I'm sorry I wasn't clearer in my disclaimer about the statistic where I
tried to acknowledge that I knew it wasn't on point.  The reason I used the
statistics was to try (unsuccessfully, apparently) to make this point: while
one technique or strategy may work wonderfully well for some people, many do
not work at all for others.

In the case of the example, it was phonetics, but it could be anything
including grammar instruction.  It is not a matter of grammar or process
being taught well or not well; it is not a matter of students not trying or
being too slow; it is that different things work for different people.  That
is why I thought the statement made at the end of one of the original posts
that process writing hadn't produced better writers than the writers of an
earlier generation was flawed.  I am sorry if I wasn't clear--I would never
try to use statistics to prove one thing was inferior or not because of
course they are flawed, etc.  I wouldn't even stand behind the 25% (it could
be 23% or 42% or 5% depending on the researcher) but I do think it is
important to know that not all things work for all people--no matter how
well or how thoroughly they are taught.

The key is variety in approaches.    That's what I was not quite getting
out.

Maureen

        ----------
        From:  EDWARD VAVRA [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
        Sent:  Friday, August 20, 1999 2:24 PM
        To:  [log in to unmask]
        Subject:  Re: How grammar is being taught in the classroom today
(k-12)

        Maureen noted that it is an either/or fallacy to assume that one
must teach process or grammar, but the question goes beyond that. There are
many, many different ways in which grammar can be taught, and even most of
the people who are interested in teaching grammar, i.e., the people on this
list, haven't given enough thought to the possible options and their
implications. (I'll document this in my report on the survey I gave at the
conference.)

        By the way, I am VERY distrustful of anyone who states that
"statistics show." Those are the words used to refer to all those
incompetent studies which were used to "prove" that teaching grammar is
ineffective. Martha destroyed many of those studies in her essay, "Closing
the Books on Alchemy," and I dealt with several of the later studies. See:
        http://www.sunlink.net/rpp/t001.htm
        In other words, before I trust any references to statistical
studies, I want specific bibliographical references so I can read the
studies. In those about grammar (Mellon's. O'Hare's, etc. ? See link
above.), the premises were often fallacious, methods were questionable,
terms were often poorly defined.