Ed,

Thank you for the clarification.  I DO NEED ALL THE HELP I CAN GET to teach
grammar effectively in my high school classes.

Sincerely,

Teresa
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Edward Vavra" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: Thank you for responses to "Clause question"


    I'll begin with a response to (Karl?), who probably has deleted this. He
asks why I had (and often have) such a "hostile rhetorical stance." The
answer to that is simple. I was responding to his message in which he called
mine a "shill" and closed with "Shame on you." I have been critical of the
terminological chaos in the teaching of grammar for the last decade. I'll
have more to say about the original question I posed later, but the first
point is ― what is the purpose of this list? I am almost certain that there
are lists for linguists and there is at least one list for TESOL. It has
always been my understanding that the distinguishing characteristic of this
list is that it focuses on the teaching of grammar in our schools. (Syntax
in the Schools) I have said many times that I do not mind the linguistic
discussions on this list. That is not my complaint. My complaint is that
such discussion far overweigh the discussions of what should be done in the
schools. Thus, I would have understood, as some members have said that they
suspected, that any question on this list should be looked at from the PoV
of teaching in K-12. As for getting support (with a hostile attitude) from
this list, I'll gratefully take what I can and do get. If some members want
to stop reading my posts because they don't like my attitude, so be it.
      Bill McCleary noted, in his post, that I had asked for help from
members of this list long ago, and, to summarize what he said, it would be
nice if I got more of it. Some members are helping me, off-list, or at the
KISS site. I do not, howver, expect to get much support from this group
because this group frames the question poorly. This group is constantly
focussing on definitions, and little beyond definitions.
     Here, perhaps, is the place to note that I really did like Johanna's
post on the definition of clause. She said that she wondered if that is the
kind of thing that I am asking for, and the answer is definitely a "Yes." At
least she is proposing a pedagogical definition of a crucial concept, and,
if I understood her correctly, she is suggesting that a pedagogical grammar
could be based on it. The problem I have, however, is, as Bob noted, her
definition is based on a theory, but she proposes it just as a "definition."
I gave "KISS" a name for a reason, and I have always tried to be clear that
it is one of many possible descriptive grammars. But within KISS, I have
striven to make the pieces internally consistent. Now I would love to see
Johanna, or anyone else who wants to, come up with a competing descriptive,
pedagogical grammar. But give it a name. Identify it so that, when we
discuss it, we all know (or at least could know) that we are (and students
would be) working within a specific set of theories and definitions. I have,
by the way, Grammar Alive!  on order, but my guess is that the glossary that
Johanna refers to includes terms from distinct grammatical frames of
reference (theories) but that the glossary presents them as if they are
internally consistent.  I hope that I am wrong about this, but we'll see.
    Note that Johanna wrote:" If there is a small number of terms that are
defined differently by different groups, I do not think that is an
insurmountable obstacle, as long as the number remains relatively small."
However, her description of clauses, which, I hope everyone will agree, is a
crucial concept, was debated at some length in following posts. I don't have
trouble with that debate, but once again I suggest that those who agree with
Johanna should get together, give their perspective a name, and develop it.
I have absolutely no problem with this, or with the discussion of it.
    The problem still remains, however, that this group is simply caught up
in a terminological trap. Meanwhile, millions of students are receiving very
poor, uncoordinated instruction. The terms and concepts that students need
are not that  complex. In the study that was so highly praised by Hillocks,
Faigley's students used the Christensens' A New Rhetoric.  A New Rhetoric
consists of two parts -- "I The Process of Writing," and "II The Larger
Units of Composition."  In spite of its title, Part I is filled with  (but
with a limited number of) grammatical terms: "It is hardly necessary to
insist again that the meaning, or perhaps here the interest, is in the
modifiers. We need now a language for discussing them. The next few
paragraphs are the foundation of our treatment of the sentence. You should
master them so well that you can apply the principles creatively, in
writing, and analytically, in the discussion of writing. The language we
need is of two sorts -- grammatical and what we will call rhetorical." (22,
my emphasis)
     The paragraphs that follow this statement assume the ability to
identify "subjects,"  "verbs," and "subordinate" and "main" clauses. They
explain, among others, adverbs, prepositional phrases, verbals, verb
phrases, absolutes, relative clauses, adverbial phrases, adjectival phrases,
"free noun phrases"  (which turn out to be, and be called, appositives), and
"the noun with an adverbial function. . . ."
    If you have already read the preceding from the link that I referred to
last time, I apologize, but I copied it here because it is crucial to the
problem of what to do in the schools. The problem with terminology is not
how accurate it is, it is not, perhaps, even how extensive it is. The
problem is that the focus has been on the terms, and not on getting students
to understand, i.e., first be able to identify, and then be able to explore
the uses etc. of, very simple grammatical concepts. Little if any of the
typical discussion on this list is going to help students learn to recognize
subjects, verbs, prepositional phrases, etc.  What should be taught? How?
When? Why? are the fundamental questions, but this list rarely gets to them.
That is what angers me.
     At the risk of being accused of shlling my web site, (actually, I think
I'm going to start being proud of doing so), I would like to direct your
attention to the newest addition ― Seven selections from The Trumpet of the
Swan, by E. B. White. See:
http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/kiss/wb/G04/Apr/D04/Notes.htm
Someone earlier in this thread claimed that teachers cannot use the KISS
Approach without a school-wide, top-down consenssus. That is simply not
true. First of all, some teachers in public and private schools are already
doing so. Second, simply look at the material from White's book. In additon
to identification exercises, there are punctuation exercises,
sentence-combining exercises, and writing exercises. There is a focus on
literature, specifically the literary concept of characerization, and there
is a focus on writing style with, because of the nature of the selections,
an emphasis on compound subjects, verbs, and complements. Although this is,
within the workbooks, directed at fourth graders, anyone can use these
materials, at any grade level. And the only concepts that are really needed
at this level are subjects, finite verbs, and complements. The stuff that
students need in order to apply grammatical concepts is SIMPLE.

