Craig,
     First, the "debate" that has been going on troubles me in that everyone seems to consider "grammar" as "grammar" but most of the people on this list realize that each of us has his or her own idea of what grammatical terms and concepts should be taught. KISS, for example, makes no mention of count/noncount nouns because it is intended for native speakers, and, as I believe Bob stated, native speakers pick this up without instruction. On the other hand, however, I easily see why ESL instructors would need to include many concepts in their grammars for teaching ESL students.
     Ultimately, I'd say that all this debate is a waste of time until more people begin developing scope and sequence plans. If KISS succeeds, it will be because people find it meaningful and helpful. The debate about grammar being beneficial for students who already have excellent writing abilities was resolved for me years ago. I had an excellent writer want to take my grammar course--because it was on a Saturday morning, his girl-friend had a class, and he needed an elective. I told him it would waste his time. Near the end of the course he told me that I was wrong. He claimed that learning to identify clauses, gerunds, gerudives, noun absolutes, etc. gave him a much better conscious  control of his writing. He could see what he was doing (grammatically) and he could see his options for changing structures much more clearly. I'm beginning to wonder if the ability to identify, in itself, may not be a major tool for improving writing. (But then, I'm not talking simply about identifying constructions, but about being able to identify "every word in any sentence.")
     I do, however, wonder why you seem to suggest that KISS ends with identification. The ability to identify constructions is the absolute necessary first step for students. (Just as the definition of terms is the first step of all the hard sciences. If terms are not specificially defined, no one knows who means what.) But identification, in KISS, is just the first step. See, for example,
http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/kiss/wb/LPlans/G04_WB1.htm#Practice_L3_1_2
     By the way, I too have troubles with your "cognitive" anti-transformational position. If you study KISS theory for a while, you'd see that KISS embodies ideas from both.
     I do appreciate your basic position (if I understand it correctly) and I appreciate your general support of KISS.
Thanks,
Ed
 
P.S. I wasn't going to respond, especially in such length, but I'm in class and my students are writing an in-class essay. I do want to note that the discussion of passive voice was more interesting and probably more important than the larger discussion. I apologize to the person who noted that many teachers cannot themselves recognize passives. (The apology is for forgetting your name.) However, I love the point made -- if teachers cannot recognize passive voice, correctly, then what is the purpose of any discussion of how is should or should not be used? Obviously, the latter is important (because of much of the stupidity that has been written about it), but it makes no sense to teachers or students who cannot first recognize what passive voice is. Indeed, I would suggest that much of the nonsense written about it has been done simply because those who write it have never tried to examine passive voice in real texts. In some cases, teachers pass on misinformation because their college instructors never taught them to identify subjects and verbs in the first place. (Ooops! bad topic.) ;)
 
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 8:58 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Recognition of passives

Ed,
   Absolutely. It's interesting that I had a student ask in class Wednesday why "into" isn't a verb (because it expresses motion.) They also have trouble with words like "claim" when they move into noun slots. They were told that a verb is "an action word", which sufficed precisely because they were never asked to apply it.
   I don't think we should limit our teaching to "identifying" processes. As I said not too long ago, I think we run into trouble by limiting our questions to "How do you classify that" or "Is this correct?" But if we focus on how wonderful verbs are and how central to the way our language works, identifying will come along for the ride.

Craig

Edward Vavra wrote:

Craig,

Aren’t you, below, making an argument that students should have been taught (AND LEARNED) some things (like the ability to identify verbs) before they got to your course?

Ed V.

 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 12:37 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Recognition of passives

 

