Bruce,
First, I apologize for my somewhat snappish and brief response.
Friday was a long day, and dealing with this group always adds to the
frustration. Let me try to answer your questions, one-by-one:
"You don't bring the instruction of teachers into the primary school
classroom, do you?"
No, but your response sounded to me as if that is what you would
do. I showed your response to one of my colleagues, one of the many who
are not interesting in teaching grammar. He laughed and said, "That is
what he wants to teach fourth graders?" I do bring the instruction of
teachers into my college comp classes. There I point out that teachers
have been very poorly educated in grammar, and I point out that the
textbooks are overly simplistic. Thus the textbooks teach students to
find the subject of a verb by asking "Who" or "What" plus the verb. But
the textbooks do not teach students that the object of a preopsition, or
the complement of one verb, cannot be the syntactic subject of another
verb. Thus, I note, the typical instruction is half-assed, it only gives
them half the pulling power, and half is not enough.
"If your point is that you were confused, then you must not understand
many of the problems with traditional grammar instruction."
I'm wondering if this is an honest question, or if you are trying to
make me look bad. From what I have seen from this group, I probably know
more about the problems with traditional grammar instruction than most.
The reason for that is that I have, for 25+ years, concentrated on
teaching a practical approach to analyzing the grammar in the students'
own writing. I have also probably read more of the research than most
members of this list have. If you don't believe that, you can easily
check it out on my web site. For example:
http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/ED498/Essay015_Ressearch.htm
"Did you fail to see the origin of the confusion in the mind of your
publisher's rep., or did it make no difference to you?"
See below, and repeated here, with emphasis: "Year after year,
students are told that subjects must agree with verbs in number, but if
you ask students to identify the subjects and verbs in their own
writing, most students cannot do so. Thus, current instruction is
meaningless. This is, however, just one simple example. I was recently
talking to a publisher's rep who thought she was good in grammar. I
asked her to
identify the subject of "was" in "They saw the town that was destroyed
in the war." She thought it was "town." She was amazed when I pointed
out that the complement of one verb can never be the subject of another
verb. It is, I would suggest, this lack of practical instruction that
causes much of the problem in teaching grammar. And, from what I have
seen, most members of ATEG are simply not interested in teaching the
simple and the practical."
The origin of the confusion in the mind of the publisher's rep was
that she followed the grammar that she was taught. It led her astray.
" Are your descriptions of English the only valid ones? Are they the
only ones praised by others? What is the point?"
Your question is incomplete. The real question is "valid for what
purpose?" I have never said that KISS is the only valid grammar, or even
the best possible pedagogical grammar. As of now, however, it is
certainly the best pedagogical grammar by default. It is the only
grammar that directly addresses the problems in the traditional
approaches (which you implied I might not be familiar with). It is the
only grammar that focuses on teaching students how to use it to analyze
and discuss their own writing. The latter, I would suggest, should be
the primary point of all instruction in grammar.
I hope this has answered some of your questions.
Ed
>>> [log in to unmask] 04/01/05 4:52 PM >>>
Ed,
You don't bring the instruction of teachers into the primary school
classroom,
do you?
If your point is that you were confused, then you must not understand
many of
the problems with traditional grammar instruction. Did you fail to see
the
origin of the confusion in the mind of your publisher's rep., or did it
make no
difference to you? Are your descriptions of English the only valid
ones? Are
they the only ones praised by others? What is the point?
Bruce
>>> [log in to unmask] 4/1/2005 2:10:52 PM >>>
Bruce,
Thank you for illustrating my point. Bring that into a primary
school
classroom, a room in which most students (and perhaps the teacher) have
little
if any ability to identify subjects and verbs in the first place, and
you will
confuse the heck out of all of them. I would suggest that because the
members of
ATEG LOVE to deal with questions such as this, the group is incapable
on
developing a viable pedagogical strategy. Might I suggest that your
question is
one of physics, whereas the students do not yet have a basic sense of
geometry?
