RE: grammar

[Carl Glover <glover@msmary.edu>]

Eric,
	That is the finest definition of teaching that I have ever read.
My hat is off to you.
					Warm regards,



					Carl W. Glover
					glover@msmary.edu

On Mon, 4 May 1998, Eric Crump wrote:

> On Mon, 4 May 1998, Kuhne, David wrote:
> ->It still seems to me that if we can't teach writers to use correct
> ->constructions then maybe our "community" needs to take a close look at what
> ->we "really" do.  And no, I'm not joking.  Dave Kuhne
> 
> Great idea, Dave! We really *should* look closely at what we *really* do
> (and we should look rather oftener than we do). And we ought to be open to
> the possibility that our assumptions (even the most basic) are open to
> question.
> 
> For instance, you open up the possibility of questioning "teaching" 
> itself. Perhaps we can't teach anyone to use correct constructions. 
> Perhaps we can't teach anyone anything. Perhaps we never could and only
> believed in a myth of our own construction and for our self-justification.
> 
> I've been wondering for some time whether teaching, as I was taught to
> understand it, isn't just a name we give for a process that happens in
> different conditions and because of different influences than we assume.
> That is, when people learn something, it's the result of a complex of
> attitudes, assumptions, social conditions, motivations, and resources.
> Learning is a product of the interaction between various people, present
> or not, and all sorts of unaccountable forces. The old model of teacher
> giving students knowledge or access to it is such a vast
> oversimplification that it rather misses the mark entirely!
> 
> Maybe teaching, as such, doesn't really exist!
> 
> Whatcha think?
> 
> --Eric Crump
> 
>