Edith,
The research you mentioned (below) sounds very interesting, but can you give us the citation for it? I don't know what "made explicit" means. For example, there is a major difference between teaching students the principles of morphology and teaching them to understand and use "word families" ¯ roots, prefixes and suffixes. A few years ago, for example, a reading teacher informed me that prefixes and suffixes are no longer being taught in many schools. In essence, I'm saying that we cannot really know the significance of that reserach until we know more about how and what the students were taught.
Thanks,
Ed
P.S. Thank you to those of you who said that I can post your comments about MIMC on the KISS web site. I have been tied up with grading students' papers, and even within the KISS site I have been focussing on creating linear workbooks from the materials already on the site. But this summer I do intend to add those comments to the site.
Thanks again,
Ed
>>> [log in to unmask] 02/27/04 05:40PM >>>
It might be of interest to this conversation to hear about some research
just published from the University of Washington regarding teaching
dyslexic students to read. The students who did the best (and improved
their reading ability ) had every aspect of reading words made explicit;
different areas of the brain process phonology, morphology, and
orthography, and these three aspects of words were made explicit and
practiced by the students. After 3 weeks, the students' skills on
standardized tests improved and brain images indicated that areas of the
brain needed for reading, areas that had been relatively inactive
before, began to respond more like the brains of normal readers.
This is in line with what many of us who teach rhetorical grammar have
discovered about our students' ability to write after our rhetorical
grammar courses, and also coincides with their self-reporting that they
now read better than they did before.
Edith Wollin
North Seattle Community College
-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Hancock [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 6:07 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Rigid Theories
Herb,
When messages leave my server, they go out as both plain text and
html, a default selection. I don't know how the listserv filters that
out or if your own default reading is influenced by that. Stuff
happens.
Our talks are always a pleasure to me, not least of all because you
are such a good listener. Even when you disagree, you flatter me by
respectful attention. I aspire to this as a teacher and want to commend
you for helping me remember why.
One way to discover problems in a system (even a system of knowledge)
is to find where the system breaks down or fails to deliver. If, in
fact, the physicist were unable to help us make a building safe from
earthquakes, one could see that as a problem in the system of knowledge.
If the physicist turns around and says "that's an engineering problem,
very much beneath me," we have pretty much the situation before us now.
It's not just a pedagogical gap (a failure to communicate the necessary
physics), but a gap of the other kind, a failure to build the necessary
knowledge in the first place, perhaps because applications have been
thought of as unworthy. With you, I feel I'm preaching to the
converted, and those linguists who join us on this list are to be deeply
commended for joining the public enterprise. But someone should point
out to those people in your field that they may not have a viable field
for long if they believe that real world uses for language are
unimportant. Or perhaps we should say it the other way: Applications of
theoretical linguistics into the public world are now at the cutting
edge. That may be wishful thinking, but why not? Someone who finds a
cure for cancer may win great acclaim and great prizes. Can the same be
true for the key to universal literacy (at least as a goal)?
My own sense is that Chomsky was so concerned with establishing the
biological basis for language (the complexity of our unconscious
understanding) and so successful in doing that, that we then were in a
position to disdain direct instruction, especially since grammar has
been thought of as a set of forms, not as a set of interactions or of
meanings. We experimented with approaches like sentence combining
because they were attempts to develop a fluency of forms, not a base of
knowledge. The emphasis has been on behavior, with knowledge the
exclusive province of the specialist. The two primary unanswered
questions (at least from within that tradition) are how those forms
enter into the production of meaningful text AND how a conscious
understanding of those interactions might be useful to the non
specialist.
Certainly, a deep knowledge of grammar can inoculate us against the
worst aspects of traditional grammar, but traditional grammar still
exists primarily because it has not been replaced and because it is the
only metalanguage most people have. The notion that we don't need a
metalanguage, that conscious understanding of language is intrusive or
unimportant (our short-term experiment) seems a colossal failure at this
stage.
We need to get on with the business of building a new paradigm and
hope the rest of the world comes along. The struggle is made more
difficult because a generation of English teachers were told that
knowledge of grammar is irrelevant or harmful. We deal now with a mix
of misunderstanding and (in the classical sense, lack of knowledge)
ignorance.
Craig
Stahlke, Herbert F.W. wrote:
Craig,
I suspect the odd appearance is some epiphenomenon of the chain of
servers and browsers and the mysterious ways in which they interact. Is
the internet sufficiently complex a system now to produce classic chaos?
You wrote:
You seem to be implying in your last post that linguists have
developed
a >full understanding of grammar, but aren't concerned with how that
trickles
down.
