Regarding the accurate measurement of improvement, a useful distinction can be drawn between accurate knowledge and fluent knowledge. If one knows something (e.g., math facts, identification of subject and verb, sentence combining patterns, sentence transformation patterns) with 100% accuracy, but is much slower in production than an expert, three things are predictable: the learner's error rate will increase rapidly without continued practice, the learner will be easily distracted by other cognitive tasks, and the learner will be unlikely to apply the knowledge. If we measure the effectiveness of our instruction by the degree to which our students are accurate, we are unlikely to get the level of transfer we seek. A better measurement method would include a measure of how close the learner comes to expert level automaticity. Our students are unlikely to achieve this level of performance unless we explicitly teach for it. The Precision Teaching literature explains
fairly clearly how to do this.
If there is interest in an exploration of how these techniques might be applied to teaching and applying grammar, let me know.
Scott Woods
Peter Adams <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Kolln, Martha. "Closing the Books on Alchemy." CCC 32: 139-51.
Martha not only read Hillocks, but she went back and read all the studies on which Hillocks based his conclusions. Her discussion demonstrates serious flaws in research procedures in almost all the studies. She also points out that what is considered "the formal teaching of grammar" is quite bizarre in some cases and what is considered "teaching writing" is not far from such approved techniques as sentence combining.
I would add that, even if the research of Hillocks and Braddock et al were correct, even if the teaching of "formal grammar" could be shown to "do no good," that does not necessarily mean we should abandon teaching formal grammar. Another logical response would be to find ways to "teach formal grammar" more effectively, which, I take it, is what many of us are trying to do.
One other point. Many of the studies divide the subjects into two groups: one is "taught grammar" while the other is focuses on writing. After a period of time, the writing of the two groups is evaluated. The result, over and over, is that the writing of the group that was "taught grammar" shows no measurable advantage over the other group. Of course, that result could just as easily be interpreted as showing that "teaching writing" does no good because that group improved no more than the group that was "taught grammar." It is certainly erroneous to claim that "teaching formal grammar" may do harm because it takes time away from other, more useful, activities. The groups that were taught writing without grammar did not improve any more than the groups that were taught grammar.
One last observation. It may turn out that the real criticism should not be aimed at any of these teaching approaches. The problem may be with our instruments for measuring progress. We are all familiar with the many studies that show that some intervention "does not produce any measurable improvement." Class size, the use of computers, teaching grammar. None of them show measurable improvement. Perhaps we don't yet have a technique for measuring improvement accurately.
In a message dated 10/30/06 2:46:57 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:
Peter &/or Martha -
What are Martha's rebuttals that you mention?
Geoff
>And NCTE continues to cite only the well-worn studies condemning grammar
>instruction without even mentioning Martha Kolln's thorough and compelling
>rebuttal to those studies . . .
Peter Adams
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/
---------------------------------
Get your email and see which of your friends are online - Right on the new 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/