blog 3

Thoughts on "Grammar, Grammars, and the Teachings of Grammar" plus what I want to contribute to the group project.

                                                            _____________

“students will only learn what we teach/ only learn because we teach’ Very interesting intro. I like challenging the assumption that students don’t learn anywhere besides a classroom with guidelines, when it is generally the opposite.

“perverse beliefs” as if humanizing students, de-glorifying “tired and true” (antiquated) teaching styles, and suggesting teachers stand of the ground instead of pedestals (soapboxes) is so radical.

“nor on their ability to avoid error”

So many things wrong in one paragraph. I disagree with the proposed definition of grammar. Especially specifying the “native” nature of language. Grammar is supposed to be the rules that make language technically correct and structured. And suggesting a heavy focus on just grammar is appalling. It is the content of a message that matters, not its delivery. A sentence can violate every grammatical rule, but can still be understandable. And why would anyone suggest grammar-centric lessons when grammar doesn’t even teach people how to write? (Ironically.)

“seems designed to perpetuate…the issue” funny, since we’re all still arguing over grammar.

“improved neither writing quality nor control…” I kind of like to see results that prove grammar lessons fail. Then maybe we could stop acting like “correctness” is the absolute most important thing.

“does no harm” thinking that drilling grammar into students does no harm is laughable. Not only did grammar-based lessons not help students improve, but it also damaged their opinion of the subject. V frustrating.

“conclusion can be…ignored” seriously. I was wondering how so many people could read the same study and have such opinions (does no harm!) but clearly, ignoring the results that contradict what you believe is the only plausible explanation for such opinions.

Good questions she proposes, but questions 2 and 3 seem kind of boring/redundant/unnecessary. 1 and 4 are really interesting in that they aren’t as concrete and more abstract. I think answering questions that have no “correct” answer are more likely to lead to learning/ gaining insight. Looking forward to what she says about 1 and 4.

“rigidly sequential” again with the “formula” of writing a good paper.

Francis had some good points, despite having written them in 1954. Amazing how the conversation hasn’t changed much in 61 years.

“stylistic grammar” nice. I like the breaking down of grammars. It seems way more practical this way.

“the four young French girls” shows how grammar is innate, in a way, and knowing every grammar rule is not necessary to be able to use it. I disagree with calling it “autonomous”.

The discussion of proper plural endings displays the link between literacy and writing skills, which we discussed in our second week of class. It makes me think that knowing proper grammar is more of a modeling thing than a learning thing. (We recreate words based on how we’ve seen other words.) This is kind of reinforced by the opening paragraph of “College English.”

 Learning grammar before learning to write/ learning to use utensils before being allowed to eat is an interesting comparison.

I disagree that Seliger’s experiment complicated the issue further. I think it measures (subconscious?) retention of grammatical rules. (Especially for ESL speakers; just because they can recite the rule, doesn’t mean they choose to use it. They may be speaking English, but their linguistic roots are still in their first language, and they probably rely on those grammar rules more than their new English-based ones.)  I know people who are fiercely intelligent—smarter than me for sure—and yet they constantly violate grammatical rules. One friend often says “I seen” as in “I seen the craziest thing yesterday,” as opposed to “I saw.” (Side note, he’s not the only one I’ve heard do this). But he is still one of the smartest people I know. Similar to the violation of the “your/you’re” rule. Just because someone breaks it, doesn’t automatically make them less intelligent (no matter how much it aggravates the rest of us).   

“clear only if known” summarizes the English language as a whole perfectly. The thing we all love most is someone else’s worst nightmare.

“unconnected with anything remotely resembling literate adult behavior” amazing. It’s the theory of “here are the rules, and why you can break them” thing we discussed un class again.

“worship of formal grammar study” laughed harder than I should have at this.

“accessing knowledge…learners have already internalized” this sounds better than when I said “innate ability” earlier. This is what I was trying to say.

“there are not four errors” that was unnecessary. Grammar is hard enough without throwing in trick questions like that.

“spoken dialect are…irrelevant to mastering print literacy” I disagree with that.

“skills at two levels” yes this is good. It’s not to say that grammar isn’t important at all, because it does matter. But the extent to which education stresses grammar is out of control. This is a much better approach/suggestion— work on conveying the meaning and do so in a way that is technically correct. Good, happy medium. Also, “active involvement” is a much better way to learn something; the expression “experience is the best teacher” doesn’t exist for no reason!

“constrained to reinvent the wheel” that’s probably very apparent when you look at today’s curriculums.

“guide our teaching” not dictate.

Overall thoughts: good essay, interesting sources and studies, and kind of what formalized what I already thought about grammar (probably what we all think of grammar).

As far as what I’d like to contribute to the final project, all I can say, really, is that I want to contribute my absolute best. It’s hard for me to say what, exactly, I want to contribute, because we haven’t decided on what we’re doing yet. I felt a lot of people leaning towards Idea #2 at the end of Monday’s session, and it concerns me a bit. I’m not a teacher, so I’ve never created a lesson plan or a syllabus or anything like that before, and I feel a bit out of touch with the curriculum aspect altogether (we all know that Catholic schools vary greatly from public schools in this regard). And when it comes to executive decisions, I am not the girl to go to; the thought of having to (possibly?) create my own lesson plan is concerning, since I feel I’m not nearly as good at generating completely new ideas as I am at revising existing ideas. Also, I’m awful at pop culture. Whenever someone says “pop culture,” my mind just says: ????????? I’m sure whatever we decide, I will figure it out, but as of now, I don’t have much to share aside from my reservations. I’m sorry if this isn’t helpful/ didn’t answer the question. I’m looking forward to discussing this more on Monday with you guys though.