I could not agree more with what Johanna says below. We need a wider view
of what grammar can do. But before we can move on to this wider view, we
need to repudiate the old view. Specifically, we need to acknowledge that
traditional grammar and traditional exercises in correctness are
ineffective--whether used inside or outside the writing process--at doing
anything useful for students' writing.

I would add that we need to stop talking about issues with just the word
"grammar." That word means many different things, from traditional grammar
to sentence combining.

Bill


>Bill McCleary writes:
>
>"  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.
>The usual advice is that the teacher pick out a couple of the most
>prevalent errors and teach about
>those. "
>
>And he later writes on various non-traditional " modern approaches to
>correctness. "
>
>These are two things I see as problematic with grammar instruction --
>the 'fix-it' approach of only talking about grammar when editing, so as
>to 'clean up' 'incorrect' output. This completely glosses over the
>coherence function of sentence grammar. It also keeps grammar in the
>anxiety-producing 'approach to correctness' territory. Part of the
>reason grammar instruction is often ineffective is that it feels
>arbitrarily demanding and punitive to students; it focuses on what they
>don't do 'right' instead of the uses they are making of grammar during
>the entire composing process. Being reserved for the editing phase, it
>looks entirely 'after the fact' to the writer. It appears to be divorced
>from meaning -- an exercise in conforming to somebody ELSE'S idea of
>English, not the writer's native idea. But the writer was making
>grammatical choices as soon as she began to compose, even beforehand,
>when making organizational decisions about content. Students aren't
>taught the reasons why their 'errors' occur, or why they're considered
>'errors' in the first place (in many cases, they are only considered
>errors because they display a change in standard English grammar that
>hasn't become accepted by the relevant authorities yet). Fix-it grammar
>makes writing and grammar less appealing to students; it lessens their
>confidence in themselves as writers; it gives them a false self-concept
>of being linguistically incompetent. This too often carries over into
>self-doubts about intellectual ability.
>
>Students can learn to follow formal English rules in editing without
>this motivation-destroying baggage. My students report feeling much
>better about grammar when they understand why certain things are
>considered 'error'. This doesn't lessen their understanding of the
>necessity of following the rules -- in other words, they don't come away
>with the idea that 'anything goes'. If anything, they feel a little more
>confident about their language abilities.
>
>Grammar can be much more deeply integrated into the writing process than
>just as an editing 'clean-up' procedure.
>
>Does anyone else share these feelings?
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Johanna Rubba   Assistant Professor, Linguistics
>English Department, California Polytechnic State University
>One Grand Avenue  • San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
>Tel. (805)-756-2184  •  Fax: (805)-756-6374 • Dept. Phone.  756-259
>• E-mail: [log in to unmask] •  Home page: http://www.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
>                                       **
>"Understanding is a lot like sex; it's got a practical purpose,
>but that's not why people do it normally"  -            Frank  Oppenheimer
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


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