Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Sentence combining versus grammar study : two approaches to the study of sentence structure Lee, Jean Celeste 1977

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1977_A8 L44.pdf [ 7.41MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055711.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055711-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055711-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055711-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055711-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055711-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055711-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055711-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055711.ris

Full Text

SENTENCE COMBINING VERSUS GRAMMAR STUDY: TWO APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF SENTENCE STRUCTURE by JEAN CELESTE LEE A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n The Department o f E n g l i s h E d u c a t i o n FACULTY OF EDUCATION We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA O c t o b e r 1977 (c) J e a n C e l e s t e L e e , 1977 I n p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r a g r e e t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by t h e Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t p u b l i c a t i o n , i n p a r t o r i n w h o l e , o r t h e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . JEAN CELESTE LEE I n t h e Department o f ry^/yt U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a Vancouver, B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a V6T 1W5 Date i i ABSTRACT T h i s s t u d y , prompted by F r a n k O'Hare's NCTE R e s e a r c h R e p o r t No. 15, Sen t e n c e Combining: I m p r o v i n g S t u d e n t W r i t i n g W i t h o u t F o r m a l  Grammar I n s t r u c t i o n , was d e s i g n e d t o compare the e f f e c t s o f two app r o a c h e s toward t h e improvement o f s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y i n t h e f r e e w r i t i n g o f grade t e n s t u d e n t s o v e r a nine-month p e r i o d . The e x p e r i -m e n t a l group s t u d i e d c e r t a i n a s p e c t s o f t r a d i t i o n a l grammar, and a f t e r t h e n e c e s s a r y g r a m m a t i c a l t e r m i n o l o g y was m a s t e r e d , i t was used t o d i s c u s s t h e v a r i o u s ways o f m a n i p u l a t i n g s e n t e n c e s t r u c t u r e t o c r e a t e more p l e a s i n g o v e r a l l p a t t e r n s and t h e r e b y enhance s t y l e . I n t h e second a p p r o a c h , t h e c o n t r o l g r o u p , w i t h o u t f o r m a l i n s t r u c -t i o n i n grammar, p r a c t i s e d s e n t e n c e - c o m b i n i n g problems encompassing a wide v a r i e t y o f s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s . B o t h t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l and th e c o n t r o l groups a l s o engaged i n an i n t e n s i v e f r e e w r i t i n g program. S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h i s r e s e a r c h sought t h e answer t o two q u e s t i o n s . One, would t h e experimental-grammar group show more growth i n s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y i n t h e i r f r e e w r i t i n g t h a n the c o n t r o l group, and two, woul d the e x p e r i m e n t a l group w r i t e c o m p o s i t i o n s t h a t would be j u d g e d s u p e r i o r i n o v e r a l l q u a l i t y t o t h o s e o f t h e c o n t r o l group? The sample used i n t h i s s t u d y c o n s i s t e d o f f i f t y - s i x g r a d e t e n s t u d e n t s a t t e n d i n g a l a r g e u r b a n s e c o n d a r y s c h o o l . i i i A l l of the thirty g i r l s and twenty-six boys were from a similar upper middle class socioeconomic background and were almost a l l of average or better a b i l i t y . The experimental class, with twenty-seven students, met in small group classes once a week for forty-minutes, as did the twenty-nine control group students. Both groups followed an identical curriculum in their regular middle group English classes, which met three times a week. Experimental and con-tr o l groups did the same number of writing assignments not only in regular classes, but in small group, where, in addition to their work in syntactic structuring, they wrote: (1) three pre- and three post-test compositions on topics devised in parallel forms, with one in each mode given in early October, and the counterpart of each in early June; (2) a pre- and post-treatment writing of a passage on aluminum containing many short sentences which they were asked to write in a better way; and (3) approximately twenty-five free writing assignments over a period of seven months. In the four pieces of writing done in class at pre- and post-test times, the f i r s t ten T-Units in each, forty T-Units for each test time, were analyzed according to two factors of syntactic maturity, T-Unit length and clause length. As a result of the analyses of the data, i t was concluded that the control group wrote compositions which were syntactically more mature than the compositions written by the experimental group. The control group i v w r o t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y l o n g e r c l a u s e s , and as a r e s u l t , l o n g e r T - U n i t s t h a n d i d t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l group. When compared t o the r a t e o f no r m a l growth e s t a b l i s h e d by Hunt, t h e c o n t r o l s t u d e n t s showed e v i d e n c e i n t h e i r f r e e w r i t i n g and i n t h e aluminum p a s s a g e , o f a l e v e l o f s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y , on b o t h i n d i c e s , e q u a l t o o r above t h a t o f s u p e r i o r a d u l t s . When n i n e e x p e r i e n c e d E n g l i s h t e a c h e r s were a s k e d t o j u d g e t h e o v e r a l l q u a l i t y o f t w e n t y - s e v e n p a i r s o f e x p e r i m e n t a l and c o n t r o l c o m p o s i t i o n s t h a t had been matched f o r s e x , I.Q. and a b i l i t y i n E n g l i s h , as w e l l as mode o f d i s c o u r s e , t h e r e appeared t o be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between t h e q u a l i t y o f t h e w r i t i n g o f t h e c o n t r o l and e x p e r i m e n t a l group. I t was c o n c l u d e d , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n t i a l g a i n s i n s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y o f t h e c o n t r o l group were n o t a d e t e r m i n i n g f a c t o r i n the m a r k e r s ' judgments, w h i c h were based e q u a l l y upon f i v e c r i t e r i a o f i d e a s , o r g a n i z a t i o n , s e n t e n c e s t r u c t u r e , v o c a b u l a r y and s t y l e . V TABLE OF CONTENTS Ch a p t e r Page INTRODUCTION 1 Sur v e y o f Developments I n Grammar 3 T r a d i t i o n a l Grammar 4 S t r u c t u r a l - D e s c r i p t i v e Grammar 5 T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l - G e n e r a t i v e Grammar 8 Tagmemic and S t r a t i f i c a t i o n a l Grammars . . . . 10 1. BACKGROUND RESEARCH 14 E a r l y Grammar R e s e a r c h 14 L a t e r S t u d i e s i n Grammar 17 Recent New Z e a l a n d Study 24 Language Development S t u d i e s . . . . 29 Hunt's Study (1965) 30 O' D o n n e l l ' s S t u d i e s 33 Hunt's S t u d y (1970) 34 Sente n c e - C o m b i n i n g S t u d i e s 35 M e l l o n * s Study . 35 O'Hare's Study 36 Oth e r S t u d i e s 41 Combs' Study 43 C r i t i c i s m o f S e n t e n c e - C o m b i n i n g by M o f f e t t , C h r i s t e n s e n , and Marzano 46 M o f f e t t ' s 46 v i C h a p t e r Page C h r i s t e n s e n ' s 47 Marzano's 48 Summary 50 2. DESIGNS AND PROCEDURES 54 O v e r v i e w 54 Hypothe s e s 55 D e s i g n o f t h e Study 56 S u b j e c t s 57 V a r i a b l e s 57 Independent 57 Dependent 58 Concommitant 58 E x t r a n e o u s 58 R a t i o n a l e o f t h e P r e s e n t Study 58 L i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e Study 60 D e s i g n o f t h e Study 60 Homogeneity o f t h e S u b j e c t P o p u l a t i o n 61 F i n a n c i a l R e s t r a i n t s 61 P r o c e d u r e s 62 S e l e c t i o n o f t h e E x p e r i m e n t a l S u b j e c t s . . . . 62 C o n t r o l Group Treatment 64 L e s s o n 1 66 v i i C h a p t e r Page L e s s o n s 4,5,6,8,9,11,12, and 13 66 L e s s o n s 15 and 16 68 L e s s o n s 18 and 19 68 L e s s o n 21 68 L e s s o n 22 . . . 69 W r i t i n g Workshops 70 Cou r s e F o l l o w e d by E x p e r i m e n t a l Grammar C l a s s e s 72 Treatment f o r t h e E x p e r i m e n t a l Group 73 Summary o f Grammar C u r r i c u l u m 75 R e g u l a r C u r r i c u l u m 79 L i t e r a t u r e . 80 Language 80 C o m p o s i t i o n 81 Text-Books. 82 Measurement 84 A b i l i t y 84 S y n t a c t i c M a t u r i t y : S a m p l e S i z e 84 R u l e s f o r A n a l y s i s 86 C h o i c e o f I n d i c e s 88 W r i t i n g Q u a l i t y 90 O t h e r S t u d i e s 90 P r e s e n t Study 95 v i i i C h a p t e r Page 3. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS . . . 99 Assessment o f S y n t a c t i c M a t u r i t y 99 Assessment o f W r i t i n g Q u a l i t y 103 Summary 106 4. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 108 C o n c l u s i o n s 109 D i s c u s s i o n o f C o n c l u s i o n s 110 S y n t a c t i c M a t u r i t y 110 Q u a l i t y o f W r i t i n g 113 I m p l i c a t i o n s 119 B e n e f i t s o f Sen t e n c e Combining 121 B e n e f i t s o f Grammar Study 123 S u g g e s t i o n s f o r F u r t h e r R e s e a r c h . 124 BIBLIOGRAPHY 129 APPENDIX A - ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE FOR T-UNIT LENGTH SCORES OF 26 EXPERIMENTAL AND 25 CONTROL SUBJECTS FREE WRITING PASSAGES 138 APPENDIX B - ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE FOR CLAUSE LENGTH SCORES OF 26 EXPERIMENTAL AND 25 CONTROL SUBJECTS' FREE WRITING PASSAGES 139 APPENDIX C - ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE FOR T-UNIT LENGTH SCORES OF 26 EXPERIMENTAL AND 25 CONTROL SUBJECTS' ALUMINUM PASSAGE 140 APPENDIX D - ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE FOR CLAUSE LENGTH SCORES OF 26 EXPERIMENTAL AND 25 CONTROL SUBJECTS' ALUMINUM PASSAGE 141 ix C h a p t e r Page APPENDIX E -APPENDIX F -APPENDIX G APPENDIX H APPENDIX I APPENDIX J APPENDIX K GRAMMAR - EXPERIMENTAL GROUP 1S MARKS AND GRAMMAR EXAMINATION, JUNE 1977 1. COMPOSITIONS TOPICS - IN PARALLEL FORMS - DESCRIPTIVE, NARRATIVE, EXPOSITORY 2. ALUMINUM PASSAGE TEACHER EVALUATOR'S QUALIFICATIONS . . . RAW SCORES POTTER'S DATA CRITICAL VALUES OF T FOR THE SIGN TEST . WRITING WORKSHOP SAMPLE 142 149 158 159 160 164 165 166 X L I S T OF TABLES T a b l e Page I . Mean T - U n i t and C l a u s e L e n g t h S c o r e s o f P r e -and P o s t - t e s t s on F r e e W r i t i n g and Aluminum P a s s a g e s f o r E x p e r i m e n t a l and C o n t r o l Groups and T h e i r Mean I.Q. and E n g l i s h Achievement S c o r e s 100 I I . E x p e r i m e n t a l o r C o n t r o l C o m p o s i t i o n s Chosen by N i n e E x p e r i e n c e d E n g l i s h T e a c h e r s 104 S e c t i o n A - l - From F o u r t e e n Matched P a i r s o f E x p o s i t o r y C o m p o s i t i o n s S e c t i o n A-2 - From T h i r t e e n Matched P a i r s o f D e s c r i p t i v e C o m p o s i t i o n s S e c t i o n B - l - Summary o f M a r k e r s ' C h o i c e s i n t h e E x p o s i t o r y Mode S e c t i o n B-2 - Summary o f M a r k e r s ' C h o i c e s i n t h e D e s c r i p t i v e Mode I I I . C o m p a r a t i v e Data f r o m O t h e r S t u d i e s S e c t i o n A - Comparison o f P r e - and P o s t -Treatment Change S c o r e s o f t h e S e n t e n c e -Combining and.Non-Sentence-Combining Groups o f M e l l o n , O'Hare, Combs and t h e P r e s e n t S t u d y on One I n d i c e o f S y n t a c t i c M a t u r i t y : Words/T-Unit S e c t i o n B - Hunt's D a t a on Normal Growth i n F r e e W r i t i n g and i n t h e R e w r i t i n g o f t h e Aluminum Pa s s a g e f o r Two I n d i c e s o f S y n t a c t i c M a t u r i t y : Words/T-Unit and Words/Clause x i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I w o u l d l i k e t o thank the members o f my a d v i s o r y c ommittee, P r o f e s s o r F r a n k B e r t r a m , Chairman, and P r o f e s s o r s Ruth M c C o n n e l l and P h i l i p P e n n e r , f o r t h e i r t h o u g h t f u l a s s i s t a n c e d u r i n g my work on t h i s s t u d y . I n a d d i t i o n , I w i s h t o acknowledge w i t h g r a t i t u d e t h e h e l p o f Dr. Seong-Soo L e e , C o o r d i n a t o r o f the E d u c a t i o n R e s e a r c h C e n t r e , f o r h i s h e l p w i t h the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s o f t h e d a t a . I would a l s o l i k e t o e x p r e s s my g r a t i t u d e t o the men whose v e r y f i n e s t u d i e s p r o v i d e d t h e g u i d a n c e f o r the p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h : Dr. K e l l o g g Hunt, Dr. John M e l l o n , Dr. F r a n k O'Hare, Dr. Warren Combs, and Dr. Ro b e r t P o t t e r . I am g r e a t l y i n d e b t e d t o t h e i r v e r y comprehensive work. My c o l l e a g u e s a t Handsworth Secondary S c h o o l were a l s o o f g r e a t h e l p t o me: Sue Dux, M a r g a r e t R i c h , and t h e s t a f f o f the E n g l i s h Department who v o l u n t a r i l y marked s t u d e n t c o m p o s i t i o n s ; t h e s t a f f o f t h e Commerce Department, who a s s i s t e d w i t h t h e p u b l i s h i n g o f s t u d e n t w r i t i n g , a n d t h e s c h o o l s e c r e t a r y , who typ e d t h e s t u d e n t c o m p o s i t i o n s . I am a l s o g r a t e f u l t o the wonder-f u l s t u d e n t s who t o o k p a r t i n the r e s e a r c h . L a s t l y , I would l i k e t o thank my f a m i l y f o r t h e i r p a t i e n c e and u n d e r s t a n d i n g , w i t h o u t w h i c h t h i s work wou l d n e v e r have been c o m p l e t e d . 1 INTRODUCTION In the past two decades, education has f e l t the impact of an explosion i n the growth of knowledge i n a l l d i s c i p l i n e s , but p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the f i e l d of language. Teachers are faced with a multitude of recent developments, and they must come to grips not only with the increase i n the t o t a l body of knowledge, but also with new concepts and approaches. Teachers' concerns over the problems of language i n s t r u c t i o n are augmented by the current controversy over student l i t e r a c y . The demand for a "Return to the Basics" has led to a reexamination of the question of how w r i t i n g should be taught. Should the w r i t i n g be c l o s e l y l i n k e d to the study of grammar? What kind of knowledge should the student have about the structure of the English language and can such knowledge be used to improve h i s a b i l i t y to write well? Can students be taught to manipulate language more e f f e c t i v e l y without any formal study of grammar? The purpose of the present study i s to compare the e f f e c t s of two approaches to the improvement of sentence structure i n student w r i t i n g . One approach w i l l involve the learning of grammatical terminology, while the other w i l l employ sentence-combining techniques which do not involve any formal i n s t r u c t i o n i n grammar. Most of the research concerned with the development and measurement 2 of s y n t a c t i c maturity have been done i n the past twelve years, but p r i o r to t h i s , many investigations of the merits of grammar as an i n s t r u c t i o n a l a i d i n the teaching of w r i t i n g have been made. These investigations have followed i n the wake of successive "revolutions" i n l i n g u i s t i c theory, as researchers have sought to discover whether a newer s c i e n t i f i c system was more relevant to student r h e t o r i c than was i t s predecessor. Before surveying some of t h i s research assoc-iated with the changing systems of grammar, perhaps i t would be well to summarize j u s t what has been happening i n the f i e l d of grammar since the nineteenth century. In the December 1974 issue of English Journal, Owen Thomas points out how the meaning of "grammar" has undergone several metamorphoses i n t h i s century, as i t r e f l e c t s the current changes i n the study of grammar. The OED (1933) defines grammar as: That department of the study of language which deals with i t s i n f l e c t i o n a l forms or other means of i n d i c a t i n g the r e l a t i o n of words i n the sentence, and with the rules f o r employing these i n accordance with established usage; usually including also the department which deals with the phonetic system of the language and the p r i n c i p l e s of i t s representation i n w r i t i n g . This d e f i n i t i o n not only antedates generative grammar by almost twenty-f i v e years; i t also antedates the major publications i n s t r u c t u r a l grammar. Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1961) comes closer to the current view: 3 (a) a branch of l i n g u i s t i c study that deals with the classes of words, t h e i r i n f l e c t i o n s or other means of i n d i c a t i n g r e l a t i o n to each other, and t h e i r functions and r e l a t i o n s i n the sentence as employed according to established usage and that i s sometimes extended to include r e l a t e d matter such as phonology, prosody, language h i s t o r y , orthography, orthoepy, etymology, or semantics. (b) l i n g u i s t i c s . (c) a. study of what i s to be preferred and what avoided i n the i n f l e c t i o n s and syntax of a language. In 1966 the Random House Dictionary of the Eng l i s h Language states that grammar re f e r s to: The study of the system underlying the esp. formal features of a language, as the sounds, morphemes, words, or sentences; a theory sp e c i f y i n g the manner i n which a l l sentences of a language are constructed. As Thomas remarks, the changing d e f i n i t i o n s i n d i c a t e that the notions of what grammar r e a l l y i s have changed considerably over the years. Survey of Developments i n Grammar During the early nineteenth century there had been l i t t l e change i n t r a d i t i o n a l grammar, as i t was found to be an adequate framework for the "reconstruction" of Proto-Indo-European, which provided the focus for most of the h i s t o r i c a l and comparative studies of the era. However, i n the l a s t decade of the century, Ferdinand de Saussure's ideas about e s t a b l i s h i n g the study of l i v i n g language on a s c i e n t i f i c b a s i s , introduced i n h i s lectur e s and published 4 posth u m o u s l y ( 1 9 1 6 ) , p r o v e d t o be o f f u n d a m e n t a l i m p o r t a n c e t o t h e c u r r e n t European t h e o r i e s o f d e s c r i p t i v e l i n g u i s t i c s . H i s t h e o r i e s a l s o p r o v e d t o be t h e f o r e r u n n e r o f t h e t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y " r e v o l u t i o n " i n grammar s t u d y . T r a d i t i o n a l Grammar A t about t h e same ti m e as S a u s s u r e was l e c t u r i n g , t h e r e began i n N o r t h e r n Europe a s c h o l a r l y development o f t r a d i t i o n a l grammar. Most o f t h e a u t h o r s o f t h e g r e a t r e f e r e n c e grammars were h i s t o r i c a l l y - o r i e n t e d l i n g u i s t s s u c h as J e s p e r s o n ( 1 9 0 9 - 4 9 ) , Poutsma ( 1 9 2 8 ) , and K r u i s i n g a ( 1 9 2 5 ) , whose work c o n t i n u e d i n t o t h e 1930's and l a t e r . These men were n o t w r i t i n g t e x t b o o k s , b u t v e r y c a r e f u l a c c o u n t s o f E n g l i s h on a t r a d i t i o n a l b a s i s . J e s p e r s o n ' s comprehen-s i v e a c c o u n t , w r i t t e n i n seven volumes, i n t r o d u c e d many i n n o v a t i o n s w h i c h i n c l u d e d h i s t r e a t m e n t o f s y n t a x and h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f words i n s e n t e n c e s . I t was t o t h e work o f t h e s e s c h o l a r l y grammarians t h a t some o f t h e l a t e r l i n g u i s t i c t h e o r i e s were i n d e b t e d . However, t h e s e advances i n t r a d i t i o n a l s c h o l a r l y grammar were n o t r e f l e c t e d i n t h e s c h o o l grammars w h i c h were f a r b e h i n d . These t e x t s u s u a l l y began w i t h a s t u d y o f p a r t s o f speech ( w h i c h were d e f i n e d p a r t l y a c c o r d -i n g t o meaning and p a r t l y a c c o r d i n g t o f u n c t i o n ) , and t h e n c o n t i n u e d w i t h t h e p r a c t i c e o f p a r s i n g . B a s i c a l l y , t h e r e were two k i n d s o f g r a m m a t i c a l r u l e s : t h o s e by w h i c h words were a r r a n g e d i n o r d e r , 5 and t h o s e by w h i c h a l t e r a t i o n s , s u c h as i n f l e c t i o n s , were made t o t h e form o f words t o show such t h i n g s as c a s e , number o r t e n s e . The f i r s t o f t h e s e r u l e s was c a l l e d " s y n t a x , " and t h e se c o n d , " a c c i d e n c e . " S y n t a c t i c a l l y , t h e most i m p o r t a n t u n i t i n t r a d i t i o n a l grammar was the s i m p l e a s s e r t i v e s e n t e n c e , w i t h i t s v a r i a n t f o r m s , t h e i n t e r r o g -a t i v e , e x c l a m a t o r y , and i m p e r a t i v e s e n t e n c e s . Each s e n t e n c e was made up o f a s u b j e c t and a p r e d i c a t e ( c o n s i s t i n g o f a v e r b and i t s o b j e c t s o r complements, i f a n y ) , and t h e m o d i f i e r s . I n a n a l y s i s , t h e s u b j e c t , v e r b , and complements were i d e n t i f i e d as s i n g l e words r a t h e r t h a n as noun p h r a s e s o r v e r b p h r a s e s . S e n t e n c e s were a l s o d e f i n e d as s i m p l e , compound, complex, o r compound-complex, d e p e n d i n g upon t h e t y p e and number o f c l a u s e s . The l a t t e r were l a b e l l e d a s c o o r d i n a t e o r su b -o r d i n a t e a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r r o l e i n t h e s e n t e n c e , and as a d v e r b i a l , a d j e c t i v a l , o r noun, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r f u n c t i o n . S t r u c t u r a l - D e s c r i p t i v e Grammar B e f o r e t h e s c h o o l grammars c o u l d b e g i n t o c a t c h up w i t h s c h o l a r l y grammar, r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e g r e a t a c h i e v e m e n t o f J e s p e r s o n and t h e o t h e r s c h o l a r l y grammarians was overshadowed by t h e growth o f s t r u c t u r a l - d e s c r i p t i v e grammar, w h i c h began i n t h e 1930's and owed i t s i n s p i r a t i o n t o t h e work o f S a u s s u r e , whose i n s i g h t s were p a r t i c -u l a r l y v a l u a b l e to l i n g u i s t s i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , who had been w o r k i n g w i t h A m e r i c a n I n d i a n l a n g u a g e . Here t h e p i o n e e r s were 6 F r a n z Boas ( 1 9 1 1 ) , Edward S a p i r ( 1 9 2 1 ) , and L e o n a r d B l o o m f i e l d , whose book Language (1933) became t h e s t a n d a r d handbook o f A m e r i c a n s t r u c t u r a l l i n g u i s t i c s , w h i c h r e i g n e d supreme u n t i l t h e l a t e f i f t i e s . F o r B l o o m f i e l d l a n g u a g e was a s e t o f c o n d i t i o n e d r e s p o n s e s t o i n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l s t i m u l i , and, as s u c h , i t was a form o f human b e h a v i o u r , b u t i n s p i t e o f t h i s b e h a v i o u r i s t i c a p p r o a c h he b e l i e v e d t h a t l i n g u i s t s s h o u l d r e s t r i c t t h e i r a t t e n t i o n t o l a n g u a g e f o r m s . As he s a i d : L a r g e groups o f p e o p l e make up a l l t h e i r u t t e r a n c e s o u t o f t h e same s t o c k o f l e x i c a l forms and g r a m m a t i c a l c o n -s t r u c t i o n s . A l i n g u i s t i c o b s e r v e r t h e r e f o r e can d e s c r i b e the s p eech h a b i t s o f a community w i t h o u t r e s o r t i n g t o s t a t i s t i c s . . . he must r e c o r d e v e r y form he can f i n d and n o t t r y t o excuse h i m s e l f from t h e t a s k by a p p e a l i n g t o t h e r e a d e r ' s common sense o r t o t h e s t r u c t u r e o f some o t h e r l a n g u a g e o r t o some p s y c h o l o g i c a l t h e o r y , and above a l l , he must n o t s e l e c t o r d i s t o r t t h e f a c t s a c c o r d i n g to h i s v i e w s o f what t h e s p e a k e r ought t o be s a y i n g . . . . The danger h e r e l i e s i n m e n t a l i s t i c v i e w s o f p s y c h o l o g y , w h i c h may tempt t h e o b s e r v e r t o a p p e a l t o p u r e l y s p i r i t u a l s t a n d a r d s i n s t e a d o f r e p o r t i n g t h e f a c t s , (pp. 37-38) I n t h i s passage B l o o m f i e l d ' s c o n c e r n t o make t h e s t u d y o f lang u a g e more s c i e n t i f i c was a p p a r e n t , as were a number o f h i s o t h e r b a s i c a s s u m p t i o n s : 1. A l i n g u i s t must r e l y upon e m p i r i c a l d a t a r a t h e r t h a n upon r u l e s . 