the result of different teaching styles, so the researchers were particularly
careful to control this variable. The students were divided into three groups.
The first studied grammar, various organizational modes (narration, argu-
mentation, analysis, etc.), and literature. The second group studied the same
organizational modes and literature as the first group but not grammar; in-
stead, they practiced creative writing and were given the chance to do addi-
tional reading. The third group studied traditional grammar and engaged in
reading popular fiction.
At the end of each year of the investigation, students were evaluated on a
range of measures to determine comparative growth. These measures included
vocabulary, reading comprehension, sentence complexity, usage, spelling, and
punctuation. Students also wrote essays at the end of each year that were scored
for content, style, organization, and mechanics. No significant differences on
any measures were found among the three groups at the end of the 1styear. At
the end of the 2ndyear, the students who had studied traditional grammar pro-
duced essays that were judged to have better content than those of the students
who had not studied any grammar, but the raters found no significant difference
on other factors, such as mechanics and sentence complexity, which were
judged similar for all groups.
At the end of the 3rdyear, the various factors related to writing were evalu-
ated a final time. A series of standardized measures showed that the students
who had studied grammar performed better on the usage test than those who
had not, but no significant differences on the other measures were found. After
3 years of work and effort, the writing of the students who had studied grammar
showed no significant differences in overall quality from that of students who
had studied no grammar. Frequency of error in spelling, punctuation, sentence
structure, and other mechanical measures did not vary from group to group. As
far as their writing was concerned, studying grammar or not studying grammar
simply made no difference.
Summarizing the research that was published after the Braddock et al.
(1963) report, Hillocks (1986) noted that:
None of the studies reviewed for the present report provides any support
for teaching grammar as a means of improving composition skills. If
schools insist upon teaching the identification of parts of speech, the
parsing or diagramming of sentences, or other concepts of traditional
grammar (as many still do), they cannot defend it as a means of improv-
ing the quality of writing. (p. 138)Recently, the Institute of Education at the University of London published a
review of more than 4,500 studies on grammar and writing (English Review
28 CHAPTER 2