A Modest Proposal

Continuing my investigation into teaching grammar in context, I found my reading divided into text about application and text about theory. Although the theory is interesting (grammar is the confluence of prescriptive systems and descriptive analysis, Edlund), I think the texts regarding application would be most beneficial to me.
Contrary to my preference for application, I was intrigued by Constance Weaver’s discussion of the arguments for and against the formal teaching of grammar, citing the contradictory research conclusions reached by Margaret Kolln and George Hillocks. While Hillocks seems to totally abandon the idea that grammar instruction can improve student writing, while Kolln questions the validity of some of the research prior
The teaching of grammar as a system should be restricted to elective classes and units with an emphasis on inquiry and discovery, 2. Reading should be used to aid students in their acquisition and practice of grammatical constructions and structures, 3. Grammar instruction should highlight examples and de-emphasize terminology, 4. Production of effective sentences should supersede analysis, 5. Effective punctuation as reflected in professional writing should be taught rather than the “correct” punctuation as prescribed in handbooks, 6. Questions of usage should
Baird Shuman’s chapter in The Place of Grammar in Writing Instruction entitled “Grammar for Writers: How Much Is Enough?”, which provided a good priority list for teaching. Shuman offers sound advice on clarifying punctuation, teaching pronouns, learning about pronouns – these three problems being the most frequently encountered in student writing. Shuman goes on to explore the importance of rhetorical grammar, as well as rhythm, adverbials, parallelism, absolutes, cleft constructions, sentence combining, and editing and deconstruction. I’ve only scanned Shuman, but I’m looking forward to reading his material more in