I agree with Johanna's analysis of our divisions, copied below, and
do not really agree with Connie's objection to it.
Johanna divides us into the utilitarian camp (grammar used to
improve style, punctuation, etc.) and the theoretical group
(grammar as a subject of study, akin to bio, math, chem...).
Connie's response is that she actually belongs in the theoretical
group because she wants the student to understand LANGUAGE
in a more profound way, not just grammar.
But I think that Johanna's distinction holds.
Connie's approach does not lead the student toward a theoretical
understanding of language. Her approach leads toward better
_uses_ of style, punctuation, and so on, but it purposely sidesteps
the articulation of the concepts.
The avoidance of theory is a big part of her whole programme:
sidestep any articulation of the concepts; just get the kids doing
crative things with language that will improve their writing ability.
It doesn't help to switch to the word "language" for the word
"grammar." Connie does not try to teach a better _understanding_
of language; she tries to teach a better _use_ of language. She
therefore belongs in the utilitarian camp.
I agree that her exercises are creative and beneficial. But I don't
think that she can claim an interest in teaching the "deeper
understanding of language."
P.S. Gretchen! visit me here:
www.artsci.gmcc.ab.ca/people/einarssonb
> There seems to be
> a divide among listers (at least the ones who post) on what purpose
> grammar teaching should serve. One group seems to advocate that it be
> _relatively_ narrowly focused on consistent and persistent problems
> students have with their writing: achieving effective style; using
> standard grammar, punctuation, etc.; and catching errors in
> editing/revising. Bob Yates and Connie Weaver jump to mind. There are
> probably others who just have slipped my mind right now.
>
> The other group seems to advocate teaching grammar as a way of bringing
> students to a deeper understanding of the structure of English -- focusing
> not just on what is problematic for students in their writing, but on
> understanding how grammar (syntax) functions in language in putting
> meanings together and in creating textual coherence and style. Thus Judy
> Diamondstone sees value in having students understand meaning-based
> categories of verbs, while Bob Yates does not -- not only because he
> doesn't seem to like meaning-based categories much, but because he doesn't
> see how knowing these categories is going to help students be good writers
> (this is a recent example that jumps to mind). It seems to be the 'deeper
> understanding' group that aspires to a systematic, long-term grammar
> program that starts relatively early -- 3rd, 4th grade or earlier. I have
> in mind Ed Vavra, Martha Kolln, Judy D., Dick Veit, Bill McCleary?, myself
> ... I'm sure I've left people out.
>
> I think it's important that we recognize this difference, because we
> talk at cross purposes if we don't. I can certainly respect both groups --
> perhaps the first group has more realistic aspirations. (What I say below
> may seem to contradict this.) That's one point I want to make.
>
> The other point I want to make is to advocate for the second position --
> 'deeper understanding'. My reasoning is: I don't think you can achieve the
> first without the second; leastways, I don't think you can ever get beyond
> a relatively mechanical application of formulas, possibly needing to be
> reviewed and relearned at each editing session. I think it will keep the
> students' 'feel for language' pretty superficial; I don't know that they
> will ever really be at ease with grammatical terminology or able to
> analyze sentences and texts. It will also hamper them when it comes time
> to learn a second language, study linguistics, teach English or writing to
> others. I know that only a small proportion of students will do the latter
> two things, and ever fewer learn a second language (but that will, I hope,
> change in the future).
>
> Perhaps this very paragraph points up a second divide: Do we feel that
> students need a 'feel for language', or will a relatively superficial
> understanding, for use in editing, suffice?
>
> This seems like a pretty deep divide, and will cause very different
> desires for what appears in a grammar curriculum. So the two groups will
> likely have endless disagreement. Is there a compromise position? Is
> anybody interested in a compromise?
>
> There is an external factor. The running subject line for this thread has
> been 'putting grammar back in the curriculum'. I have to emphasize, again,
> that it IS back, at least in those things that are being forced upon
> several large states: academic standards and standardized tests. These may
> not be around forever. But if they endure, I don't think children will do
> very well with them under the narrower perspective.
>
> Maybe it is not in the cards for most kids to be able to master
> extensive English grammar at all. Maybe this is only going to happen
> with a minority of kids of above-average ability. We won't know unless an
> _effective_ approach to teaching grammar is tried. There is too much wrong
> with the traditional curriculum to go by the past, and anyway, what do we
> really know about the past? It gets idealized a lot. My suspicion is that,
> of all the kids who went through traditional grammar training in the past,
> only a minority retained extensive knowledge. I don't know how possible it
> would be to tease out the various factors that led to success/failure --
> socioeconomic status? School environment? Family situation?
> Ability/creativity of teachers? Nature of testing?
>
> Am I totally off base with all of this?
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Johanna Rubba Assistant Professor, Linguistics
> English Department, California Polytechnic State University
> One Grand Avenue • San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
> Tel. (805)-756-2184 • Fax: (805)-756-6374 • Dept. Phone. 756-259
> • E-mail: [log in to unmask] • Home page: http://www.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
> **
> "Understanding is a lot like sex; it's got a practical purpose,
> but that's not why people do it normally" - Frank Oppenheimer
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
