)
> This implies that our only goal is improvement in writing and that this
> can be
> accurately measured in the short term, with grammar versus writing as
> an
> either/or choice.
>
> In other words, under this pattern of accountability, Gretchen
> could excite her students about grammar, help them become explorers of
> language, deepen their understanding of what nouns are all about, and
> then have
> that determined to be "ineffective" because these students don't
> produce more "accurate grammar" (your term for it) or don't score
> better on holistically assessed writing samples after a semester or a
> year. For
> an accurate control group, they would have to be denied real writing
> practice.
> Perhaps a better test would measure their knowledge about nouns as
> opposed to
> students who have only memorized "person, place, and thing" as a
> definition. Perhaps we should find a way to test their confidence as
> language
> explorers or their deeper interest in the subject. We could compare
> knowledge
> about language between a group studying language and another merely
> writing.
> Everything depends on a match between the testing and the goals.
>
> I don't know of a good empirical assessment of a knowledge based
> approach to grammar over a lengthy period of time. In both England and
> Australia, teachers now seem to believe that reintegrating language
> into the
> curriculum has been a good thing, but it's hard to test that out
> empirically.
> Perhaps the most direct test would measure knowledge about language,
> since that
> would be the central goal. We could then try to monitor how well that
> knowledge
> is put to work in reading, writing, speaking, listening, and so on. The
> problem
> is that we don't have a current consensus that knowing about language
> is a
> reasonable goal. Whether or not Gretchen's students can now produce
> more
> "accurate grammar" would be, I think, irrelevant, at least in the
> short term. Very real benefits will be ignored if they are not thought
> of as
> valuable goals in their own right.
>
> Knowledge about language does not come quickly and easily, and
> putting it to work is not easy as well. We need empirical testing that
> does not
> diminish the value of knowing about language and does not demand short
> term
> results.
>
> We need to envision a K-12 curriculum, not a single course with no
> other follow-up by other teachers. Once we do that, we can measure
> progress
> along the way.
>
>
>
> Craig
>
>
>
>
>
> Ronald Sheen wrote:
>
> My comments on empirical evidence, Gretchen,
> were, as I
> think I made clear, in no way an expression of doubt in your success.=20
> My
> comments were both an implicit criticism of the proliferation of how to
> teach
> grammar books without including any attempt to demonstrate empirically
> that the
> approach proposed has been shown to be the optimal choice, and a
> suggestion to you that you consider doing some sort of comparative
> study
> yourself.in order to justify the publication of a book.
>
>
> =20
>
>
> However, Craig Hancock claims that 'One of the
> problems with
> many "empirical" studies of grammar is that the outcomes have been so
> narrowly defined' and then, unfortunately, goes no further. The whole
> area of comparative studies is a minefield waiting to blow up in the
> face of
> anyone attempting them. This, however, is no reason to dismiss them
> with
> the sort of unsupported comment that Craig makes.
>
>
> =20
>
>
> A discussion group such as this one provides a
> marvellous
> forum for teachers to engage in mutally helpful exchanges. This said,
> however, following such exchanges quickly reveals that the 'evidence '
> provided
> is largely anecdotal and, therefore, unreliable. Though comparative
> empirical studies are not always reliable, it is undeniable that such
> studies
> rigorously carried out are the only way in which we can arrive at
> reliable
> findings which demonstrate for example that approach A is more
> effective than
> approach B in situation X with students of type Y with aim Z.
>
>
> =20
>
>
> Now though the so-called action research
> carried out by
> practising teachers may sound seductive, we all should realise that the
> burden
> it imposes on teachers is enormous. Consequently, before teachers
> embark
> on such a project, they should make themselves aware of what is
> involved.
>
>
> =20
>
>
> Ron Sheen
>
>
>
> -----
> Original Message -----
>
>
> From: Gretchen Lee
>
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> Sent: Monday,
> September
> 10, 2007 6:46 AM
>
>
> Subject: Re:
> Supportive
> empirical evidence was Silly, rewarding grammar period
>
>
> =20
>
>
>
> In
> a message dated 9/10/2007 5:45:53 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask]
> writes:
>
>
> Though
> it is clearly desirable to trial approaches which engage students'
> interest and
> involvement, one should not confuse the latter with effectiveness in
> improving
> studens' production of more accurate grammar.
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
> =20
>
>
> I
> absolutely agree that empirical evidence is necessary.=20
> I'm a loooong way from a book. However, my students are lucky to be
> from
> the upper middle class and in some cases, the wealthy upper class.=20
> Their
> production of "correct" grammar is very good, barring a few
> "between you and I" and lesser/fewer problems. My aim is to
> engage them in analyzing grammar and making it seem interesting at the
> same
> time. I can't teach lesser/fewer with countable nouns if they don't
> know
> (and don't care) what a countable noun is.
