John, What a wonderful assignment. I usually give a paper option to students who want to bring up low quiz or test grades, but I have been thinking about building a writing assignment into the full course. This would be a natural one for future teachers. Craig> Craig, > I understand completely your points. The most difficult part of > teaching > language arts teachers-in-training is getting them all hyped to teach > grammar only to disappoint them with the reality of support they'll likely > receive from their administrators, fellow teachers, and textbooks. I try > to > equip them to handle that reality as best I can; I point them to resources > like ATEG, I give them lists of great texts to use as supplements, and I > point them to scope and sequence plans available like Ed Vavra's KISS (I > may > have issues with some aspects of it, but many kudos to him for its very > existence!). The Grammar Alive! text isn't a solution in any way, but it's > a > wonderful tool. I've always found the three goals helpful when writing > lesson plans; they articulate nicely the "big picture" of what I try to > accomplish. > > Also, to anyone who works with teachers-in-training, let me make a > suggestion: consider as a final project the creation of a Scope and > Sequence > for grammar teaching. I've done this with darn good results. The students > receive the assignment on Day 1 and have all semester to consider and > construct as they go. In nearly all cases, my past students create a draft > early on based on their prior knowledge of "grammar" and completely trash > it > and draw up a new one by finals time. Many of these teachers later tell me > that they still use their S&S plan when they are unhappy with their > textbooks. > > John Alexander > Austin, Texas > > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> John, >> Those are worthy goals, and I echo your endorsement of the book. >> I wasn't part of the team that produced it, but from what I understand >> it morphed from a scope and sequence project, and NCTE didn't want to >> go along with endorsing an actual scope and sequence component within >> the book. The most controversial of the three would be the second goal, >> not currently part of most English curriculumms. Those of us who teach >> semester long grammar courses at the college level know how amibitious >> a goal it is. But there's no place in the book where it's stated, for >> example, that a student should know determiners by ninth grade or modal >> auxiliaries by 11th or even that a graduating student should be >> familiar with those categories and able to apply them to a particular >> text. I have yet to find a student coming out of high school who could >> meet that second goal. Mostly their knowledge of grammar is limited to >> prescriptive rules of the questionable variety we have been discussing. >> Is that because I teach in New York State? I'm not sure. >> Part of our problem comes from the fact that we are an assembly of >> NCTE. When scope and sequence came up again two ATEG conferences ago, >> there was some concern that we should try to lobby NCTE for change >> rather than develop an opposing program. Other people felt, perhaps >> with some justification, that thoughful grammars are already available, >> that we mainly need to endorse them rather than try to develop our own. >> My own position was and has been very different from that, but I have >> tried to be part of the loyal opposition. >> In New York state, there has been an affirmation of "literary >> elements" >> in the English curriculum. Metaphor is a literary element, but phrases >> and clauses are not. I'm not quite sure who has decided where to draw >> the line. I think much might be gained if we can get people to >> recognize that most great literature is simply a highly effective use >> of ordinary language. It's hard to make the point if the nature of >> ordinary language is below conscious radar. >> It is also hard to be in favor of teaching grammar when the teaching >> of >> grammar can mean so many different things. As Susan pointed out, most >> progressive teachers still think of it as harmful. That doesn't >> necessarily mean that we should support ALL teaching of grammar in >> opposition to that. It may mean admitting that some approaches can do >> more harm than good. >> >> Craig >> >> In our most recent thread about sentence structure, variation in style, >> > and >> > composition, the fundamental intersection of grammar and instructional >> > goals >> > was mentioned. I want to take just a moment to post the "Three Goals >> for >> > Grammar Teaching" contained in one of my favorite texts, *Grammar >> Alive! >> A >> > Guide for Teachers*, written by members of ATEG. This is just a very >> basic >> > overview; the actual text elaborates on these goals quite elegantly. >> From >> > page 4 of the text: >> > >> > "Goal A: >> > Every student, from every background, will complete school with the >> > ability >> > to communicate comfortably and effectively in both spoken and written >> > Standard English, with awareness of when use of Standard English is >> > appropriate. >> > >> > Goal B: >> > Every student will complete school with the ability to analyze the >> > grammatical structure of sentences within English texts, using >> grammatical >> > terminology correctly and demonstrating knowledge of how >> sentence-level >> > grammatical structure contributes to the coherence of paragraphs and >> > texts. >> > >> > Goal C: >> > Every student will complete school with an understand of, and >> appreciation >> > for, the natural variation that occurs in language across time, social >> > situation, and social group. While recognizing the need for mastering >> > Standard English, students will also demonstrate the understanding of >> the >> > equality in the expressive capacity and linguistic structure among a >> range >> > of language varieties both vernacular and standard, as well as an >> > understanding of language-based prejudice." >> > >> > These goals won't make everyone happy, but I find them to be succinct, >> > cogent, and extremely effective when implemented. I believe that, when >> > used >> > together, these goals provide the context (the "why are we learning >> this?" >> > solution) and the mechanics of grammar instruction. >> > >> > I hope someone on the list who is not familiar with them finds them >> > useful! >> > >> > John Alexander >> > Austin, Texas >> > >> > 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/