Actually, my flagging idea was made with tongue hovering near cheek. Nevertheless, it would be useful to know when a member would like her/his idea to be taken seriously in a research sense. When I read Gretchen's description of her approach, I assumed that she would like it to have been treated in this way. If I had known that all she wanted was to 'kick the idea around', I would not have put a foot anywhere near the ball.
Ron Sheen.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul E. Doniger
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2007 7:15 AM
Subject: Re: Purposes of this listserve (Was: Response to Gretchen and Scott Woods)
I would respectfully remind all that ATEG specifically states its purpose on its web page: "ATEG, an Assembly of the National Council of Teachers of English is a national forum for discussing the teaching of grammar, and welcomes all views on the role of grammar in our schools." 'Forum' and 'discussing' do not necessarily require citations of evidence nor proof of successes. They simply means that anyone with ideas, anecdotes, or experiences in the teaching of grammar that they wish to share, get assistance with, or chat about has the right to do so on these pages and may (should) expect a fair, thoughtful, and civil series of responses.
Yes, as Ron says, we should have "both" (or perhaps several) purposes -- both scholarly and anecdotal postings are useful to us. However, I don't think "flagging" our postings is a good idea. It doesn't take a great effort to skim an e-mail or read its subject line and decide whether one wishes to read or delete.
We need to remain as open minded and flexible as we can if we are to achieve anything meaningful as a group.
Paul E. Doniger
----- Original Message ----
From: Ronald Sheen <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 7:17:02 PM
Subject: Response to Gretchen and Scott Woods was New discussion intelligence and grammar learning
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
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/