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/