Cynthia,
   What you are reporting are the commendable practices of a dedicated and
caring teacher. Unfortunately, these are the kinds of "studies' that
have routinely been discarded in the major research studies
(meta-analysis of research)that have been used to say that grammar
doesn't work (hasn't been "proven" to work.)
   The Graham and Perin study (Carnegie report, 2007), heavily cited in
NCTE's recent reaffirmation of its position on grammar, follows this
practice. "Only studies employing an experimental or quasi-experimental
design were included....Each study in the meta-analysis compared at
least two groups of students who received different instructional
conditions. Correlational, qualitative, or single-subject design
studies and studies in which students served as their own comparison
group were not included"(36). They don't say these other approaches are
not valuable; just that they don't fit the criteria for meta-analysis.
>
   What that means, for example, is that students receiving grammar
instruction can be compared to students getting direct instruction in
writing on the basis of how well they do on a holistically assessed
writing sample, and this can be used to demonstrate that grammar drills
don't help writing. (What will show up in statistical terms is a
"negative effect" for the grammar instruction.) "Writing quality" is
the measured outcome.
   For Graham and Perin, they report using holistic scores and not
analytical scales whenever possible, but when they do use analytical
scales, mechanics is removed as a category (40). They don't explain the
basis for that decision.
   Though Graham and Perin are very careful not to make claims about the
definitive nature of their conclusions, NCTE seems quick to do just
that.
   It would be nice to measure how knowledge about language helps adults
make their way in their complex worlds. If we can understand the value
of this knowledge, then perhaps we can then ask about the best ways to
teach or acquire it.
   One reason why this is complicated is that language is used
unconsciously by most people most of the time. People seem to focus
more on "acquiring" the language than on understanding it, and they
tend to distort the issue by failing to distinguish between these
objectives. Traditional school grammar tries to get people to behave
"properly". As a result, it will always tend to have a negative
carryover when someone is trying to use language meaningfully. It is,
in the minds of the progressive educators, a distraction from the real
work of writing, which is the production of meaning. It's
simultaneously necessary and unimportant, at least in their eyes. So
the attempt is to relegate it to as small a role as possible.
   Meanwhile, most of us go from day to day on the basis of what seems to
help our students the most. In my case, I get students ready to do well
in a highly competitive college. I teach in a fish bowl. If I didn't
measure the results, someone else would do it for me.

   Craig


 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/

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/