My comments on empirical evidence, Gretchen, were, as I think I made clear, in no way an expression of doubt in your success.  My comments were both an implicit criticism of the proliferation of how to teach grammar books without including any attempt to demonstrate empirically that the approach proposed has been shown to be the optimal choice, and a suggestion to you that you consider doing some sort of comparative study yourself.in order to justify the publication of a book.

However, Craig Hancock claims that 'One of the problems with many "empirical" studies of grammar is that the outcomes have been so narrowly defined' and then, unfortunately, goes no further.  The whole area of comparative studies is a minefield waiting to blow up in the face of anyone attempting them.  This, however, is no reason to dismiss them with the sort of unsupported comment that Craig makes.

A discussion group such as this one provides a marvellous forum for teachers to engage in mutally helpful exchanges.  This said, however, following such exchanges quickly reveals that the 'evidence ' provided is largely anecdotal and, therefore, unreliable.   Though comparative empirical studies are not always reliable, it is undeniable that such studies rigorously carried out are the only way in which we can arrive at reliable findings which demonstrate for example that approach A is more effective than approach B in situation X with students of type Y with aim Z.

Now though the so-called action research carried out by practising teachers may sound seductive, we all should realise that the burden it imposes on teachers is enormous.  Consequently, before teachers embark on such a project, they should make themselves aware of what is involved.

Ron Sheen
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Gretchen Lee 
  To: [log in to unmask] 
  Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 6:46 AM
  Subject: Re: Supportive empirical evidence was Silly, rewarding grammar period


  In a message dated 9/10/2007 5:45:53 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [log in to unmask] writes:
    Though it is clearly desirable to trial approaches which engage students' interest and involvement, one should not confuse the latter with effectiveness in improving studens' production of more accurate grammar.
  Hello,

  I absolutely agree that empirical evidence is necessary.  I'm a loooong way from a book.  However, my students are lucky to be from the upper middle class and in some cases, the wealthy upper class.  Their production of "correct" grammar is very good, barring a few "between you and I" and lesser/fewer problems.  My aim is to engage them in analyzing grammar and making it seem interesting at the same time.  I can't teach lesser/fewer with countable nouns if they don't know (and don't care) what a countable noun is.

  At this point the class is less about error detection/prevention than it is about helping them find out that grammar is fascinating.  With a little luck, they will stay interested enough to want to take a linguistics class in college, rather than avoiding it at all costs.  My little class is obviously silly in many ways (see original subject line).  But for the first time in many of their lives, grammar is a class to which they look forward. I hope that's worthwhile.

  Thanks,
  Gretchen





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.
  To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" 
  Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ 

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/