Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 10 Aug 2006 06:59:02 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Edith:
I have tried both Reed-Kellogg diagrams and tree diagrams in the
English Composition classes I am teaching and I found out that the
students find tree diagrams more intuitive and easier to understand
than Reed-Kellogg diagrams. Have you had a chance to compare the two
types of diagrams in classroom applications?
As a curiosity, the students who had learned the tree diagrams with
me were able to remember the tree diagramming a semester later during
a grammar course taken with another instructor. As I don't believe
that their retention was due to my extraordinary teaching skills, the
only conclusion I can draw is that the students understood so well
the tree diagram approach that they had no difficulty remembering it.
Eduard
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Edith Wollin wrote...
>Beth Rapp Brown's position on diagramming is certainly held by many
>people, and I would certainly never use it as the only pedagogical
>method for teaching grammar. However, I have found that the
traditional
>Reed and Kellogg diagrams (with some updating to fit more current
>understandings of sentence syntax) help visual learners a great deal
in
>understanding the relationships amongst words in a sentence. I have
>combined diagramming with sentence combining, writing one's own
>sentences, using syntactic structures in context, etc. and have
found it
>very useful for student learning.
>
>Edith Wollin=20
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/
|
|
|