[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RE: [xmca] new national curriculum in Australia
Hi all,
My offline comment to Andy about grammar referred to the fact that I did
not learn any formal grammar at school and yet people regularly
compliment me on my writing skills. I have obviously picked up the
important points without knowing how or why. A problem only arises if
someone starts using grammatical terminology (such as the references in
the new curriculum to adverbials, connectives and determiners for
starters). I don't share the formal language to be able to discuss
language on this meta-level even though I am apparently able to use it
in an everyday way. Mind you, I am feeling very paranoid writing this
that I'm probably making heaps of grammatical errors!!
Likewise, when I discovered CHAT I suddenly had this whole new language
for being able to discuss and analyse what I had previously only
observed and intuited as a teacher and parent. So yes, I suppose we are
talking about scientific concepts. The question is at what point should
the scientific concepts be introduced? My worry is that subjecting
children to formal grammar lessons too early deprives them of the
opportunity and freedom to learn the great pleasure of writing without
worrying that they are doing it all wrong. You have no idea how many
times I have nearly erased this entire message now that I am so
conscious about writing it right! But at some point, the right amount of
formal knowledge does allow us to take our everyday knowledge to a new
level, to be able to discuss, debate, analyse, improve and share our
understanding. To ignore teaching these concepts deprives our students
of the opportunities to move to this higher level of understanding, yet
to teach them t
oo soon and out of context makes them meaningless and irrelevant and
will put students off choosing to engage with these forms of knowledge
anyway.
I sure don't know the answer to this grammar conundrum, but I know there
is a whole generation of teachers here in Australia who will soon be
hitting the grammar textbooks in an effort to stay one step ahead of
what they are supposed to be teaching. Maybe this will be a good thing
for the teachers to learn, but I can't see it improving my Grade 2 son's
willingness to get to school on a Monday morning and complete the
dreaded "On the weekend..." diary writing exercise! Or maybe even boring
old diary writing will get the chop in order to make room for the
grammar lessons. Something's got to give somewhere to make time for it,
and my real concern is that it will be the last remaining vestiges of
creativity that will disappear as teachers try to cover everything
required.
Cheers,
Helen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Duvall, Emily" <emily@uidaho.edu>
Date: Tuesday, March 2, 2010 5:59 pm
Subject: RE: [xmca] new national curriculum in Australia
To: ablunden@mira.net, "eXtended Mind, Culture,Activity"
<xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> I've been out of the loop. Are we talking about scientific concepts?
> ~em
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 8:45 PM
> Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture,Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] new national curriculum in Australia
>
> I had a real MacCarthyist fascist teacher in sixth grade
> primary school (1956) who belted gramar into our heads. I
> never forgot the grammar or stopped hated he who gave it to
> me. Progressive education put an end to all that in the late
> 60s or early 70s I think.
>
> But my interest is in the Davydov take on this. Let's assume
> that people don't need to learn grammar in order to use it
> effectively as a citizen, any more than they need Euclidean
> geometry. Isn't it the case that being required to think
> about how you compose language formally is an important part
> of acquiring that type of thinking that formal schooling is
> supposed to provide? It is like literacy plus. Here I get
> wires-crossed with Mike's questioning of formal schooling
> altogether, but Ah! what the hell?
>
> Andy
>
> Duvall, Emily wrote:
> > Interesting about the grammar.
> > I had a father who was fanatical, so I think that lay the foundation
> for
> > me... he was always studying his German (later his Russian) and took
> > language study, and grammar especially, quite seriously. One of my
> > favorite books of his was (and still is) the Loom of Language... I
> > became fascinated by the similarities.
> > At any rate, when we moved to Germany (I was 9) I encountered
> grammarin
> > an upfront way and it was really through the study of foreign
> language> that I began to learn about grammar in a deep way. Now it
> is forever
> > visible... :-)
> > NCTE (National Council of Teachers of English) members have some
> > disagreement as to whether it should be taught explicitly or
> absorbedin
> > context. ATEG, the Assembly for Teaching of English Grammar has a
> brief
> > monograph on the topic. http://www.ateg.org/monographs/mulroy.php
> If
> > you go to the home page and play around you will find more links
> than> you ever imagined on grammar.... :-)
> >
> > That said... for my money, grammar is best taught in short bursts
> when> it is needed. Assess the individual's development... look at
> what they
> > are closest to and work on that area... don't tackle what is
> "missing",
> > but what is developing. A little formal, explicit teaching can
> really> support what we have already acquired.
> >
> > ~em
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-
> bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]> On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
> > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 6:21 PM
> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: [xmca] new national curriculum in Australia
> >
> > Our immensely incompetent Labor Government yesterday
> > announced their new national curriculum for schools
> > (formerly this was a state responsibility).
> >
> > It features the teaching of history from the very beginning,
> > including indigenous history (this is an unambiguous good)
> > and emphasises the 3 Rs, including grammar. No curriculum
> > has been set yet in Geography and other subjects.
> >
> >
> http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/a-sound-beginning-
> 20100301-p
> > dlv.html
> >
> > Helen raised with me off-line this problem of reintroducing
> > the teaching of grammar: who is going to educate the
> > educators? Anyone under 55 today did not learn grammar at
> > school or until they did a foreign language, when they
> > learnt the grammar of the other language. (Grammar means
> > "Which icon do I click now?")
> >
> > What do xmca-ers think about teaching grammar? (I am in favour.)
> >
> > Also, many progressive educators here are opposed to
> > curricula in toto: education should be about learning not
> > content. Do xmca-ers agree?
> >
> > Given the disastrous implementation of policies by this
> > government over the past 2 years, I fear for our education
> > system. What do people think?
> >
> > Andy
> >
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
> > Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
> > Ilyenkov $20 ea
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
> Ilyenkov $20 ea
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca