Organization: Samford University Writing Programs
X-Acknowledge-To: <DHROBERT@SAMFORD>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:59:31 CDT
From:         "David H. Roberts" <DHROBERT@SAMFORD.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Basic writing, one more time

WARNING! WARNING!  400-line message follows:  READ AT OWN RISK!


I was recently asked to make some observations regarding a meeting
between teachers and parents at a junior high school in Birmingham.
The issue was the teaching of grammar (usage, mechanics, other surface
detail) vs a workshop approach to writing that focused on meaning
rather than Edited American English.  The school is in the richest
district in Alabama, in a community with by far the highest per capita
income in the state (and one of the highest in the country).

The letter that follows is my reaction.  Now the school board is
considering have me mediate the dispute between parents and teachers:

--------------------------------


April 6, 1992


Dr. Lloyd Engdahl
Acting Superintendent
Mountain Brook Board of Education
3 Church Street
Mountain Brook, AL   35213

Dear Lloyd,
I have given some thought to the issue of grammar
instruction at Mountain Brook Junior High, as you requested
following the meeting of a group of parents and teachers on
March 24, 1992.

Three Categories of Parental Concern
I noted 22 comments from the group of 200 or so parents, and
I have divided the comments into three categories:  concerns
about pedagogy, concerns about content, and concerns about
changes in our society.  The first two concerns grow out of
the third, I believe.  The argument the parents have with
the English department is a classic struggle between the
familiar and the unfamiliar, between the old paradigm and
the new (Hairston, 1982).

Without trivializing the parents' concerns, I side with
Peggy Swoger and her colleagues in this dispute because they
are informed professionals.  Similar objections to both
pedagogy and the content have been raised time and time
again across the country and in other nations, and they have
been answered each time, in strong terms:  "There is no
research evidence that grammar--as traditionally taught in
the schools--has any appreciable effect on the improvement
of writing skills" (Meckel, 1963).

Concerns about Pedagogy; or, "That's not the way I was taught."
Writing-as-process approaches are well documented and widely
accepted as effective means of teaching and learning writing
and associated language skills (Emig, 1971; Rose, 1984;
Strickland, 1984).  We know that writing is a recursive
process, not a linear act (Perl, 1983; Smith, 1981), and
that teaching general composing strategies is both time-
consuming for the teacher and effective for the student
(Murray, 1980; Smagorinsky, 1991).  We also know that real
writers draft and spend time correcting mistakes, as opposed
to writing perfect copy on the first try (Murray, 1968).

Decades of research on writing answer the parents' questions
about pedagogy with a strong affirmation of teaching writing
through workshops, individual conferences, peer
collaboration, and response groups, (Freedman, 1992).  In
other words, the research clearly shows that  the
conventions of Edited American English (what lay persons
refer to as "grammar" or "mechanics") should be taught
within the context of the student's writing, as in the
Mountain Brook program under scrutiny.

Concerns about Content;
or, "Teach the rules before you let the students play the game."
Both educational and psychological research show that
communicative competence is acquired in context, not in
isolation (Rubin and Kantor, 1984) and, if in school, in an
integrated program (Allen and Kellner, 1984).  The rules of
language are learned in context and can not be adequately
taught or learned before playing the communication game.

The parents' content concern (whether to teach grammar or
writing) is also soundly answered by the research:  given
the choice, teach writing and then deal with grammar either
in mini-lessons or individually, as it comes up in the
context of each student's writing.  "The research findings
show clearly and overwhelmingly that direct methods of
instruction, focusing on writing activities and the
structuring of ideas, are more efficient in teaching
sentence structure, usage, punctuation, and other related
factors than such methods as nomenclature drill, diagramming
and rote memorization of grammatical rules" (Strom, 1960).

This rejection of isolated grammar instruction has been well
documented over the past several decades (Braddock, Lloyd-
Jones, and Schoer, 1963; Hartwell, 1985).  That rejection is
founded on both theory and empirical research (O'Hare, 1973;
Petrosky, 1977; Rose, 1980; Shaughnessy, 1977; Shuy, 1981;
Sperling, 1989; Suhor, 1984; and many others).  The grammar
issue is so old and rehashed that researchers have now
turned to more interesting questions (Hartwell, 1985) and
broader issues (Durst, 1992) such as how people make meaning
(Spivey, 1991), how people know (McCarthy and Fishman,
1991), how classroom discussion increases knowledge
development (Sweigart, 1991), and gender-based differences
in writing (Rubin and Greene, 1992).

The atomistic, reductivist, behavioristic views of language
prevalent before the 1957 publication of Noam Chomsky's
Syntactic Structures have since been replaced in the
profession by a number of holistic, constructivist views
(Shuy, 1981; Reyes, 1991); a couple of generations of
scientific advance have occurred in language studies in the
past 30 years--advances the parents at the meeting were
obviously unaware of.