In essence, I would suggest that you are doing what many graduate
students do in
their TA-Ship * bringing graduate level problems and questions into
basic
Freshman level courses. Thus, the difficulty to which you refer is
definitely
not a difficulty if definitions and concepts are kept clear in the
K-12
curriculum.
Ed
>>> [log in to unmask] 04/01/05 1:57 PM >>>
Ed,
A noble goal! Please continue. But be aware that your readiness to
find
problems needs to be balanced by a willingness to strike at their
roots. Take
your sentence:
"They saw the town that was destroyed in the war."
There is definitely a sense in which the town is the subject of the
adjective
clause. Of course, you are right is claiming that it cannot be "town,"
since
that word is already the essential complement of the verb "saw"
(direct
object).
Herb will claim that there is no subject of the clause expressed in
the
clause!
There is a gap there where the word might appear. "That" is simply a
connective to the adjective clause, like it is to a certain kind of
noun
clause.
Are you willing to accept this possibility? Should the term "subject"
always
be
understood to refer to that one word which expresses the essential part
of the
subject? Can't it also mean that concept which the predicate must
refer to as
its primary argument? I think that the fact that terms like "subject"
can be
applied at different levels (syntax, semantics, etc.) can be a major
difficulty.
Bruce
>>> [log in to unmask] 4/1/2005 11:30:11 AM >>>
John,
Personally, 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. I'll say again that the
research that
supposedly shows that teaching grammar is harmful actually shows that
the
confusing terminology is the cause of the harm. To see the reaction of
ATEG
members to that, all you have to do is review some of the threads on
this
list.
I agree with both Ed Schuster and Herb that the problem is, in
part,
political, but I disagree in how to resolve it. It seems to me that
rather
than
just complain about the politics, etc., we need to develop one or more
consistent, clearly useful pedagogical grammars. Apparently, some of
the
linguists are working on that, and I wish them well, even thought I
doubt
their
pedagogical success.
My own approach has basically been to more or less to retire from
this
group and devote my time to developing the KISS Approach, the approach
I had
started before I even began the newsletter that resulted in the
formation of
ATEG. Again I'll point to the basic guide to the approach at:
http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/kiss/wb/LPlans/Guide_Book1.htm
This is a major project, but if you spend some time on the site you
will see
that it is sequential, it is simple but powerful, and it moves through
the
grammatical constructions always focusing on the analysis of real
texts. See,
for example, the analysis of sixth graders' writing from the
Pennsylvania
State
standards:
http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/kiss/wb/G06/Nov/index.htm
It also includes exercises on style, logic, and the analysis of
literature.
No members of ATEG have shown any real interest in the KISS
Approach, so
it is taking some time to develop it. I do have, however, a separate
KISS
List,
with members from this country and around the world (from China to
Poland).
The
members of that list have been a tremendous help in making me see what
needs
to
be presented in which sequence, and in how much detail.
Once I get the site basically complete, i.e., at least one
printable
workbook for each of the five KISS Levels, my intention is to address
the
public. Addressing the educational community is useless, as Rebecca,
Ed, and
Herb noted. My argument will be very simple * teaching grammar is
meaningless
unless we teach students how to identify subjects, verbs, complements,
and
clauses. Year after year, students are told that subjects must agree
with
verbs
in number, but if you ask students to identify the subjects and verbs
in their
own writing, most students cannot do so. Thus, current instruction is
meaningless. This is, however, just one simple example. I was recently
talking
to a publisher's rep who thought she was good in grammar. I asked her
to
identify the subject of "was" in "They saw the town that was destroyed
in the
war." She thought it was "town." She was amazed when I pointed out that
the
complement of one verb can never be the subject of another verb. It is,
I
would
suggest, this lack of practical instruction that causes much of the
problem in
teaching grammar. And, from what I have seen, most members of ATEG are
simply
not interested in teaching the simple and the practical.
Ed V.
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may contain confidential information, and is
intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it
is addressed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may contain confidential information, and is
intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it
is addressed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
|
