I had one of the strangest experiences of my teaching career
yesterday. One of my students from last term's English Grammar class
saw me in the library and said she had enjoyed the class a lot; in
fact, she had done tree diagrams over the winter break for fun.
So I guess tree diagrams are less off-putting than I had thought.
I prefer the tree diagrams myself, with the addition of functional
labels when necessary. The RK diagrams are not terrible for simple
sentences (although I dislike the equation of determiners and
adjectives) but, when you get to complex sentences and non-finite
clauses, they quickly take on a nightmarish aspect.
Has anyone else looked at The Straight Dope column on "how to diagram
'See Spot run'?" It's in the archives at www.straightdope.com. Very
funny
>For the past six years, I've used and taught (and had my students at
>the board practicing) rk diagramming in my grammar course at a
>community college.
>
>Diagrams-especially rk diagrams-make visible the
>abstract-ness/abstraction of language.
>
>Some students just never "get" diagramming; others, however, enjoy
>it, thinking of it as a game or puzzle.
>
>On student evaluations, many students write that diagramming was one
>of the most useful activities in the class.
>
>I prefer rk over tree diagrams, which are, I think, the type
>preferred by several people on this list.
>
>But, tell me, does a tree diagram give a better visual of a
>sentence's structure? I don't think it does.
>
>I am interested in hearing why some instructors prefer tree diagrams
>over rk diagrams.
>
>Christine in Baltimore
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Stahlke, Herbert F.W.
>Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 9:18 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Reed-Kellogg diagrams
>
>In a recent posting I mentioned Mark Lester's Grammar in the
>Classroom. I find it in many ways a fine text, but I haven't used
>it in my UG grammar classes because of its heavy use of Reed-Kellogg
>diagrams. But my hesitation may be unfounded; hence my question.
>What is the role of Reed-Kellogg diagrams in contemporary K12
>grammar teaching. I've looked at various language arts series, and
>some of them use R-K to varying extents. I've occasionally used
>them in my classes for their ability to represent certain types of
>grammatical function, something that phrase structure trees do only
>tangentially, unless you code function into node labels like Max
>Morenberg does in Doing Grammar. R-K diagrams are weak on
>structure, and they aren't consistently reliable on function, but
>they do represent a respectable tradition of grammar teaching, and I
>know they have some level of support. Do K12 language arts teachers
>need to be familiar with R-K? Should they be covered in a UG
>grammar course for developing language arts teachers?
>
>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/
|
