Ron,

Some of the research from the 60s was comparative, one class working
only on composition skills for a semester and the other including
certain forms of grammar instruction, particularly those involved in
error detection and correction.  Research of this sort overlooks some
important facts, or at least possibilities.  First, it assumes that
grammar is about error detection and correction.  Second, it assumes
that the benefits of studying grammar can accrue over a short time.
Third, it assumes that if grammar is taught it is as part of the
composition curriculum.

The position of many of us in ATEG is that grammar is a separate part of
the language arts disciplines and that knowledge of language should be
as much a part of a general education as knowledge of civics, basic
finance, and human anatomy.  A knowledge of grammar, as in the Middle
Ages and even in the 19th and early 20th cc., should be a prerequisite
to a college writing course, just as a knowledge of analytic geometry is
a prereq to a college calculus course.  If a student comes into the
college writing classroom with a working understanding of how grammar is
used to construct meaning and has the vocabulary to talk about this,
then the teacher can use the shared knowledge of grammar to help the
student improve his or her writing.

I think there is a pretty strong consensus that the composition class is
not the place to teach grammar but rather the place to exploit it.

Herb 


The brief summary of the relevant research and conclusion you provided, 
Bill, is both enlightening and extremely useful.   Thanks.

I wonder if you could add a little on the chronology and the curricula
of 
the period.

When was it the stated official belief that the teaching of grammar
would 
lead to improvement in writing ability and were there any research
findings 
to support the assumption.  I would have thought that it was pretty
obvious 
that one should not expect a direct effect on composition writing
ability of 
teaching a course of grammar.   I would expect the only useful grammar 
teaching to do would be that based on tackling common errors made in
essay 
writing by the student population involved.

Were there in the 60s compilations of common composition errors and were

they part of the composition curriculum?

You say teachers ended up neglecting composition writing because of an 
over-emphasis on grammar.   Does this mean that there were no actual 
composition classes?  Or does it mean that there were but that teachers
did 
not follow the curriculum, preferring to teach grammar when they should
have 
been teaching composition?

Ron Sheen



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William McCleary" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 4:15 PM
Subject: Re: The lessons of recent pedagogical history was Rules


> Herb,
>
> I just want to clarify for you what was actually said about the effect
of 
> grammar on the teaching of writing. Here is the much misinterpreted 
> statement from
> Research in Writing Composition  by Braddock, Lloyd-Jones and Schoer 
> (NCTE, 1963):
>
> In view of the widespread agreement of research studies based upon
many 
> types of students and teachers, the conclusion can be stated in strong
and 
> unqualified terms: the teaching of formal grammar has a negligible or,

> because it usually displaces some instruction and practice in actual 
> composition, even a harmful effect on the improvement of writing.
>
> Some people seem to read right over the clause after "or." And I can 
> testify from personal experience that the teacher of grammar did
displace 
> the teaching of composition. (I started teaching English in 1961)
Indeed, 
> at the time we considered the teaching of grammar to be a significant
part 
> of teaching composition. We thought that students couldn't understand
and 
> correct their errors unless they first learned enough about grammar
for us 
> to explain the errors to them. Unfortunately, a lot of teachers spent
so 
> much time on grammar that they never got around to teaching
composition. 
> It is, after all, a lot easier to correct a grammar quiz than a 
> composition.
>
> I am sorry that so many people interpreted this conclusion by Braddock
et 
> al. to mean that grammar shouldn't be taught at all, but if one has to

> make a choice between grammar and composition, I'd rather see
composition 
> be the choice. I'd rather see both included, but that just leads to
making 
> of choice of which approach to grammar would be most teachable and
most 
> useful. I'm afraid that what we taught in the early sixties was
neither 
> teachable or useful for the majority of students. I'm happy to see
that 
> you are currently addressing that issue.
>
> Bill
>
> On Oct 13, 2007, at 4:15 AM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:
>
>> Ron,
>>
>> What you describe in the ESL context in Quebec and Bangalore is the
heart 
>> of what motivated the founders of ATEG, the theoretical claims in the

>> fifties and sixties that the teaching of grammar not only did not
help 
>> student writers improve their writing but actually detracted from it.

>> Composition writers argued that the teaching of grammar was harmful
to 
>> the teaching of writing.  NCTE adopted this finding and the training
of 
>> teachers in grammar, the place of grammar in K12 language arts
curricula, 
>> and, of course, the place of grammar in the writing class all
diminished 
>> sharply.
>>
>> Herb
>>
>>
>> Bruce raises an interesting issue which all teachers have to confront

>> from
>> time to time.   That is the implementation of an innovation which
they 
>> are
>> not necessarily equipped to handle and which they find implicitly
entails
>> their rejecting their own teaching prinicples.  This happened in ESL
in
>> Quebec and Bangalore, India in the 80s where teachers were forbidden
to
>> teach grammar when an extreme form of communicative language teaching
was
>> introduced which, by the way, ultimately failed.
>>
>> I wonder whether any members have had experience of this in teaching 
>> English
>> as a first language.
>>
>> Interestingly, in the cases mentioned in the first pargraph, as
teachers
>> increasingly lost faith in the innovation, they returned
surreptitiously 
>> to
>> their own teaching principles.
>>
>> Ron Sheen
>>
>> 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/
>>
>>
> Bill McCleary
> Livonia, NY
>
> 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/

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/