Hi! or How!
This might seem a stupid question from me over the Atlantic Ocean, but is it
really necessary to use a grammar book? Don't you sometimes feel you could work
better without one?
We have our English (as a foreign language) book, which seemed to be the least
of several evils to choose from, and agreed as a team to introduce it. Sometimes
I find I've lost out on time for varying reasons. There could be too many
activities in school or once I was ill over a period and the classes weren't
provided with a substitute teacher. I just look a the syllabus and see what's
more or less expected and do my own thing. It's like: you're an intelligent
class - let's do it this way.
I pad it out with bits from the book and finish with the last chapter ( a
hush-hush thing I don't talk about). Or are you talking about a reference
grammar book? I don't use one. I get them to write their own rules and expand
on them. This is also now taken up in our latest book, so I shouldn't moan.
Patsi
JEFF GLAUNER wrote:
> In our case, they didn't so much restrict initially. Rather, they asked for
> a huge volume of items, then eliminated anything that wasn't what they had
> in mind in the first place. So, in order to be politically correct, they
> accepted a few mindless multicultural items along with the same items they
> have had on the test for two or three generations. I pulled a bit of
> subterfuge to be invited to the committee. I said I had Native American
> blood (which I do, about 3%) so they put me on as their Native American
> representative. I soon found out that the only Indians they wanted to hear
> about were akin to Hiawatha ("By the shores of Gitche Gumee . . .").
> Actually, as I remember, Longfellow was also unfashionable at that moment;
> but you get the idea.
>
> Jeff Glauner
> Park University
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Connie Weaver" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 7:12 PM
> Subject: Re: Sixth-grade grammar
>
> > Welcome to the club, Jeff. I too found that the bottom line was that the
> > publisher wanted to use my name.
> >
> > When you wrote that exam, did you find you had all kinds of other
> guidelines to
> > adhere to? We "authors" (I use the term advisedly!) were given a list of
> about
> > 15 no-nos to keep in mind when writing grammar exercises. I've forgotten
> most
> > of them, but basically the idea was not to offend anybody with anything
> (so no
> > mention of the Civil War, for instance). What really got me, though, was
> the
> > prohibition against naming negative emotions. I decided to try it anyway,
> and
> > sure enough, things like "Laura was sad" came back edited as "Laura was
> happy."
> >
> > Connie Weaver
> >
> > JEFF GLAUNER wrote:
> >
> > > I think the problem is that NCTE has put grammar research on its
> "blacklist"
> > > for publication. There is plenty of research going on. It just isn't
> > > published. By extension, because it isn't publishable, it isn't written
> up
> > > by the researchers for publication.
> > >
> > > Another real problem that has become more evident lately is that
> elementary
> > > and secondary and even college level achievement tests in language arts
> are
> > > largely based upon prescriptive traditional grammar. They use a few
> > > contemporary terms, but it is easy to see that the ACORN has not fallen
> far
> > > from the tree.
> > >
> > > I had a similar experience to Connie's when I was invited to write an
> > > American Literature Advanced Placement Exam for the College Board. I
> > > discovered that our names were on the test as authors largely to give
> the
> > > publisher credibility, but the content was decided before we started
> > > writing. Any item that was at all challenging had to refer to a dead
> white
> > > guy. I think, for the moment, we are going to have to do most of our
> > > exchange of ideas about grammar along with reporting our research on the
> > > internet.
> > >
> > > Jeff Glauner
> > > Park University
> > >
> > > Connie wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'd also like to ask for help: Do any of you know of recent (last
> five
> > > > years) experimental research on the teaching of grammar, either within
> or
> > > in
> > > > isolation from context? I'd trying to catch up, and it looks as if
> the
> > > ERIC
> > > > system has virtually nothing. A friend checked various other sources
> in
> > > > 1997, but didn't find a single thing that wasn't already included in
> > > widely
> > > > known summaries, such as that of Hillocks and Smith in 1991.
> Sometimes
> > > good
> > > > research just doesn't make it into the readily accessible sources, so
> I'd
> > > > appreciate any help y'all can give.
> > > >
> > > > Connie Weaver
> > > > Professor of English
> > > > Western Michigan University
> > > > Home: (616) 372-7224
> > > > Fax: (616) 372-7225
> > > >
> > > > Johanna Rubba wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Last fall I had the chance to take a close look at grammar materials
> in
> > > > > books for K-8, of about a 1997-1998 vintage. Major publishers such
> as
> > > > > Houghton-Mifflin, Scott Foresman, Prentice Hall, etc. The material
> is
> > > > > quite generous in most cases, but it is also quite traditional. I
> can't
> > > > > be satisfied with these materials as long as they continue to use
> > > > > definitions that are inaccurate ('pronouns take the place of
> nouns' --
> > > > > they take the place of noun phrases) or not particularly useful
> ('the
> > > > > subject is what the sentence is about'; 'a sentence expresses a
> complete
> > > > > thought'). They confuse form with function: anything that modifies a
> > > > > noun must be an adjective (but nouns can modify nouns in English).
> Also,
> > > > > I have found no book that tells the truth about dialect variation:
> > > > > double negatives aren't wrong, they follow the rules of a different
> > > > > dialect of English.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, none of the materials related sentence grammar to text
> functions
> > > > > such as maintaining topic thread, achieving coherence, or
> distinguishing
> > > > > given from new information. This connection is what makes grammar
> > > > > relevant to writing. I just demonstrated this for an hour to my
> > > > > students, and several of them left remarking on how interesting and
> > > > > useful this material is; one wants me to help her with her writing
> > > > > because she has coherence problems.
> > > > >
> > > > > Simply resurrecting traditional grammar is no guarantee that
> students
> > > > > will be able to take advantage of knowledge of grammar in their
> writing.
> > > > > It's not even a guarantee that they will be able to pass the
> > > > > standardized tests that a lot of the curriculum is teaching to.
> > > > >
> > > > > I also find most of these materials discriminatory. A lot of
> exercises
> > > > > and tests target nonstandard dialect grammar, such as 'he don't' and
> > > > > double negation. A lot of these materials ask students to either
> supply
> > > > > the 'correct' form or choose between a 'correct' and 'incorrect'
> form.
> > > > > Some of these are multiple-choice items. Looking at such items from
> the
> > > > > point of view of children, some will intuitively know the 'right'
> answer
> > > > > simply because they grew up in a home in which the standard dialect
> is
> > > > > spoken. Others will have trouble choosing because both standard and
> > > > > nonstandard forms will sound right. For yet others, the nonstandard
> > > > > forms will sound most natural, and they will pick the wrong answer.
> > > > > Isn't it obvious that such materials disadvantage children from
> > > > > nonstandard-dialect backgrounds? Won't it be these children that
> score
> > > > > low on the standardized tests (not to mention their school tests)?
> > > > >
> > > > > The instruction itself sends these children the message that there
> is
> > > > > something wrong with _their_ English, while the children in their
> school
> > > > > from middle-class homes, and their teachers, already speak 'correct'
> > > > > English. What are the children supposed to conclude from this? That
> they
> > > > > grew up in defective homes/communities? That they aren't smart
> enough to
> > > > > have learned 'correct' English, like their classmates?
> > > > >
> > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > 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
> > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
