|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
a few days ago, you were humbled and agreeing with Word wind, but now you are back to your original position.I am still humbled by what Wordwind wrote. Wordwind explained that "introductory prepositional phrases" are only a wee part of what she teaches in her classroom and, as I understood her, she has her own personal reservations about "introductory prepositional phrases" altho she sees value in teaching "parts of speech" as a part of her entire approach. Wordwind deploys an entire arsenal of learning techniques in her Grade 9 classroom, of which "parts of speech" are only a part, presumably a small part, and she tailors her techniques to the individual needs and aptitudes and interests of each student. This is what explains the "WOW" in my response to Wordwind, Of Troy -- that and her obvious, passionate commitment to teaching. I continue to be open to the idea that using words like "prepositions" and "participles" and rules like "introductory prepositional phrases" might have some educational value in a Grade 6 classroom, or a Grade 9 classroom, but that proposition, which sounds highly suspect to me, would have to be explained. [And the patina of tradition, by itself, is not a satisfactory explanation, at least for me.  ] Nothing I have written on this subject would support your interpretation of my approach to the teaching of proper english, Of Troy. I just think we should remove unnecessary obstacles to the process. If kids can learn how to read and write proper english without choking on words like "prepositions" [and presumably memorized lists of examples of "prepositions"] and intimidating rules with endlessly confusing exceptions, why would we put these impediments in their way? We are all agreed on the result we are trying to achieve. We want to teach as many kids as possible how to read and write proper english as soon as possible. All I am advocating is the use of common sense, Of Troy. Let's get down to the business of teaching kids how to 'drive' properly, and leave all the 'mechanical' stuff, what I call esoterica, to educators arguing the finer points of grammar between and amongst themselves. If a kid understands why Faldage's Example #2 makes no sense, why should he or she have to know that it makes no sense because it's an example of a "dangling participle"? Why should he or she care? Why should we try to stuff this kind of esoterica down their throats, Of Troy? That's what I don't get. If a kid can pop a wheelie in the schoolyard, is he going to do it any better because his science teacher tries to explain the physics involved? I doubt it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
If a kid can pop a wheelie in the schoolyard, is he going to do it any better because his science teacher tries to
explain the physics involved?
perhaps; as Wordwind patiently explained:
However, in the other corner is
Jordan who, though a horrible oral reader, needs to know the naming of parts, needs to know down to
the last detail why this word is called an adjective here but a verb over there. And I do have a Jordan
and he must understand word functions, punctuation rules precisely and with some comfort level
reached about the--ah, me--exceptions. And you two are just two types among so many who dwell
inside the English classroom.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
And I do have a Jordan and he must understand word functions, punctuation rules preciselyWell, I am in no position to second-guess Wordwind's judgment on that, tsuwm, but it strikes me as counter-intuitive, that's all. Birds have to be pushed out of the nest to discover that they can fly. Most toddlers can swim before they discover a fear of water. I just think, intuitively [I can't prove it], that we build up this great fear of reading and writing proper english in those who haven't been introduced to it at home, and they think they have to learn all this stuff in order to master the subject. In short, they think they have to "study" it, when all they have to do is hear it, read it, and imitate it. Personally, I think students who can't pass "Sound Judgment" should be placed in "english immersion" classes, just as parents put their children of tender years into "french immersion" classes. In "english immersion", all these students would hear and read all day is proper english with caring and patient and consistent correction of their own spoken and written english without formalistic fanfare. In "english immersion", overarching vocabulary and concepts and rules would be avoided as much as possible.** In such a setting, I believe Jordan would discover he can 'fly'. But, as far as I know, no public school provides such a setting, therefore, who is to know? Not Wordwind, I suspect, without actually trying "english immersion". And, certainly, not me. ** I don't want to be extreme about this. I see no harm in a child learning what a "noun", and a "verb" is, even an "adjective". I'm not sure they need to know what an "adverb" is because even to this day I'm not sure what an "adverb" is myself, and I've never suffered for it ... at least, until now.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
re: In short, they think they have to "study" it, when all they have to do is hear it, read it, and imitate it.