Ed, Ed, Karl,
   My approach to teaching passives is a little different in my grammar class than it is in my writing classes. In both, I usually start with the idea of "subject function" from functional grammar. There are three subject functions to correspond with the three major metafunctions--grammatical subject (the usual idea of subject), actor (doer of the deed or whatever is verb appropriate), and theme (stepping-off point for the message structure of the clause). I often use the sentence in my book: "A drunk driver killed my dog just before Christmas." In this version, all three functions are conflated. We play around with versions that split the functions.  "My dog was killed by a drunk driver just before Christmas." "Just before Christmas, my dog was killed by a drunk driver."  Each of these represents the same happening in the world, but construes it differently and we discuss that.  So we come at it with a functional orientation, even playing around with sentences like "The driver who killed my dog just before Christmas was drunk" or "The dog the drunk driver killed just before Christmas was mine."  These are approached from the start as functional variations.
   I don't do follow-up testing in my writing classes.  Maybe I should. In quizzes and tests in my grammar class, they need to identify each of these functions within single clause sentences.  I also ask them to convert active sentences into their passive versions. I have given these tests over a number of years and can say that these are pretty much give away points, among the easiest tasks, a good way to balance out the loss of points on more complicated tasks.
   At the end of the semester, we do look at real world texts, and the passive is at least a working concept for them, even though they may not identify every passive that shows up. (Someone in the class probably will.)
   It's hard, of course, to cover everything in a single semester and still have time to put it to work. I suspect, though, that it is not often taught in a way that seems to matter, and students probably know they won't be held accountable. Everything changes when learning grammar is the course's main goal.

Craig

   

Karl Hagen wrote: 

Ed,
 
That's an interesting experiment.
 
Would you be able to share with us more details about the items you used to
test the students' understanding, such as their wording, and how the teachers
actually attempted to introduce the passive during the year? (I would also be
interested in the summary statistics, but that's probably too far off the
purposes of the list.)
 
Regards,
 
Karl
 
Edgar Schuster wrote:
  
A couple of decades ago in September, I tested an entire tenth grade
class on their ability to recognize passives---nearly 500 students in
all, at a reasonably good suburban Philadelphia high school.  I used
five multiple choice questions with four possible answers for each.  (I
believe that means that a chance score would have been 25 percent.)  In
September, the result was 50.0 percent correct.  Recognition of the
passive was supposed to be a "Mastery" objective for tenth grade
English.  I tested the same students at the end of the year in June. 
The result was 51.2 percent correct.  The "gain" was not statistically
significant.
At a later time, teaching junior and senior college business majors at
Penn State, it was clear to me that they could not recognize passives.
I conclude by quoting Ed Vavra, When and how (and we might add, "by
whom?") can passives be effectively taught?
 
Ed Schuster
 
On Feb 4, 2009, at 5:55 PM, Edward Vavra wrote:
 
    
Craig,
First, the passives. Rarely, I think, do we teach students to USE
constructions. They do so naturally. I'm amused to see your question
followed by Scott's, to which I'll try to reply separately. Remember
that I'm working in what I believe to be the current reality--most
students are unable to identify finite verbs. If they cannot recognize
them in the first place, what good does it do to "teach" passive
voice. KISS introduces passives, as a concept to be learned, in fifth
grade, primarily with the objective that students learn to recognize
passive voice. Why? Because some teachers will tell students never to
use passives (silly, but that is currently taught), and some
instructors will tell students to use passive voice. Unless students
can recognize passives when they see them, either "direction" is
meaningless. It's my hope to include exploratory exercises on passives
(uses and abuses) in the upper grades. Most of the
"Practice/Application" sections in the upper KISS grades have slots
for an exercise on passives. See:
http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/kiss/wb/LPlans/G10_WB1.htm#Practice_1
Thus we agree, passives are "important to discourse decisions." Where
we may disagree is when and how they can effectively be taught.
 
I don't understand how you can think that natural language development
can't occur without instruction. Isn't it obvious that the sentences
of older students are more complicated, especially in terms of
embeddings, than the sentences of younger students? Thus, for me, the
question is the purpose of instruction. I'd say that it is to help
students better understand how language works. In other words, the
ability to analyze sentences enables students to discuss (and thus
understand) how passives, for example, work. Or how deep embedding of
clauses may cause problems for readers. True, some people argue
against formal instruction in language, believing that it "just
happens." But just because it happens does not mean that it happens
effectively, and just because they are wrong does not mean that we
have to be.
 
Appositives -- as always, I argue that unless students are taught to
recognize the things in the first place, instruction will not be very
effective. Thus in KISS recognition (identification) always comes
first. But KISS also includes a variety of sentence manipulation
exercises and combining exercises in which students are asked to
combine clauses by using an appositive, etc.
 
My response to your last, and most important question, is the entire
KISS site. It is more or less laid out at:
http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/kiss/wb/LPlans/Overview_Levels.htm
 
Ed
 
 
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
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/