Ed,
My post was partly in response to what I read as your dissatisfaction
with the fact that nothing had gotten done, in a concrete sense. My argument is
that the difficulties in implementation are a political problem (interpreting “political”
broadly), and that conscious attention to the logistics of consensus-building
and compromise are a good approach to solving such problems. I honestly don’t
think that’s a red herring, although I do find myself growing nervous
about what I see as my own use of admin-speak (if end up tossing out terms like
“pro-active” or “leveraging,” I hope someone will slap
me).
I also don’t think anything I (or anyone else) has
argued for would entail accepting a system in which major terms shifted every
year; for example, I specifically advocated one in which major category terms
stayed constant but more subcategory terms were gradually added. Shifting terms
are a problem resulting from lack of a planned curriculum, not from a design
feature of anyone’s proposed curriculum.
As for named systems: If ATEG comes up with a consistent system
and wants to name it, I’d be all for that. And if the group argues
forcefully for its adoption, I’d be all for that too. I just know that if
all of this is more likely to work if the system itself is the creation
of the group and isn’t seen as one person’s, or one camp’s.
At the very least, it needs to result transparently from a process that
everyone else can see is even-handed.
A side note: I focused on terms simply because in my experience
terminology is one of the major loci of dissension. Craig and others are
entirely right in being nervous about a “name that item” approach
to grammar; it’s just that the terms so often turn into a sticking point.
How many people on this list honestly think that students *shouldn’t*
have experiences that engage them actively in thinking about how recasting a
sentence affects its meaning? The terminology is focal to the process
only because of its status as a roadblock.
Sincerely,
Bill Spruiell
From: Assembly for the
Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Edward
Vavra
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 3:19 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: scope and sequence: was clause or phrase
John, Bill, and Craig;
A teacher of fifth graders (who was and
may still be on this list) suggested that I waste my time in addressing this
list. That was several years ago, and helped me break the habit. Craig’s comments
on scope and sequence were the only thing that I have seen (in years) that is
relevant to the major problems of teaching grammar in K-12. Thus I responded.
I’m never sure whether people who respond to my comments just don’t
get it, or whether they intentionally start red herrings. I’ll try
briefly again.
1.
ATEG should support
basic SEVERAL NAMED scope and sequence plans. Each plan should be centered on
at least basic agreement on definition of terms. I’m trying to restrain
myself here, so I’m not saying what is in my mind. Instead I’ll
simply say that those of you who advocate variety in definitions are being
selfish and don’t seem to care that teachers and students in K-12 do not
want different names/definitions for the same thing. A “main
clause” should not include subordinate clauses in one classroom and, in
the next year’s classroom, include them. An infinitive construction
should not be called a “phrase” in one year, and a
“clause” or “clausid” in the next. Those of you who
think it should are, in essence, tickling your own toes. Consistent terminology
enables students to use that terminology to discuss style and logic. KISS, for
example, encourages exercises in which students statistically analyze their own
writing. At the basic level, this can be for words per main clause and
subordinate clauses per main clause. (These are two of the basic units of
measurement suggested by Hunt, O’Donnell, and Loban.) But if in one
year main clauses to not include subordinate clauses, and in the next year they
do, such studies would be nonsense. Note that these statistical studies have
the students analyzing their own writing and comparing it to that from state
standards documents and to that of their classmates. In KISS, teachers can
begin this type of project in fourth grade and do one or more every year
thereafter. See: http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/kiss/wb/LPlans/G04_WB_Write.htm#Stats_4th.
With consistent terminology, in later years students working within KISS can
add to their analysis such things as the embedded level of clauses,
semi-reduced clauses, appositives, gerundives, etc.
I’ve seen members of
this group talking about teaching style, but in most cases I’m fairly
certain that the instruction is largely sterile. In simplistic sentences
students may be able to follow, and even do the exercise(s). But if the
students cannot even identify the subjects and verbs in their own writing, they
will have trouble transferring what has been taught to their own writing. And
students who have major grammatical problems already in their writing will
almost certainly add more problems as they try to incorporate the new material
into their writing. (It would be interesting to know who on this list teaches
writing as well as grammar. Most writing instructors are probably familiar with
what I’m talking about. Teach a lesson on semicolons to join main
clauses, and semicolons start appearing everywhere in sentences. Ask the
students to identify the main clauses, and they can’t.)
2.
“Power
plays” are precisely what is needed to improve the teaching of grammar.
My guess is that most members of ATEG would agree that there is a lot of
useless (harmful?) instructional material in the classrooms. ATEG is not going
to get rid of it if all the members do is to continue babbling about
definitions. (I’m beginning to think of the group as the “Grammar
Grannies.”)
3.
I would support ATEG,
even if it did not include the KISS Approach within its (several?) sequence
plans, if ATEG starts to develop sequence plans. What constructions should be
taught first, next, etc., and why? The suggestion of starting with main clauses
is, I would suggest, not satisfactory. This too is a common problem in ATEG.
