I'm not sure the question of "better than" is really legitimate--I think it is more a question of who is and is not included. In a similar debate, people argue that teaching students to read via whole language has not produced readers who are "better than" the readers raised on phonics, and that's true, I'm sure. However, statistics argue that, no matter how good phonetic instruction is for some, about 25% of students will never "get" phonics and thus will never attain reading skills, because their minds don't work that way. Even if the other 75% may just be going great guns, it doesn't make that method effective for all. My experience is that focusing on traditional grammar and assuming you are teaching everyone to write works the same way--it's great for some but means nothing to others. The question is, do you sacrifice the "25%" to "improve" the 75% when the 75% might be fine either way? (disclaimer: I know that the statistics from phonetics aren't the statistics that would apply directly to traditional grammar--it's more the spirit of the trade off I'm trying to get at). And, of course, I have no doubt that back in the days when only 20-35% of the population went to college instead of the 50-60% we have today, the college student writing skills might have been better. But that's statistics, too--not every perceived discrepancy in skill relates back to the one "easy" answer of process vs. grammar. It has to do with sociology, multiple intelligences, and (most importantly, in my opinion) the distorting effect of nostalgia. Finally, of course, it is flawed to think that teaching must be either grammar-focused OR process-focused--the whole reason I'm on this list is to learn from people who successfully and creatively integrate both. Maureen Fitzpatrick Associate Professor, Johnson County Community College ---------- From: GORDON RIVES CARMICHAEL [SMTP:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Thursday, August 19, 1999 6:15 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: How grammar is being taught in the classroom today (k-12) RE: Cathy Holmes question on 1960s methodology and today's "process-driven" composition not producing any better writers than those of her generation. I can only say that as a US Army colonel, and a part time ESL instructor with the University of Texas state system, I expect my officers and employees to produce grammatically correct products, and I tell my students writers are going to be more and more judged on their correct use of grammar and general writing skills in this global, internet-connected society. The days of face to face meetings and interviews seems to be slipping away, and one's writing and written grammar skills are going to be one's passport to employment, acceptance, and a fair hearing of their products and ideas. Poor writing is simply going to continue identifying the writer's education and ability levels. All English speakers and writers must be even more on the alert for proper grammar as the English language increases its dominance in written and spoken international communications. Few people realize all aviation aircraft-to-aircraft and aircraft-to-ground communications are in English world wide, and English on the internet seems standard. I urge teachers, employers, and all English writers and speakers to hold to long established standards. Written communication has lost none of its value and just seems to grow in importance. This is not the time to slacken. Just my thoughts. Best wishes, Gordon Carmichael