John and others,

John has “hit the nail on the head” with this statement:

>The real implications of this research seems to be that there is an incredible dearth of quality evidence on the question. Rather than acknowledging this, the researchers choose to do as Elley and Braddock and so many others have done before and make the ridiculous assumption that a lack of evidence to support teaching grammar proves that it is ineffective. If such conclusions are taken as valid, then the opposite assumption can also be made: the lack of high quality evidence to support the prevailing belief of the anti-grammar crowd is evidence that teaching grammar does improve writing.

I wish everyone could read this statement. It summarizes the essence of the overwhelming a priori bias that existed against grammar teaching since at least 1945 at high policy-making levels.

Quick note: Earlier Geoff said that he thought Martha had refuted Hartwell’s article. Actually, Martha’s excellent article came out in 1981—“Closing the Books on Alchemy," CCC 32 (1981): 139–151—and was aimed primarily at the earlier (1963) Braddock report.

Tim

Timothy D. Hadley

Assistant Professor of Professional Writing

English Department

Missouri State University

Springfield, MO 65897

office 417.836.5332, fax 417.836.4226

[log in to unmask]

Editor, ATEG Journal

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of john whicker
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 12:55 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Patrick Hartwell's Article

Janet,

Thank you for the links; I found them very interesting if somewhat disheartening.

The most intriguing aspect of the grammar study is that two out of the three studies they found to be worth mentioning were 30 + years old (The (in)famous Elley study and the less well known Bateman and Zidonis study). The third study (Fogel and Ehri, which received the highest quality rating) was from 2000 gives some indication that teaching grammar may help improve writing (something strangely dismissed and downplayed by the researchers).

The disheartening aspect of the study is that, ignoring the study they themselves rate higher in quality than either of the others as well as the minimal positive results found in the Bateman study as inconsequential, they choose to conclude that "there is no high quality evidence to counter the prevailing belief that the teaching of the principles underlying and informing word order or ‘syntax’ has virtually no influence on the writing quality or accuracy of 5 to 16 year-olds." It seems to me, based on the fact that they could find only three studies worth mentioning and two of those showed some positive if not conclusive indications that grammar instruction might improve writing, that the researchers should have concluded that there is no conclusive "high quality evidence" to SUPPORT the prevailing belief that the teaching of grammar has no influence on the writing quality either. The real implications of this research seems to be that there is an incredible dearth of quality evidence on the question. Rather than acknowledging this, the researchers choose to do as Elley and Braddock and so many others have done before and make the ridiculous assumption that a lack of evidence to support teaching grammar proves that it is ineffective. If such conclusions are taken as valid, then the opposite assumption can also be made: the lack of high quality evidence to support the prevailing belief of the anti-grammar crowd is evidence that teaching grammar does improve writing. This assumption might even be the more rational considering how many researchers have tried and failed to put the final nail into grammar's coffin. The sheer volume of bad studies, and the very questionable nature of even those considered to have "high to medium" or "medium to high" quality should hint at some positive aspect of the teaching of grammar that resists all efforts to banish it completely.

These of course are far from good reasons to teach grammar, but they follow the same logic as the continued argument that if there is no high quality evidence showing improvement then no improvement occurs; having no conclusive either way is not evidence against. The real implications of this research is that quality research needs to be conducted less we continue to simply rehash old and questionable studies.

The findings on sentence combining also simply come to the same conclusions made thirty years ago, and will likely be treated in the same way.

At the risk of being cliché, "the more things change the more they stay the same".

John Whicker

Utah Valley State College

----- Original Message -----

From: Castilleja, Janet

To: [log in to unmask]

Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 10:17 AM

Subject: Re: Patrick Hartwell's Article

I currently teach a grammar class for prospective teachers. I always
have them read the Hartwell article, which I believe I first read around
1985 or 86.

I would encourage anyone interested in a synthesis of research into the
effect of grammar-teaching on student writing to read these reports:

http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=229

http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=232

The EPPI Centre "conducts systematic reviews of research evidence across
a range of topics and works with a large number of funders" according to
their website. What they are trying to do is influence public policy by
studying research that has been done in a number of areas, including the
teaching of English, to determine what the research actually shows.
Their question is "what has been shown to work?" I'm surprised more
people in the US aren't aware of this group.

Janet Castilleja
Toppenish WA

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carol Morrison
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 3:17 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Patrick Hartwell's Article

Thank you. I am only halfway through his article, but
it seems quite important. I currently give formal
grammar instruction to four freshman sections of basic
writing (at the most basic level) and I am trying to
figure out why so few of the other composition
teachers do this. I am sure that there is value in it,
but I suppose that this needs to be proved.
CLM
--- Bob Yates <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Carol,
>
> In the grammar course I teach for pre-service
> English teachers, I make specific mention of them.
>
> If there is one grammar Hartwell leaves out, it is
> one that describes the kind of grammar an second
> language learner of English needs to have.
>
> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>
> >>> Carol Morrison <[log in to unmask]>
> 10/18/2007 12:30 PM >>>
> Can someone tell me whether the (5) categories of
> grammar that Hartwell outlines (Grammar 1-Grammar 5)
> are commonly referred to when one speaks of teaching
> grammar? The article to which I am referring is
> "Grammar, Grammars, and the Teaching of Grammar."
> Until reading this article, I did not realize that
> grammar had been divided into those classifications.
> Thank you.
>
>   Carol Morrison
>
> 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/
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.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/

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/