I think that one issue in the debate can be termed the "grammar
worksheet" versus the "grammar activity" model.  The current,
traditional method could be broadly termed the grammar worksheet
method; and the new classroom practice could be broadly termed
the activity based method.

I agree that the "grammar worksheet" model has often been
deficient and ineffective.  (But I don't really agree that this model is
inherently ineffective.  I'm not convinced that it is necessary to
repudiate the old model.)

However, I strongly support the newly emerging model (the
"grammar activity" model).  It provides effective ways of teaching
both the practice of better writing, and the theory of grammar if that
step is also taken.

I think that we all agree on the essential things:  that the new
model of "grammar activities" presents countless creative ways to
teach grammar, and that these new ways should be fully exploited
in our effort to reform the whole curriculum of grammar, k to 12 and
beyond.

It may not be necessary for us all to agree on the status of
traditional grammar.

> If I may partially correct what Robert Einarsson says, I'd like to do so.
> I was very specific in identifying "traditional grammar" as my subject.
> Traditional grammar is often referred to as "schoolbook grammar" and is
> what Johanna Rubba called "the grammar curriculum currently being used." I
> am suggesting that we acknowlege that traditional grammar is ineffective
> in helping students improve the correctness of their writing.
>
> Bill
>
> William J. McCleary
> 3247 Bronson Hill Road
> Livonia, NY 14487
> 716-346-6859