ATEG Archives

May 1996

ATEG@LISTSERV.MIAMIOH.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Carole L. Hamilton" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 14 May 1996 12:12:24 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (51 lines)
I like Max's formulation of the question about eaching grammar
and diagramming.
I think that some sort of systematic and structured teaching of
grammar, whether it be diagrams or not is essential to teaching
English, and to learning it. Without knowing the underlying
structure of the
language we use, how can we truly say we understand it?
It seems odd to me that mathematics teachers do not suffer from
this kind of angst over how to teach math.  To leave out the
rules would be pedagogically ridiculous in a math class--why
consider it?  But we consider it endlessly and I suppose it is
because language flows all around us rather than pops up
occassionally as mathematics issues do.  Yesterday I wrote a
check or two, but other than that I did no math.  But I read,
spoke, wrote, and listened all day long.
 
 
To shift the analogy again, consider any kind of skill one
might want to acquire, even ballroom dancing.  If all the
instructor did was to have us view tapes of people dancing (the
equivalent of reading) or had us try it over and over again
(writing practice), then I doubt if I would ever become an
olympic ballroom dancer, nor even one good enough to have some
pride in it, unless I had that intuitive gift for dancing that
some people do.  I know a person who became an excellent
dressage rider by watching others ride; but once she reached a
certain level she began to take lessons now she has certainly heard
a lot of "rules" of riding.  Clearly, she did not think her
intuitive knowledge was enough. My point is that if we don't teach
grammar (as in teaching the rules and quasi-rules of language
structures) then the learning is only partial and
serendipitous.  When I know the rules and have practiced and
have had plenty of feedback on how I am doing, which I
ultimately will internalize, then I understand at the most
useful level.
 
A deliberate and systematic study of grammar would include
whole lessons and not just mini-lessons, and it would include
practice on grammar concepts as structures to
be learned in and of themselves, and not just as they occur
randomly in students' writing.  Maybe some students will become
bored by the lessons because they already know the rule.  I
have succumbed to moments of self-doubt when that has happened
and lost my resolve to teach grammar methodically.  But then I
would get an essay with the very error I was teaching to
correct, and my resolve returned.
 
 
 
Carole Hamilton

ATOM RSS1 RSS2