Hi Folks,

        In defense of my suggestions to Amy, I think there is both
research and anecdotal evidence that supports the notion that
teaching grammar can aid writing. McCleary's comment to Amy that if
she suggests a relationship between writing and grammar, "any
knowledgeable colleague will have [her] for lunch" doesn't hold with
the evidence drawn from both writers and researchers. When writers
like Robert Newton Peck talk about creating powerful fiction with
specific details and parallel structures, they are talking about the
impact of grammar on writing. When scholars like Daiker, Kerek and
Morenberg describe the measurable improvements in writing using
sentence combining and composing techniques, they are talking about
the impact of grammar on writing. I find it incomprehensible that an
English teacher could teach writing without teaching elements of
grammar.

        However, McCleary does make an important point in that
significant research does suggest that our historical methods of
teaching grammar have not been effective. The question, however, is
not should we or shouldn't we teach grammar, but "how" can we teach
grammar effectively to improve student writing.

        The problem, I believe, is that too often we teach grammar in
isolation from writing. This is analogous to teaching beginning
swimmers to swim without ever immersing them in water. The solution,
as Connie Weaver has so effectively describes it in her two latest
books, is to teach grammar in context. Here, research and in-class
strategies seem to point the way for both those who argue teaching
grammar is a waste of time and those who feel teaching all aspects of
grammar (specifically traditional grammar) is indispensable.

Sincerely,

Harry Noden



        Dance like nobody is watching. Love like you'll never get hurt.