2. He must r e c o g n i z e t h e u n i q u e n e s s o f e v e r y l a n g u a g e . 3. He must r e a l i z e the u s e l e s s n e s s o f p h i l o s o p h i c a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l t h e o r i e s , f o r " t h e o n l y u s e f u l g e n e r a l i z -a t i o n s about l a n g u a g e a r e i n d u c t i v e g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s . " 7 4. He must r e c o g n i z e t h e p r i m a c y o f speech. Thus t h e s t r u c t u r a l l i n g u i s t , i n " r e p o r t i n g t h e f a c t s " g a t h e r e d h i s c o r p u s , o r c o l l e c t i o n o f u t t e r a n c e s , and r e l i e d , n o t upon s e m a n t i c c r i t e r i a t o d e s c r i b e i t , b u t upon the p h o n o l o g i c a l , m o r p h o l o g i c a l , and s y n t a c t i c forms p r e s e n t i n t h e speech s i g n a l . Much o f t h e work i n s t r u c t u r a l l i n g u i s t i c s i n t h e f i f t i e s was i n i t i a t e d by C.C. F r i e s , who had f o r many y e a r s u r g e d t h a t grammar c o u r s e s i n t h e s c h o o l s be made more e f f e c t i v e . H i s i n v e s t i -g a t i o n s had e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e s e m i - l i t e r a t e w r i t t e n E n g l i s h o f Am e r i c a n s d i f f e r e d from s t a n d a r d E n g l i s h more i n t h e i n a d e q u a c y o f the l a n g u a g e t h a n i n t h e number o f e r r o r s made, and he c o n c l u d e d t h a t grammar t e a c h i n g s h o u l d be more c o n s t r u c t i v e t h a n c o r r e c t i v e . Commissioned by t h e N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l o f Te a c h e r s o f E n g l i s h t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e r o l e o f grammar i n t h e s c h o o l s , he p u b l i s h e d h i s r e p o r t i n 1940. T h i s r e p o r t c o n t a i n e d a p a r t i a l s t a t e m e n t o f a new system, w h i c h he com p l e t e d i n h i s book, The S t r u c t u r e o f E n g l i s h ( 1 9 5 2 ) . He t o t a l l y r e j e c t e d t r a d i t i o n a l grammar, s e e k i n g i n s t e a d to b u i l d grammar on f a c t s w h i c h c o u l d be o b s e r v e d and v e r i f i e d . Because h i s grammar i n v o l v e d a d e s c r i p t i o n o f speech sounds, a s t u d y o f phonemics and morphemics was n e c e s s a r y . A f t e r t h i s , t h e grammar t u r n e d t o a d e f i n i t i o n o f p a r t s o f speech o r " f o r m c l a s s e s " w h i c h were d e f i n e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r p o s i t i o n i n t h e s e n t e n c e . Thus i n the s e n t e n c e "The f e l l a s l e e p , " o n l y a noun c o u l d f i t 8 into the t e s t frame. Classes could also be defined according to form ( i n f l e c t i o n s or c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s u f f i x e s ) . F r i e s replaced the t r a d i t i o n a l parts of speech with four major form classes and f i f t e e n groups of function words, but this c l a s s i f i c a t i o n was modified by other s t r u c t u r a l i s t s . In s p i t e of t h i s p r e c i s i o n i n d e f i n i n g form classes, l i t t l e time was spent on parsing, as the p r i n c i p a l i n t e r e s t was i n syntax, which was investigated by immediate-constituent analysis, a process designed to examine constructions within s t r u c -tures. Having disposed of the "lower" s y n t a c t i c structures, the grammar turned to the sentence, and established eight to ten "basic sentence patterns" which could be represented i n formulaic terms. Text Books based on s t r u c t u r a l grammar varied considerably, but work with these sentence patterns, as well as form classes and structure groups, was i n t e g r a l to a l l . Transformational-Generative Grammar In the m i d - f i f t i e s , the transformational-generative doctrines of Noam Chomsky (1957) and others began to question the theories of F r i e s and h i s followers, and to c r i t i c i z e t h e i r lack of t h e o r e t i c a l power. This new grammar incorporated many of the ideas of the s t r u c t u r a l i s t s , but d i f f e r e d sharply from them i n purpose, as the s t r u c t u r a l i s t s described completed language acts, while transformational grammar attempted to account for the a b i l i t y 9 o f t he human mind t o produce l a n g u a g e . T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l i s t s r e p u d i a t e d a l l t h e o r i e s o f grammar w h i c h a s s e r t e d t h a t the s e n t e n c e s o f human l a n g u a g e c o u l d be d e s c r i b e d a d e q u a t e l y by segme n t i n g them i n t o d i s c r e t e e l e m e n t s and the n c l a s s i f y i n g t h e s e e l e m e n t s . I n c o n t r a s t , t h e t h e o r y o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l grammar c l a i m e d t h a t t h e s t r u c t u r e o f human lang u a g e was c o n s i d e r a b l y more a b s t r a c t t h a n i n d i c a t e d by t h e s i m p l e s u r f a c e a n a l y s i s o f s e n t e n c e s . F u r t h e r m o r e , the t h e o r y c l a i m e d t h a t human l a n g u a g e was n o t m e r e l y a f o r m o f l e a r n e d b e h a v i o u r b u t the p r o d u c t o f a h i g h l y s p e c i f i e d i n n a t e m e n t a l c a p a c i t y p e c u l i a r t o man. W h i l e Chomsky p o i n t e d o u t t h a t t r a n s f o r m a -t i o n a l grammar was n o t a model f o r a s p e a k e r ' s l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t y , he d i d hope t h a t the grammar woul d p r o v i d e a d e s c r i p t i o n o f the s t r u c t u r e o f l a n g u a g e t h a t w o u l d h e l p t o g i v e an i n s i g h t i n t o t h i s u n i q u e l y human a b i l i t y t o use l a n g u a g e . T h i s c o n c e r n , a l o n g w i t h the need t o j u s t i f y r e l i a n c e on i n t u i t i o n i n s t e a d o f a c o r p u s o f c o l l e c t e d u t t e r a n c e s l e d t o the d r a w i n g o f an i m p o r t a n t d i s t i n c t i o n between a s p e a k e r ' s "competence" o r knowledge o f h i s l a n g u a g e , and h i s " p e r f o r m a n c e " o r a c t u a l use o f h i s lang u a g e f r o m day t o day. The s t r u c t u r a l i s t was a n a l y z i n g a c o r p u s , w h i c h was r e a l l y a " p e r f o r m a n c e " r a t h e r t h a n what l a y b e h i n d i t . He was n o t w i l l i n g t o r e l y on h i s own l i n g u i s t i c i n t u i t i o n ( h i s competence), w h i l e the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l i s t was w i l l i n g to use h i s own competence, and was t r y i n g t o d e s c r i b e i t . I n t he e a r l y days o f T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l - G e n e r a t i v e grammar, l i n g u i s t s b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e r e was a c o r e o f s i m p l e " k e r n e l " s e n t e n c e s 10 from which a l l other sentences could be derived. Later these ideas were abandoned, as l i n g u i s t s came to believe that a l l sentences were derived from transformations, and thus had an underlying structure. Thus sentences had deep structures which were changed to surface structures by transformations. The deep structure c l a r i f i e d meaning and the surface structure l e d to the sounds spoken or words written. In the s i x t i e s , Chomsky's grammar was modified, and a semantic component was added to the s y n t a c t i c and the phonological components. The syn t a c t i c component, which generated both deep and surface structures, consisted of two parts. Those parts that had to do with deep structure were c a l l e d the base component, which included both phrase structure rules and the le x i c o n , and the transformation component, which mapped s t r i n g s generated by the base into surface structures. This base was at the heart of the system, as i t generated the i n f i n i t e class of structures underlying the well--formed sentences of a language. These structures were then given a semantic and phonetic " i n t e r p r e t a t i o n " by the other components. L e x i c a l rules s p e c i f i e d how the abstract symbols were to be replaced with words, and phonological rules t o l d what form and sound the words would have. Tagmemic and S t r a t i f i c a t i o n a l Grammars Other recent developments i n grammar included the work of K.L. Pike i n Tagmemic Analysis. A "tagmeme" was a u n i t defined 11 as the " c o r r e l a t i o n of a grammatical function, or s l o t , with the cla s s of mutually substitutable items that can f i l l the s l o t . " Another study was that of S t r a t i f i c a t i o n a l Grammar, devised by S.K. Lamb, which placed emphasis upon the f a c t that language was a layered system. Str u c t u r a l grammar had developed the notion of sy n t a c t i c l e v e l s , and tagmemic analysis was also concerned with structure l e v e l s , and mapped tagmemes into " s t r i n g s " at three s p e c i f i c l e v e l s : sentence, clause, and phrase. S t r a t i f i c a t i o n a l used s i x kinds of l e v e l s , c a l l e d " s t r a t a . " This b r i e f consideration of some of the recent developments i n language gives some i n d i c a t i o n of the problems besetting English teachers i n recent years. Not only must the teacher decide whether the teaching of grammar i s warranted, when past research has indicated that a knowledge of grammar does not improve student w r i t i n g , but also he must determine which system i s preferable i f grammar i s to be taught. Such i n q u i r i e s must i n e v i t a b l y lead to the r e a l i z a t i o n that no one grammar i s a cl e a r and complete answer to the question of how the English language i s put together, and how i t operates, nor i s i t an unequivocal answer to the question "What s h a l l I teach?" T r a d i t i o n a l grammar has the advantage of f a m i l i a r i t y , at l e a s t to a degree, f o r the teacher and student. Both know something of i t s terminology. C r i t i c i s m of t r a d i t i o n a l methods states t h a t - i t s strong committment to deduction, implemented by parsing, i s a negative approach which shows a student how to analyze rather than 12 synthesize. T r a d i t i o n a l i s t s have also been accused of being u n r e a l i s -t i c i n the matter of usage, refusing to recognize that many Latinate s t r i c t u r e s are no longer v a l i d . Probably the chief c r i t i c i s m d irected toward t r a d i t i o n a l school grammars, however, i s that they do not provide accurate or complete d e f i n i t i o n s . S t r u c t u r a l i s t s , on the other hand, are s a i d to be more con-cerned with the exact d e s c r i p t i o n of the language than with the operation of the language. For the classroom teacher, the study of t y p i c a l sentence patterns i s l i k e l y to be the most useful part ot s t r u c t u r a l grammar. By pointing out changes i n word order, i n f l e c t i o n , and use of function words, teachers can i d e n t i f y the d i s t i n c t i v e s t r u c t u r a l features i n sets of contrasting patterns. Transformational theory's e f f o r t s to explain how c h i l d r e n acquire language should be of i n t e r e s t to a l l teachers, but some have discovered that a s t r a i g h t transformational grammar requires complete and systematic d e r i v a t i o n of hundreds of structures that are simply accepted as given i n other systems. Perhaps the best s o l u t i o n for the teacher looking for applications of l i n g u i s t i c knowledge to classroom work i s to learn enough about the three major approaches given currency today ( t r a d i t i o n a l , s t r u c t u r a l , and transformational) to enable him to evaluate the text books offered, and to use independent judgment to bring together what seems p l a u s i b l e and workable from various sources. The common denominator of such e c l e c t i c grammars w i l l be 13 an account of the i n f l e c t i o n s and posit i o n s of the four major word classes and various minor categories, an account of basic sentence patterns, and an account of the way i n which these basic sentences may be modified, expanded, and transformed. In devising a grammar course f o r the present experimental c l a s s , the researcher termed the grammar " t r a d i t i o n a l , " but i n f a c t i t embodied a l i t t l e of each of the processes described above. However, the terminology was l a r g e l y t r a d i t i o n a l . The purpose of the research was to determine whether the q u a l i t y of w r i t i n g , as well as the maturity of sentence structure, of grade ten students could be further enhanced by a study of c e r t a i n aspects of grammar than by the p r a c t i c e of sentence combining. Chapter 1 contains a survey of the l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t e d to the present study, and includes e a r l i e r research concerning the r e l a t i o n -ship between the study of grammar and the w r i t i n g process. I t also traces the development i n language studies which have provided the means for measuring normal growth i n sy n t a c t i c maturity i n q u a n t i f i -able terms, and e a r l i e r sentence-combining studies. Chapter 2 discusses the design and procedures of the two groups; the group studying grammar was termed experimental, and the group p r a c t i c i n g sentence-combining was c a l l e d the control group. In Chapter 3 the r e s u l t s of the analysis of the data are presented and discussed, and Chapter 4 contains the conclusions of thi s study, the implications drawn from these, and some suggestions for further study. 14 CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND RESEARCH As the present study w i l l compare a grammar-oriented approach to the improvement of sentence structure with a sentence-combining approach, that has no formal grammar i n s t r u c t i o n , i t w i l l be necessary to examine the research which has been done i n both areas, as well as research done i n the f i e l d of measuring s y n t a c t i c growth. E f f o r t s made i n the t h i r t i e s to determine whether the study of t r a d i t i o n a l grammar l e d to any improvement i n student w r i t i n g were followed i n the l a t e f o r t i e s and the f i f t i e s by attempts to evaluate the r o l e of s t r u c t u r a l - d e s c r i p t i v e grammar i n r e l a t i o n to w r i t i n g . These i n turn were succeeded by other experiments to assess the worth of trans-formational-generative grammar as an a i d to l i t e r a c y . In these l a s t studies, grammar and sentence combining were at f i r s t combined, but were l a t e r separated, i n order to f i n d the e f f e c t of each on sentence structure. Early Grammar Research In examining the research of the t h i r t i e s one finds that v i r t u a l l y no evidence was uncovered to support the theory that studying grammar improved w r i t i n g . However, as John Mellon (1965) 15 i n h i s comprehensive review of t h i s e arly research pointed out, most of the studies were dire c t e d toward the question of whether grammar had been useful i n promoting correct usage rather than whether grammar had been of value i n improving sentence structure. Mellon noted that the work of Symonds (1931), Catherwood (1932), Cutwright (1934), and Craxjford-Royer (1935) concluded that correct usage was more e f f e c t i v e l y taught without reference to the gramma-t i c a l p r i n c i p l e s involved, and that l a t e r studies by Evans (1939), M i l l i g a n (1939), Frogner (1939), and B u t t e r f i e l d (1945) suggested that i t was better to discuss errors i n a " d i r e c t or i n c i d e n t a l " way, rather than by p r e s c r i p t i v e d r i l l i n g . Thus the " f u n c t i o n a l grammarians" of the t h i r t i e s argued that the sole function of grammar was a c o r r e c t i v e one, and that i t s study should be l i m i t e d to learning the rules of usage. Sherwin (1969), i n an exhaustive examination not only of s t a t i s t i c a l and non-experimental studies using c o r r e l a t i o n analysis, but also of experimental research, pointed out that "After a t a l l y of procedural and other l i m i t a t i o n s , the research s t i l l overwhelmingly supports the contention that i n s t r u c t i o n i n t r a d i t i o n a l grammar i s an i n e f f e c t i v e and i n e f f i c i e n t way to help students achieve p r o f i c i e n c y i n w r i t i n g . " This type of error-oriented research, based upon objective t e s t i n g , continued through the f i f t i e s and s i x t i e s , though now i t was concerned to see whether the teaching of s t r u c t u r a l grammar improved student w r i t i n g . However, only those aspects of verbal a b i l i t y which were measurable on objective tests were considered. 16 In a factor a n a l y t i c study which defined composition a b i l i t y i n terms of scores on twenty-three such tests, plus q u a l i t y r a t i n g on a si n g l e composition, Weinfeld (1957) found no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r -ences between students who had studied s t r u c t u r a l l i n g u i s t i c s and those who had taken conventional grammar. Schuster (1961) and Suggs (1961) each compared the above approaches, also using pre-post objective t e s t s . Schuster found no appreciable difference between the two methods; Suggs noted that her s t r u c t u r a l group had greater gains, but she f e l t t his might be due, i n part, to the novelty of the treatment. As Mellon commented, i t seemed strange that these studies did not consider using the " d i r e c t method" approach i n one of t h e i r groups, i n view of the f a c t that a l l the previous research had indicated that the d i r e c t method was more e f f e c t i v e than the p r e s c r i p t i v e study of formal grammar i n learning correct usage. In Braddock's (1963) summation of the r e s u l t s of studies done to determine the r e l a t i o n s h i p between grammar and composition, he stated unequivocally: " . . . the teaching of formal grammar has a n e g l i g i b l e , or because i t usually displaces some i n s t r u c t i o n and p r a c t i c e i n actual composition, even a harmful e f f e c t on the improvement of writing."(pp. 37-38) However, Meckel (1963) was not sure. In h i s analysis of the findings of e a r l y research, whose methods were often questionable i n the l i g h t of modern techniques, he concluded that "much of the e a r l i e r research on teaching grammar must be regarded as no longer of great s i g n i f i c a n c e outside the period i n educational h i s t o r y which i t represents." Later Studies i n Grammar The p r a c t i c e of measuring improvement i n w r i t i n g by objective tests rather than by an examination of the w r i t i n g i t s e l f was overcome i n part by Harris (1962), i n a c a r e f u l l y conducted study which compared the e f f e c t s of i n s t r u c t i o n i n formal and i n " f u n c t i o n a l " grammar over a two-year period on the w r i t i n g of London pupils aged 12 to 14. He compared the incidence of errors i n the two groups, using a short answer test on the terms and a p p l i c a t i o n of formal grammar as well as a count of common grammatical errors i n the students' w r i t i n g . In addition, however, he examined the 500-word before and a f t e r compositions according to eleven " c r i t e r i a of maturing s t y l e , " seven of which were represented by frequency counts of words per simple and complex sentences, non-simple minus simple sentences, subordinate clauses, complex sentences, d i f f e r e n t sentence patterns, a d j e c t i v a l phrases and clauses, and q u a l i f y i n g phrases i n simple sentences. Harris found that i n the t r a d i t i o n a l grammar group, t h i r t e e n of the fourteen common errors were more frequent i n the post-test than i n the pre-test, while the d i r e c t method group had s i x errors which were more frequent and s i x that were l e s s frequent i n the post-test than i n the pre-test. He concluded that "the study of English grammatical terminology had a n e g l i g i b l e or even r e l a t i v e l y harmful e f f e c t upon the correctness of children's w r i t i n g , " 18 Thus i t was a p p a r e n t t h a t though H a r r i s d i d examine s e n t e n c e s t r u c t u r e , he was p r i m a r i l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h the o c c u r r e n c e o f e r r o r s . I n t h i s , he r e s s e m b l e d M i l l i g a n (1939) who had, y e a r s b e f o r e , examined the s e n t e n c e s t r u c t u r e o f h i s grammar and no-grammar groups and found t h a t t h e grammar c l a s s e s w r o t e more s i m p l e t h a n complex s e n t e n c e s , b u t on the o t h e r hand, had a h i g h e r number o f dependent c l a u s e s , i n d i c a t i n g ( though M i l l i g a n d i d n o t p u r s u e t h i s ) t h a t t h e grammar group w r o t e many more s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e s i n the complex s e n t e n c e s t h a t t h e y d i d compose t h a n d i d t h e no-grammar groups. A second s t u d y t h a t was d e s i g n e d s i m i l a r l y t o t h a t o f H a r r i s was the two-year r e s e a r c h o f Bateman and Z i d o n i s (1964) w h i c h compared the e f f e c t s o f t h e s t u d y o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l -g e n e r a t i v e grammar upon the w r i t i n g o f an e x p e r i m e n t a l group w i t h t h e " n o n - g r a m m a t i c a l " a p p r o a c h o f a c o n t r o l group. Bateman and Z i d o n i s h y p o t h e s i z e d : (1) t h a t a s t u d y o f TG grammar c o u l d r e d u c e the number o f e r r o r s i n s t u d e n t w r i t i n g , and (2) t h a t i t c o u l d a l s o improve t h e a b i l i t y t o employ mature s e n t e n c e s t r u c t u r e . I n t h e i r assessment o f e r r o r s , the r e s e a r c h e r s computed r a t i o s o f e r r o r f r e e s e n t e n c e s t o t o t a l s e n t e n c e s and found t h a t the g a i n s o f the grammar c l a s s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r t h a n t h o s e o f the no-grammar c l a s s e s . The grammar group a l s o d i d b e t t e r i n the p r e -p o s t e r r o r r e d u c t i o n s c o r e s . Thus Bateman and Z i d o n i s d i f f e r e d from H a r r i s , f o r t h e i r f i n d i n g s a p p a r e n t l y i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e s t u d y o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l grammar d i d r e d u c e e r r o r . 