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