I'm sorry I wasn't clearer in my disclaimer about the statistic where I tried to acknowledge that I knew it wasn't on point. The reason I used the statistics was to try (unsuccessfully, apparently) to make this point: while one technique or strategy may work wonderfully well for some people, many do not work at all for others. In the case of the example, it was phonetics, but it could be anything including grammar instruction. It is not a matter of grammar or process being taught well or not well; it is not a matter of students not trying or being too slow; it is that different things work for different people. That is why I thought the statement made at the end of one of the original posts that process writing hadn't produced better writers than the writers of an earlier generation was flawed. I am sorry if I wasn't clear--I would never try to use statistics to prove one thing was inferior or not because of course they are flawed, etc. I wouldn't even stand behind the 25% (it could be 23% or 42% or 5% depending on the researcher) but I do think it is important to know that not all things work for all people--no matter how well or how thoroughly they are taught. The key is variety in approaches. That's what I was not quite getting out. Maureen ---------- From: EDWARD VAVRA [SMTP:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Friday, August 20, 1999 2:24 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: How grammar is being taught in the classroom today (k-12) Maureen noted that it is an either/or fallacy to assume that one must teach process or grammar, but the question goes beyond that. There are many, many different ways in which grammar can be taught, and even most of the people who are interested in teaching grammar, i.e., the people on this list, haven't given enough thought to the possible options and their implications. (I'll document this in my report on the survey I gave at the conference.) By the way, I am VERY distrustful of anyone who states that "statistics show." Those are the words used to refer to all those incompetent studies which were used to "prove" that teaching grammar is ineffective. Martha destroyed many of those studies in her essay, "Closing the Books on Alchemy," and I dealt with several of the later studies. See: http://www.sunlink.net/rpp/t001.htm In other words, before I trust any references to statistical studies, I want specific bibliographical references so I can read the studies. In those about grammar (Mellon's. O'Hare's, etc. ? See link above.), the premises were often fallacious, methods were questionable, terms were often poorly defined.