Ed, thanks for your reply and your attempt to better understand where I'm
coming from.  While my newer Teaching Grammar in Context is much different
than my original Grammar for Teachers, it stems partly from the same
impulse not to have students taught traditional grammar year after year
when there's plenty of evidence that such teaching doesn't do many students
much good.  My own observations, for whatever they're worth, suggest to me
that Johanni is absolutely right in wondering (I take it as suggesting)
that not all students (maybe not most of them?) will learn grammar well, no
matter what we teach and no matter how we teach it.  And to be honest, I
shudder in absolute horror at your thought that we should, or even can,
expect every student to determine the function of every word in every
sentence before they graduate from high school.  To me, that's like
expecting students to do doctoral work in linguistics, or to get perfect
scores on advanced tests of algebra and physics before they leave the high
school.  Yes, I think that your aim is THAT impossible for most students.
I think it's much better to try to teach students to USE grammar to analyze
what they write and read than to just teach grammar.  That is, I think more
students will learn more, if for no other reason that more students will
find it interesting.  But as I said, I shudder with horror at the thought
that any linguist or grammarian would try to accomplish what you want.  I
am utterly convinced that you would be dooming most students to failure.

I don't mean that as a personal attack, Ed, but just as a response from
someone who may have much more understanding of the realities of teaching
grammar than you do, at least at the K-12 level.  Let's see what the K-12
teachers on the listserv think.

Anyway, I must concede that you are right about my ambivalence about
teaching grammar systematically.  I do think that mini-lessons taught at
the point of need will have a greater effect than teaching systematically,
BUT there are at least two reasons why I question whether that's enough.
One reason is simply the reason you might raise first:  namely, that
students need a grasp of some concepts before they can understand or apply
certain editing concepts, such as subject-verb agreement.  But another
stems again from the realities of teaching.  One of these (yes, only one)
is that many teachers won't teach the USE of grammar, in any way, unless
they have support and nudging from colleagues.  Hence a schoolwide or
systemwide plan for teaching at least selected aspects of grammar would be
helplful.  I'm more convinced of this than I was when writing Teaching
Grammar in Context, but still, there's a section that discusses a scope-not
sequence list of topics that might be addressed over the years.  If I were
to rewrite this section now, five years after it was written for
publication, I would make clearer the points I've just tried to make here.
Yes, my thinking has changed somewhat, in response to what I've learned
from experience just in these five years, and from working with teachers
and curriculum personnel.

I confess I haven't looked at your book recently, either, though I should
do that, too.  I remember liking the book itself, and I thank you for your
continuing efforts to help me understand your viewpoint, and for trying to
understand mine.  At least I think we can be fairer to each other when we
understand each other's stances better, even if we still have
unreconcilable differences about what grammar knowledge and analytical
skill should be expected of K-12 students.

Appreciatively,
Connie



Ed Vavra wrote:

> Connie,
>      You say that there is evidence that "a systematic" approach doesn't
> work, but WHICH systematic approach are you speaking of? There is a
> major difference between a systematic approach that attempts to teach
> grammar, and a systematic approach that attempts to teach students how
> to USE grammar to analyze what they read and write. You asked what I
> consider success. Ideal success would be to enable every student who
> graduates from high school to be able to explain how any word in any
> sentence syntactically relates to the main S/V pattern. That's what the
> KISS approach attempts to do. If you have looked at TGLA, you will have
> noted that I also discuss how the approach enables students to see
> connections, not just with errors, but with vocabulary, style, reading,
> writing, and logic.
>       To be honest, I haven't read your Teaching Grammar in Context. I
> heard that it was close to your Grammar for Teachers, which I did read.
> It didn't take me long to come to the conclusion that your approach will
> not work. The conclusion is based on the fact that almost all the
> sentences you use for examples are extremely simple -- they do not
> reflect the sentences that students generally read or write. (Mellon,
> years ago,  noted this problem with most grammar books.) No matter how
> systematically you teach it, it is not going to help students much
> because it does not address their basic problem. Most errors result as a
> by-product of syntactic growth, and the students' problem is in
> untangling the deeply embedded structures (clauses within clauses, etc.)
>
>      If I am wrong about your new book, and it does address teaching
> students how to untangle the complexities in their own writing, please
> let me know. I'll get a copy and read it. As it stands, however, you
> can't seem to make up your mind -- you are for a systematic approach,
> you are against a systematic approach.
>       While I'm on this topic, let me note that we should never expect
> students (or even adults) to always produce error-free writing. In
> addition to simple performance errors, we all have problems with errors
> as we try to get more and more ideas into single sentences.
> Comma-splices, run-ons and fragments blossom in seventh and eighth grade
> because that is when students are mastering subordinate clauses. I have
> suggested that we should ignore these errors in seventh and eighth
> grades. By focussing on them, we may simply be reinforcing them. If,
> instead of focussing on errors, we teach students to analyze ANY
> sentence, then the students will see how sentences work. Once they see
> that, they will understand for themselves what is wrong with
> comma-splices, etc.
> Ed V.