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/