19 I n t h e i r e f f o r t s t o d i s c o v e r w h e t h e r s t u d e n t s c o u l d l e a r n t o a p p l y t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l r u l e s t o t h e i r w r i t i n g and improve t h e i r s e n t e n c e s t r u c t u r e , Bateman and Z i d o n i s gave t h e i r s t u d e n t s s i x p r e - t e s t and s i x p o s t - t e s t c o m p o s i t i o n s d u r i n g t h e f i r s t t h r e e months o f t h e f i r s t y e a r and t h e l a s t t h r e e months o f t h e second y e a r . As t h e s e were examined f o r e r r o r s , s e n t e n c e s were s e p a r a t e d i n t o two t y p e s ; t h o s e w i t h e r r o r s , and t h o s e w i t h o u t . The " s t r u c t u r a l c o m p l e x i t y " s c o r e s f o r s e n t e n c e s o f each t y p e p e r s t u d e n t p e r t e s t were c a l c u l a t e d by a d d i n g one t o t h e number o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s i t c o n t a i n e d from a l i s t o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y f i f t y s u c h r u l e s . The i n c r e a s e i n a v e r a g e s t r u c t u r a l c o m p l e x i t y s c o r e s f o r w e l l - f o r m e d s e n t e n c e s was 3.8 f o r t h e c o n t r o l c l a s s and 9.3 f o r t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l . The l a t t e r r e p r e s e n t e d an i n c r e a s e o f o v e r f i v e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s p e r s e n t e n c e . However, t h e g r e a t e s t changes i n the e x p e r i m e n t a l group were made by o n l y f o u r s t u d e n t s , who c o m p r i s e d o n e - f i f t h o f t h e s u b j e c t s . John M e l l o n ( 1 9 6 9 ) , who base d h i s s t u d y upon t h i s p i o n e e r work i n s e n t e n c e - s t r u c t u r e h y p o t h e s i s , was c r i t i c a l o f a number o f f e a t u r e s o f t h e B a t e m a n - Z i d o n i s r e s e a r c h : (1) he q u e s t i o n e d w h e t h e r a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e was t h e a p p r o p r i a t e s t a t i s t i c i n v i e w o f the f a c t t h a t most o f t h e g a i n s were made by f o u r s t u d e n t s ; (2) he t h o u g h t t h e r e s e a r c h e r s s h o u l d have t a k e n heed o f Hunt's f i n d i n g s i n t h e i r means o f d e t e r m i n i n g " s t r u c t u r a l - c o m p l e x i t y , " b u t as O'Hare (1974) l a t e r p o i n t e d o u t , t h e i r s t u d y was c o m p l e t e d 20 i n t h e same y e a r as Hunt's ( 1 9 6 4 ) ; (3) M e l l o n b e l i e v e d t h a t more i n f o r m a t i o n s h o u l d have been g i v e n about t h e c o u r s e o f s t u d i e s f o l l o w e d by b o t h groups; and (4) he d i s p u t e d t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e B a t e m a n - Z i d o n i s argument t h a t " p u p i l s must be t a u g h t a s y s t e m t h a t a c c o u n t s f o r w e l l - f o r m e d s e n t e n c e s b e f o r e t h e y can be e x p e c t e d t o p r o d u c e more o f s u c h s e n t e n c e s t h e m s e l v e s " when r e s e a r c h had p r o v e d t h a t c h i l d r e n had v i r t u a l l y m a s t e r e d s e n t e n c e p r o d u c t i o n by t h e time t h e y came to s c h o o l . C r i t i c i s m o f t h e B a t e m a n - Z i d o n i s s t u d y was a l s o made by R o b e r t P o t t e r (1967) i n h i s s t u d y w h i c h a t t e m p t e d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e a s p e c t s o f grammar w h i c h m i g h t be r e l e v a n t t o t h e improvement o f c o m p o s i t i o n . He contended t h a t p a s t s t u d i e s c o n s i d e r i n g t h e r e l a t i o n o f grammar t o c o m p o s i t i o n had e s t a b l i s h e d v e r y l i t t l e beyond t h e f a c t t h a t t r a d i t i o n a l grammar t a u g h t i n i s o l a t i o n had l i t t l e e f f e c t on s t u d e n t w r i t i n g . P o t t e r ' s r e s e r v a t i o n s about r e s e a r c h i n t h i s a r e a i n c l u d e d : (1) s t u d i e s o f t e n seemed t o n e g l e c t the d i f f e r e n c e between approaches t o l a n g u a g e s t u d y and t h e p a r t i c u l a r grammar used t o d e s c r i b e t h e l a n g u a g e . As a r e s u l t , s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s a s c r i b e d t o t h e l a t t e r m i ght e a s i l y be c a u s e d by t h e f o r m e r . P o t t e r a r g u e d t h a t a competent s t u d y must see t h a t e n t h u s i a s m i n t e a c h i n g , new books o r m a t e r i a l s , and e x c i t i n g methods were common to b o t h c o n t r o l and e x p e r i m e n t a l g r o u p s ; (2) some s t u d i e s , s u c h as t h e B a t e m a n - Z i d o n i s , had a v e r y n a r r o w d e f i n i t i o n o f "good w r i t i n g , " f o r t h e y c o n s i d e r e d o n l y 21 the grammaticality and the complexity of the w r i t i n g ; (3) i f a study was concerned with the e f f e c t of grammar on composition, the question went beyond the r e l a t i v e e f fectiveness of grammars A, B, C, or D; each grammar had to be tested against a proven "non-grammatical" method of teaching composition. Potter's approach to the question made c e r t a i n assumptions: (1) that i n s t r u c t i o n i n grammar, the basic patterns and transformations of language, would have l i t t l e e f f e c t on usage, which was concerned with the proper use of v a r i a n t l e x i c a l forms; (2) that w r i t t e n En g l i s h was a separate d i a l e c t that must be learned by students and that t h i s process of converting spoken Eng l i s h into the patterns of formal written E n g l i s h might be referred to as "normalization"; (3) that i t was necessary to know what processes of normalization separated good wri t e r s from bad, and i f these differences could be q u a n t i f i e d i n grammatical terms i t might be possible to i d e n t i f y the facets of grammar which would e f f e c t composition. In h i s study Potter had 100 students from f i v e average tenth grade classes write compositions of 500 words on an expository t o p i c "The Q u a l i t i e s of a Good Teacher." Since the object of the study was "grammar" and not usage, Potter had a l l gross mechanical er r o r s corrected and the papers uniformly typed i n order that the four teacher markers would not be influenced by the "halo" e f f e c t s of good w r i t i n g , mechanics, and s p e l l i n g . These markers rated the papers "good," "average," or "poor." The twenty best and 22 t w e n t y w o r s t w e r e t h e n s u b m i t t e d t o t w o o t h e r m a r k e r s f o r a s e c o n d e v a l u a t i o n . P o t t e r t y p e d t h e i n d i v i d u a l s e n t e n c e s i n t h e t w o g r o u p s o f p a p e r s o n t o M c B e e K e y s o r t c a r d s w h i c h w e r e t h e n c o d e d a n d p u n c h e d t o i n d i c a t e t h e p r e s e n c e o r a b s e n c e o f c e r t a i n g r a m m a t i c a l f e a t u r e s . T h e t w o g r o u p s o f p a p e r s w e r e e x a m i n e d f i r s t a c c o r d i n g A t o e s t a b l i s h e d c r i t e r i a s u c h a s s u b o r d i n a t i o n i n d e x , T - U n i t l e n g t h ( H u n t , 1 9 6 5 ) , a n d s e n t e n c e l e n g t h . P o t t e r f o u n d t h a t t h e s e i n d i c e s w e r e n o t r e a l l y u s e f u l i n c o m p a r i n g t h e w o r k o f s t u d e n t s w h e n q u a l i t y o f w r i t i n g w a s m a d e t h e d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g f e a t u r e . S e n t e n c e s o n g o o d p a p e r s w e r e a l i t t l e l o n g e r , a n d t h e T - U n i t r a t i o b e t w e e n t h e t w o g r o u p s w a s e x a c t l y t h e s a m e a s t h e r a t i o f o r s e n t e n c e l e n g t h , a n u n e x p e c t e d d e v e l o p m e n t , a s H u n t h a d f o u n d T - U n i t s a m o r e d i s c r i m i n -a t i n g m e a s u r e . T h e s u b o r d i n a t i o n i n d e x w a s a l s o i n e f f e c t i v e , a s i t w a s t h e s a m e f o r b o t h g r o u p s . L o o k i n g f u r t h e r , h e f o u n d p o o r w r i t e r s u s e d m o r e T - U n i t s b e c a u s e t h e y w r o t e s i m p l e , b a s i c s e n t e n c e p a t t e r n s , w i t h l e s s i n t e r n a l m o d i f i c a t i o n , a n d t h u s t h e y h a d d o u b l e t h e n u m b e r o f T - U n i t s u n d e r s i x w o r d s t h a t t h e g o o d w r i t e r s d i d . A c o m p a r i s o n o f s e n t e n c e p a t t e r n s s h o w e d t h a t t h e p o o r w r i t e r u s e d m o r e s u b j e c t - v e r b - o b j e c t s e n t e n c e s , a f a c t t h a t m a d e P o t t e r w o n d e r w h y l a n g u a g e t e x t s a d v o c a t e d t h a t s t u d e n t s " w r i t e m o r e S - V - 0 s e n t e n c e s . " H i s d a t a a l s o r a i s e d q u e s t i o n s a b o u t t h e A T - U n i t c o n s i s t e d o f a p r i n c i p a l c l a u s e a n d a n y s u b -o r d i n a t e c l a u s e o r n o n c l a u s a l s t r u c t u r e a t t a c h e d t o , o r e m b e d d e d i n i t . 23 standard warning against the passive voice, as twice as many passives appeared on the good papers as on the bad. He concluded that poor students needed to be i n s t r u c t e d on the j u d i c i o u s use of the passive. Looking next at sentence openers, Potter found that poor wr i t e r s used twice as many conditionals, but f a r fewer t r a n s i t i o n a l expressions. Only i n the use of "but," "and," "so," and " f o r example" did the poor writers even approach the good writers who used about t h i r t y t r a n s i t i o n a l words, from " a f t e r a l l " to "thus." Potter found that good writers used more words i n structures of modification, notably p r e p o s i t i o n a l phrases; there was l i t t l e d i f f e rence, however, i n e i t h e r the use of the phrases or the pre-po s i t i o n s used. The only s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was i n the complexity of the objects. The good writers proved superior i n modifying t h e i r objects with p r e p o s i t i o n a l phrases, clauses, and verbal structures, as well as i n using clauses and verbal structures themselves as objects. He also discovered that though the subor-dination r a t i o was much the same f o r the two groups, there was a difference i n the way the various types of subordinate clauses were used: (1) nominals were used more by poor w r i t e r s , but only because they tend to s t a r t sentences with terms l i k e "I think," or "I said"; also, poor writers tended to omit "that" i n introducing noun clauses where better writers did not; (2) adverbial clauses were also more frequently used by poor w r i t e r s , but t h i s was because of t h e i r p r e d i l e c t i o n for " i f " clauses. The good w r i t e r s , 24 however, ap p e a r e d to have a g r e a t e r command o f t h e many c l a u s e -- i n t r o d u c i n g c o n j u n c t i o n s , ; a n d (3) t h e two groups used about t h e same number o f a d j e c t i v a l c l a u s e s , b u t t h e p o o r w r i t e r s tended t o sub-s t i t u t e " t h a t " f o r "who, whom, w h i c h , when, and where." F i n a l l y , t h e good p a p e r s c o n t a i n e d more v e r b a l s t r u c t u r e s o f e v e r y t y p e t h a n d i d t h e p o o r p a p e r s ; t h e good w r i t e r s used t w i c e as many v e r b a l s i n t h e p r e - s u b j e c t p o s i t i o n , t h e y used more v e r b a l s as s u b j e c t s , and more as m o d i f i e r s o f a d j e c t i v e s . P o t t e r c o n c l u d e d t h a t a l t h o u g h h i s c o r p u s was too s m a l l f o r a m e a n i n g f u l s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s , i t d i d show t h a t t h e r e were m e a s u r e a b l e d i f f e r e n c e s between "good" and " p o o r " w r i t i n g , and t h a t t h e t e a c h i n g o f c e r t a i n a s p e c t s o f grammar m i g h t be o f v a l u e i n i m p r o v i n g c o m p o s i t i o n . Recent New Z e a l a n d Study When l o o k i n g a t r e c e n t r e s e a r c h d e s i g n e d t o t e s t v a r i o u s methods o f i m p r o v i n g s t u d e n t w r i t i n g , p e r h a p s i t w o u l d be w e l l t o examine one o f t h e most comprehensive s t u d i e s o f t h e whole q u e s t i o n o f "The R o l e o f Grammar i n a Secondary S c h o o l E n g l i s h C u r r i c u l u m " (RTE, Sp. 76) c o m p l e t e d i n A u c k l a n d , New Z e a l a n d (1970-73). T h i s t h r e e - y e a r program encompassed 248 p u p i l s t a u g h t by t h r e e t e a c h e r s i n e i g h t matched c l a s s e s o f t h i r d - f o r m s t u d e n t s o f a v e r a g e a b i l i t y , and f o l l o w e d t h e s e s t u d e n t s t h r o u g h t o t h e end o f t h e f i f t h - f o r m , w i t h a s i x t h - f o r m f o l l o w - u p t e s t i n November, 1973. There were t h r e e t r e a t m e n t g r o u p s : 25 1. The Transformational Grammar (TG) Course, — which included the grammar, r h e t o r i c , and l i t e r a t u r e "strands" of the Oregon Curriculum. The grammar aspect included deep and surface structure, embedding, sentence parts, compound sentences, p a r t i c i p i a l modifiers, etc. Students analyzed sentences i n order to discover and apply grammatical r u l e s . Under r h e t o r i c they studied concepts of substance, structure, and s t y l e i n wr i t i n g and speaking. They wrote f or enter-tainment, information, and persuasion. The l i t e r a t u r e phase included short s t o r i e s , poetry, and novels; i t introduced key concepts such as subject, form, and point of view during the study of these s e l e c t i o n s . 2. The Reading-Writing (RW) Course, — included only the rh e t o r i c and l i t e r a t u r e strands above, with extra reading and creative w r i t i n g substituted for transformational grammar. No grammar of any kind was taken f o r three years. 3. "Let's Learn English (LLE) Course, — which employed three widely used resource books by P.R. Smart - Let's  Learn English i n the 70's Series. The grammar taught waa t r a d i t i o n a l school grammar. I t included subjects and predicates, objects, complements, parts of speech, i n f l e c t i o n s , phrases, clauses, and compound sentences. The l i t e r a t u r e study i n th i s course came from cl a s s sets 26 o f f i c t i o n , p o e t r y , and drama, w i t h s t u d y c e n t e r e d on c h a r a c t e r , p l o t , and theme. A t t h e end o f t h e f i r s t y e a r a l l s t u d e n t s w r o t e a s e r i e s o f f o u r s e t e s s a y s on a v a r i e t y o f t o p i c s , e ach o f w h i c h was marked by f o u r o u t s i d e m a r k e r s , w o r k i n g i n d e p e n d e n t l y , and u s i n g a 1 6 - p o i n t s c a l e . Four c r i t e r i a were used: c o n t e n t , o r g a n i z a t i o n , s t y l e , and m e c h a n i c s . Each marker r e a d a l l e s s a y s f o u r t i m e s t o make h i s as s e s s m e n t . I n the l a t e r y e a r s t h e number o f m a r k e r s and e s s a y s was r e d u c e d . I n a d d i t i o n , a sample o f t h e e s s a y s was s u b m i t t e d t o o b j e c t i v e a n a l y s i s o f t h e i r s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s and v o c a b u l a r y l e v e l s . The e s s a y s were supplemented by a v a r i e t y o f l a n g u a g e t e s t s t h a t were g i v e n a t the end o f each y e a r : 1. PAT R e a d i n g Comprehension and V o c a b u l a r y t e s t (NZCER, 1969). 2. S e n t e n c e - c o m b i n i n g t e s t , i n w h i c h p u p i l s were r e q u i r e d t o j o i n s h o r t s e n t e n c e s i n a number o f ways. 3. E n g l i s h usage t e s t r e q u i r i n g s t u d e n t s t o c o r r e c t " e r r o r s " i n s p e c i a l l y p r e p a r e d s h o r t s e n t e n c e s and c o n t i n u o u s p r o s e . 4. O b j e c t i v e t e s t s o f l i t e r a t u r e , d e s i g n e d t o t e s t s t u d e n t s ' u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f unseen s e l e c t i o n s o f f i c t i o n and p o e t r y . 5. A t the end o f t h e f i r s t y e a r , a t e s t was a l s o g i v e n i n s p e l l i n g and l i s t e n i n g s k i l l s , and i n t h e t h i r d y e a r , the TG group was t e s t e d on t h e i r m a s t e r y o f grammar s k i l l s . At the end of each year the three treatment groups were thus measured on twelve v a r i a b l e s : essay t o t a l , reading vocabulary, reading comprehension, sentence-combining, English usage, English l i t e r a t u r e , essay mechanics, s t y l e , structure, and content. On none of these did any of the three programs show any s i g n i f i c a n t s u p e r i o r i t y at the end of the f i r s t year. At the end of the second, only one of the comparisons proved s i g n i f i c a n t ; the LLE group showed appreciable gain over the RW group i n the essay content c r i t e r i o n , but t h i s was considered a chance f l u c t u a t i o n . At the end of the t h i r d year, the TG and LLE groups measured s i g n i f i c a n t gains over the RW group i n English usage t e s t s , and the TG and RW groups gained over the LLE group i n sentence-combining. In the fourth year follow-up, the d i f f e r e n t programs had produced no important divergent e f f e c t on the p u p i l s . Representative samples of f i f t y - e i g h t of the essays i n each f i f t h - f o r m group, were, as mentioned above, analyzed f o r s y n t a c t i c structures. The f i r s t ten T-Units were counted; r e s u l t s proved that the three groups showed no r e a l difference, i n average length of T-Units. The same essays were also examined to see i f the transformations taught i n the TG course, v i z : p r e p o s i t i o n a l phrases, subordinate clauses, adjectives, p a r t i c i p l e s , gerunds, possessives, absolutes, passives, appositives, comparatives, adverbs, and deletions were used more frequently i n the w r i t i n g of the TG students than i n that of the others. The only s i g n i f i c a n t 28 information to emerge was that the TG group used fewer p a r t i c i p l e s . No evidence was found to support the contention that a study of transformational grammar would lead to an increase i n the use of transformations i n t h e i r w r i t i n g . The main purpose of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n was to determine the d i r e c t e f f e c t s of a study of transformational grammar on the language growth of secondary students. The r e s u l t s showed that the e f f e c t s were n e g l i g i b l e , as were the e f f e c t of t h e i r exposure to t r a d i t i o n a l grammar. This evaluation of the r o l e of grammar served to corroborate e a r l i e r f i n d i n g about, the r e l a t i o n s h i p between grammar and w r i t i n g . These findings were summarized by Wilkinson (1971) who reviewed the grammar research of the past seventy years and found that many of the claims made for grammar had been proven f a l s e . Results showed that grammar did not improve composition, and was of no general help i n composition. Further, i t was often taught to c h i l d r e n who had not the maturity or i n t e l l i g e n c e to understand. Wilkinson stressed that i n addition to not f a c i l i t a t i n g student w r i t i n g , " . . . the i mplication of many studies was . . . that i t might hinder i t . " (p. 34) I t must be remembered, however, that much of t h i s e a r l y research employed methods that would not be considered v a l i d today, and i n addition, most of i t was " e r r o r -oriented" rather than "structure-oriented." Many of these studies tested the premise that by learning a set of rules a student would unconsciously apply these rules to h i s w r i t i n g , and by so doing, 29 have fewer errors. Frequently results were obtained by objective tests rather than the students' compositions. One cannot help speculating as to whether students studying grammar were shown any of the relationships. Bateman and Zidonis, Mellon, O'Hare, Obenchain and others mentioned above demonstrated that practice in the application of specific principles, with or without grammatical terminology, improved student writing. Language Development Studies Because most of the recent research in syntactic maturity was dependent upon the indices which were developed to measure this growth, a review of the progress in language studies is included here. The body of research that attested to children's syntactic growth began with the work of LaBrant (1933), who found that the ratio of dependent clauses to a l l clauses in written language increased with the age of the writer. In spite of the fact that she noted that the "increase in length of clauses is apparently occasioned by the reduction of clauses to p a r t i c i p i a l and i n f i n i t i v e phrases, and by the elision of words, phrases, and clauses," her research unfortunately led to the conclusion that clause length was not an index of maturity and that sentence length increased among mature writers solely because of the addition of more 30 s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e s . I n 1937, A n d e r s o n was c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f d e v e l o p i n g an e a s i l y a p p l i e d and u n i f o r m m e a s u r i n g d e v i c e . Though he e v a l u a t e d by s t a t i s t i c a l methods t h r e e i n d i c e s o f l a n g u a g e development ( s e n t e n c e l e n g t h , pronoun i n d e x , and s u b o r d i n a t i o n i n d e x ) , i t was w i t h t h e l a s t t h a t h i s c o n c e r n was most a c t i v e . However, because o f s u c h v a r i a b l e s as c o m p o s i t i o n and s u b j e c t m a t t e r , he drew n e g a t i v e c o n c l u s i o n s about t h e g e n e r a l i z e d a p p l i c a t i o n o f the s u b o r d i n a t i o n i n d e x . I n 1940 H e i d e r and H e i d e r found t h a t t h e s e n t e n c e s t r u c t u r e o f h e a r i n g c h i l d r e n (as opposed t o d e a f c h i l d r e n whom t h e y were a l s o s t u d y i n g ) f r o m 8 to 14 had a s t e a d i l y i n c r e a s i n g number o f a d j e c t i v e c l a u s e s , a c o n c l u s i o n c o r r o b o r a t e d by Hunt a q u a r t e r o f a c e n t u r y l a t e r . These and many o t h e r s t u d i e s have been c r i t i c a l l y r e v i e w e d by McCarthy ( 1 9 5 4 ) , C a r r o l l ( 1 9 6 0 ) , E r w i n and M i l l e r ( 1 9 6 3 ) , M e l l o n ( 1 9 6 5 ) , and O ' D o n n e l l e t a l . ( 1 9 6 7 ) . T r a d i t i o n a l l y , o b s e r v a t i o n s on l a n g u a g e de-velopment have i d e n t i f i e d i n c r e a s e d l e n g t h o f s e n t e n c e and i n c r e a s e d use o f s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e as i n d i c e s o f p r o g r e s s toward a mature s t y l e . Two i m p o r t a n t r e c e n t s t u d i e s i n t h i s a r e a have been done by K e l l o g g Hunt (1965, 1 9 7 0 ) , and by O ' D o n n e l l ( 1 9 6 7 ) . Hunt's Study (1965) Hunt i n 1965 i n v e s t i g a t e d 1000-word samples o f t h e f r e e w r i t i n g o f e i g h t e e n s c h o o l c h i l d r e n i n Grades 4, 8, and 12, and t h e w r i t i n g o f some s k i l l e d a d u l t s - . I n o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e what c o n s t i t u t e d " m a t u r i t y " i n s e n t e n c e s t r u c t u r e he i d e n t i f i e d t h e c o n s t r u e - ,r 31 tions and structures that distinguished the work of more mature writers from younger, l e s s s k i l l e d students. He found that the lengthening of independent clauses by the increased use of sentence-embedding transformations was responsible for much of the " s y n t a c t i c maturity" i n w r i t i n g . He introduced a new measure, c a l l e d a "minimal terminal" unit or "T-Unit" which was a refinement of'Loban's (1961, 1963) "communication u n i t . " The T-Unit was one main clause plus any subordinate clauses or non-clause structures that were attached to or imbedded i n i t . This T-Unit increased i n length with syn t a c t i c maturity. Hunt pointed out that t h i s unit could be i d e n t i f i e d o b j e c t i v e l y , would not be a f f e c t e d by poor punctuation, and would preserve a l l the subordination achieved by the student as well as h i s coordination of words, phrases, and subordinate clauses. I t would not preserve h i s coordination of main clauses, but excessive coordination of main clauses was not an index of maturity. Hunt also contended that only a structure with a subject and a f i n i t e verb should be regarded as a clause (LaBrant had counted coordinate verbs as separate clauses), and he revised the subordination r a t i o so as to give the mean number of clauses per T-Unit: No. of Sub.CI. + No. of Main CI. No. of Main Clauses Hunt's study analyzed sentence length, clause length, the subordination r a t i o , kinds of subordinate clauses, and a large number of w i t h i n -clause structures. He found that the T-Unit was c l o s e l y t i e d to maturity, but the amount of T-Unit expansion that could be achieved by the addi t i o n of subordinate clauses probably reached a maximum by Grade 12. He also found that the three kinds of subordinate clauses were not of equal value as measures, for only a d j e c t i v a l clauses varied c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y i n such a way as to provide a measure of development. Noun, or nominal, clauses varied with the mode of d i s -course, and movable adverbial clauses showed no pattern, varying with neither subject or age. Thus the r a t i o of adjective clauses was a better measure than the r a t i o of subordinate clauses. The f i n a l stage of Hunt's study was to determine what con-stru c t i o n s accounted for the added length of the clauses. Here nominals such as noun clauses and phrases used i n place of nouns and pronouns, and modifiers embedded before and a f t e r nouns were found to be the answer. Thus a f t e r the maximum increase i n subordination clauses, further s y n t a c t i c growth was achieved by (1) the use of noun modi-f i e r s such as genitives, a d j e c t i v e s , p r e p o s i t i o n a l phrases, or non-f i n i t e verbs ( i n f i n i t i v e s , and p a r t i c i p l e s ) , and (2) nominalized verbs and clauses, including noun clauses, gerund nominals, and i n f i n i t i v e nominals. Hunt concluded that words per T-Unit appeared to be the best index of sy n t a c t i c growth; clause length was second; and clauses per T-Unit was t h i r d . 