I would add one small point to your post, Craig. I believe that whether or not grammar instruction translates into better reading and writing (and I believe it does), it must surely translate into better thinking. 

When one begins to understand how we connect ideas (phrases, clauses) to one another to make meaning, then one becomes more deliberate in one's own efforts to communicate. When we learn that in a sentence one idea may be subordinated to another and that where we place certain phrases can either direct or mislead a reader about our intended meaning, then is it possible *not* to be a better thinker? And doesn't our ability to think more clearly and precisely *have* to affect the clarity of our communication? 

I believe that it does, but I am still struggling with how to prove it.

Nancy
---- Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> wrote: 
> Scott,
>    Those are the million dollar questions. Current tests, including the 
> grammar test for the SAT, test behavior and not knowledge. The studies 
> which purport to show that grammar doesn't carry over look at written 
> product, not knowledge about language, and they are holistically 
> assessed, with some care not to assign much importance to mechanics. (In 
> the Graham /Perin meta-study, I believe mechanics was discarded from 
> criterion referenced studies.)
>    If we believe it is important for students to be able to recognize 
> relative clauses, then I agree--we can devise a program to teach that 
> and then measure out how well the teaching has taken hold.
>    At the moment, we simply do not have an agreed upon theory of how 
> knowledge about language might carry over into both reading and writing. 
> If we did, then we could measure the acquisition of knowledge as a 
> separate step.
>    Minimalist approaches tend to emphasize that language is "acquired." 
> They measure what people do, not what they know, because they feel 
> knowledge is not essential, even of dubious value. The testing 
> approaches reflect that bias.
> 
> Craig
> 
> Scott Woods wrote:
> > Listmates,
> > Are there any studies of the effects of grammar learning rather than 
> > instruction?  That is, do any studies look at what students have 
> > learned of the grammar of a language and how well they have learned 
> > it, especially in relation to changes in their writing and reading 
> > skills, rather than at grammar instruction, what the teacher did and 
> > asked them to do?  It seems to me that we should be concerned with the 
> > effects of instruction, measurable by what students learn, and with 
> > the effects of learning, measurable by what students can do with what 
> > they have learned.  If we jump from instruction to measuring the 
> > effects of learning, without measuring the learning, we would seem to 
> > be making an invalid logical inference by assuming that learning took 
> > place.  Are their existing standardized tests to measure grammar 
> > knowledge, including both accuracy and rate?
> >  
> > Scott Woods
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com 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/