>I appreciate the focus of Bll McLeary's proposition.
>
>He wants to reach a definition of our collective opinion on grammar
>taught within the writing process, and grammar taught on its own.
>
>I agree with the first part of his statement, quoted below.  Perhaps
>this statement does meet with universal agreement on our list:
>
>> Perhaps I should have pointed out that "grammar" is not
>> antithetical to the process approach to teaching writing. Most
>> schemes of the process approach include a stage on editing. In
>> line with the basic theory behind the process approach--that
>> teaching should occur during the writing process--grammar
>> (however one defines that term) would be taught primarily during
>> the editing stage.
>
>However, I personally do not agree with the second part.  I am one
>who believes that grammar, even when taught apart from the writing
>process, improves writing.
>
>> Now, if I am wrong about my assumption concerning our
>> collective wisdom, I would like to know that. I do not propose
>> to argue that subject again. So here is the question: Am I wrong
>> in assuming that we have already agreed that traditional grammar
>> and traditional exercises, especially when taught outside the
>> writing process, are ineffective in helping students improve the
>> correctness of their writing?
>
>Maybe as a group we can focus on the first of McLeary's
>statements, and leave the second aside.
>
>Robert Einarsson

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