33 O'Donnell's Study Confirmation of the v a l i d i t y of Hunt's indices was provided by O'Donnell, G r i f f i n , and Norris i n t h e i r study of children's syntax i n 1967. This i n v e s t i g a t i o n found that when f a i r l y extensive samples of f i v e to fourteen-year old children's language were obtained, that the T-Unit was a v a l i d index of measurement. These researchers had measured not only T-Unit length, but also the number and depth of sentence-combining transformations per T-Unit, a time-consuming process which O'Donnell et a l . f e l t could be dispensed with, as they found a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between the length of T-Unit and the number of transformations. In order to see whether the indices Hunt proposed could be computed from smaller w r i t i n g samples, O'Donnell (1968) devised an experimental instrument f o r c o l l e c t i n g comparable samples of w r i t i n g from c h i l d r e n at various grade l e v e l s . This instrument required the rewriting of a passage made up of short sentences i n an e f f o r t to combine them ("Aluminum" passage). Data from t h i s study indicated that clause length and number of clauses per T-Unit increased t o -gether i n lower grades, but clause length alone accounted for most of the growth i n complexity i n higher grades. Since T-Unit length was caused by a combination of the two fa c t o r s , T-Unit length was judged to be more useful than e i t h e r of the other two measures as an index of the growth of s t r u c t u r a l complexity over a wide age range. Hunt's Study (1970) In Hunt's 1970 study, he co n t r o l l e d for the influence of subject matter, using the above mentioned passage. He had students from Grades 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 rewrite the passage. By analyzing these samples with h i s previously developed measures, Hunt found that a writer's sentences were d e f i n i t e l y affected by h i s synta c t i c s k i l l , not j u s t by what he had to say, and that s y n t a c t i c maturity consisted, i n large measure, i n the a b i l i t y to embed information within clauses. A r e p l i c a t i o n of Hunt's study was conducted i n the Netherlands by Reesink et a l . (1971). Using the "aluminum" passage and a c h i l d ' s fable presented i n s i m i l a r short choppy sentences, the researchers found that with increased age subjects wrote longer sentences with fewer T-Units, and mean clause length increased. In h i s study, Hunt (1965) found that the growth of h i s students toward syn t a c t i c maturity, as calculated by h i s measures, was very slow, and might be caused as much by the pu p i l ' s cognitive development as by h i s language i n s t r u c t i o n . He and O'Donnell established normal parameters of growth which were accepted as "normative" by other researchers, such as Mellon, O'Hare, Combs, and others attempting to measure growth i n sy n t a c t i c maturity. (See Mellon, p. 18, O'Hare, p. 20). The question of whether t h i s rate of development could be enhanced brings us back to Mellon's research, which was s i m i l a r to Bateman and Zidonis's i n that both exposed t h e i r experimental groups to a study of transformational 35 grammar. However, Mellon had no Interest i n the error-reduction aspect of t h e i r study; he did not believe t h e i r claim that the l e a r n -ing of grammatical rules per se could improve student w r i t i n g . He thought that the sentence-combining p r a c t i c e the Bateman-Zidonis students had had probably caused t h e i r improvement i n w r i t i n g . Because of t h i s hypothesis, he devised h i s "transformational sentence-combining" curriculum. In i t , however, Mellon also expected h i s students to l e a r n grammatical terminology. Sentence-Combining Studies  Mellon's Study Mellon's subjects included 247 seventh grade students, comprised of f i v e control classes who studied a course i n t r a d i t i o n a l grammar and f i v e experimental classes who studied a year long course i n transformational grammar that included a large amount of sentence-combining p r a c t i c e . These two groups were matched i n a b i l i t y . In addition, there were two placebo groups who studied no grammar at a l l , but had extra lessons i n l i t e r a t u r e and composition without any extra w r i t i n g assignments. A l l twelve classes studied the regular English program. The w r i t i n g sample at each test time consisted of nine compositions, each written i n a class period during the f i r s t four and l a s t four weeks of school. Mellon took the f i r s t ten T-Units from each composition, making ninety T-Units i n a l l at each test time. 36 Mellon adapted Hunt's T-Unlt, and used as h i s main dependent variables twelve factors of s y n t a c t i c maturity, including T-Unit length, subordination r a t i o , number of nominal and " r e l a t i v e " clauses and phrases (which included adverbial clauses of time, place, and manner), clustered modification, and depth of embedding. Comparison of pre- and post-tests showed that Mellon's experimental group had gained from 2.1 to 3.5 years of growth on the factors f o r which Hunt had established normal growth per year (nominal and r e l a t i v e clauses and phrases), and s i g n i f i c a n t increases i n a l l twelve factors at the .01 l e v e l , i n comparison to l e s s than a year's growth on the part of the control group. An 8% subsample of the t o t a l student w r i t i n g was evaluated by independent ra t e r s i n order to see whether or not t h i s increase i n s y n t a c t i c maturity would be r e f l e c t e d i n the over-a l l q u a l i t y of w r i t i n g . However, i n t h i s respect Mellon's experi-mental group did not do as w e l l , for the control group was judged to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y better. Mellon suggested that t h i s d i f f e r e n c e might have been caused by the talent of a control teacher, or by the smallness of the sample. O'Hare's Study O'Hare (1973), whose study was based on that of Mellon, gave a succinct account of Mellon's work, and c r i t i c i z e d a number of aspects of i t : (1) he thought that even though Mellon claimed to be assessing the influence of only the sentence-combining features of h i s program, the grammatical theories that h i s students studied could have aff e c t e d h i s r e s u l t s . Mellon's experimental students had had to do three things: (a) learn transformational rules and apply them i n sentence-combining; (b) learn a set of grammatical rules; and (c) l e a r n concepts l i k e passive i n f i n i t i v e phrases and others. Students spent September to December on grammar, and January to May on the sentence-combining exercises. O'Hare believed that many of these rules and concepts were too d i f f i c u l t f o r seventh-grade students, p a r t i c u l a r l y those of average or lower a b i l i t y ; (2) O'Hare guessed that grammatical concepts were "mentioned," but not "taught," and he pointed out that Mellon had not stated whether or not h i s students were tested on t h e i r grammatical knowledge; (3) O'Hare speculated that the sentence-combining p r a c t i c e s were more than "an a c t i v i t y designed to r e i n f o r c e and further i l l u s t r a t e transformations e a r l i e r learned by the student," as Mellon had stated, p a r t i c u l a r l y as Mellon had prepared extra d a i l y combining pr a c t i c e s other than those i n h i s text; (4) O'Hare doubted that Mellon had presented h i s study i n a purely " a - r h e t o r i c a l " s e t t i n g , c i t i n g evidence to support t h i s contention; and (4) O'Hare suggested that an improvement i n syn t a c t i c s k i l l s should be expected to improve the o v e r a l l q u a l i t y of student w r i t i n g . In r e p l i c a t i n g Mellon's program, O'Hare strove to eliminate the f a u l t s he found i n i t . To dispose of the problem of learning grammatical terminology, he i n s t i t u t e d a system of non-grammatical 38 cue words to s i g n a l each sentence combining transformation. He cont r o l l e d the teacher v a r i a b l e by designing two control and two experi-mental classes, with a t o t a l of eighty-three students at the seventh grade l e v e l , which he and another teacher taught. Each of them had a control and an experimental c l a s s . Students' a b i l i t i e s were measured by the C a l i f o r n i a Test of Mental Maturity, and by T-Unit length i n t h e i r pre-tests. 0'Hare's sentence-combining p r a c t i c e was done i n an a - r h e t o r i c a l s e t t i n g i n order to i s o l a t e i t s e f f e c t . He stated that "he took great pains to avoid conditioning students to favour complex synt a c t i c expressions i n t h e i r actual composition cl a s s , where sentence-combining was never referred to." O'Hare hypothesized that the experimental groups, "exposed to the non-error oriented, grammar-study-free p r a c t i c e of sentence-combining which was wholly dependent on each student's inherent sense of grammaticality" would: "(1) achieve greater growth than the control group on s i x factors of sy n t a c t i c maturity: words per T-Unit, clauses per T-Unit, words per clause, noun clauses per 100 T-Units, adjective clauses per 100 T-units, and adverb clauses per 100 T-Units; and (2) write compositions judged by eight E n g l i s h teachers to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y superior to compositions written by the control group." In O'Hare's study, the f i r s t ten T-Units i n each of f i v e d i f f e r e n t free compositions encompassing n a r r a t i v e , expository, and de s c r i p t i v e modes were measured from both pre- and post-test samples, a l l of which were written i n c l a s s , during the f i r s t two weeks i n October and the l a s t two weeks i n May. Thus f i f t y T-Units per student were examined at each t e s t i n g period, according to the above c r i t e r i a . In assessing the o v e r a l l q u a l i t y of the w r i t i n g , O'Hare explained that as he had neither the time nor the resources to have a l l compositions evaluated, he decided to use a "system of forced choices between matched pai r s of compositions." T h i r t y matched pair s of subjects were divided into two groups of f i f t e e n p a i r s each, with each group of approximately equal a b i l i t y . Using one composition for each student, a n a r r a t i v e f o r the f i f t e e n p a i r s i n the one group, and a d e s c r i p t i v e f or the other f i f t e e n p a i r s , he obtained a t o t a l of s i x t y compositions, which were rated by the eight independent judges, who made a sin g l e judgment on the o v e r a l l q u a l i t y , using t r a d i t i o n a l c r i t e r i a such as ideas, organization, s t y l e , vocabulary, and sentence structure. Both control and experimental groups followed the regular English curriculum, but the units covered by the experimental group were shortened i n order to provide time for the sentence-combining. One-third of the year was spent on reading i n s t r u c t i o n (teaching reading s k i l l s , and giving time for free reading). In addition there were two short units on l i t e r a t u r e , as well as units on composition, dramatics, l i b r a r y s k i l l s , and language study. The control group did not study any kind of grammar, as O'Hare believed that a l l previous research had indicated that the teaching of formal grammar, as Postman (1967) stated: "does very l i t t l e , or nothing, or harm, 40 t o s t u d e n t s . " The c o n t r o l group's l i t e r a t u r e u n i t s i n c l u d e d s h o r t s t o r i e s , n o n - f i c t i o n , and p o e t r y . T h e i r d r a m a t i c u n i t s c o n s i s t e d o f i m p r o v i s a t i o n s , and t h e w r i t i n g and p r e s e n t i n g o f t h e i r own p l a y s . Language s t u d y c o n s i s t e d o f teacher-made s t u d y s h e e t s , and e x e r c i s e s on v o c a b u l a r y , d i c t i o n a r y s k i l l s , p u n c t u a t i o n , c a p i t a l i z a -t i o n , and usage. S p e l l i n g was t a u g h t " i n c i d e n t a l l y . " C o m p o s i t i o n was d i v i d e d i n t o two s e c t i o n s , w i t h j o u r n a l w r i t i n g i n one, and more f o r m a l n a r r a t i v e , e x p o s i t o r y , and d e s c r i p t i v e w r i t i n g i n t h e o t h e r . The e x p e r i m e n t a l group, i n a d d i t i o n , had n i n e t e e n l e s s o n s w h i c h t a u g h t s e n t e n c e - c o m b i n i n g t e c h n i q u e s and p r o v i d e d "abundant p r a c t i c e i n s e n t e n c e - c o m b i n i n g , " about o n e - a n d - a - q u a r t e r h o u r s p e r week i n c l a s s and a h a l f - h o u r o f homework. S t u d e n t s w r o t e o u t a l l t h e co m p l e t e d s e n t e n c e s , and i n a d d i t i o n , p r a c t i s e d c h o r a l r e a d i n g o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y o n e - t h i r d o f them. T h i s may have been done i n r e s p o n s e t o t h e M i l l e r and Ney (1968) s t u d y , w h i c h had an e x p e r i m e n t a l c l a s s engage i n o r a l p r a c t i c e i n m a n i p u l a t i n g s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s , and f o u n d t h a t t h e y g a i n e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n t h e use o f p r a c t i s e d s t r u c -t u r e s , i n t h e number o f words w r i t t e n , and i n t h e use o f more m u l t i -c l a u s e T - U n i t s . A t t h e end o f t h e y e a r O'Hare f o u n d : (1) t h a t t h e e x p e r i -m e n t a l group had e x p e r i e n c e d h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t growth a t t h e .001 l e v e l on a l l measured f a c t o r s o f s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y ; (2) t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l group was s u p e r i o r t o t h e c o n t r o l on a l l f a c t o r s a t t h e .001 l e v e l ; (3) t h a t t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l group on t h e a v e r a g e had s c o r e s f o r s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y s i m i l a r t o Hunt's 1965 t w e l f t h g r ade norms; (4) that the p a r t i c u l a r teacher or sex of students was not related to treatment e f f e c t ; and (5) that even experimental student with low IQ's s i g n i f i c a n t l y increased i n s y n t a c t i c maturity. In addition, he found that the s i x t y compositions of the t h i r t y matched p a i r s , when evaluated, proved that the experimental students wrote s i g n i f i c a n t l y better than those i n the control group. Other Studies Other recent in v e s t i g a t i o n s concerned with sentence s t r u c -ture and the q u a l i t y of student w r i t i n g include the works of Obenchain (1971), Green (1972), Martin (1968), and Crews (1971). Obenchain focused on an approach to expository w r i t i n g through the study of l o g i c a l connectives which would be used to develop w e l l -constructed sentences, then paragraphs, and f i n a l l y , a ser i e s of paragraphs. She used a writing-reading approach, which included sentence-combining p r a c t i c e , though i n fewer numbers than Mellons' o O'Hare's. Students were asked to combine coherently four r e l a t e d sentences i n a number of ways, so that c e r t a i n ideas were emphasized and others subordinated. In doing t h i s , they would be expected to use. the most e f f e c t i v e l i n k i n g devices. Af t e r p r a c t i s i n g these combining problems, students used t h e i r solutions as models i n answering precise essay questions based on the l i t e r a t u r e studied. Experimental students gained over the controls on a l l s i x w r i t i n g measures. 42 Green, Martin, and Crews a l l sought to develop sentence w r i t i n g s k i l l s i n the lower elementary grades. Green did a nine-week study of grade f i v e c h i l d r e n , comparing three approaches to de-veloping s y n t a c t i c fluency: (1) a composition program with sentence combining; (2) a t r a d i t i o n a l language program, and (3) a composition program with an e r r o r - c o r r e c t i n g focus. The f i r s t group had f i f t e e n lessons i n sentence-combining, using structures with adverbial and r e l a t i v e clauses. He found t h i s group had s i g n i f i c a n t gains over group three, but only i n mean length of clause i n the na r r a t i v e mode. Further, these gains were no longer apparent on a delayed-test. Both Martin and Crews, i n year-long studies, compared the e f f e c t s of a l i n g u i s t i c a l l y - o r i e n t e d grammar approach to a " t r a d i t i o n a l " language approach upon children's w r i t i n g s k i l l s , and both had t h e i r subjects p r a c t i c e s y n t a c t i c manipulation. Martin's experimental pupils used inductive sentence-building exercises designed by Roberts, and were found to have made s i g n i f i c a n t gains over c o n t r o l classes when t h e i r w r i t i n g was analyzed i n terms of T-Units and subordination r a t i o . Crews taught h i s experimental class such structures as s h i f t i n g adverbials, p r e p o s i t i o n a l phrases, middle adverbs, simple coordinate conjunctions, p a r t i c i p i a l phrases, and subordinate clauses i n order to develop c e r t a i n w r i t i n g s k i l l s . In t h e i r post-writing t e s t s , t h i s group showed greater v a r i e t y i n sentence structure than did the con t r o l group. 43 Combs' Study A number of studies of the e f f e c t s of sentence-combining p r a c t i c e upon student w r i t i n g followed i n the wake of O'Hare's. One of the most i n t e r e s t i n g was that of Combs (1975), whose program was very s i m i l a r to O'Hare's. His design included four classes, two control and two experimental, with a t o t a l of one hundred students. These classes were taught by two teachers, each of whom had one control and one experimental c l a s s . A l l classes followed the same c u r r i c u -lum, which included the study of a number of l i t e r a r y genres, and a l l classes had the same number and kind of w r i t i n g assignments. They also did work sheets on s p e l l i n g , punctuation, d i c t i o n a r y and word s k i l l s . Between the post-test and delayed post-test (eight weeks), a unit on myths was studied, and students wrote myths. No grammar was taught. The experimental classes had, i n addition to t h i s regular program, two cl a s s sessions and one "set" period per week for ten weeks to do the fourteen sentence combining lessons patterned a f t e r the Mellon sentences and the O'Hare non-grammatical s i g n a l s , but using le s s complex base sentences than O'Hare. Combs considered that although the time span of h i s study was much shorter than O'Hare's, i t would involve approximately the same number of study hours. . . He c i t e d the work of V i t a l et a l . (1971) which demonstrated that a shorter, more intensive exposure to sentence-combining p r a c t i c e could be e f f e c t i v e i n increasing s y n t a c t i c maturity i n the free w r i t i n g of students. 44 Another adaptation to O'Hare's design was Combs' pr o v i s i o n for a delayed post-test to be given eight weeks a f t e r the post-test. Combs hoped to prove: 1. Syntactic maturity gains achieved by the Mellon and O'Hare procedures were r e p l i c a b l e with a seventh-grade population. 2. Syntactic maturity gains would be retained as measured by a delayed post-test of students' free w r i t i n g . 3. The o v e r a l l " q u a l i t y " of w r i t i n g of students r e c e i v i n g sentence-combining p r a c t i c e would be judged superior to that of students not rec e i v i n g SC p r a c t i c e as measured by an expanded matched-pairs design. The e f f e c t s of the program were assessed by two types of measures. F i r s t , students' compositions written at the three t e s t i n g times were analyzed to determine words per T-Unit (W/T), and words per clause (W/C). Combs used these indices because Hunt had considered them the most discriminating. The assessment was based upon three-hundred word samples of students' n a r r a t i v e and d e s c r i p t i v e w r i t i n g . In addition, O'Donnell's "aluminum" passage (Hunt, 1970) was adminis-tered at post-test time and assessed for differences i n mean W/T and W/C. The r e s u l t s of these measures showed s i g n i f i c a n t gains of two years f o r the experimental group over the control group. The rewriting of the "aluminum" passage also supported the hypothesis, as mean W/T f o r the experimental group was 11.3 compared to 8.18 f o r the co n t r o l . 