Actually, I'm not trying to affix blame at all. I just want to help find a
solution.

It seems, from your reply, that we agree that research shouldn't (or
doesn't) lead change, but that it merely confirms or refutes the value of
change that has taken place. I do beleive, however, that misinterpretations
of research can have (does ... DID have) disasterous, long-term effects.

Dialogue between the "upper,"  "middle," and "lower" education communities
is, as we both seem to be saying, essential.

Thanks for your comments about the separation fo liberal arts and education
departments; perhaps we can find some means of getting them more in touch
with one another, too.

Paul E. Doniger
The Gilbert School

----- Original Message -----
From: William J. McCleary <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2000 2:52 PM
Subject: Re: Putting grammar back into the curriculum


> I'd say that you're blaming the messenger here, Paul. Quantitative
research
> merely confirmed that the teaching of grammar had no useful effect on
> writing skills. It's not responsible for the lack of effect. If and when
> someone comes up with a method of teaching grammar that does have a useful
> effect (on writing skills or something else), then quantitative research
> can confirm that, too.
>
> This is not to say that qualitative research and teacher research have no
> validity, just that quantitative research is the the most believable to
> those whose minds must be changed.
>
> Yes, it would be better to get the universities involved in research on
the
> teaching of grammar and other issues of k-12 teaching. I had hoped that
> some graduates of the rhet/comp programs might get involved in research on
> correctness in writing, but I don't see that happening. Perhaps that is
yet
> another problem created by having rhet/comp programs be in English
> departments. The teaching of grammar could be considered an "educational"
> subject, not the sort of thing that a liberal arts department should deal
> with.
>
> Bill
>
> >This is only my personal bit of conjecture, but I worry that it was just
> >such "quantitative research" (and much mis-reading of it) that got us
into
> >this mess in the first place. Wouldn't it be better to get the
universities
> >out of their ivory towers and into the k-12 classrooms, in an
inter-active,
> >dynamic way, where real life (and the death of "good writing") is
happening?
> >How do we re-write curriculum and re-train teachers if we're
disconnected?
> >
> >I don't mean to sound "anti-research" or anti-university -- far from it.
I
> >only want to find a way to make the educational thread more continuous
and
> >more successful.
> >
> >Any thoughts?
> >
> >Paul
> >
>
> William J. McCleary
> 3247 Bronson Hill Road
> Livonia, NY 14487
> 716-346-6859
>