This is a comment on an earlier remark from Johanna Rubba.
The pace of ideas and response has been moving so rapidly on this
listserv that it seems difficult to comment on one topic before it
has been debated and replaced with another focus issue. So, with the
risk of returning to old business, let me say this:
Johanna made an interesting, but perhaps divisive, point in
the way she categorized the types of individuals who comment on this
listserv. As a secondary English teacher for 31 years, I didn't find
myself well represented by her classifications. So let me suggest
another way of organizing commentators.
The first group, I would suggest, consists of teachers (and
some scholars) whose primary interest is "how to help kids understand
and love the power of grammar." These teachers want their kids to
excel with grammar, not only in writing, but in speaking and reading
as well. These folks recognize the value of scholarship, but also
realize the importance of practical classroom strategies.
Consequently, they often allow their success with students dictate
their approach to grammar. Many in this group have constructed their
own grammar programs, programs that might be viewed as "minimal" in
the broad scope of grammatical knowledge, but programs that work for
their students. To achieve success, these teachers draw from a
variety of grammars, including linguistic grammars, functional
grammar, rhetorical grammar, and traditional grammar.
The second camp, I would suggest, is composed of scholars
(and some teachers) who are fascinated with theoretical accuracy.
Their primary concern is defending (or finding) a definitive grammar.
This group looks for validation--- not so much in classroom
success--- but in the logical analysis of a comprehensive taxonomy in
the grammar of their choice. Although this group is equally adamant
in their commitment to helping students, their arguments for validity
rely more on analytical insights than on classroom observation and
experience.
Although I don't presume to place others accurately in
categories, I would personally place folks like Connie Weaver, Rei
Noguchi, Max Morenberg, S. Rice, Don Daiker, Francis Christensen and
a number of others in the first category because I've found their
work invaluable to me as a teacher trying to help kids.
My perspective may be no less divisive than Johanna's, but
it's one teacher's view or perhaps one teacher's rebuttal to being
categorized.
PS: On another topic, I like Connie's suggestion of a joint project.
Below is Johanna's original comment:
Thoughts on another point I see cutting across postings: There seems to
be a divide among listers (at least the ones who post) on what purpose
grammar teaching should serve. One group seems to advocate that it be
_relatively_ narrowly focused on consistent and persistent problems
students have with their writing: achieving effective style; using
standard grammar, punctuation, etc.; and catching errors in
editing/revising. Bob Yates and Connie Weaver jump to mind. There are
probably others who just have slipped my mind right now.
The other group seems to advocate teaching grammar as a way of bringing
students to a deeper understanding of the structure of English --
focusing not just on what is problematic for students in their writing,
but on understanding how grammar (syntax) functions in language in
putting meanings together and in creating textual coherence and style.
Dance like nobody is watching. Love like you'll never get hurt.
|
