Well, it seems that we have gotten off track here. I must confess that I do
enjoy the repartee, but it now threatens to get out of hand. Also, I do
think that both qualitative and quantitative research have their places.
And as someone who was trained in quantitative, I naturally feel more
comfortable with that approach. I also have strong feelings about the
pernicious influence of postmodernism and its related -isms on the field of
English, particularly composition. I take anti-empiricism to be one of the
threads of postmodernism, though I understand that one can come to that
position without a detour through French philosophy.

(If you want to see what's going on with composition, sign on to NCTE's
"college talk." Apparently we are now using freshman English to teach
hapless freshmen how to analyze the power structures that oppress them--as
though freshman English were not itself a structure oppressing both its
students and its teachers.)

But let us put aside these differences and return to the original quest of
rescuing a place for grammar and other aspects of language teaching in the
curriculum, understanding why grammar is so difficult to teach, and
figuring out ways to make it more accessible. I think we can all agree that
the pre-sixties, regardless of one's view of that era, are not going to
return. We must deal with the present situation of English teaching and try
to bring some balance to the traditional tripod of language, literature,
and composition. (I would have said "returned some balance," but I doubt
that it was ever balanced.)

But I'll have to continue that conversation later. I really do have work to do.

By the way, if you're a member of AFT, the latest issue of American
Educator has a lot of fascinating material on math teaching--material that
has considerable relevance to the teaching of grammar.

Bill






William J. McCleary
3247 Bronson Hill Road
Livonia, NY 14487
716-346-6859