I hope no one took offense at my attempt at categorizing posters -- of
course two pigeonholes are probably not enough. And I wasn't trying to
suggest that a 'minimalist' approach is necessarily bad -- I laid out my
beliefs as to why it might not work. And those are beliefs. They're
subject to correction by proof that a minimalist approach 'works'.
There's probably a substantial amount of disagreement as to what it
means for a teaching approach to 'work' (e.g., Connie Weaver's concerns
about Ed Vavra's ideas of the desired outcome of a grammar curriculum).
I was trying to get at the reasons why several people seem to be talking
past each other in postings. But I'm not comfortable with some
implications of Harry Noden's posting, particularly that the group
looking for greater coverage in grammar training is less interested in
what works in the classroom. This smacks too much of the old
'ivory-tower theory vs. what works in the trenches' divide. I am
_extremely_ interested in what works in the classroom -- my own
classrooms and all others. I experiment in my own grammar classes. One
of my concerns is that stuff won't work in the classroom if it is based
on bad theory. And a lot of traditional grammar (a la Warriner's) is
based on bad theory. By 'bad theory' I mean _wrong_ theory -- inaccurate
descriptions, half-truths, absolutism where relativism is required. Yes,
linguists disagree on which theory most adequately describes and/or
explains language, but there is a large body of agreement on
fundamentals, including most of what is in a typical grammar curriculum:
parts of speech, the inventory of sentence constituents and sentence
types, for example. There is also broad agreement on language variation.
There are areas of disagreement which I believe are of profound
importance in creating an effective program, though. Paramount among
them perhaps is whether or not we can find regular relationships between
sentence grammar and text organization. I think pretty much everybody
would value a teaching approach that puts grammar squarely in the
context of writing, and such relationships could be of tremendous value
in doing this.
To my mind, scholars of language are responsible for assuring that the
descriptions that they recommend as the basis for the content of grammar
programs are sound -- that programs based on them will work in the
classroom. The helpful stuff that Rei Noguchi and Max Morenberg provide
comes from their knowledge of linguistic theory. And language arts
teachers are responsible for knowing a great deal about the linguistic
structure of English. Nobody questions the need for math teachers to
know math or for history teachers to know history. If language arts
includes language as well as literature, then those who teach about
language must know their subject. Theory without method won't work, but
method without theory won't work either.
Johanna
[log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> This is a comment on an earlier remark from Johanna Rubba.
> The pace of ideas and response has been moving so rapidly on this
> listserv that it seems difficult to comment on one topic before it
> has been debated and replaced with another focus issue. So, with the
> risk of returning to old business, let me say this:
>
> Johanna made an interesting, but perhaps divisive, point in
> the way she categorized the types of individuals who comment on this
> listserv. As a secondary English teacher for 31 years, I didn't find
> myself well represented by her classifications. So let me suggest
> another way of organizing commentators.
>
> The first group, I would suggest, consists of teachers (and
> some scholars) whose primary interest is "how to help kids understand
> and love the power of grammar." These teachers want their kids to
> excel with grammar, not only in writing, but in speaking and reading
> as well. These folks recognize the value of scholarship, but also
> realize the importance of practical classroom strategies.
> Consequently, they often allow their success with students dictate
> their approach to grammar. Many in this group have constructed their
> own grammar programs, programs that might be viewed as "minimal" in
> the broad scope of grammatical knowledge, but programs that work for
> their students. To achieve success, these teachers draw from a
> variety of grammars, including linguistic grammars, functional
> grammar, rhetorical grammar, and traditional grammar.
>
> The second camp, I would suggest, is composed of scholars
> (and some teachers) who are fascinated with theoretical accuracy.
> Their primary concern is defending (or finding) a definitive grammar.
> This group looks for validation--- not so much in classroom
> success--- but in the logical analysis of a comprehensive taxonomy in
> the grammar of their choice. Although this group is equally adamant
> in their commitment to helping students, their arguments for validity
> rely more on analytical insights than on classroom observation and
> experience.
>
> Although I don't presume to place others accurately in
> categories, I would personally place folks like Connie Weaver, Rei
> Noguchi, Max Morenberg, S. Rice, Don Daiker, Francis Christensen and
> a number of others in the first category because I've found their
> work invaluable to me as a teacher trying to help kids.
>
> My perspective may be no less divisive than Johanna's, but
> it's one teacher's view or perhaps one teacher's rebuttal to being
> categorized.
>
> PS: On another topic, I like Connie's suggestion of a joint project.
>
> Below is Johanna's original comment:
>
> Thoughts on another point I see cutting across postings: 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.
>
> Dance like nobody is watching. Love like you'll never get hurt.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
