>>>I don't think circling things in a worksheet gets students to where they >actually learn the structure. They need to do sentence combining to get the >language part of the brain to figure the structure out. Then they can write >their own sentences using the structure. <<<<< I agree that circling things in a worksheet doesn't help much (nor most exercises in grammar textbooks). However, sentence combining has its limitations, depending on how it is approached. I think a really structured form of sentence combining is most effective. I started working with a series of exercises, starting with sentence structure imitation, as well as sentence combining and sentence deconstruction, and a modified form of diagramming for compounds, followed by paragraph or journal writing where kids were expected to use certain constructions. I found it worked if I started with really simple sentences, to get down the process, and gradually increased the complexity of the sentences. I also have kids identify different types of modifiers, and locate the word(s) that are being modified. Once the kids learn how to use particular structures, learning the names of the structures is more useful, and easier to achieve. Interestingly, I believe that once kids learn to recognize certain structures, their reading comprehension while reading those structures seems to improve. I haven't tested this out objectively. I do know that the kids I used these activities did start to pay better attention to what they were reading, as measured by some multiple guess tests required by the school at which I was teaching, but that may have been due to a number of other factors as well. I know that when I looked at how effectively they were able to imitate sentence structures, their reading comprehension fell off at about the same level of complexity -- the longer sentences confused them. I suspect that SOME FORMS of grammar instruction can improve reading comprehension -- but that does not cover most grammar instruction as taught in traditional grammar textbooks. I'm also interested in the relationship between implicit and explicit teaching of grammar. I suspect that each type of teaching has something to contribute to a student's learning, but that children lose out if one or the other is missing. From what I've gathered, explicit teaching can attract a child's attention to certain elements, but they need opportunities for implicit learning (such as contained in sentence combining, sentence structure imitation, as well as plain old reading, listening, speaking, and writing) for this explicit instruction to become ingrained. Once this has happened, I think that further explicit instruction can help the child gain more conscious control of his/her use of specific structures. If this theory is correct, then the most effective grammatical instruction would contain elements of explicit instruction as well as activities that develop implicit understanding. Knowing the name of something and being able to describe it, does not of itself enable a child to use the construction effectively. A child can learn to use constructions effectively without being able to explain it, but may not happen upon this knowledge by him/herself, and further, will not gain the conscious control that can be gained through the ability to explain those structures. I suggest that the teaching of grammar needs to be rethought. If previous studies have proven that grammar instruction is not effective (arguable as that is), perhaps it is the type of grammar instruction that was tested, rather than the whole idea of grammar instruction. If teachers were introduced to more useful forms of grammar instruction, perhaps they would be more open to incorporating it into their lessons. Susan 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/