Isn't it ironic that the leaders of our profession, whose voices led the
protests against the use of objective testing in the language arts and
continue to do so, have nevertheless allowed the objective-test results and
the dubious conclusions of poorly designed research studies to dictate the
content of the curriculum?

It continues to amaze me that anyone who has read those research studies
can conclude that the systematic study of grammar has no place in the
curriculum.  Then again, perhaps it's understandable.  I recently read Don
Kilgallon's chapter in Connie Weaver's Lessons to Share.  He recounts his
journey as a teacher, how, in his early days, not knowing much about
teaching, he decided that teaching grammar was the way to go:

I quote:  "I taught Barry's class nouns, verbs, and the usual linguistic
litany of things entombed in grammar textbooks since Gutenberg.  We parsed.
We named and underlined parts.  We conjugated and cogitated.  We even
learned moral laws, including the heinousness of fragments and comma
splices (mortal sins), and the horrors of split infinitives, unparallel
series, danglers and squinters (venial sins)...."

Don is, of course, making a good story out of the unhappy outcome of that
early teaching experience.  But, in fact, that description is precisely
what our NCTE leadership assumes that Grammar Teaching means, so perhaps
it's understandable that they would accept the results of those flawed
objective data.  Apparently even Connie seems to believe that Don's
description of a grammar class is the only one available.  In a recent
message to Johanna, she wrote,  "I get the impression that you want to go
back to doing the same old thing that hasn't worked well for a majority of
students...."

So, yes, it continues to amaze me that the only response to that flawed
research (and even Hillocks concedes it has flaws) is to get rid of the
systematic study of grammar, rather than to look for ways to bring the
teaching of language structure into language classes in ways that work; to
bring the tools of writing into writing classes; ways to help students
understand their own grammar ability in a conscious way.

And let me add one more thing that amazes me:  Back in 1984 the NCTE passed
a resolution that says "the use of isolated grammar and usage exercises not
supported by theory and research is a deterrent to the improvement of
students' speaking and writing and that, in order to improve both of these,
class time at all levels must be devoted to opporutnities for meaningful
listening, speaking, reading, and writing."

In other words, if we can't prove that grammar works, we're not to include
it in the language arts program.  Why do I get the feeling that poor old
Grammar is being singled out here?  Where's the resolution that says
brainstorming and prewriting and peer group review and portfolios and whole
language and sentence combining that are not supported by research have no
place in the writing class?

I don't think we need more classroom research studies.  I think we need to
make use of what we have.  For example, Loban's 1976 study, which has been
mentioned in recent postings, is a goldmine of information, not only on the
rate and sequence of language development, but also on differences between
high and low achievers in writing and speaking ability.

For example, one interesting finding in Loban's study is the difference
between the two groups in the ability to write with tentativeness:
expressing supposition, hypotheses, conjecture, and conditional statements.
Another marker of maturity--and difference between the two groups--is the
use of dependent clauses.  At GRADE FOUR, the HIGH group had attained the
ELEVENTH-GRADE SCORE OF THE LOW GROUP.

Wouldn't you expect such findings to have an effect on curriculum
decisions?  Those structures, after all, are teachable.  Wouldn't you think
that perhaps the achievements of the low group could be enhanced?  Are
there perhaps grammar lessons that might be explored?  (And, no, I'm not
talking about that "linguistic litany of things entombed in grammar
textbooks since Gutenberg!)

Unfortunately, by the time Loban's work was published, the subject of
grammar had already disappeared from the language arts agenda.  "New
grammar," which had been explored in NCTE programs of the early 1960s, had
by then been cast adrift, never to return.  As a consequence, the word
Grammar still means parsing and memorizing and conjugations.  And for the
most part, it is confined to error correction and error avoidance.

I don't find it surprising that the future teachers in our education
programs are not completely prepared to teach others about their language.
Many of them missed out completely in their own K-12 education.  Let's hope
that ATEG will continue to make a difference.

Martha Kolln