45 Second, t h e c o m p o s i t i o n s from f o r t y - f o u r s t u d e n t s (22 c o n t r o l and 22 e x p e r i m e n t a l ) were matched and j u d g e d t w i c e , once on t h e p r e -t e s t c o m p o s i t i o n s and once on the p o s t - t e s t . The seven t e a c h e r -m a r k e r s , each o f whom a s s e s s e d a l l p a i r s and made a c h o i c e between them, fo u n d no s i g n i f i c a n t p a t t e r n o f d i f f e r e n c e between t h e two groups i n the p r e - t e s t , b u t j u d g e d t h e work o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l group t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r t h a n t h a t o f t h e c o n t r o l group on t h e p o s t - t e s t c o m p o s i t i o n s . A l l p a p e r s were g i v e n a 0 t o 7 r a t i n g , d e p e n d i n g upon how many o f t h e r a t e r s had j u d g e d a paper b e t t e r t h a n i t s " p a i r . " A second judgment o f t h e q u a l i t y o f w r i t i n g was made by c o m p a r i n g t h e p r e - t e s t c o m p o s i t i o n s o f e l e v e n s t u d e n t s i n each group w i t h t h e i r own p o s t - t e s t s t o see i f i n d i v i d u a l g a i n s were a p p a r e n t . R e s u l t s showed t h a t t h e r e was l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e p r e - and p o s t -t e s t s o f t h e c o n t r o l s t u d e n t s , b u t t h a t t h e r e was s i g n i f i c a n t i m -provement i n t h e p o s t - t e s t w r i t i n g o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l group. Combs had t h u s c o n f i r m e d t h e f i r s t two o f h i s h y p o t h e s e s . H i s r e p o r t o f a two-year g a i n i n the s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y o f h i s e x p e r i m e n t a l group was v e r y s i m i l a r t o t h e g a i n r e c o r d e d by M e l l o n , b u t l e s s t h a n t h e f i v e y e a r g a i n o f O'Hare's i n 1974. O'Hare th o u g h t h i s s t u d e n t s a c h i e v e d g r e a t e r g a i n s b e c a u s e t h e y had no i n s t r u c t i o n i n grammar, b u t Combs, whose s t u d e n t s a l s o had no grammar, th o u g h t many o t h e r f a c t o r s , s u c h as t h e amount o f t i m e s p e n t on s e n t e n c e -c o m b i n i n g p r a c t i c e ( b o t h o r a l and w r i t t e n ) , and t h e ti m e span o f the s t u d y , were i n v o l v e d . 46 Eight weeks a f t e r the sentence-combining program was f i n i s h e d , Combs administered the delayed post test to see i f the s y n t a c t i c gains were retained, and the r e s u l t s confirmed h i s t h i r d hypothesis. However, he found that the syn t a c t i c gains measured i n the post-test had been cut almost i n h a l f , and he stated that t h i s should be remembered when evaluating a program of t h i s nature. C r i t i c i s m of Sentence-Combining by Moffett, Christensen, and Marzano  Moffett's The e f f e c t s of sentence combining on student w r i t i n g were questioned by a number of educators. Two of the e a r l i e r c r i t i c s were Moffett (1968) and Christensen (1967). Moffett pointed out that teachers should eschew work books and exercises, and work with the c h i l d ' s own language production. He thought that Mellon's study advocated "non-n a t u r a l i s t i c " p r a c t i c e a c t i v i t i e s and he recommended instead "sentence-expansion games, good discussions, rewriting of notes, c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e v i s i o n s of compositions, playing with one-sentence discourse, and v e r b a l i z i n g c e r t a i n cognitive tasks" (pp. 180-181). To t h i s comment Mellon r e p l i e d that sentence-combining, apart from any formal study of grammar, could be as "natural" and e f f e c t i v e as any language game i n Moffett's language ar t s program. 47 C h r i s t e n s e n ' s C h r i s t e n s e n , i n " D e f i n i n g a M ature S t y l e " ( E n g l i s h J o u r n a l , A p r i l , 1968) summarized t h e work o f Hunt and M e l l o n , and s t a t e d what he b e l i e v e d t o be the r a d i c a l f l a w i n b o t h t h e i r s t u d i e s : "They have lumped t o g e t h e r two q u i t e d i f f e r e n t c l a s s e s o f c o n s t r u c t i o n s , bound (word) m o d i f i e r s and f r e e m o d i f i e r s ( w h i c h can m o d i f y each o t h e r , o r w h o le s e n t e n c e s ) . " He s a i d t h a t s e n t e n c e s were made l o n g by a c l a s s o f c o n s t r u c t i o n s f a r d i f f e r e n t i n r h e t o r i c a l e f f e c t f r o m n o m i n a l i z a t i o n s and r e l a t i v e embeddings. T h i s c l a s s was t h e f r e e m o d i f i e r w h i c h p e r m i t t e d the s k i l l e d w r i t e r t o keep h i s base c l a u s e s s h o r t ; v a r i a t i o n s i n t h e use o f t h e s e f r e e m o d i f i e r s d i f f e r e n t i a t e d i n d i v i d u a l s t y l e s , and s t u d e n t s c o u l d be t a u g h t t o use them. I n t h i s p u r s u i t , C h r i s t e n s e n a r g u e d , grammar and r h e t o r i c c o u l d be b r o u g h t t o g e t h e r . C h r i s t e n s e n c r i t i c i z e d M e l l o n f o r t e a c h i n g a w r i t i n g p r o c e s s t h a t e ncouraged s t u d e n t s t o i m i t a t e i n t h e i r own c o m p o s i t i o n s t h e l o n g , complex s e n t e n c e s t h e y had c o n s t r u c t e d i n t h e i r s e n t e n c e - -c o m b i n i n g p r a c t i c e . C h r i s t e n s e n d e p r e c a t e d t h e use o f e x c e s s i v e s u b o r d i n a t i o n : " . . . t h e l o n g c l a u s e was n o t t h e mark o f a mature s t y l e , b u t an i n e p t s t y l e . . . t h e easy w r i t i n g t h a t makes c u r s t h a r d r e a d i n g . " He b e l i e v e d t h a t a "mature s t y l e " emphasized " c u m u l a t i v e " s e n t e n c e s , w i t h s h o r t base c l a u s e s and a h i g h p r o p o r t i o n o f f r e e m o d i f i e r s , e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e f i n a l p o s i t i o n . He p o i n t e d o u t t h a t t h e work o f p r o f e s s i o n a l w r i t e r s was c h a r a c t e r i z e d by t h i s t y p e o f s e n t e n c e . I n h i s r e p l y t o C h r i s t e n s e n ' s c h a r g e , M e l l o n d e n i e d 48 that sentence-combining "had anything to do with what he conceived to be the teaching of w r i t i n g . " Instead, i t was " l i m i t e d to a pro-cedure f o r heightening the growth rate of synt a c t i c fluency, an aspect of language procedure . . . over which one does not and cannot exercise conscious c o n t r o l . " (p. 81) He i n s i s t e d that Christensen "mistakenly interpreted h i s experiment as an attempt to teach a mature s t y l e . . . but synt a c t i c maturity was not the same as s t y l e . . . ." (p. 79) Marzano's Christensen had developed a r h e t o r i c program of sentence additive problems i n which he gave students a base clause and then suggested the content and grammatical form of the modifiers. R. Marzano (EJ, Feb. 1976) compared Christensen 1s sentence composing to sentence-combining: Mellon-O'Hare The s a i l o r f i n a l l y came on deck He was t a l l . He was rather ugly. He had a limp. He offered them a p r i z e . Students are asked to combine these into one sentence: The t a l l , rather ugly s a i l o r with a limp, who had offered them a pr i z e , f i n a l l y came on deck. Christensen Students are given the same base clause: "The s a i l o r f i n a l l y came on deck," with suggestions that the following modifiers be added: (a) two prenominal modifiers describing the s a i l o r ' s height and weight (b) a p a r t i c i p i a l phrase de-s c r i b i n g the s a i l o r ' s walk (c) a p a r t i c i p i a l phrase de-s c r i b i n g something the s a i l o r was doing. 49 Marzano a d v o c a t e d t h i s program o f C h r i s t e n s e n ' s as a b a s i s f o r a c o m p a r a t i v e s t u d y w i t h s e n t e n c e c o m b i n i n g , f o r he t h o u g h t t h i s s e n t e n c e composing p r o c e s s m i g h t p r o v e as e f f e c t i v e a s , and more e f f i c i e n t t h a n , s e n t e n c e - c o m b i n i n g . Marzano was c r i t i c a l o f O'Hare's " f o r c e d c h o i c e " method o f j u d g i n g t h e e f f e c t s o f s e n t e n c e - c o m b i n i n g on c o m p o s i t i o n . I n h i s own s t u d y (1975) , he e v a l u a t e d 100 c o m p o s i t i o n s on a s c a l e f r o m 1 t o 9 f o r o v e r a l l q u a l i t y , and he c a l c u l a t e d t h e a v e r a g e f r e q u e n c y o f s e n t e n c e - c o m b i n i n g t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s p e r T - U n i t . He f o u n d a .51 c o r r e l a t i o n between t h e q u a l i t y r a t i n g s and t h e i n c i d e n c e o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s , b u t he emphasized t h a t i t was i m p o r t a n t t o remember t h a t s e n t e n c e - c o m b i n i n g m i g h t be r e l a t e d t o q u a l i t y w i t h -o u t b e i n g t h e cause o f i t . M arzano's c r i t i c i s m o f s e n t e n c e - c o m b i n i n g was answered i n E J , Dec. 1976, by James Ney (see a b o v e ) , who p o i n t e d o u t t h a t Marzano's o b j e c t i o n t o t h e f o r c e d - c h o i c e method o f g r a d i n g c o m p o s i -t i o n s had been a n t i c i p a t e d , and more r e c e n t s t u d i e s had i n t r o d u c e d a g r a d a t i o n o f s c o r e s method (Ney, 1975; Combs, 1975) w h i c h a l s o f a v o u r e d s t u d e n t s who had p r a c t i s e d s e n t e n c e - c o m b i n i n g . Ney t h e n quoted a remark from Combs: S k e p t i c i s m about SC p r a c t i c e . . . d e r i v e s f r o m a b e l i e f t h a n s y n t a c t i c m a n i p u l a t i o n encourages o v e r - c o m p l i c a t e d , b a d l y c o n c e i v e d p r o s e . U n l e s s one i s w i l l i n g t o e n t e r t a i n t h e c o u n t e r - i n t u i t i v e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t s u c h p r o s e i s c o n -s i s t e n t l y p r e f e r r e d by t e a c h e r - r a t e r s , the p r e s e n t s t u d y shows t h a t s t u d e n t s i n t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l group w r o t e s e n t e n c e s o f improved ' q u a l i t y . ' (p. 18) 50 Ney also quoted Stotsky (1975), who, i n her comprehensive review of sentence combining, argued that SC p r a c t i c e improved composition from another point of view: . . • the p r a c t i c e of playing mentally and op e r a t i o n a l l y with s y n t a c t i c structures leads to a kind of automatiza-ti o n of synt a c t i c s k i l l s such that mental energy i s freed i n a Brunerian sense to concentrate on greater elaboration of inten t i o n and meaning. In the same issue of the Engli s h Journal as Ney wrote, Combs also answered Marzano's attack, pointing out several errors i n Marzano's argument, and adding "that recent studies by V i t a l e , Perron, Combs, and Pedersen have substantiated the c o r r e l a t i o n between SC a c t i v i t y and increased judgments of q u a l i t y i n w r i t i n g . " In h i s concluding remarks, however, Combs warned that one should not claim too much for SC p r a c t i c e , as i t was "no panacea; gains drop s i g n i f i -cantly eight weeks a f t e r students quit combining sentences." Summary A summary of the research d i r e c t l y p e r t a i n i n g to the present study revealed that there was l i t t l e agreement among experts . about the r o l e of grammar i n r e l a t i o n to w r i t i n g , except that taught i n i s o l a t i o n i t was of l i t t l e b e nefit to composition. Potter (1967) noted the need to test the effectiveness of a grammatical approach against a "non-grammatical" approach to composition, and that the methods used should be equally e x c i t i n g f o r both. He also stressed the importance of defining s p e c i f i c a l l y the q u a l i t i e s expected of "good" w r i t i n g . In h i s research, he had found that the most marked differences between good and bad w r i t i n g i n grade ten lay i n the use of coordinating and t r a n s i t i o n a l devices, the complexity of the objects, and the use of verbal structures. In the f i e l d of language development, Hunt's (1965) studies not only established the fac t that s y n t a c t i c maturity seemed to accompany cognitive growth, but also provided objective measures to describe, i n q u a n t i f i a b l e terms, the features which constituted s y n t a c t i c maturity. Hunt concluded that, of these measures, the best were T-Unit length and clause length. O'Donnell et a l . (1967) confirmed t h i s when they found that students' a b i l i t y to write longer T-Units and clauses increased with each grade l e v e l . Further, i n 1968 O'Donnell, using an instrument he had devised, known as the "aluminum" passage, found that clause length accounted for most of the growth i n complexity i n the w r i t i n g of older students. In h i s 1970 study, Hunt used the same instrument, and found that a l l the trends apparent i n h i s e a r l i e r study were duplicated. His findings indicated that s y n t a c t i c maturity consisted c h i e f l y i n the a b i l i t y to make many embeddings per clause, and i n so doing increasing clause length and T-Unit length. Once these indices were established as e f f e c t i v e means of measuring the a b i l i t y of students to manipulate language, research began i n an e f f o r t to determine whether or not sy n t a c t i c 52 maturity could be accelerated, rather than awaiting the " g l a c i a l l y slow" development Hunt described as normal. The pioneers i n t h i s f i e l d were Bateman and Zidonis, whose two-year study, completed i n the same year as Hunt's, did not have the f u l l b e nefit of h i s findings. Their r e s u l t s showed that a study of transformational grammar by t h e i r experimental group of grade nine and ten students enabled t h i s group to increase s i g n i f i c a n t l y the proportion of well-formed sentences that they wrote, and to reduce the occurrence of errors i n t h e i r w r i t i n g . Mellon, whose study followed i n 1967, rejected the Bateman-Zidonis claim that the learning of grammatical rules per se could lead to improvement i n student w r i t i n g or that these rules could be applied i n a conscious manner by the wr i t e r s . Mellon speculated that i t was the sentence-combining p r a c t i c e that had r e s u l t e d i n the s y n t a c t i c gains of the experimental classes, rather than the l e a r n -ing of grammar. In h i s own research, Mellon's hypothesis was that by teaching h i s students transformational grammar and having them use the knowledge to p r a c t i s e a great deal of sentence-combining, he might improve t h e i r " s y n t a c t i c fluency." He did so, but i n the epilogue to h i s published study (1969) he stated that the gains of h i s experimental group were probably due more to t h e i r sentence-combining p r a c t i c e than to t h e i r study of grammar. Basing h i s study on t h i s same premise, that students could improve t h e i r a b i l i t y to manipulate sentence structure better with-out being burdened with grammatical terminology, O'Hare devised a 53 study wherein h i s experimental classes p r a c t i s e d sentence-combining problems which were constructed with non-grammatical s i g n a l s . The gains of these students i n sy n t a c t i c maturity were much greater than Mellon's, and O'Hare at t r i b u t e d t h i s to the non-grammatical approach. In r e p l i c a t i n g O'Hare's study, Combs (1975) also had h i s experimental group p r a c t i s e sentence-combining without having them study any grammar, but he found that while h i s students did make syntac t i c gains, these were l e s s than h a l f as great as O'Hare's, more on a par with Mellon's. Further, Combs found that by gi v i n g a two--month delayed post-test that the gains of the experimental group were cut i n h a l f . C r i t i c s of the sentence-combining approach to sy n t a c t i c maturity (Moffat, Christensen, Marzano), who believed that i t encouraged complicated, wordy prose, were confronted with the fac t that i n at l e a s t three studies (O'Hare's, Bateman-Zidonis's, and Combs's), competent teachers had rated the prose written by sentence-combining classes to be superior to that of the cont r o l classes. 54 CHAPTER 2 DESIGNS AND PROCEDURES Ove r v i e w The o v e r a l l p l a n o f t h i s r e s e a r c h was t o t e s t w h e t h e r a s t u d y o f c e r t a i n a s p e c t s o f grammar c o u l d be more e f f e c t i v e i n i n -c r e a s i n g t h e n o r m a l r a t e o f growth o f s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y i n t h e f r e e w r i t i n g o f grade t e n s t u d e n t s t h a n t h e s e n t e n c e - c o m b i n i n g a p p r o a c h a d v o c a t e d by F r a n k O'Hare i n h i s r e s e a r c h r e p o r t No. 15 f o r t h e N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l o f T e a c h e r s o f E n g l i s h . T h i s r e p o r t , e n t i t l e d S entence Combining: I m p r o v i n g S t u d e n t W r i t i n g W i t h o u t F o r m a l Grammar  I n s t r u c t i o n , e x p l a i n e d t h e t y p e o f s e n t e n c e - c o m b i n i n g program g i v e n to h i s s u b j e c t s . S u b s e q u e n t l y , O'Hare w r o t e h i s s e n t e n c e - c o m b i n i n g program i n a t e x t c a l l e d S e n t e n c e c r a f t , p u b l i s h e d by G i n n and Company i n 1975. I n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y , t h e r e were two n o r m a l grade t e n c l a s s e s , a t o t a l o f 56 s t u d e n t s (30 g i r l s , 26 b o y s ) . Of t h e s e , 27 were i n t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l group, w h i c h was d i v i d e d i n t o 2 s m a l l g r o u p s , one w i t h 13 and t h e o t h e r w i t h 14 s t u d e n t s . The c o n t r o l group had 29 s t u d e n t s , d i v i d e d i n t o two s m a l l g r o u p s , w i t h 14 i n one and 15 i n t h e o t h e r . The e x p e r i m e n t a l and t h e c o n t r o l groups f o l l o w e d t h e same c u r r i c u l u m f o r t h r e e o u t o f t h e f o u r w e e k l y E n g l i s h p e r i o d s . I n t h e 55 fourth period the small groups met to carry on t h e i r grammar study or sentence-combining a c t i v i t i e s over a nine month period. During t h i s time a l l students wrote the same number of d e s c r i p t i v e , n a r r a t i v e , and expository compositions. Samples of before and a f t e r w r i t i n g were used as a basis for determining s y n t a c t i c growth. Comparisons of growth observed i n the experimental groups were made with the normal growth rate established by Hunt (1965) and with the growth observed i n equivalent before and a f t e r w r i t i n g of students i n the control groups. Growth i n the two groups was also compared to the growth achieved by the subjects of Mellon, O'Hare, and Combs i n t h e i r studies. Hypotheses This study was designed to test the following hypotheses: 1. That the experimental group, studying c e r t a i n aspects of t r a d i t i o n a l grammar, would achieve more growth i n s y n t a c t i c maturity than the control group, p r a c t i s i n g sentence-combining that did not involve formal i n s t r u c t i o n i n grammar. 2. That the experimental group would write compositions that would be recognized by experienced English teachers as superior i n o v e r a l l q u a l i t y to those written by the c o n t r o l group. 56 Design of the Study A 2 x 2 factorial design was used, with grammar study versus sentence-combining, and pre- versus post-test. An analysis of covariance was carried out in order to partial out the effects of I.Q. and previous achievement in English as i t was f e l t that these were the two main factors which might contribute to i n i t i a l differences in the two groups. English marks were obtained from the student's achievement for the previous year, as indicated by letter grade on his June report. This letter grade was quantified by a scale on which: A=8, A- =7, B+=6, B=5, B-=4, C+=3, C = 2, C - = l . I.Q. score were obtained from an Otis Quick-Scoring Test, Beta Form EM, given to the subjects in September. The two experimental and two control classes had been assigned to their classes according to their timetables, which were flexible enough, however, to permit the subjects to be shifted within the small groups in order to create, after I.Q. and performance in English were considered, a control and experimental population of approxi-mately equal a b i l i t y and sex. A few students of very low a b i l i t y were transferred from the population of the study into two other small groups not involved in this experiment, but taught by the researcher. Such a transfer was not possible, however, with a l l students in this category. 57 Subjects Four small-group grade ten classes, t o t a l l i n g 56 students, who were within the normal grade ten range of 15 to 16 years, and had I.Q. scores ranging from 85 to 124, with an average of 109.7 i n the experimental group, and 110.2 i n the control group. Three students l e f t school during the year, and one transferred i n , leaving 15 g i r l s and 12 boys i n the experimental classes, and 15 g i r l s and 14 boys i n the control classes. Students i n both classes were from the same socio-economic background, as they were almost a l l of Anglo-Saxon o r i g i n , from upper middle cl a s s homes i n which the parents were well-educated and interested i n t h e i r children's progress. Variables I. Independent (a) Between-Subject Variable: a regular curriculum i n English was taught f or three periods out of four, and i n the fourth two approaches designed to increase growth i n sy n t a c t i c maturity were used. Two small groups studied c e r t a i n aspects of grammar, while the other two pr a c t i s e d a form of sentence-combining which did not i n -volve any formal i n s t r u c t i o n i n grammar. The classes p r a c t i c i n g sentence-combining were l a b e l l e d the " c o n t r o l " group and those study-ing grammar were c a l l e d the "experimental" group. Both groups, i n addition to t h e i r work i n sentence structure, c a r r i e d out a program of free w r i t i n g . (b) Within-Subject Repeated Measures Variable: pre-.\and post-tests were given i n October and May. 58 I I . Dependent A. Two indices of syn t a c t i c maturity: 1. Words per T-Unit 2. Words per clause B. A s i n g l e q u a l i t a t i v e judgment based on ideas, organization, s t y l e , vocabulary, and sentence structure was made to decide which was the better of two compositions, one experimental and one c o n t r o l , which had been matched for I.Q., a b i l i t y i n English, sex, and mode of discourse. I I I . Concommitant: I.Q. Scores and E n g l i s h Achievement Scores. IV. Extraneous Language experiences of the subjects outside the English classes. Rationale of the Present Study In seeking to discover the most e f f e c t i v e way to help students to improve t h e i r sentence structure and t h e i r w r i t i n g s t y l e , the present researcher noted Potter's comment that: I f composition improvement i s used to j u s t i f y i n s t r u c t i o n i n grammar, the question goes beyond the r e l a t i v e e f f e c t i v e -ness of grammars A, B, C, and D. Each of the grammars must be tested against a proven 'non-grammatical' method, (p. 19) The choice of " t r a d i t i o n a l " grammar as a means of enhancing s y n t a c t i c maturity might well seem .quixotic.in view of the large body of research a t t e s t i n g to i t s i n e f f i c i e n c y as an aid to i n s t r u c t i o n i n composition, 59 but in doing so the researcher was moved by a number of considera-tions : 1. Much of the research done in the f i r s t half of the century would not be considered valid in the light of modern methods of research. In addition, most of these early studies were more interested in usage than in grammar, and their results were obtained by objective testing. 2. The investigator hoped: (a) that a study of grammar integrated with the writing process might enable students to see more clearly the importance of structure in improving style; (b) that students would recognize the need for editing s k i l l s when the written work was to be published; and (c) that the usefulness of a grammatical vocabulary describing accurately the operating of language would become apparent. The aim of the researcher was thus to make grammar function in a dual role: analytically, i t would show the structure of the language, and synthetically, offer the writer a variety of options from which he could choose to improve his own constructions. For the "non-grammatical" approach, i t was decided to use O'Hare's method of sentence-combining, as i t had been proved success-ful in increasing "syntactic maturity. 