First, I want to thank Harry Noden for his kind words about the bibliographical materials ― and again for his contributions to it. I'll think about his suggestion that I delete the negative comments about some of the works, but these are, after all, personal bibliographies that I am developing for a course in grammar that I hope to teach entirely over the internet.  Within that context, if I think that some of the works are junk, or that they are poor for this or that reason, I think I owe it to students to tell them so. In some cases, there are major ethical and/or political questions surrounding the work.  There are strong suggestions that some of the studies and articles were done with questionable motives ― comparable to the tobacco companies' studies of the effects of smoking.
     If this were the official ATEG bibliography, of course, the situation would be significantly different. Unfortunately, the ATEG bibliography project, started by Delma Porter, has fallen through. I am willing to post other people's comments on the works, even if they disagree with mine. I really have reservations, however, about posting a "neutral" bibliography of works about teaching grammar. Some of the work that has been done is excellent, and some of it is poor. In my bibliographies, I think I should have the right to suggest which is which, even if the bibliographies are open to the public.
     

     In Teaching Grammar as a Liberating Art, I have dealt with much of what Johanna wrote about. I have no trouble with Johanna going over the ground again, but I would suggest that there are numerous conclusions that can be made.

Johanna writes, for example:

"In CA, for example, very specific objectives for grammar have been set for each grade. Subject/verb agreement, for example, comes up for the first time in grade 3. In grade 7, appositives and prepositional phrases are targeted.
     We certainly DO need to coordinate this and at least come up with a suggested scope and sequence, which is what the ATEG committee is all about. But we should definitely do this not only on the basis of what we
think kids need to know and be able to do, but on what they are cognitively and linguistically ready for."

Teaching appositives to seventh graders is probably harmful. I base that conclusion on the studies of Hunt, O'Donnell, Loban, and on the work of Vygotsky and Piaget, and on the work of George Miller, among others. Determining what students "are cognitively and linguistically ready for" requires not just research, but also a theory of how language develops between third and twelfth grade. As I explain in more detail in TGLA, there is good evidence, both in research and theory, that appositives and gerundives (participles) develop as reductions of subordinate clauses. There is even more research that shows that students master subordinate clauses in grades seven through nine. Logically, therefore, it makes no sense to teach a class about appositives before they have mastered subordinate clauses. And, as I think I explained in TGLA, for some students such teaching is probably even detrimental.


Johanna also quotes my statement:
"the fact that students cannot identify these constructions, especially in their own writing, is a primary reason for the failure of much instruction about grammar."

and then asks:

"You mean it's a _result_ of the failure of grammar instruction?"

No, I meant "cause." But then, causes and effects are chains, an effect of one thing becoming the cause of another. What I had in mind is that many teachers drill students ― "Subjects and verbs must agree in number." That instruction is doomed to failure BECAUSE students cannot identify subjects and verbs. Obviously, I would agree with Johanna (I think I am agreeing) that the fact that they cannot make such identifications is the RESULT of poor previous instruction.

Ed V.