Point of order (or whatever type of point this should be) regarding the existence of "solid research against grammar teaching":
 
In this discussion, precision in terminology is extremely important. As a matter of fact, there has never been any solid research against "grammar teaching." There has been, instead, some research (I won't get into the debate right now about whether it was "solid") against the teaching of "formal," "traditional," "linguistic," "Latin-based," "non-contextual" (etc.--you get the point) grammar--which is an approach to grammar teaching that is more or less the opposite of a functional, contextual, sentence-based approach to grammar. The former (formal grammar) is believed, on the basis of some research, to be non-helpful to the improvement of writing. The latter (functional grammar) is now, and has been for more than 100 years, almost universally recognized as helpful, appropriate, and necessary to the improvement of writing.
 
It is unfortunate that this distinction is often not made clear when this subject is discussed, and that many people, even among the English establishment, continue to believe that research has "proven" that teaching "grammar" (any and all grammar) is harmful.
 
Tim
 
Tim Hadley
Research Assistant, The Graduate School
Ph.D. candidate, Technical Communication and Rhetoric
Texas Tech University

________________________________

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of John E. Dews
Sent: Tue 5/31/2005 12:24 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Response to Fish piece



    Below is a response to the Fish op-ed piece I forwarded to the list earlier. There are already strong feelings against his methods -- I've already heard one person today complain that he is ignoring all the "solid research against grammar teaching."  


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/