Members want to “teach,” but they do not really care what students
“learn.” To understand main clauses, to be able to use that
understanding, one has to be able to identify main clauses in the first place.
How are you going to enable students to do that?
4.
Note that by
supporting SEVERAL NAMED plans, ATEG would forcefully be saying that there are
different ways of looking at grammar. The group itself does not have to support
any plan over the others. The power play comes in the acceptance of the plans
by teachers and parents. The scope and sequence plan that works best should
eventually displace the nonsense that is currently out there (and the ATEG
plans that don’t work well). (I’m including KISS in that.)
As I think I mentioned once before on this list,
I’ve got a lot of work yet to be done on the KISS site, but the basic
layout is fairly set, some printable books are already available, and it should
not take too long before at least one complete book is ready for each of the
five KISS levels. Once that is done, I intend to devote some of my time to
articles, perhaps a book about the teaching of grammar. My initial thought for
a book title was “Deadly Grammar Instruction.” Part of the
book would explain why it is deadly. As it stands now, ATEG is among the
killers. I would, of course, like to see that change. Stop thinking about
yourselves and your own brand of grammar, and start thinking about how to help
students. One of the things that makes me laugh (and cry) about this group is
that many members admit that students cannot master basic grammatical
constructions in one year, but all members seem to be interested only in what
they can teach in one year or semester.
Have a Merry Christmas and Happy New year.
Ed
From: Assembly for the Teaching
of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John
Dews-Alexander
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:29 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: scope and sequence: was clause or phrase
I think Bill makes some great points. Although I can
sympathize with Ed's great frustration over the lack of consistent terminology,
I can't help but feel that the myriad of approaches to grammar is an
asset. Sure, it feels like a strike against us sometimes, but it is a testament
to the fact that grammar, as an aspect of language, IS more than a single,
codified rulebook of etiquette. Trying to pretend like we've been able to
package a nice and neat grammar package for teachers (even if we were able to)
seems like a slight of hand, pulling the teachers'/students' attentions away
from the gray and ugly areas we don't want them to see.
All of my students, whether they be high schoolers or
teachers-in-training at the college level, squirm when they get a glimpse at
the reality of data/corpus-backed grammar. They squirm a lot. They ask for an
answer (singular) for each term, each construction analysis, etc. After a
semester (a meager beginning), they stop asking for the answer (although I'm
sure they still wish for it -- even I do that). They begin to realize that
answers depend on approaches, context, and usage. I never claim to run a model
classroom, but one thing I am proud of is honesty with my students, and in the
case of grammar, that honesty tends to lead to constructive teaching opportunities.
Having said that, I certainly understand and advocate the
need for some semblance of consistency in terminology from a pedagogical
perspective, especially in a spiraled curriculum that would take a student from
elementary studies to advanced high school studies. I remain optimistic that
ATEG can offer such consistency. It would depend on concessions and compromises
from different theoretical camps as Bill points out. I think it would also
depend on a commitment to teaching flexibility (i.e. emphasis on concept, not
the label used to describe the concept) as a part of the curriculum. A student
who is aware that language ain't easy is much more prepared for grammar than
one who goes scrambling for a delineated rulebook at every turn.
John Alexander
Austin, Texas
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Ed, Craig, et al.:
To some extent, what we're seeing is exactly the same process that
resulted in Britain (and the U.S.) never having the equivalent of the
French Academe, i.e. a "legislated" grammar of the language. France
and
Spain created their academies via a kind of top-down approach:
regardless of what other grammarians thought, if the King liked you, you
won. The British -- and we -- are grammatically Whiggish. Lack of a
legislated grammar isn't necessarily a bad thing, but of course, it does
cause problems in relation to curriculum.
The solution may lie in a more open discussion of the process by which
we work than by arguing from the start over specific terms. We'll be
successful if we can reach consensus, but consensus (as we've seen) will
*never* occur when it appears as if one person's, or one camp's,
definitions and model are being proposed to the exclusion of others.
Arguing in favor of any one approach, be it KISS or any other, can come
across as a power move. There *are* multiple definitions of "clause,"
and each is valid to the extent it works well within the approach that
defines it -- but we do need to pick one if we want to define a scope
and sequence, even loosely. We all have to realize we have emotional
investments in our own positions, and be willing to attempt to back off
from pushing too much.
As I mentioned in a previous post, I think there's not *too* much
disagreement over claims like "this construction is different from that
one"; where the disagreement comes in is the terminology we attach to
the difference, and the explanations we propose for it. We have to deal
with terminology no matter what, but it's possible to adopt a more
agnostic approach to the explanations (and yes, I realize fully that
arguing for an agnostic approach is itself an approach, but I can't
think of any other way out of this particular Klein bottle). From the
standpoint of K12 grammar, it's enough that we recognize that
constructions *are* different, and that we have some handy terms to use.
