A quick postscript, Ed, to my response.  I heartily agree that my short
example sentences, and the short examples of the handbooks, too, are part
of the problem.  In fact, that's why my students haven't typically found
Noguchi's suggestions very helpful, either.

Connie

Ed Vavra wrote:

> Connie,
>      You say that there is evidence that "a systematic" approach doesn't
> work, but WHICH systematic approach are you speaking of? There is a
> major difference between a systematic approach that attempts to teach
> grammar, and a systematic approach that attempts to teach students how
> to USE grammar to analyze what they read and write. You asked what I
> consider success. Ideal success would be to enable every student who
> graduates from high school to be able to explain how any word in any
> sentence syntactically relates to the main S/V pattern. That's what the
> KISS approach attempts to do. If you have looked at TGLA, you will have
> noted that I also discuss how the approach enables students to see
> connections, not just with errors, but with vocabulary, style, reading,
> writing, and logic.
>       To be honest, I haven't read your Teaching Grammar in Context. I
> heard that it was close to your Grammar for Teachers, which I did read.
> It didn't take me long to come to the conclusion that your approach will
> not work. The conclusion is based on the fact that almost all the
> sentences you use for examples are extremely simple -- they do not
> reflect the sentences that students generally read or write. (Mellon,
> years ago,  noted this problem with most grammar books.) No matter how
> systematically you teach it, it is not going to help students much
> because it does not address their basic problem. Most errors result as a
> by-product of syntactic growth, and the students' problem is in
> untangling the deeply embedded structures (clauses within clauses, etc.)
>
>      If I am wrong about your new book, and it does address teaching
> students how to untangle the complexities in their own writing, please
> let me know. I'll get a copy and read it. As it stands, however, you
> can't seem to make up your mind -- you are for a systematic approach,
> you are against a systematic approach.
>       While I'm on this topic, let me note that we should never expect
> students (or even adults) to always produce error-free writing. In
> addition to simple performance errors, we all have problems with errors
> as we try to get more and more ideas into single sentences.
> Comma-splices, run-ons and fragments blossom in seventh and eighth grade
> because that is when students are mastering subordinate clauses. I have
> suggested that we should ignore these errors in seventh and eighth
> grades. By focussing on them, we may simply be reinforcing them. If,
> instead of focussing on errors, we teach students to analyze ANY
> sentence, then the students will see how sentences work. Once they see
> that, they will understand for themselves what is wrong with
> comma-splices, etc.
> Ed V.