Bill McCleary observed:

>When we say that teacher training is the problem, we have to
>disentangle who is supposed to do what. I have always said that the English
>department is the problem--usually requiring 30 credits of literature, and
>only allowing (not requiring) 3 each of composition and grammar.

And:

>Teachers ought to be
>familiar with the application of grammar to usage and mechanics and with
>phonemics and morphemics, and their applications to teaching phonics,
>spelling, and vocabulary.


I think that grammar can be taught within the context of literature. I think
of my experiences teaching poetry, novels, stories, or, more to the point,
teaching acting! When a passage becomes problematic for students, we often
stop to examine its structure as a tool to disentanglement. When, for
example, a student is struggling with understanding sentence from  a
Shakespeare soliloquy, we look at the simple subject and simple predicate
(wherever it may be in the sentence!), and work outwards - sort of like
untying a knot or working through a maze. Grammar helps actors! Surely it
could help readers.

The question we need to ask, as Bill has so aptly suggested, is what (how
much) grammar does a student need to know in order accurately to read texts
x, y, or z?

Why just look at "improving writing" as THE criterion for grammar
instruction?

(I won't even get into the "Critical/Creative Thinking Skills" debate on
this issue - it's a no-win battle).

Paul D.

P.S. Thanks, Bill, for reopening this can of improperly digested worms!