Let me clarify my earlier posting.  I know that Connie advocates putting
grammar into the classroom; what she rejects is a systematic program of
study beginning in the early or middle grades (as Johanna was discussing).
Without a systematic program, we will continue to see, as Loban did,
high-achieving 4th graders surpassing low-achieving 11th graders.  A good
grammar program would not pre-empt writing and literature; it can work with
writing and literature.  And it can, and should, give students confidence
in their own innate grammar expertise--an important aspect of teaching and
learning grammar that is completely missing from the traditional grammar.
Without a systematic program in schools, there is no guarantee that
students will have encountered a particular mini-lesson of a particular
teacher or a useful revision technique that happens to come up on a
particular assignment.  There are more cracks than floorboards in such a
system.

We all realize that both the content and the methods employed in the
traditional grammar classroom need to be changed. But I don't believe that
Connie's philosophy of minimalism sends the message that needs to be sent
to our schools and it certainly doesn't give students the kind of
confidence that ought to have in their own grammar expertise.

Martha Kolln

P.S.  The book Connie referred to on systemic function grammar is by
Carolyn Hartnett, published by Parlay Press. I've forgotten the title and
address (but I'll find out when my copy arrives).









>Hi, Judy--
>
>Thanks so much for your response on the listserv.  I just read Martha Kolln's
>and was concluding that I might as well not reply, since I don't have much new
>to say.  Thanks for trying to make it clear once again that people like Harry
>Noden and me are trying to change how grammar is taught, not eliminate it.
>
>By the way, I can't find that e-mail from a week or so ago where someone--was
>it you?--gave the information for ordering her practical treatment of
>functional grammar.  Even if that wasn't you, do you happen to have the
>reference?
>
>Judy Diamondstone wrote:
>
>> I have just read through much of this thread after lurking for months &
>> months. I am writing just to add my 2 cents on the status of grammar
>> instruction and its improvement.
>>
>> It sounds to me like LOTS of progress is currently being made -- Connie
>> Weaver's contribution has had real effects on how teachers approach the
>> teaching of grammar: Positive effects have been to connect it to writing;
>> the questionable effect from my perspective and from that of many others on
>> this list who disagree with me on a lot of other things [take breath here]
>> has been to downplay the importance of a theory of language, or an
>> understanding of how language works more generally, on literacy learners.
>> Connie's approach to CHANGING grammar instruction, using the writing of the
>> student population to work out curricular choices district-wide, SHOULD make
>> a huge contribution if/when it spreads.... I think Harry Noden's
>> contribution, which has had less effect so far, will be enormous when more
>> teachers know about it. Harry has come closer than anyone else (not
>> necessarily intending to!) to bringing Halliday's conceptual understanding
>> of how language works to teaching/learning grammar for the purposes of
>> writing, here in the U.S. My students have found the "slot" notion helpful,
>> at least conceptually  -- the finer discriminations & interrelations need
>> sentence-pattern exercises, at least. The discussions on this list are a
>> huge contribution.
>>
>> I suppose it does not make much sense to argue here again for more
>> consideration of systemic functional grammar as a 'lens' -- even in
>> Australia, where it has had real influence on curriculum and pedagogy, there
>> is no hard evidence that it has been helpful in the ways it has been used.
>> It's also flawed by many lights -- aren't all theories? Still, I hope that
>> the vocabulary for functional terms grows a bit more elaborated both in
>> teacher education & in schools. And idealistically, I'd like to see ever
>> deeper understanding of language _as our means for making meaning_ in talk
>> as well as writing -- that is, ultimately, to aim for showing students not
>> how sentences work but how meanings happen (a much more difficult, complex
>> problem than how to talk about grammar to help students revise their
>> writing). Understanding how MEANINGS are made cuts across ALL domains of
>> knowledge; it guarantees a more critical understanding of subject matter. I
>> suppose i'm arguing for semiotics over grammar.
>>
>> So that's it. My 2 cents.
>>
>> Judy
>>
>> Judith Diamondstone  (732) 932-7496  Ext. 352
>> Graduate School of Education
>> Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
>> 10 Seminary Place
>> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183