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.
Thus Judy Diamondstone sees value in having students understand
meaning-based categories of verbs, while Bob Yates does not -- not only
because he doesn't seem to like meaning-based categories much, but
because he doesn't see how knowing these categories is going to help
students be good writers (this is a recent example that jumps to mind).
It seems to be the 'deeper understanding' group that aspires to a
systematic, long-term grammar program that starts relatively early --
3rd, 4th grade or earlier. I have in mind Ed Vavra, Martha Kolln, Judy
D., Dick Veit, Bill McCleary?, myself ... I'm sure I've left people out.
I think it's important that we recognize this difference, because we
talk at cross purposes if we don't. I can certainly respect both groups
-- perhaps the first group has more realistic aspirations. (What I say
below may seem to contradict this.) That's one point I want to make.
The other point I want to make is to advocate for the second position --
'deeper understanding'. My reasoning is: I don't think you can achieve
the first without the second; leastways, I don't think you can ever get
beyond a relatively mechanical application of formulas, possibly needing
to be reviewed and relearned at each editing session. I think it will
keep the students' 'feel for language' pretty superficial; I don't know
that they will ever really be at ease with grammatical terminology or
able to analyze sentences and texts. It will also hamper them when it
comes time to learn a second language, study linguistics, teach English
or writing to others. I know that only a small proportion of students
will do the latter two things, and ever fewer learn a second language
(but that will, I hope, change in the future).
Perhaps this very paragraph points up a second divide: Do we feel that
students need a 'feel for language', or will a relatively superficial
understanding, for use in editing, suffice?
This seems like a pretty deep divide, and will cause very different
desires for what appears in a grammar curriculum. So the two groups will
likely have endless disagreement. Is there a compromise position? Is
anybody interested in a compromise?
There is an external factor. The running subject line for this thread
has been 'putting grammar back in the curriculum'. I have to emphasize,
again, that it IS back, at least in those things that are being forced
upon several large states: academic standards and standardized tests.
These may not be around forever. But if they endure, I don't think
children will do very well with them under the narrower perspective.
Maybe it is not in the cards for most kids to be able to master
extensive English grammar at all. Maybe this is only going to happen
with a minority of kids of above-average ability. We won't know unless
an _effective_ approach to teaching grammar is tried. There is too much
wrong with the traditional curriculum to go by the past, and anyway,
what do we really know about the past? It gets idealized a lot. My
suspicion is that, of all the kids who went through traditional grammar
training in the past, only a minority retained extensive knowledge. I
don't know how possible it would be to tease out the various factors
that led to success/failure -- socioeconomic status? School environment?
Family situation? Ability/creativity of teachers? Nature of testing?
Am I totally off base with all of this?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanna Rubba Assistant 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. 756-259
• E-mail: [log in to unmask] • Home page: http://www.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
**
"Understanding is a lot like sex; it's got a practical purpose,
but that's not why people do it normally" - Frank Oppenheimer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
