>>I really don't understand the reluctance of our profession to help our
>>students learn labels for the grammatical structures we expect them to
>>manipulate.  We are the only discipline that shies away from giving our
>>students a language with which to discuss what they're working with.  We
>>humans learn what the world is all about when we learn to label its parts.
>>
>>
>>Martha
>
>I've thought a lot about the issue of why we have grown so reluctant to
>teach grammar and its terminology. I think it stems from two  related
>reasons. The first is that teaching grammar has not proved useful in
>improving students' writing--which was, for many teachers, the only
>justification for teaching it in the first place. Second, and certainly
>related, is that many (perhaps most) teachers have failed in their attempts
>to teach students enough grammar to make it useful. Grammar, I would say,
>is remarkably resistant to being taught. Furthermore, there is little point
>in teaching labels for concepts that most students do not and, perhaps,
>cannot understand.
>
>I realize that these claims are controversial and will immediately be
>disputed. I could supply a modest bit of evidence to support them, and I
>could also point out that other subjects, such as math, are also resistant
>to being taught. But let me forge ahead into exploring why grammar is so
>hard to teach.
>
>Some reasons are well accepted. For example, many teachers and textbooks
>still rely upon unscientific and inaccurate explanations of grammatical
>concepts, and many claims made about grammatical concepts are downright
>untrue. That would certainly interfere with learning.
>
>Another theory is that many students lack what is called "language
>awareness." Until students learn to pay attention to language as an object,
>the theory goes, they will be unable to learn concepts about language.
>
>Yet another explanation is that students simply find grammar uninteresting
>and unworthy of their attention. In other words, they lack motivation for
>learning. To them, grammar is a lot of work for no payoff. (Again, sort of
>like learning algebra.)
>
>Another explanation is "use it or lose it." That is, unless students
>encounter grammatical concepts and terminology in their reading and
>conversation, they are unlikely to remember even the little bit of
>knowledge they have acquired. Since teachers of other subjects seldom know
>enough grammar to use it even when it would be applicable (a situation akin
>to math phobia), students won't encounter enough applications of grammar to
>retain it. Maybe we need Grammar Across the Curriculum (or GAC).
>
>However, I suspect that none of these reasons is adequate to explain fully
>why grammar is so hard to teach. My theory is that grammatical concepts are
>a unique combination of visual, aural, motor, and linguistic elements that
>our teaching methods are inadequate to address. In comparison understanding
>a concept like photosynthesis is easy.
>
>Furthermore, even our labels for grammatical concepts are problems. If you
>understand the morphemes in the word "photosynthesis" (which is not hard to
>do), that helps you understand and remember the concept behind the term. By
>contrast, words like "adjective" and "preposition" are no help whatsoever.
>It's not that the words aren't made up of meaningful morphemes; it's that
>meanings are either unknown or unhelpful to students. The terms can only be
>memorized, and what must be memorized is easily forgotten.
>
>In the end, if teachers cannot successfully teach grammar, and if the
>labels used for grammatical concepts fail to help them in the teaching, it
>is little wonder that so many are reluctant to teach either the concepts or
>the terminology.
>
>Bill

Bill, I've been remiss at keeping up with my ATEG LIST reading.  But I've
enjoyed "catching up" on this thread.  I agree with almost everyone's
reasons why grammar is disliked and overlooked.  Teacher education.  Little
relationship of grammatical labels to grammatical concepts.  A difficult
subject to learn.  Hasn't helped writing skills.  Etc.

BUT English teachers can't seem to kill grammar.  It comes back.  The
monster repeatedly crawls out of the vat of acid that should destroy it.  I
think the reason is that, deny it or not, English teachers are at core
language teachers.  After all, the title is not literature teacher.  You
simply can't teach standard English-written or spoken-if you don't
understand how your language works.  You can't read a handbook if you don't
know the difference between a phrase and a clause, a restrictive modifier
and a non-restrictive modifier. And you certainly can't help students to
become better writers if you don't understand how to help them write more
effective sentences, more coherent paragraphs, more detailed papers (as
well as teaching them about the writing process).  I could now wax poetic
on the need for teachers to understand the differences (formal,
sociological, and historical) between, say, Black English and standard
English.  But I'll forego that.

On the other hand, having resided in English departments as a student and
faculty member since the early 60s, I also understand the politics of
curriculum development.  Curriculums are damned hard to change.  It's  hard
to convince colleagues to give more time and space in a curriculum to
courses that aren't within their own expertise.  As Bill noted in one of
his messages, Teacher Ed curriculums are already pretty full.  Partly
that's the fault of state-mandated requirements; partly it's the fault of
departments restrained by their own rigidity.

I haven't suggested any solutions, but I'm sure that grammar and language
teaching are issues that English departments and education programs must
face.  So I'm glad to see public discussions like this one.  It's a
beginning.  Thanks, Bill and the rest of you.  This is a worthwhile thread
to keep up.  Maybe we can make this the subject for the millennium.  Max

Max Morenberg
English Department
Miami University
Oxford, OH 45056