From Inside Higher Ed: MISALIGNED PRIORITIES:
Colleges rely on high schools to produce students who can do college-level work. But, according to a study released today, college professors and high-school educators don’t necessarily see eye-to-eye on what the curriculum for college-prepared students should be.
The ACT’s National Curriculum Survey for 2005-2006 … highlights a “misalignment” gap that has persisted for the 30 years it’s been given, said Cynthia B. Schmeiser, president and chief operating officer of the ACT’s education division. “We haven’t seen it really getting any bigger, nor have we seen it getting any smaller,” Schmeiser said, but she noted that conversation on the topic was increasing….
…In math, … college instructors preferred an understanding of the fundamentals to a focus on higher-level study, while high-school teachers placed greater emphasis on the latter, such as statistics and graphical representations — often, colleges fear, to the detriment of the basics. In the sciences, college educators believe an understanding of the scientific process and investigative methods is more important than knowledge of specific content areas — again, the opposite of teachers’ focus in high school.
In English, the survey suggests, high school instructors’ focus on the development of students’ ideas overlooks basic grammatical and syntactic skills ….
11 comments:
I believe that the current "process" model for composition, as taught in high schools, colleges and universities, is flawed. It privileges free expression of the students' ideas over the formal constraints on that expression. Said constraints are moved to the last step of the process, almost as an incidental. I believe that every high school student should have an intensive class in English as a Foreign Language, emphasizing the linguistic aspects which would ordinarily be highlighted in all other varieties of language learning. That means vocabulary, conjugation, declension, tenses, moods, etc. In an intensive (multi-period) class focusing on composition and conversation, there would be no way to get out without a grasp of formally correct English.
Either that, or make them take Latin for a few years. Latin sharpened my ability to analyze English, to construct properly subordinated and apposite clauses, et cetera. It enlarged my vocabulary, and helped me in many other ways. If it was good enough for John Milton and Alexander Pope, it's good enough for today's bunch.
FROM today's bunch:
No habla Inglis.
The result of not teaching grammar is manifest every day in class and in life. We have a couple of generations of young or young-ish people who cannot write nor can they speak effectively.
It's only flawed in the public schools, 9:34. Not many in the privates that can't write. Interesting, huh?
Well, 5:51, that's a quick and facile thing to say--thre are many complex socioeconomic factors having to do with public schools v. private, not the least of which is that private schools do not have to accept anyone who walks through the door.
Interesting, huh?
There's absolutely no connection between one's formal knowledge of English grammar and the ability to write academic English. Furthermore, traditional models of English grammar lack both descriptive and explanatory adequacy--in part because English is a Germanic language, not a Latinate language like Spanish or French.
What students need to do to become better writers is simply to read, read, read.
That's what people like Geoff Pullum would have you believe, but what do you expect from a descriptivist? As for the Germanic nature of English, the Germans actually feature grammar quite prominently in their curriculums. The BMBF even has a department for Rechtschreibung, following the reforms early this decade.
You infer that I simplify, 11:58, and I submit that you provide nothing but excuses. Yes, very interesting indeed.
Excuses for what, 4:46? You're the one who started the vague commentary about schools. Do this--go ahead and make some sort of point that has a foundation.
I agree with Anonymous 1:06pm and so does much of the research on writing. There is very little connection between formal study of grammar and writing ability; in fact, one can be a great grammarian and a poor writer. What makes people good writers is a print rich environment and that means read, read, read. Or, I suppose, what made people great bardic declaimers was listen, listen, listen. For more on this topic see a monograph written by Krashen titled Writing. In it he summarizes most of the research done on writing in the last 30 years, and, you guessed it, that research says that better writers are those who read more. Or read The Power of Reading, by the same author.
And in case you were worried that the younger generation is going to hell in a hand basket because their grammar does not match yours, remember that language does not evolve or devolve, it just changes constantly. Grammarians serve a very useful purpose in keeping it static for a given 40 year period so we can all communicate, but eventually the grammarians are forced to give in to usage. Witness dove for dived, hung for hanged, ice cream for iced cream, old fashion for old fashioned, snuck for sneaked (these last two not yet accepted by grammarians, but in time they will be). When my students wonder why "people" don't speak "properly" anymore, I remind them that we do not speak like Shakespeare or Ben Franklin anymore either. I have to admit, I do lament the demise of the adverb. I always make my family members say "Drive safe-ly" or else I promise to turn in front of oncoming traffic!
jonathan k. cohen:
The fact that "Germans feature grammar quite prominently in their curriculums" (and shouldn't a prescriptivist have written "curricula"?) has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that English is a Germanic, not a Latinate, language.
The best English grammar test takers I ever met in my life were some English teachers from Japan. But they couldn't speak, understand, or write English worth a damn.
And, yessiree, I sure do like Geoff Pullum and the rest of the folks over at Language Log. In fact, that's where I'm going right now.
--Anonymous 1:06,100 miles down the road
Post a Comment