In a message dated 9/11/2007 6:37:34 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
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.
Craig and Ron,
When I first started teaching (oh, those dear dead decades ago), my
school used Warriners. We grimly taught grammar three hours a week. The
kids hated it. Personally, I didn't mind it; it was easy to teach and
test, and the scope and sequence was clear. I kept seeing, however, the
same errors in writing over and over, regardless of what I had taught in the
grammar class.
I did some research and kept up on it, to find that the experts
couldn't agree on the value of teaching grammar as a way to improve
writing. I became a disciple of Weaver and Noden, et al. Then my
kids seemed better at error detection, but knew very little about
language. I complained loudly and vigorously to this list and others about
the lack of a coherent grammar program for middle school.
People tired of that quickly. Then a lightening strike - why, one
gentleman inquired irascibly, did I insist that teaching grammar improve
writing? Why couldn't we teach grammar for the sake of grammar? Just
because students should know something about their own language? Hmmm. . .
.
That's where this class is coming from, I honestly don't care
if the results are testable and sustainable. I care, short-term and
immediately, that my students chose this class, love this class, are learning
more than they have ever been able to about language (and yes, that part is
measurable - I had most of them last year, and their grades on the tests in my
elective are worlds apart from last year. I do realize that the sample size is
ridiculous, however!). They are excited and begging me to teach areas that
stumped them last year. That alone seems a worthy goal to
me.
Thanks,
Gretchen