More than a century of research shows the workbook exercises and
multiple-choice response items used in traditional grammar practice
does nothing — zero, zip, zilch — to improve students'
writing skills.
Even if poorly-designed studies are set aside,the bulk of the research
says traditional grammar teaching has no value in improving students'
writing.
Yet many teachers, particularly in private schools and homeschools,
not only use traditional grammar practice, but appear to turn out
a higher proportion of competent writers than the anti-grammar group.
What's going on here?
Reasons for negative results
The anti-grammar group assumes the only possible explanation for
the research results is that grammar instruction is worthless for
writers. Several other explanations are possible. For example,
a. Teachers might teach grammar poorly.
b. Teachers' instructional methods might be inappropriate.
c. Students might lack preparation to benefit from the instruction.
d. Students may not learn the material well.
e. Students may not apply their grammar knowledge to their writing.
Reasons for positive results
The pro-grammar group have assumed the only possible explanation
for their success is that grammar instruction improves student writing.
However, other explanations could account for their success. For
example,
a. Teachers might teach grammar thoroughly.
b. The teachers' instructional methods might be appropriate to
grammar.
c. Students might be well prepared to benefit from the instruction.
d. Students may learn the material thoroughly.
e. Students may apply their grammar knowledge to their writing.
Another possibility: all of the above
It is more likely that the value of grammar instruction and of
traditional methods of grammar practice depends on the interaction
of several factors rather than on a single factor.
The research studies I've read and my own observation leads me
to the following seven conclusions.
1. Grammar instruction does not improve students' ability to
identify, gather and organize content, which is the fundamental
task of writing.
2. Students who are native English speakers master the
fundamental structures of English grammar without formal teaching.
3. For students who haven't learned how to write, formal
grammar instruction hinders development of writing skill by putting
too much stress on rules they don't understand.
4. The first task of formal grammar instruction is to teach students
terminology for discussing language, beginning with terms
for the fundamental structures they learned unconsciously through
hearing language.
5. Once students become competent writers, traditional
grammar study may help them become fluent writers, but
it is no guarantee.
6. The items on traditional grammar tests typically deal
with rules that are easy to evaluate rather than rules
that writers routinely use in their writing.
7. The best way to improve the grammatical correctness of written
work by competent writers is flag one specific type of error
in their work and have them study that grammatical issue until
they master it in their own written work.
Note that a student's writing
competence (or lack thereof) is the watershed that determines what
kind of grammar practice is most effective.
Applying these seven conclusions to teaching probably less difficult
than traditional grammar teaching methods because teachers have
less material to teach.
What makes this approach unpleasant is that it takes time.
Instead of an English teacher grammar practice approach, you something
closer to clarinet teacher practice approach: a 30-minute lesson
followed by 30 minutes of practice six days a week.
