Martha and I also give an overview of this in a Dec. 2005 co-authored
article in English Teaching: Practice and Critique. ("The Story of
English Grammar in United States Schools") The issue is available for
free online. Just google the journal title. That whole issue was
devoted to articles reacting to-- Hudson, R., & Walmsley, J. (2005).
The English patient: English grammar and teaching in the twentieth
century, Journal of Linguistics, 41 (3), 593-622--looking at why
there's such a gap between linguistics and English teaching in England.
Check out Debra Myhill's article while you're there. "Ways of Knowing:
Writing with Grammar in Mind" English Teaching: Practice and Critique
December, 2005, volume 4, number 3 pp. 77-96
Martha and I are rewritting our article by invitation for an anthology
of international articles that should be out later in the year.
(Rutledge.)
I also recommend MacDonald, Susan Peck. (2007). The Erasure of
Language. College Composition and Communication. 58 (4), 585-625.
I sometimes summarize the findings this way. Only very controlled
studies were deemed acceptable. All were short-term, in part for that
reason. Typically, Some students were taught grammar, others were asked
to practice writing, and both were scored on holistically assessed
writing samples at the end. Since the students who practiced writing
wrote better than the students who studied grammar, it was deemed
unproductive to teach grammar. The Braddock study went even farther by
saying it may be "harmful" to teach grammar because it pulls students
away from more productive activity.
There's no way to call judgements like this conclusive. (Silly comes to
mind for me, but I see it through a different lens.)
It's interesting that the people who say we shouldn't teach grammar
aren't ready to say that students shouldn't write "correctly", so
current practice is to do so "in the context of writing" with as little
metalanguage as possible. (Knowledge about language is not a goal.)
They begin to build the necessary knowledge from that end, at least in
theory, but it's not very systematic.
Here are a few useful quotes from Myhill:
The rejection of decontextualised, and with it by implication,
prescriptive, grammar teaching was rooted in insightful critique of what
was happening in English classrooms. In contrast, the “grammar in
context” principle is both less sharply critiqued and considerably less
clearly conceptualised. There has been little genuine discussion or
consideration of what “in context” means. Frequently, observations of
classroom practice indicate that the notion of “in context” means little
more than grammar teaching which is slotted into English lessons, where
the focus is not grammar, but some other feature of English learning.
(82)
There is also a danger of psuedo-contextualisation, where separate,
discreet grammar lessons are replaced by “mini” grammar lessons in the
midst of something else. (82)
What would be so much more interesting, and valuable, would be to explore
in more subtly nuanced detail what research can tell us about what aspects
of grammar and knowledge about language are most relevant to writing,
whether direct teaching of these features can help children improve their
writing, and what teaching strategies are most successful in enabling this
to happen. (80)
Craig
Martha briefly critiques the Harris and Elley studies and the Braddock and
> Hillocks reports in the following article.
>
> Rhetorical Grammar: A Modification Lesson
> Martha Kolln
> The English Journal, Vol. 85, No. 7, The Great Debate (Again): Teaching
> Grammar and Usage, (Nov., 1996), pp. 25-31 Published by: National Council
> of Teachers of English
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of John
> Dews-Alexander
> Sent: Sat 2/7/2009 6:26 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Does teaching grammar improve writing?
>
> Hi David!
>
> If I remember correctly, Tim Hadley, who is a member of this list and the
> editor of the *ATEG Journal*, has tackled this issue in the past and wrote
> a
> literal dissertation on it (Tim, I hope I'm not off the mark here). You
> may
> try searching the listserv archives (found via link on the ATEG site) for
> previous posts from him as well as others. I can't remember if there has
> been a journal issue devoted to this or not, but it would certainly make
> sense if there were.
>
> Here are two of the oft-quoted, "classic" works that are anti-grammar:
>
> Braddock, R., R. Lloyd-Jones, and L. Schoer. Research in Written
> Composition. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1963.
>
> Hillocks, G. Research on written composition. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearing
> House on Reading and Communication Skills, 1986.
> However, I've heard both of these studies soundly debunked.
>
> I would suggest Richard Hudson's article that appeared in an issue of
> *Syntax
> in the Schools* (formerly the ATEG journal) and that is now reprinted on
> the
> web. It has some good references for pro-grammar research as well as some
> discussion of the older anti-grammar stuff:
>
> http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/writing.htm
>
> Hope this helps!
>
> Regards,
>
> John Alexander
> On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 4:26 PM, David Kehe <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Recently, I've heard a number of college English composition instructors
>> say, "Research shows that teaching students grammar does not improve
>> their
>> writing."
>>
>> Do any of you know if this is commonly accepted "research" in English
>> departments?
>>
>> Do any of you know if there is research that shows the opposite, i.e.,
>> that explicit grammar instruction can help students improve their
>> writing
>> skills?
>>
>> I would greatly appreciate any insights that you might have.
>>
>> Dave Kehe
>>
>> 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/
>
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/
|
