Bill,
Thanks for the support. I would qualify, however, that the dispute is between me and some of the linguists. Not that I'm particularly fond of any of the linguists, but the quotation that Johanna posted fits my position precisely. In general, the linguists like to gab about linguistics * phonemes, morphemes, and, as one of my colleagues (with a Ph.D. in English) put it, "all that crap." The linguists actually have an excellent opportunity right now to help improve the teaching of grammar, but I have yet to see any sign of that in discussions of scope and sequence in K-12. I lost a lot of sleep last night, rehearsing a whole tirade, but I've decided to skip that and just reply to your post.
If I remember correctly, I did write to you, off-list. In general, I like what you are trying to do, but it goes far beyond my area of expertise. You are addressing the entire K-12 English curriculum, whereas I am concentrating on just one (important?) part of it. It seems to me that the KISS Curriculum would easily fit, as a rather small part, into your projects. The KISS objectives, after all, are really rather limited and easily reached, especially if they are spread out over grade levels. If students start in third grade, by seventh, at the latest, they should be learning how to identify the clauses in their own writing. To do this, they need to first learn to identify prepositional phrases and S/V/C patterns. (Some parents are reporting that their students can begin to master clauses much earlier than seventh.)
I was happy to see Marcia Alessi reply to you (Hi Marcia!). As she noted, she is using some of my materials, and she has promised to give me a description of what she is doing. I've also regularly asked for more feedback from the users of the KISS site, and, as I have noted, the basic design has changed as a result of that feedback. I'd also like to note that the KISS site includes the study of literary works, and it includes writing assignments. For the most part, which literature, and which types of writing assignments, are open questions. The idea is simply to relate the grammar the students are studying to the work that they are doing in literature and writing. Thus KISS can easily be integrated into at least these two, if not more, of the parts of your curriculum design.
Thanks again,
Ed
>>> [log in to unmask] 04/21/05 12:14 AM >>>
I've been following with interest this dispute between Ed and the
linguists. I think every discipline has this split between the
theorists/researchers and those who want to apply what the former
have learned.
As I've said before, I tend to sympathize with Ed's peevish attitude.
He started what has become ATEG off by his interest in applying stuff
about grammar to the pre-college levels, but we seem to get darn
little of that done. Nor do I agree that having college professors
tell pre-college teachers what they want done will be very
productive. NCTE was, after all, started as a rebellion against
colleges telling high school teachers what literature they should
teach.
In like manner, I sympathize with language arts teachers about the
many subjects they are required to teach. Exacerbating the situation
is that states require language arts teachers to major in English. In
virtually every college, the English department is interested in
literature. Period. And that's what the English major consists of.
Sure, the professors (whom I refer to as "The Lits") may agree to
allow one course in composition and another in grammar in the major.
This doesn't bother many English majors because for most of them
literature is their first love. But it sure causes trouble when they
become teachers and are supposed to give equal time to language,
literature, and composition (the three legs of the traditional
"English tripod). Most of them can't do that because their college
major didn't give equal time to all three, so they don't. So states
have had to establish these much-disliked standards in order to force
paying more attention to composition and language. They should have
forced English departments to change the English major, but they
didn't--or at least didn't do enough.
As for me, I got around the problem by starting with a typical BA in
literature. Then I got an MA in what was then called English
Language. (This was before most colleges had linguistics
departments.) And then I got a PhD in English Education, with an
emphasis on composition. (This was before the invention of the PhD in
rhetoric and composition that is now so popular; in those days, if
you wanted to study composition theory and practice, you had to do it
in some other department than English.)
Anyway, now that I have that off my chest, I want to join Ed in
trying to raise more interest in applying language concepts to
pre-college levels. To do that, I want to remind everyone of the
curriculum and rationale that I developed for grades 4-10. (You can
find it at this url: ateg.org/grammar/syllabi.htm.) I am volunteering
to write a unit for anyone teaching those grades. The unit would
integrate language and composition (and/or literature). You just tell
me what you want to cover, and I'll see what I can do. I'll consult
with you every step of the way, for I wouldn't want to create
something no one would use. I will begin with the concepts in the
curriculum I wrote, but the sequence of concepts for different grades
is not carved in stone. I intended to modify it in response to
comments from members of ATEG, but so far I haven't received any
comments.
Will anyone take me up on this offer?
Bill
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/
|