I'm not sure how I gave the impression that linguists have developed a
full understanding of grammar. I've certainly seen nothing in the field
that I would recognized at that. Rather, what I was saying was that
what we're occupied with is theory and structure of utterances,
discourses, discourse interactions, and other sorts of linguistic
objects. Just what qualifies as a linguistic object is difficult to tie
down, especially at the edges, and I wouldn't try to limit that domain a
whole lot. When I said that the relevance of linguistic insights for
language teachers and writing teachers is not a function of their
importance to linguistics, I was defining domain, though. I'd be
interested in how obstruents behave in English, how tonal systems act,
and how serial verb systems work whether they had application to
language teaching or not, because those are the sorts of things I do as
a linguist.
I've often told classes of non-linguists that one of the important
reasons they take linguistics courses is to immunize themselves
intellectually against some of the more pernicious linguistic myths
society is prey to. This is a sort of passive relevance. But making
linguistic findings make sense and have active pedagogical relevance to
teachers requires a certain kind of thinking that not all linguists do
well, including a lot of very good ones. It is a very different
endeavor from the sort they normally undertake. That such a goal can be
achieved and is thoroughly desirable is certainly true, but achieving it
calls on the talent of those academics who cross easily between fields.
The divide is great. I've been in linguistics departments where
publishing in a pedagogical journal was considered a career-threatening
waste of time. I don't happen to agree, but I do understand the point
of view.
There is something of a continuum from the theoretical to the
pedagogical, rather than a deep divide between them. The sense of
division is more a matter of personal traits than of content, I think.
The kind of grammar you talk about evolving out of the needs of the
world is an important goal too, and one that linguists can contribute
to, but the problem is finding linguists who are interested in doing so.
Fortunately, there are several on this list.
I don't like analogies, even though I've indulged in a few, but to pick
up your physics/bridge analogy, I think the relationship between the
physicist and the engineer is similar to that between the linguist and
the writer/writing/language arts teacher. Once the physicist has worked
out the physics of interacting forces and masses, the bridge problem is
solved. This doesn't put a bridge across the Straits of Mackinac,
though, and that is an engineering problem. The physicist may marvel at
the beauty and ingenuity of the achievement, but the physics isn't all
that interesting. As a linguist, I marvel at what writers, language
arts teachers, and writing teachers achieve. The linguistics that they
employ is selected by how well it supports what they're doing, but their
responsibility is not to evaluate the validity of that linguistics as
linguistics but to see how they can teach and perform as well as
possible. And using good linguistics is an element of that, but,
perhaps, less of an element than some of us linguists might delude
ourselves into thinking it is.
Herb
Herb,
When my messages come back to me, they are fine. I'm not sure why
they would be different on your computer. I would be happy to do things
differently if guided accordingly.
I think you are unequivocally one of the good guys and deeply
interested in teaching applications and teacher training, though I
remember from a past conversation your thoughts about how difficult it
is to go from linguistic grammars to applied grammar within the
classroom. They are completely different frames of reference, not just a
more scholarly or watered down version of the other. You seem to be
implying in your last post that linguists have developed a full
understanding of grammar, but aren't concerned with how that trickles
down. From my perspective, it seems that their understanding of grammar
is enormously limited, in part because they have never thought it
important to ask about the role of a conscious understanding of grammar
in the language uses of normal life. If I carried through on your
physics analogy, I'd say it would be like the physics people saying that
physics has nothing to do with bridges or buildings or airplanes
crashing or the tensile strength of aluminum, and so on. It would be
like their saying that none of it is ever meant for application in the
real world. Teaching a disinterested grammar is not the same thing as
evolving a grammar out of the needs of the world.
Linguists have told us that dialect differences are rule driven (I
am an enormous fan of Geneva Smitherman), but they haven't been
successful in erasing the stigmas associated with those differences. It
is difficult to help students like that (I do that all the time) because
they don't have the base understanding they need to negotiate the
differences in these language worlds. The students who get hurt the
worst by failure to teach (articulate) clear standards (not just impose
them) are those on the margins, those supposedly helped by the
"progressive" attitudes of the middle class. This same understanding
has also led to a general sense among the progressives that the learning
of grammar is natural and inevitable, so that teaching a native speaker
about his or her own language is unnecessary, even harmful. The logic
goes something like this: everything a native speaker says is
grammatical, by definition. Learning this is a natural process.
Teaching a native speaker to speak grammatically is nonsensical.
