This message was originally submitted by [log in to unmask] to the ATEG list I would like to respond to Bill Murdick:. In part, I share his concerns, but here is how I answer his question. Bill is, of course, asking for a book, and I can't give him that here. Forgive me, therefore, for referring him to Teaching Grammar as a Liberating Art and to my web site. "1] Besides teaching linguistics to grad and undergrad English majors, who(m) else do you want to teach linguistics to?" In the curriculum I advocate, linguistics might be taught to 12th grade students AFTER they had completed their instruction in grammar. It is optional because students do not really need linguistics. On the other hand, they take entire courses in biology, chemistry, physics, etc. Certainly a few hours devoted to a brief survey of linguistics in a high school English class would do no harm, particularly if the students already had a good, conscious command of grammar. "2] For each group mentioned in [1], what linguistics (content) would you teach?" Since I don't advocate teaching linguistics, this question is irrelevant. "3] For each content in [2], what would be your purpose?" Since I have already said that linguistics is irrelevant, I need to change this to "syntax." As I suggest in TGLA and on the web site, third grade students should learn to identify all the prepositional phrases in randomly selected passages of text, including their own. The process would start with everyone working on the same text; otherwise the teacher will go crazy. But once students get the general sense of these phrases, they should begin analyzing their own writing and working in groups to check each others work. Prep phrases are the first step in the students' overall objective, which is to be able to explain how every word in ANY English sentence chunks to the main S/V pattern. In fifth and sixth grades, students would ADD subject/verb/complement identification to their analysis. In seventh, they would ADD clauses; in eighth or nineth, verbals; in tenth, seven additional constructions. At each level there are aspects of writing (and reading) that can be discussed. (See TGLA and/or my web sites. Taught in this way, instruction in grammar will take less time that what is currently spent on grammar in many schools. Because the approach is cummulative, nothing is ever left behind. As a result, we would not have students arriving at college with no knowledge of grammar (which is one of the things that Bill complains about). 4] For each purpose in [3], how would you know if you achieved those purposes? (What are your pre-test/post-tests?) Bill asks for Pre-/post-tests, perhaps on the assumption that there are such tests which show that teaching grammar is not effective. There is, however, no such research. As I think I have noted on this list, I have posted a 35-page summary of NCTE on grammar. That summary includes examinations of most of the major studies cited by the "anti-grammar" people. ALL of those studies are seriously flawed. [Go to http://www.sunlink.net/rpp. Chose "Teachers' Section." The link is titled "Was NCTE Biased against the Teaching of Grammar?" There are, of course, various pre- and post-tests which could be designed and used, but Bill is looking for a simplistic answer to a complex question. Eventually I hope to have some research which will satisfy him, but it will take years. One school in Louisiana has just started using my approach, beginning in the third grade. They (and I with them) are looking for methods to evaluate the approach, but, as anyone who has attempted such work knows, there are numerous variables involved. In the mean time, all I have is anecdotal evidence. Here at Penn College, I don't have the opportunity to teach a grammar course for teachers, but students do ask me to teach a grammar course as an independent study. These are usually sophomores or seniors who feel that they can't write because they can't control the grammar. Usually, they are right. They take the course, find it somewhat frustrating, but almost always end up feeling much more confident about their writing. Not only do they make fewer "errors," but their writing is usually much clearer. Some of them have told me that other people have noted the improvement in their writing. Perhaps one way to convince people like Bill would be to require these students to give me pre-course and post-course samples of their writing which I could post on the web site????? 5] How will you handle Blob Control? (How will your program retain reading and writing as the main activities of the English curriculum?) As noted above, my program handles Bob Control by focussing the grammar exercises on passages from the students' own reading and writing. If my suggestions are followed, a lot less time would be spent on grammar per se, and more would be spent on grammar in context. Obviously, I could not stop anyone from using my program in such a way that they did nothing but grammar, but Bill's question overlooks the fact that Blob Control should concern more than just grammar. One could even say that the lack of Blob Control has resulted in the exclusion of grammar from some classrooms. Of course, what goes on in the classrooms is an interesting topic in itself. Each semester many of my students tell me of all the writing they have NOT done. I get reports of high school English classes in which teachers read to the students for most of the semester. (I believe some of this, by the way, because teachers on NCTE-Talk themselves report doing so.) My main point here is the argument against grammar based on Blob Control is fallacious. Ed V.