Welcome to the club, Jeff.  I too found that the bottom line was that the
publisher wanted to use my name.

When you wrote that exam, did you find you had all kinds of other guidelines to
adhere to?  We "authors" (I use the term advisedly!) were given a list of about
15 no-nos to keep in mind when writing grammar exercises.  I've forgotten most
of them, but basically the idea was not to offend anybody with anything (so no
mention of the Civil War, for instance).  What really got me, though, was the
prohibition against naming negative emotions.  I decided to try it anyway, and
sure enough, things like "Laura was sad" came back edited as "Laura was happy."

Connie Weaver

JEFF GLAUNER wrote:

> I think the problem is that NCTE has put grammar research on its "blacklist"
> for publication.  There is plenty of research going on.  It just isn't
> published.  By extension, because it isn't publishable, it isn't written up
> by the researchers for publication.
>
> Another real problem that has become more evident lately is that elementary
> and secondary  and even college level achievement tests in language arts are
> largely based upon prescriptive traditional grammar.  They use a few
> contemporary terms, but it is easy to see that the ACORN has not fallen far
> from the tree.
>
> I had a similar experience to Connie's when I was invited to write an
> American Literature Advanced Placement Exam for the College Board.  I
> discovered that our names were on the test as authors largely to give the
> publisher credibility, but the content was decided before we started
> writing.  Any item that was at all challenging had to refer to a dead white
> guy.  I think, for the moment, we are going to have to do most of our
> exchange of ideas about grammar along with reporting our research on the
> internet.
>
> Jeff Glauner
> Park University
>
> Connie wrote:
>
> > I'd also like to ask for help:  Do any of you know of recent (last five
> > years) experimental research on the teaching of grammar, either within or
> in
> > isolation from context?  I'd trying to catch up, and it looks as if the
> ERIC
> > system has virtually nothing.  A friend checked various other sources in
> > 1997, but didn't find a single thing that wasn't already included in
> widely
> > known summaries, such as that of Hillocks and Smith in 1991.  Sometimes
> good
> > research just doesn't make it into the readily accessible sources, so I'd
> > appreciate any help y'all can give.
> >
> > Connie Weaver
> > Professor of English
> > Western Michigan University
> > Home:  (616) 372-7224
> > Fax:  (616) 372-7225
> >
> > Johanna Rubba wrote:
> >
> > > Last fall I had the chance to take a close look at grammar materials in
> > > books for K-8, of about a 1997-1998 vintage. Major publishers such as
> > > Houghton-Mifflin, Scott Foresman, Prentice Hall, etc. The material is
> > > quite generous in most cases, but it is also quite traditional. I can't
> > > be satisfied with these materials as long as they continue to use
> > > definitions that are inaccurate ('pronouns take the place of nouns' --
> > > they take the place of noun phrases) or not particularly useful ('the
> > > subject is what the sentence is about'; 'a sentence expresses a complete
> > > thought'). They confuse form with function: anything that modifies a
> > > noun must be an adjective (but nouns can modify nouns in English). Also,
> > > I have found no book that tells the truth about dialect variation:
> > > double negatives aren't wrong, they follow the rules of a different
> > > dialect of English.
> > >
> > > Also, none of the materials related sentence grammar to text functions
> > > such as maintaining topic thread, achieving coherence, or distinguishing
> > > given from new information. This connection is what makes grammar
> > > relevant to writing. I just demonstrated this for an hour to my
> > > students, and several of them left remarking on how interesting and
> > > useful this material is; one wants me to help her with her writing
> > > because she has coherence problems.
> > >
> > > Simply resurrecting traditional grammar is no guarantee that students
> > > will be able to take advantage of knowledge of grammar in their writing.
> > > It's not even a guarantee that they will be able to pass the
> > > standardized tests that a lot of the curriculum is teaching to.
> > >
> > > I also find most of these materials discriminatory. A lot of exercises
> > > and tests target nonstandard dialect grammar, such as 'he don't' and
> > > double negation. A lot of these materials ask students to either supply
> > > the 'correct' form or choose between a 'correct' and 'incorrect' form.
> > > Some of these are multiple-choice items. Looking at such items from the
> > > point of view of children, some will intuitively know the 'right' answer
> > > simply because they grew up in a home in which the standard dialect is
> > > spoken. Others will have trouble choosing because both standard and
> > > nonstandard forms will sound right. For yet others, the nonstandard
> > > forms will sound most natural, and they will pick the wrong answer.
> > > Isn't it obvious that such materials disadvantage children from
> > > nonstandard-dialect backgrounds? Won't it be these children that score
> > > low on the standardized tests (not to mention their school tests)?
> > >
> > > The instruction itself sends these children the message that there is
> > > something wrong with _their_ English, while the children in their school
> > > from middle-class homes, and their teachers, already speak 'correct'
> > > English. What are the children supposed to conclude from this? That they
> > > grew up in defective homes/communities? That they aren't smart enough to
> > > have learned 'correct' English, like their classmates?
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > Johanna Rubba   Assistant Professor, Linguistics
> > > English Department, California Polytechnic State University
> > > One Grand Avenue  . San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
> > > Tel. (805)-756-2184  .  Fax: (805)-756-6374 . Dept. Phone.  756-259
> > > . E-mail: [log in to unmask] .  Home page:
> http://www.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
> > >                                        **
> > > "Understanding is a lot like sex; it's got a practical purpose,
> > > but that's not why people do it normally"  -            Frank
> Oppenheimer
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~