What's happening at Moutain Brook Junior High is nothing
new:  changes in the way linguists view grammar and language
acquisition were considered revolutionary nearly forty years
ago when noted linguist W. Francis Nelson concluded that
"traditional or scientific grammars are of highly
questionable value in improving a person's ability to handle
the structural patterns of his language" (Nelson, 1954).
Kaulfers, a teacher, reported ten years earlier that
"whatever the value of formal grammar may be to adult
specialists in comparative linguistics, morphology,
etymology, philology, or lexicography, the fact remains that
no scientific study of the many available . . . has shown
that sentence analysis, diagramming, parsing, or
nomenclature drill is of the slightest benefit in improving
a person's own personal use of language.  Instead, the chief
result of such methods has often been a strong dislike of
language work" (Kaulfers, 1944).

Concerns about Social Change;
or, "What happened to the good old days?"
The research on writing deals only indirectly with the
parents' underlying concern that the schools are changing as
society and culture changes.  One indisputable fact about
change is clear, though, and every linguist knows it:
language is changing, began changing as soon as the first
word was uttered, and will continue to change.  The changes
are not good or bad; but they are inevitable.  Those
constant, unstoppable changes, however, outdate whatever
grammar books a school system chooses to use.  Considering
the social and educational advances made in recent years,
the "good old days" were not so good, after all.

Righting Wrong-headed Views of Language
Contrary to statements made by the some of the parents at
the meeting, English is a Germanic language only marginally
related to Latin.  Pedagogical grammars taught in schools
are usually based on the uninformed view of language that
English is derived from Latin; therefore, the pedagogical
grammars are generally regarded by linguists as
unscientific, misleading, and confusing to the students.
Furthermore, as early as 1950, researchers concluded that
knowing English grammar has little bearing on the learning
of a foreign language (Encyclopedia of Educational Research,
1950).

Putting Grammar in Its Place
The issue is not whether to teach grammar; it is how to
teach grammar.  Errors in writing are signs of growth in
thinking and language.  Teaching writing and grammar in the
best way involves allowing the developing writer to make
mistakes and then dealing with the mistakes in the context
of the student's writing.  The Mountain Brook Junior High
curriculum puts grammar in its place:  in the writing
process, not isolated from it.  The problem is largely one
of educating the public to the rationale and effectiveness
of the current approach, not turning back the clock.

Unfortunately, the problem has been compounded by the
historically inadequate preparation of new teachers
(Roberts, 1988).  Rather than to reverting to what some
people call the basics--skills-based education--Samford is
combating the problem with a new curriculum for educators
and other students, a strong writing across the curriculum
program, and a teacher inservice training program in writing
that is based on a nationally-implemented staff development
model.  Combined, these innovations at the university level
provide well-trained teachers and offer opportunities for
professional development to the teachers in our surrounding
cities.  A similar progressive curriculum should be adopted
at Mountain Brook schools, and all reactionary solutions
should be recognized as backward steps and, therefore,
rejected.

A Positive Concluding Note
It's refreshing to see parents deeply concerned about their
children's education.  I applaud and encourage the continued
discussions between the parents and the school system, but
all parties need to remember that the current Mountain Brook
debate is not new:  the National Council of Teachers of
English recommended in 1936 that grammar not be taught apart
from writing (Weaver, 1979).  Furthermore, all parties must
accept the clear fact that the Mountain Brook Junior High
English pedagogy and curriculum under fire are modern, based
on solid scientific research, effective, and reflective of
the direction of English education nation-wide; it is not
haphazard, as language instruction has been in the past.
It's also important to recognize that many school systems in
other states adopted a writing-as-process, workshop approach
long before it was introduced to Mountain Brook, and that
under Peggy Swoger's leadership, your junior high school has
almost caught up with them.  I urge you to press forward,
refusing to retreat from the advances made in the past five
years.

I shall be pleased to accept any opportunity to address
these issues with you and with any others whom you deem
appropriate.

Sincerely yours,



David H. Roberts
Professor of English and
Director, University Writing Programs








cc:Fred Renneker, III, Chair, Mountain Brook Board of Education
   Garry Rickard, Principal, Mountain Brook Junior High
   Peggy Swoger, Head, Mountain Brook Junior High English Department

                         Works Cited

Allen, R. R., and Kellner, R. W. (1984).  Integrating the
language arts.  In C. J. Thaiss and C. Suhor (Eds.),
Speaking and Writing, K-12:  Classroom Strategies and the
New Research.  Urbana, IL:  National Council of Teachers of
English, 208-227.

Braddock, R., Lloyd-Jones, R., and Lowell Schoer (1963).
Research in written Composition.  Urbana, IL:  National
Council of Teachers of English.

Chomsky, N.  (1957).  Syntactic Structures.  The Hague:
Mouton and Company.

Durst, R. K. (1992).  Promising research:  An historical
analysis of award-winning inquiry, 1970-1989.  Research in
the Teaching of English, 26, 41-70.

Emig, J. (1971).  The Composing Processes of Twelfth
Graders.  Urbana, IL:  National Council of Teachers of
English.

Encyclopedia of Educational Research (1950).  New York:
Macmillian Company.

