>>
>>Furthermore, even our labels for grammatical concepts are problems. If you
>>understand the morphemes in the word "photosynthesis" (which is not hard to
>>do), that helps you understand and remember the concept behind the term. By
>>contrast, words like "adjective" and "preposition" are no help whatsoever.
>>It's not that the words aren't made up of meaningful morphemes; it's that
>>meanings are either unknown or unhelpful to students. The terms can only be
>>memorized, and what must be memorized is easily forgotten.
>>
>>In the end, if teachers cannot successfully teach grammar, and if the
>>labels used for grammatical concepts fail to help them in the teaching, it
>>is little wonder that so many are reluctant to teach either the concepts or
>>the terminology.
>
>
>Bill, This is a topic that has preoccupied me too. I appreciate your helpful
>explanation, and it leads me to related questions: 1) Why can't we,
>educators and linguists, work together to develop an inquiry-based language
>awareness program for K-12 students & teachers?
> 2) Since this was done not long ago in England (but suppressed by the
>Thatcher government), what do teachers there have to say about an
>inquiry-based language awareness curriculum, and if what they say is
>favorable, can we/ should we work more closely with our English colleagues....
>3) Since we do know about a text-based, meaning-based, functional
>description of language that is pervasive in other English-speaking regions
>of the world, can we make use of its conceptual base, integrate its terms
>with terms that are more familiar to educators here?
>
>I know many ATEG members will disagree with you and object to the functional
>description I am referring to (systemic functional grammar) -- but the
>questions seemed to fall right out of what you had said, so there may be
>interest for some.
>
>Judy

Judy: I have tried to use Language Exploration & Awareness: A Resource Book
for Teachers, by Larry Andrews (Longman, 1993). I also used Linguistics for
Non-Linguists: A Primer with Exercises, 2nd ed., by Frank Parker and
Kathryn Riley, which gives a more technical view of many of the same
concepts covered by Andrews. Neither went well. The Andrews book seemed too
simple, and the Parker and Riley book was way over the heads of my
students. I would say that language awareness has its possibilities, but I
don't yet have enough of a feel for the field to judge.

As to systemic functional grammar: I've bought a book on the subject but
have yet to read it. Maybe I won't get to it. I'm now out of teacher ed.
and back into teaching composition. So I can't help you there.

Bob: When we say that teacher training is the problem, we have to
disentangle who is supposed to do what. I have always said that the English
department is the problem--usually requiring 30 credits of literature, and
only allowing (not requiring) 3 each of composition and grammar. Thus, the
people in charge of teacher training--who may be either in English or in
Education--must step in and set up their own English major. Again, though,
the requirement is likely to be only for 3 credits of grammar. Furthermore,
if someone from the English department teaches it, there may be only
straight grammar--NO discussion of the issues involved in teaching grammar.
Three credits is not enough, but it's all we're likely to get.

In addition, grammar (meaning syntax) does not constitute all of the
knowledge of language that students should get. Teachers ought to be
familiar with the application of grammar to usage and mechanics and with
phonemics and morphemics, and their applications to teaching phonics,
spelling, and vocabulary.

I would like to see at least three courses, preferably four, in language
and its applications and issues. That's what it would take to prepare
prospective teachers for the job. (In addition, 3 credits of composition is
not enough. There ought to be a couple of writing courses, at least one in
the history and theory of rhetoric, and at least one in teaching
composition.)

So let's see, I have 30 credits of literature, 12 credits of language, and
12 credits of composition. Does anyone wonder that English teachers are
unprepared for the job?

Oh, and lest I forget. By and large, people become English majors because
they like literature. How motivated would they be to study language and
composition even if it were possible?

Bill




William J. McCleary
3247 Bronson Hill Road
Livonia, NY 14487
716-346-6859