>

Hi folks, quick note, in reply to Ed's query
see below

_______

> Johanna writes, "I would ask Ed, too, to take our testimony about 'what works' as seriously as he wants us to take his in his reports of many years' experience. Rebecca Wheeler and I, and other people, have attested to successful learning happening in their classes."
>
>      I would never deny that any of my colleagues has been successful, but the questions are ¯ in what context and for what purpose? Rebecca, for example, in her post, notes her success. But we need to know how much the students she talks about knew about grammar BEFORE they took her course. And then, I want to know if we need to introduce the terms "morphology" and "nominal" before students will be able to understand that "college" can function as a noun or as an adjective.

: As to how much my students knew grammar before they took my course, I would say zippo.... Indeed, I regularly do these little surveys of grammar knowledge, attitudes the first day of the semester. My little surveys ask about a range of different terminology (noun, verb, preposition, adverb, adjective, relative clause, gerund, passive, active), give a few example sentences for them to label, and then I ask about feelings/attitudes toward grammar.

Most students can name/define what a noun is. maybe what an adjective is. and maybe a verb. Beyond that, the definitions are left blank. And when it comes to actually IDENTIFYING any of these, the students largely can not. tho i've not looked systematically at the current set.

>

On the issue of whether we need to introduce the terms 'morphology'.... BEFORE the students can understand that 'college' can do an adjectival like job... I would say that's a bit of a red herring.  I dont actually EVER use the term 'morphology' in class. though, if it were part of a curriculum I needed to adopt. I could see myself introducing that term WHILE the student is exploring the structure and function of 'college' as in "the college dorm". So, I do not see it as an issue of what must be introduced BEFORE they can understand a phenomenon. But I may see introducing terms as PART of students coming to understand a phenomenon.  So, I see understanding something, and finding the terms to talk about that
thing as all interwoven together.

I have not had time to look at Ed's KISS work yet. but it is hot on my list of things to do, right after dealing with SIS matters early next week. Am looking forward to finally catching up on that significant work you've done, Ed.



>
>
>      We are, by the way, making progress. I note that Rebecca's explanation concerned verbs and verb phrases, but is all in basically traditional terminology. And I note that Johanna defines clauses as having finite verbs. Are we all agreed on that?

yes, that is basically traditional terminology.
glad to hear the sentiment of we're making progress!!!!!!!!!


> If we are not, I suggest we have problems. If we are, then we are at last moving. This project isn't going to make any significant progress until the committee members, at minimum, agree on some of the fundamental concepts that need to be taught. If there is no agreement on that, then terminology will multiply, and teachers will ignore the proposal.

Ed, I think that one of Johanna's key points is that the fundamental concepts to be taught would be those which are age appropriate to the developmental stage of the student. And to know this draws on insights from language acquisition, a field that I know precious little about..... So, in part, I think we need to look at what kids/students are inherently moving toward commanding, as a natural part of their langauge development and teach THAT.  But I'm not the person to say what it is...

>
>     I may, obviously, be wrong. And all I am saying is, "Don't expect me to give up the KISS Approach in order  to support a curriculum developed by the 3S Committee, unless I am convinced that the Committee's approach is better." If the committee goes in a direction that I cannot agree with, I will, of course, put in my two cents worth. (Have I ever not raised hell?)

I don't think ANYONE is asking you to "give up the KISS approach"

>
>       Let me ask this: Several years ago I suggested that ATEG adopt the standard that, at minimum, every high school student should be able to identify the clauses in a typical passage of high school writing. My proposal was shot down, because, as I understood it, we weren't ready for it. So I ask, are we now ready? Remember, I'm asking about a minimum ¯ the ATEG proposal may call for much more than just the identification of clauses. My question is, can it call for that much?
>

Which kind of clauses, Ed?
Main clause? subordinate clause? The non-finite (untensed) clauses that, for example, may do the job of subject, or direct object ( That we all do make progress is desirable; for us to make progress is desirable; Making progress is desirable).

Personally, I'd like students to be able to identify the subject, and the main verb in a sentence -- and that includes when we confound the picture by having a relative clause hooked onto the subject.  BUT as soon as I say this, it feels frustrating, because that is just a teensy blip on the radar screen, and is not part of a broader developmental package which is what 3S is working on... But I toss that out, in responsiveness to the sentiment and extent of Ed's question... which is basically, "what is the utter rudiment we would want?"

I don't know that I would want to proceed by 'utter rudiments....'  The project design that Johanna has laid out is comprehensive, and systematic. And As we all find the time to work on these things (Jo inspires by mentioning she's shooting for 3 hours a week! an achievable goal!!!), I think that the kind of concrete discussion which Ed is so aptly calling for will indeed emerge.

cheers,

rebecca