Therefore, we do not need to teach (study) grammar in the schools,
although we seem to need to correct errors in as unconscious a way as
possible. (Nowadays, by people who themselves don't know much about
grammar when they are doing this "correcting.") This way of looking at
grammar, which has a very uneasy co-existence with prescriptive
grammars, has given us the choice between bad teaching and no teaching,
and no teaching has, for the most part, won out. There are certainly
pockets of traditional grammar teaching still left and pockets of
minimalist intervention, but we do not have a systematic grammar in the
public schools that draws at all reasonably on the insights of a
scholarly discipline.
Has anyone done a good study yet on whether students actually do
learn to write simply by being exposed to good writing? This is one of
the truisms that seems to have been taken for granted. Certainly one of
the questions that hasn't been though of as important enough to ask is
whether conscious understanding of grammar is at all useful in the
production of meaningful texts and, if so, exactly what is most useful.
It is not enough to say that the sentences of the text are grammatical
or correct, because that does not allow us to differentiate between the
nonsensical and the thoughtful, the effective and the ineffective. The
answer I get from most American linguists is that this has nothing to do
with grammar, though I believe that is simply because their study of
grammar has never concerned itself with such questions. In other words,
we don't have the theory at any level; it's not just that we are missing
pedagogical applications. (A major exception would be functional
grammar, but that isn't accorded anywhere near the kind of respect it
needs to have the influence it deserves on this side of the Atlantic.)
In order to solve our present problem, we need to acknowledge that
linguists have been an inadvertent part of the problem, that they have
done much to result in grammar disappearing from the public school
curriculum. Nothing of consequence will happen if people in each camp
place the blame elsewhere. As the battle lines are currently drawn, none
of the sides can win, and our students continue to lose out, the
neediest losing most of all.
For change to happen, people in a position to answer these questions
need to see them as important. Given the hierarchy of the academy, that
won't happen easily. That's why I tried the analogy of a cure for
cancer. It's not just "pure biology", but has been worth an enormous
investment. It will also be transdisciplinary when it comes, with the
potential to re-energize a number of disciplines.
Craig
Stahlke, Herbert F.W. wrote:
Craig,
Something digitally strange is happening with this thread. Bob
got my
posting in scrambled form, and I got yours without any wordwrap. When I
hit reply, what you wrote got formatted with wordwrap, but what Bob and
I had written still wasn't. I don't know how this happens, but Max
Morenberg occasionally emails me that a posting of mine has come through
scrambled. But these things are intermittent and probably in the domain
of the list manager.
Now to your comments.
I'll be brief. As a linguist doing linguistics, my interest is
in
solving problems of language not of language teaching. If my linguistic
writing and study has direct application to the teaching of language or
of writing it is purely fortuitous, not by intent. We work in different
domains. I ask and explore questions about linguistic structure and you
work on questions of rhetoric and teaching. That said, I'm also
interested in teaching, and I agree with Bob and Bill and others on this
list that linguistics offers important insights into how language can be
taught and what can be taught about it. Bob was entirely right in
pointing out that it was linguistic work that provided the basis of
arguments in the 60s and since that non-standard dialects are not
inferior forms of English but are thoroughly rule-governed systems.
Even the notion "rule-governed" is a linguistic notion. The way
auxiliary verbs are used in discourse to distinguish background
information from foreground is another insight from linguistics that can
be turned into a useful teaching module for students of writing. On the
other hand, it didn't take a linguist to realize or demonstrate that the
injunction to avoid passive voice is taken to wrong-headed extremes by a
lot of teachers. Good writers and teachers of writing have known that
for a long time.
There are clearly linguistic insights that have relevance for
language
teachers and writing teachers. But that is not a function of their
importance to linguistics. Rather it's a consequence of the fact
linguists research the medium that language teachers and writing
teachers teach. There is inevitably some transfer. For most linguists,
however, once something is know well enough for that transfer to take
place it's no longer of much interest to linguists and they've gone on
to something else. No judgment of relative value here; just recognition
of the fact that we have very different, but linked, areas of endeavor.
I think this relationship is part of the reason why it's useful
to have
linguists on this list. Sure, our arguments seem to some to take
several tours around the barn at times, but you guys tolerate that
pretty well, usually, just as the linguists sometimes sit back in
bemusement when pedagogical questions arise. For example, I don't get
involved a whole lot in Ed's discussions because I'm not involved in
grammar teaching to the grade levels he's interested in, and his
grammar, which I suspect works well for that population, is too blunt an
instrument for linguistic purposes. This isn't a criticism of his work.
We address different problems.
Of course, sometimes people from both groups jump into the other
sort
of discussion.
Herb
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/
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/
|