Craig posed  several questions that I should reply to:

"Did you pick a sentence that you believe is easily explained or one that
you feel could and should give anyone analysing it food for serious
thought?"

I found the sentence as I was reviewing my students' grammatical analysis of
their own writing. I found it perplexing, and I knew that, when I put it on
the site, I would be including several optional explanations. In KISS, there
is no "right" answer. There are answers that make sense to the people who
are using the approach, and those answers often differ. At the time I ran
across the sentence, I was swamped with papers, but the imp in me said ―
send it to ATEG. See if they have done anything to develop systematic
approaches to teaching grammar, or if they are still all over the place."
The imp won, and I was accused of "shilling." I do plan on putting it on the
site soon, but I wanted to finish the selections from White first. Again I
want to emphasize that we need to teach the basics, the most common, normal
constructions first (hence White). Students won't make any sense of any
explanation of the complicated clause sentences if they do not first have a
fairly well developed sense of what a clause is. Thus White got priority. I
do, however, plan on including a link to the ATEG archives and the thread
that discussed the sentence. I regularly remind the users of the KISS site
that grammarians diagree, and I find that the links to the ATEG archives are
helpful in convincing people of that. [You'll also find that I complain
about grammarians and linguists within the KISS workbooks.]


"How would you deal with your porblem sentence within the KISS program? Do
you have an answer to that already, or were you legitimately interested in
our responses?

I'm still not sure of what I will propose as the best, easiest explanation,
and yes I was truly interested in the responses. Even though they were not
usually in terms that KISS uses, they gave me additional perspectives for
possible explanations.

"If more than one answer is given, is it reasonable to say that all but one
is "wrong"?

As I noted above, a "wrong" answer in KISS is one that does not make sense.
At times in the workbooks I suggest that when a student offers a strange
explanation, he or she should be encouraged to explain it to the class, and
the class should then vote. Does it make sense to them? If it doesn't, it is
not a very good explanation. And, if it does, but I am not happy with it,
there is no real problem. Over and over again, if you read the notes to KISS
exercises, you will find that I say  that grammarians and linguists
disagree, so students should be able to also.

"If KISS is an evolving approach and an incomplete one, (You have said so,
and I don't see this as a negative), is ATEG a place where its evolving
positions could be looked at from a range of perspectives, or do you see
that as outside the goals of the list?"

KISS is evolving. I just backed into adding expletives to the KISS Toolbox.
I would welcome critical discussion of KISS on this list, discussion from
any perspective. That is one reason for my being so annoyed at being accused
of "shilling."  Within the KISS List, I do not want, and will not allow, the
kind of discussion of KISS that  I would like to see here. Remember that
most of the users of the KISS site are themselves worried about their
understanding of grammar. They want, and I would suggest that they need,
explanations to be clear. Complex theoretical discussions confuse and
discourage them. There are places on the KISS site where I direct people to
this ATEG list if they would like more theoretical discussions, but such
discussions on the list itself would only lead to people unsubscribing.


"Are we, in fact, doing harm to the list every time we answer one of your
questions?"

   I don't think that answering my questions would do harm to the list, but
members of this list may become really annoyed with me if there is not more
discussion of what to do in K-12 classrooms. The web has given me the option
of putting an entire KISS curriculum for grades 3-11 on the web site, where
it is available for free. As some people on this list noted, people from
around the world are finding the site, and finding it very helpful. The
problem, however, is that the web is a massive place, and the educational
hierarchy (including many members of this list) is not supportive of the
approach. When Peter Feeley invited me to submit a book manuscript to NCTE,
I told him they would not publish it. He, however, said that he would help
me get it published. That, for a number of reasons, turned out not to be the
case. From my perspective, however, the NCTE attempt means that I have done
my duty ― I have tried to work within the system. That having failed, it is
time to move beyond the system. Since KISS material is all free, and I want
it to remain so, no publisher is going to print and advertise a KISS
'textbook." [In rereading this, I want to insert that many users of the KISS
list would prefer linear books. I am creating some, in word and pdf files,
but the thought has crossed my mind that perhaps I should ask a publisher
such as Dover if they would be interested in publishing inexpensive KISS
workbooks. But here again, my primary motive is not to publish the book or
books, but to make the materials available to more people in formats that
they find useful.]
     How then do I get the general public aware of the problems in the
teaching of grammar, and of course, of KISS. The only answer that I can
think of is another book, this time aimed at the general public. (Something
like Ravitch's The Language Police. Since the book would not be a textbook,
it would focus on the problem and a general discussion of what can be done
about it. NCTE, of course, will have a chapter of its own. Obviously, it
seems to me, so should ATEG.
     Now obviously there is no guarantee that I could get such a book
published, but, in response to your question, the question here is what
would I say about ATEG. On the one hand, I could say that ATEG is an
association of grammarians and linguists who are seriously working on
developing internally consistent, clear, distinct, and practical ways of
teaching grammar in K-12. On the other, I could say that it is a group of
grammar lovers who like to show off what they know about grammar, but never
seriously address the problems in K-12.
    What are my chances of publishing such a book? I don't know. But then, I
have to do something with my time. The KISS site itself is looking better
and better. There is still a lot to do, but at least the basic instructional
material is in and more and more exercises are being added. But my focus is,
and always has been, the chaos in the schools, chaos that is definitely
hurting millions of students. I think the KISS Approach can help, but it
won't do much if only a relatively few people know about it.

Thanks,
Ed

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/