Thanks, Peter, for an excellent analysis. On a related subject, here's an article ATEGers might like to know about:
Tomlinson, D. (1994). Errors in the research into the effectiveness of grammar teaching. English in Education 28(1), 20-26.
Tomlinson isn't as well known as some of the other articles because he teaches (or taught) abroad, the article was published in a smaller British journal, and, of course, Hillocks and other anti-grammarites have scrupulously avoided mentioning him in any of their publications. He dissects the 1962 Harris dissertation, upon which Braddock's (in)famous 1963 condemnation of grammar was based, and shows that Harris was biased in its design and in its reporting of results--thus strongly questioning, if not completely destroying, the primary support for Braddock's condemnation of grammar teaching.
Tim
Tim Hadley
Assistant Professor of Professional Writing
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 on behalf of Peter Adams
Sent: Mon 10/30/2006 11:11 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: NCTE & Grammar
Kolln, Martha. "Closing the Books on Alchemy." CCC 32: 139-51.
Martha not only read Hillocks, but she went back and read all the studies on which Hillocks based his conclusions. Her discussion demonstrates serious flaws in research procedures in almost all the studies. She also points out that what is considered "the formal teaching of grammar" is quite bizarre in some cases and what is considered "teaching writing" is not far from such approved techniques as sentence combining.
I would add that, even if the research of Hillocks and Braddock et al were correct, even if the teaching of "formal grammar" could be shown to "do no good," that does not necessarily mean we should abandon teaching formal grammar. Another logical response would be to find ways to "teach formal grammar" more effectively, which, I take it, is what many of us are trying to do.
One other point. Many of the studies divide the subjects into two groups: one is "taught grammar" while the other is focuses on writing. After a period of time, the writing of the two groups is evaluated. The result, over and over, is that the writing of the group that was "taught grammar" shows no measurable advantage over the other group. Of course, that result could just as easily be interpreted as showing that "teaching writing" does no good because that group improved no more than the group that was "taught grammar." It is certainly erroneous to claim that "teaching formal grammar" may do harm because it takes time away from other, more useful, activities. The groups that were taught writing without grammar did not improve any more than the groups that were taught grammar.
One last observation. It may turn out that the real criticism should not be aimed at any of these teaching approaches. The problem may be with our instruments for measuring progress. We are all familiar with the many studies that show that some intervention "does not produce any measurable improvement." Class size, the use of computers, teaching grammar. None of them show measurable improvement. Perhaps we don't yet have a technique for measuring improvement accurately.
In a message dated 10/30/06 2:46:57 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:
Peter &/or Martha -
What are Martha's rebuttals that you mention?
Geoff
>And NCTE continues to cite only the well-worn studies condemning grammar
>instruction without even mentioning Martha Kolln's thorough and compelling
>rebuttal to those studies . . .
Peter Adams
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/
|
