Well, Ed, it seems pretty certain that a SYSTEMATIC approach doesn't work
too well, either, while on the other hand, there's at least some research
(far too little) examining the effectiveness of teaching selected aspects
of grammar in context (an idea that Martha found evidence for a long time
ago).  Have you reread Warwick Ellen's landmark study lately?   Of course,
you'll probably argue that the teaching of grammar didn't begin soon enough
in New Zealand.  (I should reread the article, too, as I can't remember
what Elley said about the teaching of grammar in previous years.)

And Ed, you must not have read my Teaching Grammar in Context very
carefully, since you don't seem to realize that I too have suggested that
teachers within a school system work together to decide what concepts to
teach when.  I think that mini-lessons taught when needed are important,
but I also suggest that teachers work together to develop a plan.  Guess
you missed that section.  From the students' points of view, some
approaches seem to be more motivating than others, though they aren't
necessarily agreed as to what works best.  But then, when does a whole
class ever agree on what works best for them individually?

And speaking of what works, how do you measure success, Ed?  And what
degree of success is acceptable to you?  Perhaps this is an area in which
there is significant difference among us.  These questions remind me of a
young colleague, a wonderful teacher, who just finished teaching a
multicultural literature class.  She thought the students had made
wonderful progress in understanding and accepting cultures other than their
own, until they discussed the last novel she had chosen, during the last
night of class.  Then, all her "success" seemed to be illusory.  So I ask
you, as well as myself as others, what should count as success?

Connie

Ed Vavra wrote:

> Gretchen,
>    Of all the posts I've just read, yours is the most important.
> Whatever else you do, please stay on the list and continue to post.
> Unfortunately, it will be a while before I can give you my detailed
> response to your important question, "what do I do on the first Monday
> of the new school year?  And the Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday after
> that?" There are a few people who are beginning to work with me to
> develop the KISS curriculum, but day-to-day exercises are not in the
> works yet. I would suggest, however, that part of the problem is that
> you can't do the whole job by yourself. Connie's unsystematic approach
> is a primary cause of your problem. Thus, you might want to work within
> your school system to see if you yourselves can divide the work. For
> example, can students entering your class identify subjects and verbs?
> If not, could they be taught that before they enter your class? (I'm not
> sure what parts of my site you have read, but have you looked at the
> curriculum design at http://www.sunlink.net/rpp/GC.htm
> Because it begins with 3rd grade, it probably will not work for you, but
> it will give you some idea of what I have in mind. One of the problems
> with many people on this list is that they have spent years studying
> grammar/linguistics, but they then discuss teaching it as if one could
> give everything to students in a single course in a single year. I
> appreciate your frustration, Gretchen, but please stay with us.
>
>     On a more general note, I read some of the posts, particularly about
> the publishers, as if I were a publisher. What I see are disagreements
> among the experts, none of whom have a following of any size (market
> value). Assuming that I have no knowledge of what should be taught, even
> if I agree that the stuff in my current book is bad, WHOSE ideas should
> I attempt to develop in my books? What I am suggesting, plainly put, is
> that blaming the publishers is not the answer.
>      Once again I will suggest that the only way ATEG will solve this
> problem is if it acts as an umbrella for several sub-groups based on
> different positions. We are not going to get one curriculum design from
> the SSS committee that will satisfy the majority of the group -- we are
> too splintered. We will make much more progress if the SFG people all
> get together and develop their ideas, the sentence pattern people form
> another group (or groups) etc. That would put people like Gretchen in
> the position of being able to see several programs in development. She
> could choose the one that looks most interesting to her, and (ideally)
> join it and help develop it.
>       We also need hundreds of more people like Gretchen, i.e., teachers
> who are interested in the problem but who do not have an established
> position. Ultimately, it will be these people who try to use the various
> designs and who, through their work, will determine what does and
> doesn't work. To get these people, may I suggest, once again, the idea
> of regional affiliates? Perhaps Rebecca, Michael, or Edith can correct
> me with newer information, but my experience has been that, by moving
> the conference, we get about twenty people who attend yearly, and every
> year we lose the locals. With even just a one-day conference, local
> affiliates would probably be more likely to pull in and keep many more
> members.
> Ed