Freedman, S. W.  (1992).  Outside-in and inside-out:  Peer
response groups in two ninth-grade classes.  Research in the
Teaching of English, 26, 71-107.

Hairston, M. (1982).  The winds of change:  Thomas Kuhn and
the revolution in the teaching of writing.  College
Composition and Communication, 33, 76-88.

Hartwell, P. (1985).  Grammar, grammars, and the teaching of
grammar.  College English, 47, 105-127.

Kaulfers, W. V. (1944).  Common-sense in the teaching of
grammar.  Elementary English (May).

McCarthy, L. P., and Fishman, S. M. (1991).  Boundary
conversations:  Conflicting ways of knowing in philosophy
and interdisciplinary research.  Research in the Teaching of
English, 25, 419-468.

Meckel, H. (1963).  Research on teaching composition and
literature.  In N. L. Gage (Ed.), The Handbook of Research
on Teaching.  Chicago:  Rand-McNalley, 974-982.

Murray, D. (1968).  A Writer Teaches Writing:  A Practical
Method of Teaching Composition.  Boston:  Houghton-Mifflin.

Murray, D. (1980).  Writing as process:  How writing finds
its own meaning.  In T. R. Donovan and B. W. McClelland
(Eds.), Eight Approaches to Teaching Writing.  Urbana, IL:
National Council of Teachers of English, 3-20.

Nelson, W. F. (1954).  Revolution in grammar.  Quarterly
Journal of Speech (October).

O'Hare, F. (1973).  Sentence Combining:  Improving Student
Writing without Formal Grammar Instruction.  Urbana, IL:
National Council of Teachers of English.

Perl, S. (1983).  Understanding composing.  In J. Hays, P.
Roth, J. Ramsey, and R. Foulke (Eds.),  The Writer's Mind:
Writing as a Mode of Thinking.  Urbana, IL:  National
Council of Teachers of English, 43-51.

Petrosky, A. (1977).  Grammar instruction:  What we know.
English Journal, 66, 86-88.

Reyes, M. de la Luz. (1991).  A process approach to literacy
using dialogue journals and literature logs with second
language learners.  Research in the Teaching of English, 25,
291-313.

Roberts, D. H. (1988).  New directions for teacher training;
Preparing writing teachers for every classroom.  The Journal
of the Mississippi Council of Teachers of English, 10
(Spring), 3-16.

Rose, M. (1980).  Rigid rules, inflexible plans, and the
stifling of language:  A cognitive analysis of writer's
block.  College Composition and Communication, 31, 389-401.

Rose, M. (1984).  Writer's Block:  The Cognitive Dimension.
Carbondale:  Southern Illinois University Press.

Rubin, D. L., and Greene, K. (1992).  Gender-typical style
in written language.  Research in the Teaching of English,
26, 7-40.

Rubin, D. L., and Kantor, K. J. (1984).  Talking and
writing:  Building communication competence.  In C. J.
Thaiss and C. Suhor (Eds.), Speaking and Writing, K-12:
Classroom Strategies and the New Research.  Urbana, IL:
National Council of Teachers of English, 29-73.

Shaughnessy, M. (1977).  Errors and Expectations:  A Guide
for the Teacher of Basic Writing.  New York:  Oxford
University Press.

Shuy, R. (1981).  A holistic view of language.  Research in
the Teaching of English, 15, 101-111.

Smagorinsky, P. (1991).  The writer's knowledge and the
writing process:  A protocol analysis.  Research in the
Teaching of English, 25, 339-364.

Smith, F. (1981).  Myths of writing.  Language Arts, 58,
792-798.

Sperling, M. (1989).  The writing conference as a
collaborative literacy event:  Discourse analysis and
descriptive studies of conversations between ninth grade
writers and their teacher.  Dissertation Abstracts
International, 49, 11A.

Spivey, N. N. (1991).  The shaping of meaning:  Options in
writing the comparison.  Research in the Teaching of
English, 25, 390-415.

Strickland, J. (1984).  Deactivating the writing program.
The English Record (Fall), 2-4.

Strom, I. (1960).  Research in grammar and usage and its
implications for teaching writing.  Bulletin of the School
of Education, 36 (September).

Suhor, C. (1984).  Thinking visually about writing:  Three
models for teaching composition.  In C. J. Thaiss and C.
Suhor (Eds.), Speaking and Writing, K-12:  Classroom
Strategies and the New Research.  Urbana, IL:  National
Council of Teachers of English, 74-103.

Sweigart, W. (1991).  Classroom talk, knowledge development,
and writing.  Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 469-
495.

Weaver, C.  (1979).  Grammar for Teachers:  Perspectives and
Definitions.  Urbana, IL:  National Council of Teachers of
English.

   __________________________________________
   David H. Roberts
   Director of University Writing Programs
   Samford University
   Birmingham, AL 35229-2207 USA
   Voice: (205) 870-2964; Fax: (205) 870-2384
   Bitnet:  DHROBERT@SAMFORD
   _______________________________________________
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU