I went back and re-read the NCTE statement, and I'm not sure that there's a
lot I'd disagree with. For example, wouldn't we (ATEG) agree that "isolated
grammar drills do little to improve student writing and are a poor use of
instructional time" and that "where much of the time is spent on grammar
exercises, student writing suffers . . . because, in those classes, students
are spending more time underlining random parts of speech or diagramming
sentences than actually composing"?
Don't we think, along with Kyoko Sato, NCTE President, that "Teaching how
language works is the basis for good grammar instruction." And wouldn't we
agree with Randy Bomer, NCTE Past President, who adds, "Most English
teachers do not see themselves as grammar police, on the lookout for
mistakes and intolerant of diverse ways of speaking. Rather, they want
students to see grammar as an important resource for writing and for
understanding the language around them in everyday life."
I know I wouldn't fight this statement: "Students need to be able to
compose complex, varied sentences, and they need to be able to proofread
their writing for mistakes that might distract their audiences or distort
their intended meaning."
However, I'm not on board 100%. Here's where I get off the train: "Skilled
teachers of writing know how to teach grammar to their students as they
write, when they have a particular need to know the information." The
implication of this sentence is that students don't need an "a priori"
knowledge of grammar - this is just plain nuts.
If students are learning grammar only "as they write" or, as this statement
implies, after they write, my contention is that they aren't writing,
they're babbling. So I guess my point is this - instead of reacting to an
apparent "dissing" of grammar by the NCTE (it's really just the old "grammar
in isolation" arguement), let's make ourselves useful by addressing the
problems in their statements. And the problem as I see it is that the
non-grammarians (or, if you prefer, the anti-grammarians) have taken up the
"grammar in context" flag as their own, using it to marginalize the critical
role that grammar has to play in writing. So when they lead the rhetorical
debate, "grammar in context" becomes enmeshed in the "writing process,"
leaving grammarians relegated to the linguistic equivalent of garbagemen
(persons?).
And isn't that ironic that the non/anti-grammarians are leading the
rhetorical debate? Instead of the "grammar in the context of writing"
slogan, let's rewrite it as, "Writing in the context of grammar!" and see
how far that gets us. At least we will be stating what seems to be obvious
- good writing occurs as a result of good grammar. Writing starts with the
grammar; it doesn't end with it. So the NCTE's concluding sentence should
read, ""Skilled teachers of writing know how to USE grammar to teach their
students HOW TO write BECAUSE GOOD WRITING DEPENDS ON A KNOWLEDGE OF
GRAMMAR."
Geoff Layton
_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us
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/
|