1 1 This term "syntactic maturity" 60 u s u a l l y meant t h a t as a w r i t e r m a t ured, h i s s e n t e n c e s grew l o n g e r and more complex because h i s i n d e p e n d e n t c l a u s e s were l e n g t h e n e d by i n c r e a s e d embedding w i t h i n c l a u s e s . Hunt's i n d i c e s , s u c h as words p e r T - U n i t and p e r c l a u s e , measured t h e l e n g t h t h a t i n c r e a s e d w i t h m a t u r i t y . I n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y , m a t u r i t y o f s e n t e n c e s t r u c t u r e was d e f i n e d i n a s t a t i s t i c a l s e nse as t h e range o f s e n t e n c e t y p e s found i n samples o f s t u d e n t w r i t i n g . L i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e Study 1. D e s i g n o f t h e Study: (a) The r e s e a r c h e r t a u g h t b o t h o f t h e experimental-grammar c l a s s e s and b o t h o f t h e c o n t r o l s e n t e n c e - c o m b i n i n g c l a s s e s . T h i s was u n a v o i d a b l e as the e x p e r i m e n t had t o be c a r r i e d o u t i n c l a s s e s a l r e a d y a s s i g n e d t o t h e r e s e a r c h e r . S c h e d u l i n g c o n s t r a i n t s , made o t h e r a r r a n g e -ments i m p o s s i b l e . However, e v e r y e f f o r t was made t o ap p r o a c h b o t h c l a s s e s w i t h e q u a l e n t h u s i a s m and e q u a l e f f o r t , f o r t h e r e s e a r c h e r was more i n t e r e s t e d i n d i s -c o v e r i n g w h i c h method was more e f f e c t i v e i n i m p r o v i n g s t u d e n t s ' s e n t e n c e s t r u c t u r e t h a n she was i n a d v o c a t i n g a p a r t i c u l a r t r e a t m e n t , (b) Because t h e r e s e a r c h e r had " i n t a c t " c l a s s e s , s t u d e n t s c o u l d n o t be randomly a s s i g n e d t o t h e c o n t r o l and e x p e r i m e n t a l g r o u p s , n o r c o u l d t h e t i m e a t w h i c h c l a s s e s met be c o n t r o l l e d . 61 (c) The sentence-combining group was ar b i t r a r i l y labelled the "control" group as i t followed a treatment devised by O'Hare, while the group studying grammar was called the experimental group, as the researcher, in designing i t s course, had attempted to formulate a method of instruction that would be more effective in improving not only the sentence structure but the overall quality of writing, than the sentence-combining approach. 2. Homogeneity of the Subject Population Not only were the control and experimental classes balanced by I.Q. and language achievement, but they were almost a l l from the same socioeconomic background. 3. Financial Restraints Because no funds were available to pay markers, the researcher followed certain procedures not because they were preferable, but because they were practical: (a) The use of O'Hare's "forced choice" method of evaluating compositions. (b) The brevity of the pre-marking session. (c) The size of the sample. 62 Procedures Selection of the Experimental Subjects The tenth grade was selected as theMevel on which to con-duct the experiment simply because, of the two grades taught by the researcher, t h i s one seemed better suited to the purpose of the experiment. One of the reasons f o r t h i s was that the text used by the control c l a s s , Sentencecraft, designed as the basis of an e l e c t i v e course, appeared to be more appropriate f or a grade ten l e v e l , as did the aspects of grammar that constituted the basis of the experimental group's study. In addition, the grade tens repre-sented the t r a n s i t i o n phase from j u n i o r to senior high school students, and i t was i n t h i s year that increasing emphasis upon written English, as a form d i s t i n c t from spoken English, was placed. Procedures i n t h i s experiment had to be fu n c t i o n a l within a given s e t t i n g : a large urban secondary school operating on a f l e x i b l e modular system, with students on i n d i v i d u a l computerized timetables. Within t h i s structure, time was provided for student-teacher conferences, but the cl a s s time f o r English was l i m i t e d to the four forty-minute periods per week mentioned above._ Of these, the one used to carry on the control and experimental programs, I.e., sentence-combining and grammar study, met i n small group sessions. This small group format had a d i s t i n c t advantage for t h i s type of experiment, as the work done i n small group could be kept 63 completely separate from that done i n middle group. The program followed by the control and experimental students meeting i n small group classes was never discussed i n regular classes. Indeed, such a procedure would have been impossible, as the f i f t e e n students i n one small group might be members of three d i f f e r e n t regular classes. Students were never t o l d that they were part of an experi-ment, nor did they seem to have any idea that there was a d i f f e r -ence i n the programs of the small group classes. They e a s i l y accepted the idea that the pre-treatment compositions were assigned i n order that the teacher might l e a r n something of t h e i r a b i l i t y to write i n the various modes, and that the post-treatment compositions were given to see i f there had been any improvement during the year. Another advantage of the small group format was that i t permitted a l e s s formal atmosphere, with more interchange and discussion among students. In addition, i t allowed students to have a week to complete w r i t i n g assignments, an i n t e g r a l part of the program f o r both groups. Unfortunately, there were disadvan-tages as w e l l , f or the weekly i n t e r v a l between classes made i t d i f f i c u l t to achieve continuity, which was not a problem i n the sentence-combining classes, but a d e f i n i t e detraction i n the grammar classes. In the l a t t e r , students sometimes needed considerable review before they remembered c l e a r l y what they had done the week before. Another disadvantage of the small group arrangement was that two of the weekly classes, one experimental, and one c o n t r o l , were scheduled for the l a s t two periods i n the day, when students were often t i r e d . In addition, members of a t h l e t i c teams missed a number of these classes because of games or p r a c t i c e s . Of the 58 students who comprised the four small group classes, one boy i n the experimental classes quit school, and two boys i n the control group transferred out of the school d i s t r i c t . Their scores were not included i n the data. One boy transferred into the experimental group f a i r l y early i n the term, and h i s input was included. At the end of the study, a f t e r a l l the data had been c o l l e c t e d , the scores of four co n t r o l and one experimental students who had missed the I.Q. t e s t or one of the pre- or post-test composi tions were not included i n the analysis of covariance described i n Chapter 3. Control Group Treatment For a t h i r t y - f i v e to f o r t y minute period once a week, the control group practised the sentence-combining problems i n the book Sentencecraft, i n which were twenty-six lessons, interspersed with eight "Writing Workshops." In the introduction, O'Hare emphasized the importance not only of having something to say, but of knowing how to say i t . To t h i s end he suggested that students should learn to manipulate words, phrases, and sentences u n t i l they had attained the most expressive combination to describe t h e i r thoughts. In h i s research report (p. 72) O'Hare quoted Christensen (1967), who said " s o l v i n g the problem of 'how to say' helps solve the problem of "what to say. . . ." (p. 5)- This suggestion that "form" could, i n a sense, generate "content" seemed to be part of the philosophy underlying the sentence-combining approach to improved w r i t i n g i n 0'Hare's text. During the course of the study students i n the •sentence-combining program completed the twenty-six lessons i n t h e i r text, as well as some typed sheets of a d d i t i o n a l problems i n combining sentences without the a i d of s i g n a l s . These problems, l i k e O'Hare's employed no grammatical terminology; students were asked to combine the sentences i n the most e f f e c t i v e way pos s i b l e . In c l a s s , a f t e r a b r i e f discussion of any new techniques introduced i n that day's lesson or lessons, several sample problems were solved o r a l l y before the students went ahead at th e i r own speed. A few completed the lessons during the period, but most had to spend some a d d i t i o n a l time to f i n i s h . Students were encouraged to discuss with each other possible solutions to any questions that proved troublesome, and at some time during the period answers to the previous week's assignment were read aloud. There was a very pleasant atmosphere i n the c l a s s , as students seemed to enjoy the challenge of manipu-l a t i n g language, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the chapters e n t i t l e d "Challenge" which offered considerable scope for t h e i r ingenuity. The problems i n these sections required the use of a l l the sentence-combining techniques employed i n e a r l i e r lessons. Some had signals 66 i n d i c a t i n g how the s e n t e n c e s s h o u l d be combined, and o t h e r s had none. S t u d e n t s were s i m p l y t o l d t o "make use o f the c o m b i n i n g t e c h n i q u e s used so f a r . " O'Hare d e v i s e d a s e r i e s o f s i g n a l s t h a t e n a b l e d s t u d e n t s f i r s t t o m a s t e r s i n g l e - e m b e d d i n g p r o b l e m s , and t h e n t o t r a n s f o r m and embed a number o f k e r n e l s e n t e n c e s i n t o a s i n g l e s e n t e n c e . A few examples w i l l s e r v e t o i l l u s t r a t e t he t y p e o f s i g n a l s g i v e n : L e s s o n 1 Three o r f o u r s h o r t s e n t e n c e s were combined by d e l e t i o n and p u n c t u a t i o n s i g n a l s : A. H e l e n r a i s e d h e r p i s t o l . Site t o o k c a r e f u l .aim. (,) Sfee squeezed o f f f i v e r a p i d s h o t s t o t h e c e n t e r o f . t h e t a r g e t (, and) B. H e l e n r a i s e d h e r p i s t o l , t o o k c a r e f u l aim, and squeezed o f f f i v e r a p i d s h o t s t o t h e c e n t e r o f the t a r g e t . (The s i g n a l s i n t h e b r a c k e t s were t o be p l a c e d i n f r o n t o f the s e n t e n c e w h i c h t h e y f o l l o w ) . L e s s o n s 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13 These i n v o l v e d v a r i o u s c o m b i n i n g s i g n a l s f o r embedding noun c l a u s e s o r o t h e r nour s u b s t i t u t e s , s u c h as gerunds and i n f i n i t i v e s : 1. A. I g e t n e r v o u s e v e r y time Ben goes f o r a swim i n t h e ocean because he does n o t b e l i e v e SOMETHING. 67 Something i s possible ( t h a t ) . The undertow sweeps him out into deep water ( i t - f o r - t o ) I get nervous every time Ben goes for a swim because he does not believe that i t i s possible for the under-tow to sweep him out into deep water. SOMETHING was pred i c t a b l e . Fisher crushed h i s opponent r u t h l e s s l y ( 's +^5? + ing + of) Fisher's ruthless crushing of h i s opponent was predictable. (Students were in s t r u c t e d to follow the signals i n the order i n which they were given) SOMETHING was impossible. John studied during commercials ( i t . . . f o r . . . t o ) I t was impossible for John to study during commercials. I could not follow SOMETHING. Garcia discussed amino acids b r i l l i a n t l y ('s, + l y +discussion + of) I could not follow Garcia's b r i l l i a n t discussion of amino acids. 68 Lessons 15 and 16 These dealt with the embedding of adjective clauses, using r e p e t i t i o n as a combining s i g n a l , i n conjunction with (which), (that), (who), (whom), (which/that) i n Part I, and (whose), (when), (where), and (why), i n Part I I . A. The room was l i t by a s i n g l e s p o t l i g h t . The diamond was displayed i n the room, (where) The s p o t l i g h t was trained on the gem i t s e l f , (which/that) B. The room where the diamond was displayed was l i t by a s i n g l e s p o t l i g h t that was trained on the gem i t s e l f . Lessons 18 and 19 Here underlining was used as a combining s i g n a l , i n conjunc-t i o n with r e p e t i t i o n . Students were t o l d to i n s e r t the underlined words a f t e r the f i r s t appearance of the repeated words, to keep under-l i n e d words, and eliminate the others. A. Blanche e a s i l y pulled away from the f i e l d . Blanche i s a powerful runner. B. Blanche, a powerful runner, e a s i l y p u l l e d away from the f i e l d . Lesson 21 Here the use of connecting words to combine sentences and e s t a b l i s h a r e l a t i o n s h i p between them was i l l u s t r a t e d . This 69 lesson dealt principally with adverbial conjunctions, but also showed the use of the semi-colon, coordinate conjunctions, and adjectival conjunctions. A. You put i t that way. (since) Something i s impossible. I disagree with your proposal, (it..for..to) B. Since you put i t that way, i t is impossible for me to disagree with your proposal. Lesson 22 The signals (ing) and (with) showed how to combine sentences using p a r t i c i p i a l and prepositional phrases to get the "cumulative" type of sentence. A. J i l l stood at the edge of the c l i f f . She looked down on their upturned, nickle-sized. faces by the side of the tidal pool, (ing) She wished she had ignored the dare, (ing) She f e l t trapped, (ing) I Yet she knew something, (ing) She couldn't back down, (that) B. J i l l stood at the edge of the c l i f f , looking down on their upturned, nickle-sized faces by the side of the tidal pool, wishing she had ignored the dare, feeling trapped, yet knowing she couldn't back down. 70 Writing Workshops In ad d i t i o n to the above lessons, and the "Challenge" lessons interspersed between them, there were also eight "Writing Workshops" d i s t r i b u t e d throughout the text so that one occurred every t h i r d or fourth lesson. These outlined w r i t i n g projects vwere l a r g e l y i n the narrative, n a r r a t i v e - d e s c r i p t i v e , and expository modes. The topics not only offered a wide choice, but were highly imaginative, often humourous, and always relevant to the students' own i n t e r e s t s and experiences. In the narrative vein, themes invo l v i n g the sol v i n g of a moral dilemma, or surviving a wilderness expedition were included, as were children's s t o r i e s , t a l l t a l e s , daydreams, and nightmares. Many opportunities were provided for media w r i t i n g i n both na r r a t i v e and expository modes: s c r i p t s for t e l e v i s i o n shows, f i l m s , or s l i d e s ; advertisements; w r i t i n g f a i r y t a les or nursery tales as news flashes; interviews with famous people; l e t t e r s to the edi t o r ; l e t t e r s to and purportedly from "Ann Landers"; a weekly columnist's view of a current controversy; or a sportcaster reporting a game. Other expository or argumentative topics dealt with p u b l i c service appeals to support worthwhile causes, and a r t i c l e s to inform and persuade the p u b l i c about l o c a l or nationa l concerns. These workshops were well planned and provided the type of w r i t i n g experience that students found enjoyable; there was very l i t t l e complaint about the weekly compositions that were required i n conjunction with the sentence-combining problems. Approximately twenty-five of these 71 assignments were given to each cl a s s oyer a period of seven months. They were termed "free w r i t i n g " as none of the work was done i n c l a s s , and there was no i n s t r u c t i o n or assistance given. Students simply read the material outlined i n each "workshop" section and responded according to t h e i r own i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the data. These w r i t i n g assignments were given to a l l small group classes, whether they were control or experimental. A l l compositions were read by the i n s t r u c t o r and returned to the student with a comment which was usually designed to increase the confidence and sense of achievement of the w r i t e r . No reference was made to sentence structure, i n grammatical or non-grammatical terminology, and there was no d e t a i l e d analysis of the content. The emphasis i n small group was always upon encouragement and the atmosphere was congenial. A few minutes at the beginning of each cl a s s were usually spent i n congratulating students who had turned i n p a r t i c u -l a r l y good papers the week before, and i n reading some of these aloud before returning them. Care was taken to see that a l l students received recognition as frequently as poss i b l e . Occasionally s t o r i e s or a r t i c l e s were exchanged informally i n c l a s s , and once the i n i t i a l reluctance of pupils to emerge from anonymity was overcome, these group sessions proved h e l p f u l i n e s t a b l i s h i n g some sort of guide-l i n e s as to what constituted q u a l i t y and s t y l e i n w r i t i n g . The incentive to e d i t t h e i r work was greatly increased by the p o s s i b i l i t y of p u b l i c a t i o n . Students were urged to collaborate with each other i n r e v i s i n g t h e i r w r i t i n g . By A p r i l , everyone i n both groups had submitted at l e a s t one piece of w r i t i n g f o r p u b l i c a -t i o n i n what became a 265-page volume. Outside evaluators i n the school at the time t h i s book was being c o l l a t e d i n preparation for binding commented i n t h e i r report on the high c a l i b r e of the grade ten free w r i t i n g . The book was published i n May, and each student received a copy. Course Followed by Experimental Grammar Classes In a d d i t i o n to these "Writing Workshop" assignments, the two small groups making up the experimental classes studied those aspects of grammar which Potter (1967) and Hunt (1965, 1970) had indicated might be h e l p f u l to grade ten students i n improving t h e i r sentence structure. These included: 1. The use of a v a r i e t y of sentence patterns. 2. The e f f e c t i v e use of coordination and subordination. 3. The use of verbals and appositives. 4. The use of t r a n s i t i o n a l devices. Other aspects of grammar which were covered included a study of the voice and tense of verbs, the agreement of verbs with t h e i r subjects, and the reference of pronouns. However, the time spent on these was r e l a t i v e l y b r i e f , as the emphasis of the course was upon the work i n syntax. This study of the s t r u c t u r i n g of sentences proved d i f f i c u l t f o r many of the students, who had had very l i t t l e grammar before t h i s year, and much more time than the researcher had anticipated had to be spent on i t . I t was found that one period a week, of l e s s than f o r t y minutes, was r e a l l y not enough to ensure a sound grasp of these basic concepts, p a r t i c u l a r l y as some time was used i n reading t h e i r free w r i t i n g compositions. Students came for extra help as t h e i r timetable and i n c l i n a t i o n allowed, and a f t e r many weeks of continued e f f o r t with each of the sections l i s t e d above, most of the students demonstrated some p r o f i c i e n c y with these aspects of t h e i r study. One of the most remarkable features of both these classes i n grammar was t h e i r good humour. For the most part, they d i d not l i k e grammar, but because they wanted to do w e l l , they approached each new phase of the work with an honest desire to master i t . This a t t i t u d e made the lea r n i n g (and teaching) process easier. Treatment for the Experimental Group A f t e r the introductory comments on the small group w r i t i n g , each cl a s s began with a review of the previous week's work, and a discussion of the assignment. The atmosphere of the cl a s s was s i m i l a r to that of a workshop, as students contributed or questioned ideas f r e e l y , and helped each other considerably. The i n s t r u c t o r explained each phase of the work, using blackboard demonstrations, transparencies, and packages of prepared materials containing out-l i n e s and explanations of information presented, as well as assign-merits to reinforce the concepts taught. Students examined their free writing, which they kept in a binder, to see i f they could recognize whatever aspect of sentence structure was currently under investigation. For example, they might look for: (1) variety in their sentence patterns, or (2) effectiveness in their coordination or subordination, or (3) their use of noun clauses or verbals. Students were encouraged to analyze the structure and grammaticality of their own writing, and to recognize the need for revision. As mentioned above, the prospect of publication made the need for editing real. In the latter part of the course, when students were applying the terminology they had learned to the manipulation of sentence structure, the attitude of the students was more enthusias-t i c , as they enjoyed exercising their ingenuity in combining sentences through subordination, reduction, or the "cumulative" techniques of Christensen, which emphasized "clusters" rather than clauses. In class, pupils read aloud the sentences they had written in response to various sentence-building a c t i v i t i e s , and usually the inherent sense of grammaticality of the other students enabled them to t e l l what combinations were acceptable. The whole emphasis of this course was upon the integration of the study of sentence structure with the writing process. 75 Summary of Grammar Curriculum In order to cla r i f y the materials covered with the experi-mental group, an outline of the course i s included here. 1. Sentence Patterns. Students were expected to recognize and to write sentences in the following basic patterns: (a) subject + verb (b) subject + verb + object (c) subject + verb + indirect object + direct object (d) subject + "be"  Jr complement (noun, adjective, or place phrase) (e) subject + link verb + complement (f) subject + verb + object + objective complement (noun or adjective) 2. Coordination and Subordination. This work included: (a) The difference between coordinate and subordinate conjunctions and the functions of each (b) The types of sentences: simple, complex, compound, . and compound-complex, (c) The use of connectives with coordinate clauses to show relationships: addition, contrast, choice, or result (d) Use of conjunctions to show relationships such as time, cause or reason, purpose or result, and con-dition between main clauses and subordinate adverbial clauses (e) Use of adjective clauses to enable writers to stress one idea above another (f) Use of subordinate clauses, modifying phrases, or appositives to correct f a u l t y coordination P a r a l l e l i s m . This section covered the w r i t i n g of coordinate ideas, as w e l l as ideas that were compared and contrasted, and stressed: (a) Expressing p a r a l l e l ideas i n the same grammatical form (b) Placing c o r r e l a t i v e conjunctions immediately before p a r a l l e l terms (c) Repeating any necessary words i n p a r a l l e l construc-tions i n order to c l a r i f y meaning Verbals and Appositives. This study included: (a) The dual nature of i n f i n i t i v e s , gerunds, and p a r t i c i -p l es, which had many of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of verbs (b) The function of verbals as nouns, adjectives, or adverbs (c) Their use as an a i d to conciseness (d) Dangling p a r t i c i p l e s (e) The function of appositives Misplaced Modifiers. These were covered very b r i e f l y i n con-junction with dangling p a r t i c i p l e s . 