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/
|