>
>
> =20
>
>
> At
> this point the class is less about error
> detection/prevention than it is about helping them find out that
> grammar
> is fascinating. With a little luck, they will stay interested enough
> to want
> to take a linguistics class in college, rather than avoiding it at all
> costs. My little class is obviously silly in many ways (see original
> subject line). But for the first time in many of their lives, grammar
> is
> a class to which they look forward. I hope that's worthwhile.
>
>
> =20
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Gretchen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> See what's
> new at AOL.com and Make
> AOL Your
> Homepage.
>
> To join or leave
> this LISTSERV
> list, please visit the list's web interface at:=20
> 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/
>
> 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/
> =20
> 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=20
> 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/
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________=
_
> Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail!=20
> - http://mail.aol.com
> =3D0
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web=20
> 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/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:42:59 -0500
From: Bob Yates <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Functional grammar definition
Craig's definition of functional grammar is really specific to system =
functional linguistics.
The formalist-functionalist split in linguistics is about whether grammar, =
more specifically syntax, is separate from meaning. Formalists understand =
syntax is separate from meaning; functionalists don't.
There is much in what Craig has written that is not widely accepted, even =
in the various strands of functionalism. One of the claims, which seems =
unique to systemic functional linguistics and Craig has repeated here more =
than once, is the last sentence in the following:
>>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 9/12/2007 8:24 AM >>>
A functional approach allows us to connect what is happening at the=20
level of the sentence with what is happening through the whole text.=20
Language gives us resources that help us represent the world. Language=20
gives us resources that help us establish relationships with a reader =
or=20
readers. Language gives us resources that help us carry out work that=20
extends beyond the boundaries of a single sentence. (Constructing an=20
argument. Making an apology. Telling a story. And so on)
I think most functionalists would say that language has evolved to=20
accomplish these purposes.=20
>>>>
The best refutation of the notion that "language has evolved" to accomplish=
those purposes Craig enumerated is in Bickerton, a real linguist, in his =
book Language and Human Behavior (1995). Bickerton writes that anyone who =
makes the systemic functional linguistic claim about the evolution of =
language should answer three questions. The following is on page 34 in =
Language and Human Behavior.
Question One: Explain how and why, the inventors of language arranged =
things so that "John wants someone to work for" means *John wants a person =
such that he, John, can work for that person* while "John wants someone =
to work for him" means *John wants someone such that that person will work =
for him, John.* State how you yourself learned that reversal of meaning =
in the subordinate clause and show how its invention was culturally and/or =
biologically adaptive.
Question Two: Discuss the two sentences "Which letters did Bill destroy =
without reading" and "Which letters did Bill destroy without reading =
them." Given that the inventors of language made the two sentences in =
Question One mean different things, describe the benefits those inventors =
gained by making the two sentences in this question mean the same.
[My aside: At this point, consider the notion that grammar is merely a set =
of constructions and child language learning is just the result of =
learning such constructions. Without reference to any grammatical =
categories, identify the construction in the Question One which makes it =
possible for pronoun deletion to have a different meaning and the =
construction in Question Two which makes it possible for pronoun deletion =
to have the same meaning. These two pairs of sentences raise serious =
doubts that we learn our grammar from analogy alone.]
Question Three: If the inventors of language made it possible for you to =
say "Mary is someone that people like as soon as they see" and "Mary is =
someone that people like as soon as they see her," why didn't they make it =
possible to say "Mary is someone that people like her as soon as they =
see"? Explain in detail how the far-reaching cultural, social, and =
economic advantages obtained by allowing the first pair of sentences would =
have been frustrated if the latter sentence had been permitted.=20
*******
Bickerton has a very biting footnote for those who dismiss these examples =
as "mere bizarre oddities of English that can be safely ignored as having =
no consequence for the great 'communicative' functions of language. " So =
that we are not constantly repeating noun phrases and pronouns in our =
utterances, there understood constituents, empty categories, in many =
grammatical constructions. These understood constituents are crucial part =
of making language communicative!=20
I will share that entire footnote if someone should suggest these =
sentences are mere oddities. =20
I should add that it is not very interesting to dismiss these sentences as =
not being "real" but made up ones. For the pairs in questions one and =
two, the judgements are very, very clear. If they are not real, why do we =
all have the same judgments? =20
Bob Yates
University of Central Missouri=20
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/
------------------------------
End of ATEG Digest - 11 Sep 2007 to 12 Sep 2007 (#2007-108)
***********************************************************
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/