Oh, if only that was true!
we've had discussion about pidgeons and creoles-languages that spring up when populations that are mutually incomprehensible are forced together.. first there is a pidgeon.. a mish mash of word from each language, with a few key words of each language being understood .
then as the there are children, the children 'create' a new language, using vocabular of both languages, and a basic simple grammar.
there are almost no irregular verbs, (even the verb to be is pretty regular) and the 'rules' are almost unversaly the same from one creole to another.. double a word makes it 'intensive' --there is hot and hot hot is very hot, there is bad, and bad bad is very bad.
so yeah, 'kids' (human children, that is) do have a built in bias to certain rules of grammar.
but, unfortunately, as languages become established, the rules tend to change.
English is a classic creole with germanic influences from the norse men, and frenchifed words brought over with William the 1st, and it has old words, like cob as in cobweb, from ancient parts of the language.
words have changed meaning, accents have shifted, vowel sounds have 'shifted'
english is no longer a simple creole that children can instintively 'grasp'.
fine maybe you did, and maybe even most people do.. but a hell of a lot of people don't. they need to be taught grammar.
a second problem with the idea that kids only have to hear it to get it, is, alot of what they hear, (on TV, from their peers, from their family, in all sorts of places) is not good (correct) grammar.
this board is filled with threads about poorly written/edited/articulated sentences that abound in advertizing, TV shows,and even reasonably 'literate' publications.
How are kids suppose to get what is right, what is wrong unless they are taught?
now, anyone who knows me, knows i tend to fall into the prescriptive school-- words mean what a percentage (a large percentage) of people think they mean. but we have to have some groundword of commonly 'accepted' meanings (even if the meanings change in my lifetime!) and commomly accepted rules for past tense, and how we use words.
as for english immersion.. well, my czech had a problem with the verb to go.
she always used 'we did go' for the past tense. i knew we went was correct, but she agrued, did go was in the dictionary so it had to be right.
it took me a few minutes.. and i realize did go was acceptable in the emphatic case ('did you go to school today? i got a report you played hooky.. Yes, we did go. who ever told you different was telling a lie!
there is a difference between we went, and we did go.
we went to the store today. You did not!Yes, we did go.. it was crouded, but fun--is anothe example of the emphatic use of the verb 'go'.
i know it, and i know why.
i am not sure any immersion in english (are we all already immersed in english?) is going to work unless you lock up the kids and their families, and control everything they listen to.. (and please don't let them listen to the shrub!) its not possible!
and besides, not every one learns best by hearing --some learn things best by reading, and some learn best by kinetic immersion (i'm one of those people who liked sentence diagrams.. i like boxing in the noun and verb, and that subordinate clauses that hung below (were a subordinate clause clearly belongs!)
simple audio immersion isn't going to work for everyone.
it might work for many, maybe even most, but doesn't every kid deserve an education, that meets their needs? and since many of us are mixed learners, doesn't it make sence to subject everyone to a mix?
NY State is famous for its Regent's exams.. for senior english, an essay, was worth a good 40% of your grade. some of the test was multiple choice too, with and it covered grammer, editing spelling, parts of speach (and i lucked out, 2 question were about copulative verbs!) there were also questions on required reading--
i can listen to spanish nowdays, and understand about 50%--but i don't know any of the rules of spanish grammar. i don't know spanish, and miss sublties. i sure would hate to go through life only knowing 50 or 60% of english.
repeatedly, your case seems to be, "this works for me" --as if you and your experience were the sum total of human experience. You are not all of humanity. what works for you, works for you. but please don't decree that i have to be a round peg too, just because you fit in a round hole.