It's possible that we could reach consensus on particular terms on the
basis of pedagogic utility. I'd argue that a three-way split of "phrase
vs. reduced clause vs. full clause" is handy in the classroom, since
students frequently don't want to lump "giving Athelfrith some
lutfisk"
together with "a book." But I'd be willing to back down on that,
especially if a lot of other people disagreed with me. We just need an
organized way of resolving that kind of dispute, and (on an individual
basis) be willing to accept compromises. Optimally, the same basic
category terms would be used in 2nd and 11th grade, but with additional
recognized subcategories at the higher grade levels.
Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Edward Vavra
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 5:51 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: scope and sequence: was clause or phrase
Craig,
Your post is very interesting, but it does not go far enough. I
would say that ATEG is a dangerous organization. (There are times when
I'm sorry that I started it.) Your explanations for the "hiatus" are
good, but they underemphasize the self-interest of many of the ATEG
members--their desire to defend their own brands of grammar. Are the
numerous "explanations" ("clause or phrase") not poisonous
for teachers
and students? The major problem with instruction in grammar is the
confusion in the terminology, but members of ATEG cannot even divide
into sub-groups to establish different scope and sequence designs. Nor
it seems, can they agree that students at a given grade level should be
able to identify the clauses in typical writing by students in their own
grade level. (A major part of this problem is that members cannot agree
on the definition of a clause.)
I basically gave up on ATEG after the first Seattle conference.
(I
believe it was in 2000?) At that conference, I suggested two or three
separate groups (for different designs), but that was shot down. ATEG
was going to make one "scope and sequence" design. We can see, almost
a
decade later, how that worked out. I remember pouting at the conference.
(I'm a little boy at heart.) Meanwhile, of course, a decade's worth of
students have gone through school with minimal, and usually poor
instruction in grammar.
I decided that ATEG is useless, or actually harmful. In that it
claims to be teaching grammar, it appears to fill a void. But all it
really does is add to the confusion. As you know, I've been spending my
time on the KISS curriculum -- a very definite "scope and sequence"
plan. http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/kiss/wb/PBooks/index.htm
Thanks for bringing this question up, but I really don't see ATEG
developing one plan, and it appears that members are afraid of the
competition that would result from several plans.
Ed V.
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 11:35 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: scope and sequence: was clause or phrase
Richard,
Scope and sequence is in a bit of hiatus. This might be a good time
to talk about the reasons for that and the difficulties around doing
that through ATEG.
My own frustration dates back to two conferences ago, when I thought
we would make great progress on scope and sequence at the conference. My
plan, which I thought was agreed on by the conference committee, was to
break into subgroups and have people make suggestions about what might
be covered. We could have a sub-group making recommendations about
Standard English, punctuation, and so on, focusing on the knowledge
about language that wold be most helpful and useful. I was hoping people
would then feel a vested interest in the project. There was resistance,
though, from different sources. Some people questioned whether ATEG, as
a sub-group of NCTE, should be taking a position on grammar at odds with
our parent organization. That conflict of interest has been a constant
issue in ATEG, and I don't fault anyone from bringing it up. One result
was that we largely used our time to construct a position statement
asking NCTE to endorse the systematic teaching of grammar. The position
statement, which I thought was very thoughtful and nicely written, was
simply tabled at the NCTE convention. In other words, ATEG tried to
work through official channels as a sub-group of NCTE, ibut was stymied
by those who feel they know more about this than we do and who, in
effect, control our existence as an organization.
The other problem came from those at the conference, including the
leadership, who feel that scope and sequence already exists and that we
have no need to construct one. My own tendency has been to lobby for new
ways of looking at grammar, but ATEG has long been an organization made
up of people with fairly conservative (not regressive, not by a long
shot) views. This was hard on me because I felt I had a lot invested in
the project, but would be asked to shut out from the conversation the
new possibilities in grammar that excite me the most.
But let me give a more friendly view of that. Many of us involved in
the project have written books on the subject, and you can't really do
that without engaging the issue in ways that you feel invested in. What
happens if the group advocates a scope that doesn't fit those views?
I sometimes feel I am shooting myself in the foot every time I move
on in my thinking because I have a 2005 text that now constitutes an
older position.
This might be a way of saying that those of us who know the most tend
to have an investment in particular approaches. For ATEG as a whole,
those approaches have probably already been written.
As many of you know, much of the conversation about scope and
sequence was worked out by the New Public Grammar group. I have never
wanted that group to be in conflict (to compete with) ATEG. So at that
point, I didn't even feel comfortable airing these frustrations on the
NPG list. I was, and still am, nervous about creating a rift in the
public grammar community. I didn't want anyone to feel I was trying to
pull people away from ATEG.
The unfortunate result has been that Scope and sequence hasn't moved
forward for some time. A few of us have been in discussion about
starting it back up again as we restart talk on the NPG list.
NPG has the benefit of being separate from NCTE. It can take a strong
contrary perspective and not feel uncomfortable about that.
It can also maintain friendly relationships with ATEG without the
necessity of ATEG endorsing its views.
I apologize if I have misrepresented anyone's views or anyone
else's
views about the history of the project. I don't think of it as anyone
being at fault. These are very predictable difficulties given the nature
of the project.
Craig
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/