77 Verbs. This section was b r i e f . I t emphasized: (a) Present and past tense (b) Active and passive voice Pronoun Reference. This part was also very short, and stressed the need to avoid: (a) Ambiguous reference (b) General reference (c) Weak reference (d) I n d e f i n i t e use of " i t , " "they," and "you." Subject-Verb Agreement. This was mentioned b r i e f l y i n connec-t i o n with pronoun reference. Unnecessary S h i f t s i n Sentences. This topic dealt with s h i f t s i n : (a) Subject (b) Tense (c) Voice Conciseness. This work stressed the need to eliminate unnecessary words i n w r i t i n g , and the methods of reducing clauses to: (a) P a r t i c i p i a l , gerund, or i n f i n i t i v e phrases (b) P r e p o s i t i o n a l phrases (c) Appositives (d) Single words. 78 In order to p r a c t i s e sentence-combining, and to review most of the aspects of sentence structure they had studied, students worked through the l a t t e r part of Chapter 7 and Chapter 8 i n Learning English (1963). This was the only text that the students t i n t h i s experimental course had, but they were also given material on mimeo-graphed sheets, some adapted from other texts such as Warriner's English Grammar and Composition (1977), and some developed by the researcher. Because the researcher wished to determine how well the experimental group had understood the grammatical concepts and termin-ology which they had studied, t h i s group was given, i n June, a compre-hensive examination which required them to demonstrate both analyzing and synthesizing s k i l l s . The examination required students to do a considerable amount of wr i t i n g , and took much longer than the in s t r u c t o r had an t i c i p a t e d . As a r e s u l t , i t was necessary to shorten some of the sections of the paper, and to omit one.or two others. The papers were evaluated out of 100 (with over h a l f of the marks for the sections dealing with syntax) by the English Department marker, who was f u l l y q u a l i f i e d , having a B.A. with a major i n English, and ten years' experience i n marking secondary English. The grammar exam, and the r e s u l t s may be seen i n Appendix E . The marks were not high, considering that the mean I.Q. of the experimental group was 109, but not too s u r p r i s i n g when the following factors were taken into account: 7? 1. Of the three students who failed, one had a very low ab i l i t y , and was not expected to pass the same type of exam as the rest of the class; another had missed almost one-quarter of her classes during the year. 2. The exam was too long, and fatigue was certainly a consideration. 3. Students had to review the year's work on their own, as there was not time in class for this purpose. This task proved d i f f i c u l t for pupils accustomed to the shorter tests given at the end of each unit in the continuous evaluation system. 4. As mentioned above, time was a really pressing concern with the experimental class. As a result, after the grammatical concepts and terminology had been taught, there was less time than expected for the students to spend on the manipulation of sentence structure. Regular Curriculum In the other three periods each week, classes met in middle groups, where a l l classes studied the same course material- in l i t e r a -ture, language, and composition. 80 L i t e r a t u r e Work i n t h e f a l l t erm began w i t h t h e s t u d y o f t e n s h o r t s t o r i e s , t a k e n p r i m a r i l y from E i g h t e e n S t o r i e s ( 1 9 6 5 ) . V a r y i n g a s p e c t s o f t h e s e s t o r i e s , s u c h as p l o t , c h a r a c t e r , theme, p o i n t o f v i e w , o r s e t t i n g were d i s c u s s e d . F o l l o w i n g t h e u n i t on s h o r t s t o r i e s , t h r e e n o v e l s were s t u d i e d i n t u r n : The C h r y s a l i d s , A n i m a l Farm, and To K i l l  a M o c k i n g b i r d . The l a s t o f t h e s e was c o m p l e t e d by a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h e end o f J a n u a r y , a t w h i c h t i m e c l a s s e s began a u n i t on m y t h o l o g y . T h i s s u b j e c t was new t o the grade t e n c o u r s e t h i s y e a r , and most o f t h e s t u d e n t s seemed t o e n j o y i t . Most o f t h e work was o r a l , as s t u d e n t s had a c h o i c e o f d o i n g a m a j o r w r i t t e n p r o j e c t o r an o r a l p r e s e n t a t i o n . Books used i n t h i s u n i t i n c l u d e d t h r e e o r f o u r t e x t s and t h i r t y o r f o r t y r e f e r e n c e books f r o m t h e s c h o o l l i b r a r y w h i c h were p l a c e d on r e s e r v e so as t o be a v a i l a b l e f o r s t u d e n t r e s e a r c h . A f t e r t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e work on myths, s t u d e n t s began th e s t u d y o f J u l i u s C a e s a r , and when t h i s was c o m p l e t e d , c o n t i n u e d w i t h a u n i t on n o n - f i c t i o n , i n c l u d i n g H i r o s h i m a and s e l e c t i o n s f r o m Man i n t h e E x p o s i t o r y Mode. T h i s work was f o l l o w e d by a s t u d y o f p o e t r y f r o m P o e t r y : An A n t h o l o g y f o r Secondary S c h o o l s , and t h e new t e x t , Imagine S e e i n g You Here. Language Language study during the year included: 81 1. A u n i t on s p e l l i n g , and t h e b u i l d i n g o f v o c a b u l a r y t h r o u g h a s t u d y o f p r e f i x e s and s u f f i x e s . 2. A u n i t on t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e l a n g u a g e and t h e h i s t o r y o f w r i t i n g . 3. A u n i t on t h e l e v e l s o f l a n g u a g e w h i c h s t r e s s e d t h e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e i n f o r m a l i t y o f spoken E n g l i s h and t h e f o r m a l i t y o f w r i t t e n E n g l i s h . 4. A u n i t on t h e advan t a g e s o f s p e c i f i c , c o n c r e t e words o v e r a b s t r a c t , g e n e r a l ones, i n i m p r o v i n g t h e p i c t u r e - m a k i n g q u a l i t y o f w r i t i n g . D e n o t a t i o n and c o n n o t a t i o n o f words and t h e use o f euphemisms were i n c l u d e d h e r e . C o m p o s i t i o n F r e e w r i t i n g , as d e s c r i b e d above, was l a r g e l y done i n s m a l l group a s s i g n m e n t s . I n m i d d l e g r o u p s , w r i t i n g i n a l l modes was p r i m a r i l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e s t u d y o f l i t e r a t u r e . Examples o f t h e t y p e s o f a s s i g n m e n t s m i g h t i n c l u d e : 1. A d e s c r i p t i o n o f P a u l i n " P a u l ' s Case" ( E i g h t e e n S t o r i e s ) . 2. A v e r s i o n o f "Mr. Know A l l " f rom Max K e l a d a ' s p o i n t o f v i e w ( E i g h t e e n S t o r i e s ) . 3. A d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e themes i n The C h r y s a l i d s . 4. An i m a g i n a r y a c c o u n t i n w h i c h y ou a r e S c o u t , w r i t i n g t o D i l l o f t h e e x c i t i n g a d v e n t u r e t h a t l e a d s t o y o u r m e e t i n g w i t h the "Grey C h o s t " (To K i l l A M o c k i n g b i r d ) . 5. T r a c e , i n a s e r i e s o f s t e p s , t h e ways i n w h i c h t h e i d e a l s o c i e t y i n a u g u r a t e d by O l d M a j o r was g r a d u a l l y t u r n e d i n t o a t o t a l i t a r i a n r e gime and d i s c u s s t h e c e n t r a l i r o n y i m p l i c i t i n t h i s change ( A n i m a l Farm). A s s i g n m e n t s i n m i d d l e group v a r i e d from one t o t h r e e pages i n l e n g t h , and were handed i n f o r m a r k i n g p r o b a b l y on an a v e r a g e o f once e v e r y two weeks. No work on grammar, usage, p u n c t u a t i o n , c a p i t a l i z a t i o n , o any phase o f s e n t e n c e s t r u c t u r e was d i s c u s s e d i n m i d d l e group c l a s s e s . Work from C h a p t e r s 2 and 12 i n L e a r n i n g E n g l i s h on b u i l d i n p a r a g r a p h s and b u i l d i n g l o n g e r c o m p o s i t i o n s , w h i c h i n c l u d e d t h e w r i t i n g o f r e p o r t s , o f summaries, o f r e v i e w s , t h e o r g a n i z i n g o f m a t e r i a l i n t o an o u t l i n e , and o t h e r f a c e t s o f w r i t i n g was s t u d i e d . T e x t Books A l i s t o f t h e t e x t s , m e n t i o n e d above, t h a t were used i n th e r e g u l a r c u r r i c u l u m o f the grade t e n s t u d e n t s i s i n c l u d e d h e r e . L i t e r a t u r e T e x t s ( i n t h e o r d e r r e f e r r e d t o a b o v e ) : E i g h t e e n S t o r i e s , ed. by M a l c o l m Ross and John S t e v e n s (J.M. Dent and Sons L t d . , Don M i l l s , O n t a r i o , 1 9 6 5 ) . The C h r y s a l i d s , by John Wyndham (House o f G r a n t (Canada) L t d . , 1 9 6 5 ) . A n i m a l Farm, by George O r w e l l (Longmans, Green and Co. L t d . , London, E n g l a n d , 1964). To K i l l a M o c k i n g b i r d , by H a r p e r Lee ( M c C l e l l a n d and S t e w a r t L t d . , T o r o n t o , 1 9 6 0 ) . Myth, by M o i r a K e r r and John Bennet (The Copp C l a r k P u b l i s h i n g Company, T o r o n t o , 1966). 83 C o m p a r a t i v e M y t h o l o g y , by M a r i o n R a l s t o n (D.C. Heath Canada L t d . , T o r o n t o , 1974). Deeds o f Gods and H e r o e s , by Donald C r e i g h t o n ( M a c M i l l a n o f Canada, T o r o n t o , 1967). M y t h o l o g y , by E d i t h H a m i l t o n (The New A m e r i c a n L i b r a r y , T o r o n t o , 1 9 4 0 ) . Men and Gods, by Rex Warner (Heinemann E d u c a t i o n a l Books L t d . , London, 1950). Drama IV ( J u l i u s C a e s a r ) e d . , by Herman Voaden ( M a c M i l l a n Co. o f Canada, T o r o n t o , 1 9 6 5 ) . H i r o s h i m a , by John H e r s e y (Bantam Book, A l f r e d A. K n o f p , I n c . , New Y o r k , 1960). Man i n t h e E x p o s i t o r y Mode, ed., by S a r a h S o l o t a r o f f (McDougal, L i t t e l l & Co., E v a n s t o n , I l l i n o i s , 1 9 7 0 ) . P o e t r y : An A n t h o l o g y f o r Secondary S c h o o l s , ed., K. P h y l l i s Dover ( H o l t , R i n e h a r t and W i n s t o n o f Canada, L t d . , 1965). Language and C o m p o s i t i o n T e x t s : L e a r n i n g E n g l i s h , by P h i l i p Penner and Ruth M c C o n n e l l ( M a c M i l l a n , T o r o n t o , 1 9 6 3 ) . The Language o f Man I I and I I I , (McDougal, L i t t e l l , 1 972). Language L i v e s , by Ron Shepherd and A l a n Coman ( N e l s o n & Sons Don M i l l s , O n t a r i o , 1 9 7 2 ) . Language I s , by Shepherd and Coman ( N e l s o n & Sons, Don M i l l s , O n t a r i o , 1.971). Dynamics o f Language, I I and I I I , ed.. by G l a t t h o r n , K r e i d l e r , and Heiman (D.C. Heath & Co., 1971). 84 Measurement Ability. The students' a b i l i t y was measured by the Beta Test: Form EM, Otis Q u i c k - S c o r i n g Mental Ability Tests: New Edition ( I . Q . scores, mean 100), and by the letter grade which represented the student's achievement in English for the previous terms. Syntactic Maturity: Sample Size. In order to measure the syntactic maturity of students' free writing, i t was necessary for the researcher to obtain a representative sample of that writing. Studies had shown that a writer's performance could vary because of day-to-day fluctuations and because of the mode of discourse. Braddock (1963) summarized the research of Kincaid (1953), who discovered that the writing of college freshmen, especially that of the better writers, varied from day to day. O'Hare referred to the work of Anderson (1960), who found that the grade eight students whom he tested on eight different occasions showed sufficient evidence of fluctuation in their writing for him to conclude that a writer variable must be taken into account when rating compositions for research purposes. In Kincaid's study, he also noted that specific aspects of structure, like length and complexity of clause, were related to the mode of discourse. In this respect, his findings were similar to those of Johnson (1967) who examined the writing of elementary students. Seegers, as early as 1933, showed that mode of discourse was r e l a t e d t o s y n t a x , and Hunt (1964) p o i n t e d o u t t h a t t h e w r i t e r ' s s e n t e n c e s t r u c t u r e was a f f e c t e d by t h e t y p e o f w r i t i n g he was d o i n g . A more r e c e n t s t u d y , by V e a l and T i l l m a n (1971) examined t h e s i m i l a r -i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e r a t e d q u a l i t y o f c o m p o s i t i o n s w r i t t e n i n f o u r modes: d e s c r i p t i v e , n a r r a t i v e , e x p o s i t o r y , and a r g u m e n t a t i v e , a t t h r e e e l e m e n t a r y grade l e v e l s . They found t h a t t h e b i g g e s t d i f f e r e n c e s between grade l e v e l s o c c u r r e d i n t h e e x p o s i t o r y and n a r r a t i v e modes. R e s e a r c h t h u s i n d i c a t e d t h a t samples o f s t u d e n t s ' w r i t i n g s h o u l d i n c l u d e more t h a n one t y p e o f d i s c o u r s e , as w e l l as a v a r i e t y o f t o p i c s , t o be w r i t t e n a t d i f f e r e n t t i m e s . I n a t t e m p t i n g t o d i s c o v e r an i d e a l sample s i z e , t he p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h e r n o t e d t h a t o t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s had come t o v a r y i n g c o n -c l u s i o n s . C h o t l a s (1944) f o u n d t h a t 1000-word samples w r i t t e n by j u n i o r h i g h s t u d e n t s were as e f f e c t i v e as 2000-word samples. O ' D o n n e l l and Hunt (1970) used a 300-word sample o f t h e w r i t i n g o f f o u r t h g r a d e r s . M e l l o n ' s e x a m i n a t i o n o f 90 T - U n i t s gave him a 1000-word sample f o r each t e s t t i m e (Hunt had found t h a t t h e av e r a g e l e n g t h o f T - U n i t f o r grade e i g h t s t u d e n t s was e l e v e n w o r d s ) . O'Hare examined 50 T - U n i t s , and t h i s gave him a p p r o x i m a t e l y 500-word samples a t each t e s t t i m e . Combs used a 300-word sample, s t a t i n g t h a t Hunt and O' D o n n e l l had s u g g e s t e d t h i s s i z e as a minimum ( 1 9 7 0 ) . M e l l o n ' s and 0'Hare's samples were t a k e n from t h e t h r e e modes o f d i s c o u r s e : n a r r a t i v e , d e s c r i p t i v e , and e x p o s i t o r y , b u t Combs used o n l y t h e n a r r a t i v e and d e s c r i p t i v e modes. 86 I n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y , i t was d e c i d e d t o g i v e t h r e e p r e -t e s t , and t h r e e p o s t - t e s t c o m p o s i t i o n s , a l s o i n p a r a l l e l form, one i n e a ch o f t h e t h r e e modes, and t o examine the f i r s t t e n T - U n i t s o f each. L e n g t h o f T - U n i t s and o f c l a u s e s i n t h e t h r e e p r e - t e s t compo-s i t i o n s were a v e r a g e d , as were t h e s c o r e s on t h e s e i n d i c e s i n t h e t h r e e p o s t - t e s t c o m p o s i t i o n s . I n f o l l o w i n g t h i s p r a c t i c e t h e r e s e a r c h e r was r e p l i c a t i n g t h e p r o c e d u r e s o f M e l l o n , O'Hare, and Combs. Such methods y i e l d e d a w r i t i n g sample o f a t l e a s t 350 words a t each t e s t t i m e . I n a d d i t i o n , O ' D o n n e l l ' s Aluminum passage was g i v e n a t p r e - and p o s t - t e s t t i m e s . A l l p r e - and p o s t - t e s t w r i t i n g was done i n c l a s s i n o r d e r t o e n s u r e t h a t s t u d e n t s were n o t a s s i s t e d . No a t t e m p t was made t o i n f l u e n c e t h e s t u d e n t s ' e f f o r t s ; n e i t h e r s e n t e n c e s t r u c t u r e n o r any o t h e r a s p e c t o f h i s w r i t i n g was s t r e s s e d . C o m p o s i t i o n t o p i c s , i n A and B f o r m s , may be seen i n A p p e n d i x 'F . R u l e s f o r A n a l y s i s O'Hare e x p l a i n e d a number o f t h e r u l e s he used t o segment each s t u d e n t ' s w r i t i n g i n t o T - U n i t s , and as t h e p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h e r f o l l o w e d t h e s e p r o c e d u r e s , a b r i e f summary o f them m i g h t be a p p r o p r i a t e h e r e . Fragments w h i c h r e s u l t e d from t h e o m i s s i o n o f a word c o u n t e d as a T - U n i t , as t h e r e s e a r c h e r s u p p l i e d t h e m i s s i n g word; o t h e r f r a g m e n t s were d i s c a r d e d . U n i n t e l l i g i b l e s t r i n g s o f words, r e f e r r e d t o by Hunt (1965, p. 6) and O ' D o n n e l l e t a l . , (1967, p. 39) as " g a r b l e s " were d i s c a r d e d . I n s e g m e n t i n g d i r e c t 87 discourse, O'Hare counted the f i r s t expression a f t e r the speaker tag (he said) as a d i r e c t object (noun clause), but any further T-Units a f t e r t h i s f i r s t expression were segmented as separate T-Units: In her s o f t gentle voice Marsha said, 'I r e a l l y l i k e you, John. | However, Clarence's father i s a m i l l i o n a i r e | and I l i k e the idea of Palm Beach. In t h i s procedure O'Hare d i f f e r e d from Mellon, who discarded speaker tags. Very l i t t l e d i r e c t discourse was used by the Grade 10 students i n t h i s study, but i f i t was, the researcher followed 0'Hare's method i n th i s and i n the counting of clauses. In the l a t t e r process, both O'Hare and Mellon used Hunt's technique: In counting the number of clauses i n the present writings, a clause was taken to be a structure with a subject and a f i n i t e verb. I f subjects were coordinated, they merely lengthened the clause, as did coordinated verbs, (p. 15) Words per T-Unit were obtained by d i v i d i n g the number of words by the number of T-Units. The counting of words followed the format set by O'Hare i n that compound nouns written as one word counted as one word.. Compound nouns written as two words and hyphenated word pai r s counted as two words. Dates l i k e A p r i l 2 counted as two words, as d i d contractions such as "shouldn't." Words per clause were found by d i v i d i n g the number of words by the number of subordinate and main clauses. 88 Choices of Indices The number of indices used by Mellon, O'Hare, and Combs to c a l c u l a t e s y n t a c t i c maturity varied: Mellon used twelve, O'Hare s i x , and Combs, two (words per T-Unit and words per clause). Hunt had found these two were the most dis c r i m i n a t i n g measures of s y n t a c t i c maturity, and O'Donnell had confirmed h i s findings. Hunt's (1965) findings had shown that the subordination r a t i o was the t h i r d best measure, but i n h i s 1970 study, he found that subordination reached a plateau by grade eight, and that w r i t e r s , as they matured, increas-i n g l y consolidated sentences to " l e s s than a predicate or l e s s than a clause." This being so, the present researcher, who was dealing with Grade 10 w r i t i n g , decided against using the subordination ratio,, p a r t i c u l a r l y as Hunt had found that T-Unit length correlated s i g n i f i -cantly with the number of adjective clauses. In an e f f o r t to determine which indices would be most appropriate f o r the present study, the researcher re-examined Hunt's data, and noted that he had found a second s i g n i f i c a n t trend to be the increased use of noun clauses i n older w r i t e r s , who did not use noun clauses i n d i r e c t discourse, as younger wirters did, but as objects of verbs l i k e "say." The use of noun clauses increased from 170 i n Grade 4 to 290 i n Grade 12. However, Hunt added that though there were too few to be tested s t a t i s t i c a l l y , he suspected that those noun clauses which did not function as objects of the above type of verbs, but served instead as subjects, complements, o r o b j e c t s o f p r e p o s i t i o n s m i g h t be one o f t h e b e s t i n d i c e s o f m a t u r i t y , as t h e use o f t h e s e c o n s t r u c t i o n s i n c r e a s e d m a r k e d l y , f r o m 16 i n Grade 4 to 45 i n Grade 8, t o 63 i n Grade 12. Hunt a l s o d e t e r m i n e d t h e o l d e r w r i t e r s used more n o n - c l a u s e m o d i f i e r s o f nouns, and t h a t a v e r a g e c l a u s e l e n g t h c o r r e l a t e d s i g n i f i -c a n t l y w i t h t h e s e noun m o d i f i e r s . F u r t h e r , he n o t e d t h a t t h e use o f t h r e e n e a r - c l a u s e n o m i n a l s , i n f i n i t i v e s , g e r u n d s , and n o n - r e s t r i c t i v e a p p o s i t i v e s , i n c r e a s e d s u b s t a n t i a l l y w i t h grade l e v e l (119 i n Grade 4, 162 i n Grade 8, and 289 i n Grade 1 2 ) , and t h a t t h e s e " n e a r c l a u s e " n o m i n a l s were more d i s t i n c t l y i n d i c a t i v e o f m a t u r i t y t h a n noun c l a u s e s . I n f a c t , use o f t h e gerund i n c r e a s e d more d r a m a t i c a l l y f rom grade t o grade t h a n any o t h e r s t r u c t u r e . Hunt's d a t a showed t h a t c l a u s e l e n g t h c o r r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h t h e number o f gerunds (.666) and T - U n i t l e n g t h c o r r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h t h e number o f i n f i n i t i v e n o m i n a l s (.368). As g e r unds, i n f i n i t i v e s , and p a r t i c i p l e s were s t r u c t u r e s P o t t e r had a l s o found to be much more p r e v a l e n t i n t h e c o m p o s i t i o n s o f good w r i t e r s , t h e r e s e a r c h e r had c o n t e m p l a t e d a c o u n t o f t h e s e v e r b a l forms as a measure o f s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y , b u t t h e r e appeared t o be good e v i d e n c e t h a t T - U n i t l e n g t h and c l a u s e l e n g t h w o u l d measure th e f r e q u e n c y w i t h w h i c h t h e s e s t r u c t u r e s were us e d . Hunt a l s o f o u n d t h a t o l d e r w r i t e r s had g r e a t e r " c o m p l e x i t y " o f n o m i n a l s and he b e l i e v e d t h a t t h i s c o m p l e x i t y c o u n t c o u l d be one o f t h e b e s t i n d i c e s o f m a t u r i t y . A g a i n h i s f i n d i n g s c o i n c i d e d w i t h P o t t e r ' s , as P o t t e r n o t e d t h a t i n t h e c o m p o s i t i o n s o f t h e good 9 0 writers the complexity of nominals ( p a r t i c u l a r l y of objects) was much greater than i n those of the poor w r i t e r s . Hunt's findings, more-over, showed that a complexity count measured factors which were d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to the process of lengthening T-Units. In h i s very comprehensive study, Hunt also analyzed the use of verb a u x i l i a r i e s and found that the use of passives increased s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n the upper grades, a development Potter had noted when he found more passives were used by mature w r i t e r s . Hunt's s t a t i s t i c s indicated that for a l l students, clause length correlated s i g n i f i c a n t l y with the use of passives. A summary of Hunt's findings would thus show that the most s i g n i f i c a n t i n d i c a t i o n s of growth between grade l e v e l s were: the use of adjective clauses; the use of noun clauses i m p o s i t i o n s other than objects of verbs l i k e " s a i d " ; non-clause modifiers of nouns; near-clause nominals, and passives. According to Hunt's r e s u l t s , a l l of these factors r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y to T-Unit length and clause length. Therefore, the researcher decided that these two indices would be adequate f o r her purpose. Writing Quality Other Studies A review of the methods used i n e a r l i e r studies to compare the q u a l i t y of w r i t i n g i n the control and experimental groups re-vealed c e r t a i n f a c t s : 1. Because of the l i m i t e d resources for marking great numbers of papers, only a small sample of the compositions written by each group were compared; i n Mellon's study t h i s comprised 8% of the t o t a l , i n O'Hare's about 7%, and i n Combs about 20%. Combs's>students, however, wrote f a r fewer compositions, a t o t a l of 400, i n comparison to 4,446 for Mellon, and 830 for O'Hare. 2. In these three studies, q u a l i t y of composition was judged by a number of w e l l - q u a l i f i e d and experienced teachers (6 for Mellon, 8 for O'Hare, and 7 for Combs), each of whom was i n -structed to use the rapid-reading technique suggested by Noyes (1963), and employed by the College Entrance Examination Board. Braddock (1963) stated that: The two p r i n c i p a l means of seeking v a l i d and r e l i a b l e ratings despite the colleague v a r i a b l e are the 'general impression' method of r a t i n g compositions and the 'analytic method.' In the general impression method, a number of rat e r s , working independently, quickly read and rate each composition, the mean of t h e i r ratings being used as the f i n a l r a t i n g of each paper. According to Wiseman's pro-cedure . . . 