Dear ATEGers,

 

A few weeks ago I asked for help on identifying an approach to teaching composition known as the "thought approach." Thanks to Martha Kolln and Ed Schuster for responding. In addition to the information they provided, I did some digging on my own. I thought I would provide a short summary of what I found out, since I have seen this referred to many times, and I suspect that this information might help others who might also run into references to this methodology.

 

It appears that this pedagogical approach was popular during the 1930s and 1940s, and perhaps even into the 1950s. The primary spokesperson for the method seems to be Ellen Frogner, who wrote her dissertation at Minnesota on this topic (see this and other references below). Frogner's articles are supplemented in the reference list by an article by Hoskins, which is actually a review of a popular textbook of the 1930s that used the thought approach as its primary pedagogical methodology.

 

In essence, in the thought approach the student is encouraged to think in "wholes"-whole sentences, clauses, and phrases, and to relate punctuation to meaning. Formal grammar is in the background, and when mentioned is simplified and reduced. The thought approach is also used to emphasize the coordination and subordination of ideas, and the resultant mastery of the appropriate clause types, leading to a variety of complex sentences and a mature style. All of this is accomplished with virtually no reference to any formal rules of grammar.

 

The thought approach is also used to deal with common errors, such as sentence fragments, run-on (or comma splice) errors, and other sentence boundary issues-on the basis that the students look for "what makes sense," giving primary attention to the validity of the ideas expressed, rather than trying to remember and apply memorized rules.

 

As I see it, this approach would come close to what I would call "grammar in context," or perhaps "functional grammar" or something similar, since it tries to teach the necessary grammar by approaching it "through the back door" rather than directly. One thing that always needs stating, it seems to me, is that no matter what type of approach is used, grammar IS being taught. The difference here seems to be that it (the thought approach) was a functional, contextual approach instead of a formal, linguistic approach.

 

For those interested in delving deeper into this method, most of the articles listed below (except for Frogner's dissertation) are easily retrieved from online sources. If anyone has any questions, I will be happy to respond.

 

References

 

Frogner, Ellen. "Clarifying Some Facts." English Journal 29.8 (1940), 653-655.

 

---. "Grammar and Thought Approaches in Improving Sentence Structure." School Review 47.9 (1939), 663-675.

 

---. "Grammar Approach versus Thought Approach in Teaching Sentence Structure." English Journal 28.7 (1939), 518-526.

 

---. "A Study of the Relative Efficacy of a Grammatical and a Thought Approach to the Improvement of Sentence Structure in Grades Nine and Eleven." Ph.D. dissertation, U. of Minnesota, 1939.

 

Hoskins, Luella. "The 'Thought Approach' to Composition." English Journal 26.7 (1937), 592-593.

 

Tim
 
Tim Hadley
Research Assistant, The Graduate School
Ph.D. candidate, Technical Communication and Rhetoric
Texas Tech University
 

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/