Grammar Texts for English Ed Teachers
|Submitter Email:||click here to access email|
On 02-Feb-2005, I posted an inquiry regarding potential English grammar
texts for students who are preparing to become English education teachers.
Below is a summary of responses to that inquiry.
Respondents discussed texts that they had used or are intending to use.
Eleven different texts were mentioned:
Barry, Anita. 2002. English grammar: language as human behavior. 2nd
edition Pearson Education.
Berk, Lynn. 1999. English syntax: from word to discourse. Oxford
Clark, Mary. 2003. The structure of English for readers, writers and
teachers. College Publishing.
Denham, Kristin and Anne Lobeck. (eds.) 2005. Language in the schools:
integrating linguistic knowledge into K-12 teaching. L. Erlbaum Associates.
Disterheft, Dorothy. 2004. Advanced grammar: a manual for students.
Emery, Donald, Kierzek, John, and, Peter Lindblom. 2004. English
fundamentals. 13th ed. Longman.
Gelderen, Elly van. 2002. An introduction to the grammar of English:
syntactic arguments and socio-historical background. John Benjamins.
Kaplan, Jeffrey. 1995. English grammar: principles and facts. 2nd ed.
Klammer, Thomas P., Muriel R. Schulz, & Angela Della Volpe. 2004. Analyzing
English grammar. 4th ed. Allyn & Bacon.
Kolln, Martha and Robert Funk. 1998. Understanding English grammar. 5th ed.
Allyn and Bacon.
Loebeck, Anne. 2000. Discovering grammar: an introduction to English
sentence structure. Oxford.
Riley, Kathryn and Frank Parker. 1998. English grammar: prescriptive,
descriptive, generative, performative. Allyn and Bacon. [out of print]
There were a number of recurrent themes in the responses. Several people
chose a text based on how user-friendly it was and the degree to which it
specifically addressed the needs of undergraduates (Barry and van Gelderen
were cited), others were more concerned with the level of detail or
traditional presentation of grammatical facts (Emery, et al, and Kaplan
were cited). A few respondents focused on texts that eclectically drew upon
insights from different theories of language and led students to think
critically and analyze, rather than just memorize (Kammer, et al., was cited).
The most frequent complaints about texts arose from confusing layouts, lack
of depth, or level of difficulty. Many also wanted texts that contained
some specific features, for example the use of both generative-style tree
and Reed-Kellogg sentence (e.g., Riley and Parker and Kammer, et al.) or
the inclusion of exercises. The inclusion of exercises was, in fact, a
frequent theme among respondents, and many of the texts on the above list
have accompanying pedagogical aids such as instructor's manuals, teaching
suggestions, study guides, exercises, and answer keys. Some include
publisher-sponsored websites with additional instructional aids.
Thanks to James Vanden Bosch, Lynn Burley, Susan Burt, Dorothy Disterheft,
Stan Dubinsky, Marina Gorlach, Joel Hardman, Paul Justice, and Johanna
Rubba for their responses. Please forgive if anyone's response has been
Southern Illinois University Edwardsville
|Original Query:||Read original query|
Sums main page