doing so, makes me what to suggest a round hole you can go fit yourself into!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
Bravo, Of Troy. You are certainly a worthy exponent of the other side of this argument. And, for that, you are to be commended, not least, by me. "english is no longer a simple creole that children can instintively 'grasp'
fine maybe you did, and maybe even most people do.. but a hell of a lot of people don't. they need to be taught grammar"Disagree, Of Troy. What they absolutely do NOT need is to be "taught grammar". What they need is to be exposed to the speaking and reading of proper english, fortified by consistent correction, so they can be hard-wired into proper english. And, dear Of Troy, how can it be an argument for exposing all pupils to the pointless torture of all of this esoterica when, by your own admission, only a minority would benefit from it? I am not trying to win debating points here, Of Troy. But what sense does it make to design any general program, any general program at all, around the most uncommon, common denominator [even if that minimalist standard actually had some conspicuous record of success ... a record painfully and conspicuously absent here]. What sense does that make, Of Troy? And, who is the "minority" we are patronizing, Of Troy? That "minority" is generally kids who were not privileged to experience proper english at home. So, let's stop and think about this, Of Troy. If kids who are privileged to experience proper english at home, before they enter school, have no need to learn "parts of speech" and complicated rules of grammar to become proficient in the 'sound' and structure and 'grammar' of proper english, why do you think we ought to impose another, far more onerous model on children who do not have the advantage of that privilege? Why, Of Troy?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529 |
Time out.
Plutarch is right, Wordwind is right, and, of course, of troy is right. The points made by the three of you demonstrate that you all have a heart-felt concern for the future of our kind as well as a carefully crafted view of the way we, as human animals, learn. Boldly, you three, all of cultured voice, walk grandly onto the Grand Awad International Stage and into the high drama of the second act without first knowing the score or the libretto, and yet, you three begin to sing.
Here is the libretto...
The Story of the Two Dogs
Once two fine cubs were born in a wolf litter. The Alpha male of the pack (whose name only coincidently was Pavlov)
was overcome with joy but troubled. The eyesight of the dominant bitch of the pack, whom he loved dearly, was failing and soon she would become blind. Without her, Pavlov knew, the pack would be lost, because in packs of wolves it is the Alpha Female (only the Alpha Male is allowed to call her a bitch) who holds the pack together and in Pavlov's pack the other females were simply whining curs with high skills in eating and grooming.
Ah Ha! Pavlov epiphanized, I will groom one of the fine new pups to be her seeing eye dog. I will teach him to protect and fetch. He will be her eyes for the common good.
And so it was.
Three winters passed. The pack was still together. One dog, who was no longer young, lay beside the Alpha Female who was blind. He no longer needed a nip on the nose or a bit of regurgitated food to fetch for her and to protect her from harm. This was his life. He did this automatically and without thought.
As he lay there he listened to the distant howl of the other as he railed against the brightness of the moon.
The End.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
He no longer needed a nip on the nose or a bit of regurgitated food to fetch for her and to protect her from harm.I may have to gurgitate on that for a while, themilum ... after I howl at the moon.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
As he lay there he listened to the distant howl of the other as he railed against the brightness of the moonMakes you wonder why a wolf howls at the moon, themilum. We assume it is just a quirk of its wolfish nature. Perhaps we are being unfair. We humans "howl", but usually we know the reason. We humans howl, sometimes in fright
Sometimes we howl in sheer delight
But oft we wonder as we sit
around a campfire brightly lit
Why does a wolf howl through the night
at the moon, with all its might
Perhaps, to say, "Turn off the light!"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529 |
Nice poem, Plutarch, but when in doubt invest in reality not humor. How about... We humans howl, sometimes in fright
Sometimes we howl in sheer delight
But oft we wonder as we sit
around a campfire brightly lit
Why does a wolf howl at the light
of the moon with all its might
Perhaps, to say, "Turn off the night!" ____________________________ __________________________
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
I would be an eccentric poet indeed if I thought anyone could improve on my own poetry, themilum. Besides which, "reality" is too omnipresent to be the stuff of poetry, at least the stuff of the kind of stuff which appeals to me. Poetry should take us away, if only for a moment, or give us a glimpse of some other "reality", wouldn't you say? In any case, I thank you for telling us the tale of the blind wolf and her two pups. It got me to thinking about the poetry in your own tale.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,328
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
763
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
