notes from William J. McCleary:
>> But I decided not to volunteer to do Syntax in the Schools because (1) I
>> don't feel compatible with the majority of the members of ATEG, who seem
>> to
>> wish for a return to the old days of teaching schoolbook grammar at every
>> grade,
I also don't feel compatible with the majority of the members of ATEG,
because much of the conversation seems to be focused on correctly labeling
certain parts of speech, and in "proper" usage, rather than in the use of
grammar and syntax as an assistance to the effective communication of
meaning, and very little of the conversation deals with either the "why"
and "how" of teaching grammar. Personally, I'm all for using incorrect
grammar when it advances the impact of meaning of something I'm writing or
saying more effectively.
>>and (2) I don't feel that anyone is doing any research that would
>> answer the questions that face us and that could be published in SIS.
Are we even asking the questions that need to be researched? Or are we
assuming we all know them, or that we all have the same questions?
>> There
>> are some darn good reasons why the teaching of grammar has virtually died
>> out in many schools, but we don't have many people addressing them.
Yes, I think we need to put those reasons out on the table and look at
them, instead of ignoring them and pretending they aren't as important as
our beliefs that grammar should be taught.
>> It could be, of course, that the work is being done but is published
>> elsewhere; one does not get much credit toward tenure or promotion for
>> publishing in a newsletter instead of a journal. It could also be that
>> doing the necessary work calls for a person with a broad and deep
>> background in linguistics, pedagogy, stylistics, sociolinguistics, etc.,
>> and such birds are rare.
An alternative might be for people of different backgrounds to collaborate.
When I stated above that I am looking for a school with strengths in
several different areas, it does not need to mean that I want one advisor
that is strong in all those areas -- it simply means that I need to have
access to several advisors that I can work together with simultaneously.
I wonder also, is funding available for research into this area -- since it
doesn't appear to be a particularly high priority at the moment.
>> There is still some
>> teaching of mechanics/usage, but I have seldom seen much being taught
>> about syntax.
Yes. Interestingly, in the area of reading also, there are two major areas
that cause students comprehension problems, and that are used to determine
reading level. These two areas are vocabulary and sentence
length/structure (very much tied to syntax -- ). There is a great deal of
focus, in my reading classes, on helping kids develop their vocabulary and
in learning to use context to comprehend vocabulary, but I have seen
nothing in the way of helping kids develop strategies to deal with complex
sentence structures. --- Thus, this is an area that tends to be neglected
both in reading and writing instruction -- with the exception of stuff
written about sentence combining -- but I think we need to go beyond that.
>> In theory, there is plenty of room for the study of language and
>> composition within literature. The thematic unit is often referred to as
>> the INTEGRATED thematic unit, which means that language and composition
>> would be integrated with literary study. But too often this integration is
>> left for the teacher to do, for there are few published units that do a
>> good job of integration.
At the MS and HS levels, the "Responding to Literature" texts (I forget the
publisher) and a series of ethnic literatures from Harcourt-Brace-Jovanich
(I've used the African American and the Mexican American texts) not only
have quality literature in them, but also wonderful reading and writing
exercises that integrate literature and composition. They do not, however,
do anything with syntax.
I think that a number of publishers do endeavor to integrate research-based
knowledge into their manuals and textbooks -- but with limited research in
the effective teaching of syntax, at least readily available and widely
published research, there really isn't any call for that kind of integration.
>>ATEG needs to adopt a realistic program and locate
>> (or develop) professionals who are doing work that could help in
>> developing
>> the needed new approaches. Otherwise, nothing much is going to happen.
I'm not sure that adopting A Program is really the best answer -- since
people would feel that they either have to go with it or reject it. More
useful, perhaps, might be to develop a research base that promotes the
theoretical foundation and rationale for a number of approaches that
teachers can pick from and adapt to their students. I think at present,
the foundation is simply different people's beliefs that grammar
instruction is important -- at least that is what I see from the comments
and focus of discussion on this list. However, if anyone wants to get
beyond the idea of "preaching to the choir", you need a much more solid
foundation than this. Once the foundation is built, a number of strategies
and approaches can be developed, and sample programs can serve as a
bouncing off point for other programs, curriculum developers, and textbook
publishers.
Susan Mari Witt
240 ERML, MC-051
1201 W. Gregory
Urbana, IL 61801
Phone: (217) 333-1965
Fax: (217) 333-4777
[log in to unmask]
|
