Johanna,
   It's pitiful. Sterile definitions with simplistic examples and no sense of application. Where are you having students analyze real sentences from their own writing? 
Ed


>>> [log in to unmask] 04/01/05 4:20 PM >>>
Ed Vavra writes,

"I have little faith in the linguists-- they are too concerned with 
teaching linguistics and, for example, refuse to consider a basic 
uniform set of terminology for pedagogy in K-12."

Come on, Ed, will you drop this generalized criticism already? You know 
very well that many of us, and I believe most ATEG linguists, are not 
concerned only with teaching linguistics (which you don't define). Many 
of us have as our goal the integration of linguistic wisdom into the 
K-12 language arts curriculum, because definitions and teaching methods 
based on linguistics work better than traditional ones.

Yes, we often have arcane discussions on this list about particular 
sentences.  That is not the only thing that needs to happen on the list. 
I have also seen teaching tips for particular points (I've even posted 
some myself). We often have discussions on global mindset change, which 
I think is quite important. It can't be the whole game. But there are 
plenty of venues besides ATEG for things to happen.

If you want to see my terminology for basic grammatical items like 
clauses and sentences, grammatical roles, etc., just visit the following 
website:

http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba/syn/SyntaxT&C.html 

It is more or less in outline form, so it doesn't take long to read.

Craig writes,

"We still seem to hold to the untested assumption that kids learn their 
native language naturally, so there's no benefit in paying attention to 
it except to correct mistakes. "

If someone is assuming kids learn their native language naturally, then 
how do they arrive at the illogical conclusion that they make mistakes? 
How can kids learn their native language wrongly? They learn what is 
modeled in their close surroundings (though they might introduce a few 
minor innovations). Most schooling doesn't seem to assume that kids have 
much "knowledge of language" at all, because they confuse knowledge of 
language with being able to find subjects, etc. (i.e., knowledge of 
grammar terms and analysis) and being able to use grammar rules they 
have never been exposed to (like "correct" use of "who/whom").

The real problem is that most native-English-speaking kids will come in 
with a language that shares the majority of its rules with standard 
English, even kids from nonstandard-dialect backgrounds. They will not 
yet know formal English, or formal academic English, especially those 
rules of formal academic English that are virtually dead even in 
well-educated speakers, such as "whom" rules, "It is I", subject-verb 
agreement in the case of long subjects, avoidance of singular "they", etc.

We can't expect to change the prescriptive mindset overnight. The 
standards are there, the tests are there, and thank goodness the 
standards do not include teaching methods. Besides the standards, most 
if not all states use mass-produced teaching materials from major 
publishers like Houghton-Mifflin, Glencoe-McGraw-Hill, etc. These 
materials DO contain teaching methods, of the poorer variety. SOME 
teachers use them (I still hear of teachers in Cal. schools who are not 
teaching grammar, despite that fact that it is mandated in the 
curriculum). To my mind, the best strategy is:

- Develop a curriculum AND teaching materials for schools. It might be 
best to start with grades 5-8, then add high school and K-4. But 
ideally, different individuals or groups should work on each piece at 
the same time. Linguists and teachers should work together.

- Field-test these materials with willing teachers as SUPPLEMENTAL to 
the existing materials. As they are refined and prove themselves in 
field tests, carry out controlled studies to show that they are superior 
to the current materials in helping students perform on the 
"conventions" parts of the standardized tests.

We are stuck in the current sociopolitical context of grammar teaching. 
The only way to change things is to sell people on something better. 
"Research-based" is the key word.

This doesn't always help (for instance, Cal. went medieval with regards 
to handling children whose first language is not English, despite 
plentiful evidence that long-term language maintenance programs work 
extremely well). But it seems to be the only way that has any chance at 
all, barring a mass conversion of the English-teaching profession and 
school administrators and state depts. of ed.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanna Rubba   Associate Professor, Linguistics
English Department, California Polytechnic State University
One Grand Avenue  * San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
Tel. (805)-756-2184  *  Fax: (805)-756-6374 * Dept. Phone.  756-2596
* E-mail: [log in to unmask] *      Home page: 
http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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/

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/