First, my apologies for the confusion over the two
members with the same name Scott and particularly to Scott Wood for suggesting
that he had not responded to my response to the other Scott.
However, as they were both arguing for a similar
approach to getting learners to understand some grammatical problem (ie to
reach some valid generalisation based on exemplars), the points I made apply to
both.
As to Gretchen Lee's objection (see below) to my
appeal for more rigour in the discussion of different approaches to
teaching grammar, it touches on a fundamental issue concerning the
purposes of this List. Is it to be little more than an extension of coffee-break chat where, in Gretchen's
terms, people can 'kick around their teaching experiences' or is it to be a List
where we make some attempt to go beyond the anecdotal.
Actually, I suppose, there's no reason why it should
not have both purposes. However, in that case, it might be necessary to
flag 'kick around discussions' in order that members such as myself know that
they they should not take them as subjects for rigorous discussion.
As to Scott Woods' accusing me of making a personal
attack on Scott, I appeal to him to either cite the words which he considers to
be 'a personal attack' or to withdraw his accusation.
As to his following proposal, I am assuming that
it is not a 'kick around subject' and this, because it reveals a knowledge
of the academic field and asks questions the answers to which if valid would
have crucial consequences for teaching practice. However, I consider
the questions so lacking in specific detail that any response would
necessarily need to have various added qualifications.
Take as an example the following from SW:
'Regarding example sets and repetition, regardless of the explanations
given by the teacher, does anyone disagree with the
claim that people do not need examples and non-examples to learn
concepts?
I find it simply impossible to offer a useful response without
knowing
a) The classroom situation in which this activity is supposed to take
place - level, subject, purpose etc.
b) What is meant by concepts. Whether SW is talking
here about grammatical concepts or concepts in general?
c) How we can ignore explanations if we do not know what form
they take and in what contexts they are presented.
d) What is being repeated? How the repetition is
achieved. Is SW talking here about what is sometimes called 'mindless
repetition' or does he mean 'meaningful repetition'?
Now, if other members have no such difficulty in addressing SW's questions,
I hope they say so and answer his questions. I'd really appreciate
reading their answers.
Ron Sheen