Dear Craig and all:
   
  I lost the beginning of this thread, but it sounds like many of you are attempting to implement some sort of empirical research.
   
  I would  like to suggest (you've probably already thought of this) that you include elementary and high school teaching practices that produce competent writers (and let's not forget readers--we don't really discuss knowledge of grammar and how that impacts reading skill).  I am sure that I am like many other high school teachers who collect tangible evidence and proof that we use to adjust our teaching practices.  For example,  I try to track  my graduates' success in various colleges, particularly their ability to write successfully for a variety of college classes. While their feedback may be anecdotal, it still informs my teaching.  I doubt that any formal or scientific tracking of this nature exisits.
   
  I also monitor my students' standardized test scores and enter my students in as many writing contests as possible, particularly local contests which involve like students from similar schools in my area.  I have had my share of successes in these contests, which help to confirm my teaching practices and emphases.  Whenever I am questioned by parents, students, or peers about my type of grammar instruction, I have evidence to support my decisions. And when I hear or see that what I am doing is not productive, I adjust.  
   
  I leave it to you experts to determine how such research occurs.  I just know that aside from conversations, I have never been included in a formal research study, yet I read tons of stuff on how not to teach!  I have had opportunity to dialogue with consultants at my state level, but no idea how or if my comments or experiences are actually used. I have never been asked to provide a description of "what works" or even "what doesn't work" based on my years of teaching experience, failures, and successes with the particular students that I serve. 
   
   thanks for reading this!  Keep up the good work.

Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
  > Geoff,John,
I like the idea of a two pronged approach. Before we can test an
approach, we need to design and implement it. In the meantime, we can
certainly show ways in which Hillocks' view of grammar is deeply
problematic. Here are a few key quotes from Research in written
Composition. They show a very narrow (and indefensible) view of grammar
and admit that we need a much better understanding of what knowledge of
grammar would help even narrow (error focused) concerns.
The problem is that very few people have ever read Hillocks, but they
can recite the NCTE position that draws from it. Political correctness
substitutes for real thought; ironically, it may be the marginalized
populations that suffer the most by this retreat from conscious
attention.

from Research on Written composition (1986)

“Composing takes place at various levels of abstraction: from deciding
general text plans and intentions to producing the graphemic
representations….That is, competent writers do not simply generate
sentences. They generate them after thinking about purposes, content, and
so forth… The point is if the study of grammar and mechanics is brought to
bear on the composing process at all, it is likely to influence only the
most concrete levels, the planning and editing of specific sentences. But
such study would have no effect on the higher-level processes of deciding
on intentions and generating and organizing ideas. “(226)

“The study of traditional school grammar is not designed to help children
generate sentences but only to parse already-generated sentences. Thus,
the study of grammar is unlikely to be helpful even in the planning of
specific sentences. The study of mechanics and usage (what might be called
“conventional correctness”) is likely to have effect only in the
last-minute editing done during transcription or in the editing process 
following it. In short, the findings of research on the composing process
give us no reason to expect the study of grammar or mechanics to have any
substantial effect on the writing process or on writing ability as
reflected in the quality of the written products. Experimental studies
show that they have little or none. These findings have been consistent
for many years” (226-227).


“Even the most liberal authorities…recognize a need to attend to the
mechanics of writing, although they would abjure the traditional naming of
parts of speech and parsing of sentences” 138.
[There are two questions that need to be addressed. The first is how
much error is acceptable, which is] “Not answerable by research.
Teachers and institutions must decide for themselves on acceptable
error types and rates” (139).

“Very little research on the teaching of mechanics has been conducted. The
teaching of grammar and correctness has had, at best, mixed results even
for teaching correctness. We do not know how much grammar or what
grammatical knowledge writers must have to copyread with accuracy” (140).

Hope this helps,

Craig





John -
>
> There are two approaches here - the best, as you indicate, is the
> full-blown
> "empirical" evidence study that will spark a successful
> counter-reformation
> and win back wayward protestant souls.
> Craig suggested the other approach, to begin academic rebuttals of the
> foundational Hillock Theses that were hung on the NCTE church door so long
> ago.
>
> Can we start this conversation in various NCTE journals as well as the
> various rhetoric rags? This may then lead to support for a more
> full-blown
> emperical study that you suggest.
>
> Geoff
>
>
>>May I, however, in the smallest of voices, request once again that we
>>hold our feet to the same fire as we request of "them": that we
>>present empirical evidence in support of whatever we come up with.
>>Saying that this approach or that approach is better because ATEG says so
>>isn't going to win many converts.
>>
>>John
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Use your PC to make calls at very low rates
> https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
>
> 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/


 
---------------------------------
Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Yahoo! Messenger's cheap  PC-to-Phone call rates.

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/