Reviewer # 2
As I read, always at the back of my mind was the
first line of poetry that begins, .
"Today we have naming of parts.. ..." 1 think that is what this text
does, merely names
parts and tacks on some exercises that will hopefully lock the name
of the part in the
student's memory. That is the problem I see with this text; it provides
little to no
opportunity for transference, particularly into the student's writing.
And that is what I
think as the only reason for studying the grammar.
As a reader, I am also "offended" by the oft
given suggestion that I "seek out the
web site for further clarification or elaboration." Kind of like authors
on talk shows, when
asked a questions, reply "I go into detail on that in my book."
I guess all this is to say, that:
A I don't think this text will contribute to improving the
and learning of grammar. I think it is still another text advocating
teaching of grammar in isolation.
B. There is structure to what Ed is doing, advocating that grammatical
concepts be taught in an hierarchy, but I believe the audience
for that concept is very limited and therefore, this text would
have little appeal to a wider audience.
C. The manuscript might "push" the field by Vavra's call to teach grammar
hierarchically, but again, I feel there is little audience to hear
D. My biggest criticism of this text would be that Vavra doesn't make
strong connection between acquiring grammatical skills and
transferring those skills to speaking and writing. To me, this
is the main purpose in teaching any grammar; transference.