Let me address Bill's argument directly:  Scientific methodology
does not apply to research in education.

The "research" that supposedly shows that there is no "proof" that
grammar instruction does improve writing is rooted in a
fundamental error.

Quantitative research applies only to sciences; the use of the
scientific method in the study of education is illusory.  Education is
a field that inherently requires a qualitative element in its research.

This leaves aside the question of ideology.

It's no co-incidence that the education researchers, who have
published these "results" (with a little help from their ideological
friends), disdain the whole concept of "superior" writing style.

How can people who philosophically believe that there is no "higher
standard" of good writing ever be called upon to measure good
writing?

The whole business is a parody of science.

Yet, ironically, Bill accuses _us_ on this list of having pre-
determined conclusions!

>And when someone does educational research in an attempt to
>find out what the true state of the larger community is, the
>results of that research are often derided and disregarded if they
>don't fit in with what we have already decided is true.

Please, spare me the violins!  I weep for the poor, derided,
extensively published education researchers!

I, as one of the list members addressed in the quote above, do not
need chiding on rejecting ideas "if they don't fit in with what we
have already decided is true."

The accusation of intellectual dishonesty does not belong to me, or
to the other grammar teachers on this list.

I am actually surprised that Bill continues on this line of argument.

Bill, would you please provide us with the scientific formula that
predicts no benefit from grammar?  What Periodic table of the
Elements (other than the Parts of Speech!) does one use in the
education research?  When you've done the math let us know.

R.E.

> I appreciate the sincerity of your response, but I'm afraid that you
> remember a world that did not exist and are describing a present world
> that does not exist either. I started school in the mid-1940s, and the
> world you describe for that era is so far from the world I experienced
> that we might have lived in different countries. Just to mention a few
> aspects: No grammar was taught until the sixth grade; sixth and seventh
> grades were both taught by elementary teachers; ninth grade English was
> taught by the band teacher, tenth and eleventh grades were taught by the
> Latin teacher, and there was no grammar in twelfth grade. (As best I can
> remember, of course.)
>
> Our personal experience of the world is too limited to allow us to draw
> accurate generalizations about the state of the nation or its education or
> its students. Furthermore, a limited sense of recall allows us to imagine
> that we learned things in one way when we actually learned them another
Educational research can be done badly,
> of course, but we seem to judge the research not by its research design
> but by whether we agree with the findings.
>
> The fact is that repeated reserch on grammar and composition has
> repeatedly found that there is no connection between learning grammar and
> learning to write. And there is considerable evidence as well that
> students do not learn the grammar that is taught.
>
> I am suggesting that those of us who are interested in grammar quit trying
> to deny reality and take a fresh look at why grammar is so difficult to
> learn and similar issues.
>
> Bill
>
> >Mr. McCleary,
> >
> >I have been following this dialogue about grammar for a while and have
> >some thoughts to share with you.
> >
> >There was a time in this country (1950's and before) when various
> >grade-school disciplines were taught rigorously and consistently.
> >Mathematics, science, social studies, and English were staples that
> >required students to study and work hard. Standards were high, and those
> >that did not make the grade were held back. When I went to school in the
> >50's, I learned grammar thoroughly and well. I was expected to learn it,
> >and we studied it consistently throughout grades 1-6.  Also, my teachers
> >knew grammar well, and there was never confusion over what things meant.
> >Am I now to believe that kids back then were smarter than kids today?
> >
> >Grammar is like playing a musical instrument: if you do not learn or
> >practice it, you will not be able to play. Of course grammar is hard.
> >Nothing of substance in the classroom is easily gotten. Those who engage
> >in a basic discipline like grammar, without complaint, benefit all along
> >their educational path.
> >
> >Today, much of what passes as basic education has been stood on its head.
> >Students are "customers" and teachers are "suppliers." Everyone is urged
> >to be "practical" and only learn what is needed to get a job. The
> >educational system has been dumbed down to its lowest common denominators
> >so that the weakest minds can graduate from school. English  as a subject
> >is very much glossed over to the point where many students cannot write a
> >simple, sensible paper let alone sentence.
> >
> >Also, Teachers coming out of colleges are incredibly weak in the
> >disciplines that they teach. Instead of strong fact-based knowledge about
> >subjects, they excel in child psychology and sociological
> >"understanding." Should I have been amazed when my daughter was marked
> >wrong for identifying London as the capital of England instead of
> >Glasgow, which the teacher thought was the correct location? I teach a
> >required Technical Writing course to Juniors and Seniors at the
> >University of Houston, and the weakest students I have, consistently, are
> >the Education majors.
> >
> >I am familiar with educational systems in Europe such as the Russian
> >system. Russian schools demand an incredible standard of learning and
> >performance from all students. When Russian kids take English as a second
> >language, grammar is taught right along with the reading and speaking
> >portion. I would challenge American teachers to take and pass their high
> >school grammar test, which is a required part of their curriculum. The
> >students from Russia I teach in my tech writing class speak, read, and
> >write English better than any of my American students. Maybe the Russian
> >approach is very old fashioned, but the results do not lie. I would ask
> >you, in light of your thesis "Grammar is difficult if not impossible to
> >teach to the point of practical application", how then a Russian student
> >of English can do better than an American counterpart? The secret is not
> >in the grammar alone but what it takes to learn it.
> >
> >I cringe when I read educator cop-outs over subjects like grammar. They
> >should know better. The fact remains that all levels of the secondary
> >educational system have gotten weak and non-committed. The ultimate
> >responsibility for the failure of grammar studies lies with teachers and
> >their professors. On the student side, learning responsibility  remains
> >with parents who should demand excellent performance from their children.
> >If lousy students show up in my class, do I cater to their ignorance?
> >Never. Nothing replaces the value of high standards, hard schoolwork, and
> >perseverance.
> >
> >There should be no excuses for poor teachers and lazy performance by
> >students. Engaging in research-based cop-outs allow Americans to lean
> >back and do nothing. The real world needs the strong standards of
> >subjects like grammar back in the classroom, and it needs it now more
> >than ever.
> >
> >Pete Lunde
> >BMC Software Inc.
> >University of Houston
> >
> >[log in to unmask]
>
>
> William J. McCleary
> 3247 Bronson Hill Road
> Livonia, NY 14487
> 716-346-6859