'keeping up a rate of about 50 per hour' to insure that he makes up h i s mind quickly, (p. 12) In discussing the a n a l y t i c method, Braddock stated that i t might be more e f f e c t i v e i n reducing colleague v a r i a b l e for the argumentative papers of older students, but that i t was more time-consuming, and more expensive, considerations of considerable importance to most researchers. Raters for Mellon and O'Hare were asked to base t h e i r judg.^ ments equally on f i v e f a c t o r s : ideas, organization, s t y l e , sentence structure, and vocabulary. Procedures were standardized during an i n i t i a l p r a c t i c e session, as Buxton (1958) claimed that rater t r a i n i n g helped r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y . Buxton stated that graders should review together a compo-s i t i o n they had j u s t rated to insure a common i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e i r c r i t e r i a . Braddock remarked on the frequency with which rater t r a i n i n g was reported i n studies which reported high r e l i a b i l i t i e s , (p. 14) Mellon selected 35 students by random draw from each of h i s three treatment groups at only the high average and average l e v e l , and selected two composi-tions per test (pre and post) for each student. Using a 1 to 5 r a t i n g scale, three markers evaluated one of the two compositions, and the other three judged the second. Thus each student had s i x ratings, which were summed, for each test time, with scores ranging from 6 to 30. These methods appeared to be more comprehensive than the "forced choice between matched p a i r s " design used by O'Hare, or the expansion of 0'Hare's design used by Combs, but Mellon had more funds a v a i l a b l e , as he was working on a government research grant. A l l compositions that were evaluated f o r w r i t i n g q u a l i t y were f i r s t typed, usually by a school secretary also unaware of the experiment, who corrected s p e l l i n g and punctuation. 93 Mellon simply stated: These compositions were typewritten so that s p e l l i n g and punctuation errors could be corrected, and author and group i d e n t i f i c a t i o n omitted. O'Hare commented that h i s study: . . . was interested i n the students' w r i t i n g a b i l i t y and not at a l l i n t h e i r s p e l l i n g , punctuation, or handwriting t a l e n t s . In order to eliminate the possible e f f e c t s of these extraneous factors on the evaluators' judgments, the t h i r t y p a i r s of compositions were typewritten so that s p e l l i n g and punctuation could be corrected. In support of h i s p o s i t i o n , he quoted Braddock: Even though rat e r s are requested to consider i n t h e i r evaluations such a t t r i b u t e s as content and organization, they may permit t h e i r impressions of the grammar and mechanics of the composition to create a halo e f f e c t which suffuses t h e i r general reactions. (A converse emphasis, of course, can j u s t as e a s i l y create the halo). (p. 14) Braddock also wrote of s i m i l a r halo e f f e c t s being reported by both Starring (1952) and by Diedrich, French, and Carlton (1961), and on pp. 49-50, i n a discussion of the factors that contributed to making a good composition, Braddock argued that: However important accurate s p e l l i n g may be i n the c l a r i t y and s o c i a l a c c e p t a b i l i t y of composition, many of the factors of good s p e l l i n g do not seem to be c l o s e l y i n -volved with the factors of good composition. One might argue that the samples f o r comparison of w r i t i n g q u a l i t y were too small, or that Mellon's r a t e r s , using a 1-5 r a t i n g scale, might have examined the papers more c l o s e l y , and though they examined only 8% of the corpus, t h i s percentage represented con-siderably more papers (420) than did O'Hare's 7% (60), or Combs 20% (88)• In any case, the evidence was surely not conclusive i n any of these studies, as each of these researchers was p r i n c i p a l l y con-cerned with e s t a b l i s h i n g gains i n sy n t a c t i c maturity. The e f f o r t to see whether these gains were r e f l e c t e d i n the o v e r a l l q u a l i t y of the wr i t i n g seemed to be a secondary consideration. O'Hare and Combs both reported that t h e i r r a t e r s found that the s y n t a c t i c gains of the experimental groups were r e f l e c t e d i n the q u a l i t y of t h e i r w r i t i n g , but i n these r e s u l t s a number of variables should be considered. Both used the "matched p a i r s " design, and thus no q u a n t i f i a b l e mark was assigned to the compositions being judged. As a r e s u l t no mean scores could be calculated, and no F-r a t i o s or p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l s computed. However, t h i s lack of s t a t i s t i c a l evidence was not as important as the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n by the raters of the term " q u a l i t y . " Combs i n f e r r e d from O'Hare's procedure "that the design measured a s p e c i f i c aspect of w r i t i n g q u a l i t y , ease or e f f i c i e n c y of (syntactic) expression." As a r e s u l t Combs asked h i s markers to make "a h o l i s t i c judgment of ease of expression." (p. 141) This statement seemed to imply that smoothness of sentence structure was more important than the other four c r i t e r i a . . I f t h i s were so, then the gains i n sy n t a c t i c maturity of the experimental groups should enable them to write a better " q u a l i t y " of compositions than the cont r o l group. 95 P r e s e n t S t u d y I n o r d e r t o compare t h e q u a l i t y o f the c o m p o s i t i o n s w r i t t e n by t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l group w i t h t h o s e o f t h e c o n t r o l g roup, t h e r e s e a r c h e r a d o p t e d O'Hare's method o f h a v i n g r a t e r s make a f o r c e d c h o i c e between matched p a i r s o f c o m p o s i t i o n s by s i m p l y i n d i c a t i n g w h i c h o f t h e two was b e t t e r . T h i s method was n o t c o n s i d e r e d i d e a l , b u t a l e s s time-consuming p r o c e s s t h a n t h e use o f some s o r t o f o r d i n a l s c a l e , s u c h as a l e t t e r grade o r a 1 t o 5 s c a l e , when no f u n d s were a v a i l a b l e t o pay m a r k e r s . Members o f t h e c o n t r o l group were l i s t e d and numbered i n a s c e n d i n g o r d e r o f I.Q. f o r b o t h boys and g i r l s . A s i m i l a r l i s t was c o m p l e t e d f o r t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l group. A s u b j e c t was randomly chosen from t h e c o n t r o l group, and a s u b j e c t o f t h e same s e x and a p p r o x i m a t e l y e q u a l I.Q. ( w i t h i n f i v e p o i n t s ) and w r i t i n g a b i l i t y was chosen from t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l group t o make up a p a i r . T h i s random p a i r i n g r e s u l t e d i n 27 p a i r s . A l t h o u g h t h e s t u d e n t s had w r i t t e n t h r e e p r e - t r e a t m e n t and t h r e e p o s t - t r e a t m e n t c o m p o s i t i o n s , t h e r e s e a r c h e r a g a i n d e c i d e d t o f o l l o w O'Hare's example and use o n l y t h e p o s t - t r e a t m e n t c o m p o s i t i o n s when comparing t h e w r i t i n g q u a l i t y o f t h e two g r o u p s , as i t was t h e w r i t i n g done a t t h e end o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t t h a t was o f p r i m a r y i n t e r e s t t o t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r . I n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y , i t was d e c i d e d t o use c o m p o s i t i o n s i n t h e d e s c r i p t i v e and t h e e x p o s i t o r y modes, as t h e s e were t h e ones f a v o u r e d by t h e Grade 10's. The matched p a i r s o f s u b j e c t s were d i v i d e d i n t o two s e t s , w i t h t h i r t e e n p a i r s i n one 96 and fourteen pairs in the other. Pairs of subjects were assigned to these two sets in a manner which would give approximately equal numbers of the same sex and ab i l i t y level to each group. Thus f i f t y -four compositions were collected in a l l , twenty-eight in the descriptive, forming fourteen of the pairs, and twenty-six i n the expository, forming the other thirteen pairs. The evaluators were nine English teachers, a l l of whom had excellent qualifications and experience (see Appendix.G ), and none of whom had any knowledge of the research in progress. These teachers were asked to make a single intuitive judgment of the overall quality of the compositions, basing their decision equally upon the five c r i t e r i a of ideas, organization, style, sentence struc-ture, and vocabulary. No emphasis was la i d upon any one factor. The teachers met in the English offices before beginning the marking, and there followed a brief discussion of the relative merits of two sample pairs of compositions, one pair exemplifying good writing and the other exemplifying poor writing. In an effort to establish some common understanding of the c r i t e r i a , raters agreed that the assess-ment of (1) ideas would be by the reasoning or imagining that had gone into them, (2) organization by the order and clarity with which ideas had been put together, (3) style by the way in which the writer had captured the attention of the reader, (4) sentences by the fluency of expression, and the avoidance of fragments, run-on or short, choppy structures, or complicated, unclear constructions, and (5) diction by the suitability of vocabulary to subject. Teachers were urged to read r a p i d l y , keeping the f i v e c r i t e r i a i n mind as they placed a check at the top of the paper i n each p a i r which they judged to be superior. Follman and Anderson (1967) and Marzano (1975) had shown that the h o l i s t i c method of marking could produce a high degree of r e l i a b i l i t y . The markers were each given a folder containing twenty-seven p a i r s of numbered compo-s i t i o n s , stapled together. Each marker received h i s set of papers assembled i n a d i f f e r e n t order, so that i t would not be possible to compare judgments. In f a c t , they were s p e c i f i c a l l y asked not to discuss t h e i r evaluations with each other, and a coding system was used i n order that the teachers had no idea to which group any composition belonged. A paper could score between 0 and 9, depending upon how many of the markers chose i t as the better. Before the marking commenced, the researcher had followed the p r a c t i c e of Mellon, O'Hare, Potter, and Combs i n having the p a i r s of compositions typed by the school secretary. The s p e l l i n g was corrected, but the punctuation was not, as i t was thought that t h i s might a l t e r the sentence structure, and influence the judgment of the markers. In hypothesizing that the q u a l i t y of w r i t i n g , as well as the maturity of sentence structure, could be enhanced as e f f i c -i e n t l y by a study of grammar as by a sentence-combining approach, the researcher had to consider .how to keep the control group's sentence combining and w r i t i n g workshops free of the influence of grammar. This was r e a l l y not d i f f i c u l t , as no grammatical termino-logy was used i n the text, Sentencecraft, and i n the marking of 98 written assignments, the marker limited herself, as mentioned earlier, to a general comment on the quality, originality, ingenuity, or humour of the work. Similarly, in marking written work assigned in middle group classes where the regular curriculum of Grade 10 was carried on, the researcher made no reference to sentence structure; instead emphasis was placed on ideas, organization, and diction. 99 CHAPTER 3 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS Assessment of Syntactic Maturity A major part of the results of the present study has been shown in Table I, which represents the mean scores of two dependent measures, T-Unit Length and Clause Length, obtained from students' own compositions (free writing), and from their revision of the Aluminum passage. The free writing was examined f i r s t , and an analysis of covariance was performed on the words per T-Unit scores obtained in the 2 (Experimental versus Control) x 2 (Repeated measures: Pre- versus Post-tests) design with English marks and I.Q. scores as covariates. The results of the analysis are presented in Appendix A. The most important question in the present study was whether or not the experimental-grammar group had achieved greater gains in syntactic maturity, as measured f i r s t in terms of T-Unit length, than did the sentence-combining control group. Since there was no reason why pre-test scores of both groups should di f f e r , s t a t i s t i c a l evidence was sought by examining the interaction effect between the two treatment groups and the time of testing (pre- and TABLE I MEAN T-UNIT AND CLAUSE LENGTH SCORES OF PRE- AND POST-TEST ON FREE WRITING AND ALUMINUM PASSAGES FOR EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS ON THEIR MEAN I.Q. AND ENGLISH ACHIEVEMENT SCORES I n d i c e s F r e e W r i t i n g Aluminum Passage T- U n i t C l a u s e L e n g t h T-U n i t C l a u s e L e n g t h Time o f T e s t P r e P o s t P r e P o s t P r e P o s t P r e P o s t I.Q. E n g l i s h Mark E x p e r i -* R. 12.77 14.42 9.47 9.97 11.48 13.43 7.54 8.05 109.7 B-m e n t a l A. 12.73 14.40 9.48 9.96 11.52 13.48 7.54 8.05 C o n t r o l R. 12.26 16.74 8.78 10.35 10.55 16.65 7.29 8.58 110.2 B-A. 12.20 17.07 8.74 10.56 10.61 16.49 7.35 8.59 R. = Raw S c o r e s A. = A d j u s t e d S c o r e s o o 101 p o s t - t e s t i n g ) . As c o u l d be seen i n A p p e n d i x A, t h e r e was s i g n i f i -c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t between t h e two, J? ( 1 , 49) = 12.50, p_<.001. T h i s meant t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n t i a l g a i n s o f t h e c o n t r o l s t u d e n t s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r t h a n t h o s e o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l group, i . e . , 4.87 v e r s u s 1.67 words p e r T - U n i t . These r e s u l t s were d i a m e t r i c -a l l y opposed t o what was e x p e c t e d from t h e h y p o t h e s i z e d r o l e o f t h e e x p e rimental-grammar group. I t s h o u l d be n o t e d here;.that E n g l i s h a c h i e v e m e n t s c o r e s d i d a c c o u n t f o r some o f t h e v a r i a t i o n i n T - U n i t l e n g t h s c o r e s , F_ ( 1 , 47) = 4.82 p_ < .033 ( B e t a w e i g h t = .31) and t h a t I.Q. s c o r e s d i d a l s o , b u t t o a l e s s e r d e g r e e , F_ ( 1 , 27) = 3.22, £ < .08 ( B e t a w e i g h t . 0 8 ) . I n o r d e r t o compare t h e s y n t a c t i c g a i n s o f t h e two groups on t h e words p e r c l a u s e i n d e x i n t h e i r f r e e w r i t i n g , a second a n a l y s i s o f c o v a r i a n c e , u s i n g t h e 2 x 2 m a t r i x and t h e same two c o v a r i a t e s , was c a r r i e d o u t . The r e s u l t s o f t h i s a n a l y s i s , found i n A p p e n d i x B, i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e i n t e r a c t i o n between t h e two groups and t h e t i m e o f t e s t i n g , F_ ( 1 , 49) = 4.60, p_<.037 was s i g n i f i c a n t . T h i s meant t h a t t h e c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s d i f f e r e n t i a l g a i n s were a g a i n g r e a t e r t h a n t h o s e o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l group (1.82 v e r s u s .48 on t h e words p e r c l a u s e s c o r e s ) . Thus t h e d i f f e r e n t i a l g a i n s o f the grammar s t u d y group were s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s on b o t h i n d i c e s , T - U n i t and C l a u s e l e n g t h , t h a n t h e c o n t r o l group, c o n t r a r y t o t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s o f t h e r e s e a r c h e r . E n g l i s h a c h i e v e m e n t s c o r e s d i d a c c o u n t f o r some o f d i f f e r e n c e i n c l a u s e l e n g t h s c o r e s , 102 F ( 1 , 47) = 8.19, p_ < .006 ( B e t a w e i g h t = . 2 8 ) , b u t I.Q. s c o r e s , F ( 1 , 47) = 2.11, £ < .153 ( B e t a w e i g h t .04) d i d n o t . I n t h e w r i t i n g o f t h e Aluminum pa s s a g e , t h e i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t between t h e two t r e a t m e n t groups and t h e t i m e o f t e s t i n g on t h e words p e r T - U n i t i n d e x , shown i n A p p e n d i x C, i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e r e was s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t between the two, F_ ( 1 , 49) = 14.81, p < .001. Thus t h e d i f f e r e n t i a l g a i n s o f t h e s e n t e n c e - c o m b i n i n g c o n t r o l group were s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r t h a n t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l group (5.88 v e r s u s 1.96) i n T - U n i t l e n g t h s c o r e s . I t was a p p a r e n t t h a t the t r e n d e s t a b l i s h e d i n the f r e e w r i t i n g , where t h e g a i n s o f the c o n t r o l group were s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r t h a n t h o s e o f t h e e x p e r i -m e n t a l g r o u p , was r e p e a t e d i n t h e Aluminum w r i t i n g . E n g l i s h a c h i e v e -ment s c o r e s , F ( 1 , 47) = .002, p_ < .97 ( B e t a w e i g h t .007) w o u l d n o t a f f e c t t h e r e s u l t s , b u t I.Q. s c o r e s , F ( 1 , 47) = 8.46), p_ < .006 ( B e t a w e i g h t .14) w o u l d . A f o u r t h a n a l y s i s o f c o v a r i a n c e , found i n A p p e n d i x D, showed t h a t t h e r e was s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between t h e two t r e a t m e n t groups and t h e t i m e o f t e s t i n g on t h e words p e r c l a u s e i n d e x i n t h e w r i t i n g o f t h e Aluminum p a s s a g e . The i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t , F ( 1 , 49) = 2.50, p < .120 d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n t i a l g a i n s o f t h e c o n t r o l group were n o t r e l i a b l y s u p e r i o r t o t h o s e o f the e x p e r i m e n t a l group (1.24 v e r s u s . 5 1 ) . Once a g a i n the e x p e c -t a t i o n s h y p o t h e s i z e d f o r t h e grammar group d i d n o t m a t e r i a l i z e . The E n g l i s h a c h i e v e m e n t s c o r e s , _F ( 1 , 47) = .28, p_ < .60 ( B e t a w e i g h t -.03) d i d n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t t h e r e s u l t s n o r d i d t h e I.Q. s c o r e s , F ( 1 , 47) = .78, j> < .38 ( B e t a w e i g h t . 0 2 ) . 103 The analysis of the data thus indicated that the n u l l hypothesis, assuming no di f f e r e n c e between the two groups, had to be rejected, as there was s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the two groups. However, th i s d i f f e r e n c e proved to be i n the opposite d i r e c t i o n from that hypothesized, i . e . , the s i g n i f i c a n t gains were made by the control group rather than by the experimental group. Assessment of Writing Quality The next consideration i n the analyses of data was to test the second hypothesis: that the experimental group would write compositions that would be judged by a group of experienced English teachers to be better i n o v e r a l l q u a l i t y than those written by the control group. In order to carry out t h i s t e s t fourteen expository and t h i r t e e n d e s c r i p t i v e compositions were selected from both the cont r o l and experimental groups and paired as described above. Judgments of o v e r a l l q u a l i t y of w r i t i n g could be analyzed i n terms of the number of times an experimental or a control compo-s i t i o n was chosen from a matched p a i r , regardless of which teachers had chosen i t , as shown i n Section A - l and A-2 of Table I I . The judgments could also be analyzed i n r e l a t i o n to the t o t a l number of times each marker had chosen e i t h e r experimental or control compositions to be superior, without accounting for the s p e c i f i c p a i r s of compositions from which the choices were made, as shown i n Sections B-1 and B-2 of Table I I . 104 TABLE I I E x p e r i m e n t a l o r { C o n t r o l C o m p o s i t i o n s Chosen by N i n e E x p e r i e n c e d E n g l i s h T e a c h e r s S e c t i o n A 1 From F o u r t e e n Matched P a i r s o f E x p o s i t o r y C o m p o s i t i o n s N i n e T e a c h e r s ' C o m p o s i t i o n P a i r No. C h o i c e s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 :.12 .13 :.14 Exp e r imen t a l 8 3 2 3 7 2 8 3 5 8 5 6 5 9 C o n t r o l 1 6 7 6 2 7 1 6 4 1 4 3 4 0 S i g n ( E - C ) + - - - + - + - + + + + + + N = 14 r = 5 2 From T h i r t e e n Matched P a i r s o f D e s c r i p t i v e C o m p o s i t i o n s N i n e T e a c h e r s ' C o m p o s i t i o n P a i r No. C h o i c e s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 E x p e r i m e n t a l 4 6 3 3 5 6 7 7 5 4 2 0 2 C o n t r o l 5 3 6 6 4 3 2 2 4 5 7 9 7 S i g n ( E - C ) - + - - + + + + + - - - -N = 13 r = 6 S e c t i o n B A Summary o f M a r k e r s ' C h o i c e s i n Each Mode JL 2 E x p o s i t o r y D e s c r i p t i v e M a r k e r E x p e r i m e n t a l C o n t r o l S i g n E x p e r i m e n t a l C o n t r o l S i g n 1 10 4 + 6 7 2 8 6 + 6 7 -3 9 5 + 6 7 -4 8 6 + 4 9 -5 8 6 + 10 3 + 6 6 8 - 10 3 + 7 9 5 + 8 5 + 8 9 5 + 3 10 -9 _7 _7 _1_ 12 -N = 14 74 52 r = 1 N = 13 54 63 r = 3 105 S e c t i o n A - l o f T a b l e I I showed t h a t m a r k e r s a s s e s s i n g t h e 14 p a i r s o f e x p o s i t o r y c o m p o s i t i o n s chose 74 o f the e x p e r i m e n t a l and 52 o f t h e c o n t r o l c o m p o s i t i o n s . I n o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h i s d i f f e r e n c e was s i g n i f i c a n t , a s i g n t e s t was used . The number o f p a i r s o f o b s e r v a t i o n s was r e p r e s e n t e d by " r " and t h e " s i g n " was t h e d i f f e r e n c e , shown by a p l u s o r a min u s , between t h e measure-ments made upon t h e two t r e a t m e n t s , e x p e r i m e n t a l and c o n t r o l . The symbol " r " was used t o d e n o t e t h e number o f t i m e s t h e l e s s f r e q u e n t s i g n o c c u r r e d . The n u l l h y p o t h e s i s h e r e was t h a t e a c h d i f f e r e n c e had a p r o b a b i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n w i t h median 0. R e s u l t s o f t h e s i g n t e s t showed t h a t t h e o b s e r v e d " r " e q u a l l e d 5, w h i c h , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e t a b l e g i v i n g t h e c r i t i c a l v a l u e s o f " r " ( s e e A p p e n d i x J ) was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t , as t h e r e q u i r e d " r " a t p < .05 l e v e l , was 2. S e c t i o n A-2 o f T a b l e I I i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e m a r k e r s j u d g i n g 13 p a i r s o f d e s c r i p t i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s s e l e c t e d 63 c o n t r o l and 54 e x p e r i m e n t a l c o m p o s i t i o n s . When t h e s i g n t e s t was a p p l i e d h e r e , t h e o b s e r v e d " r " was fo u n d t o be 6, w h i c h was a l s o n o t s i g n i f i c a n t a t £ < .05 l e v e l . I n a s i m i l a r manner a s i g n t e s t was p e r f o r m e d on S e c t i o n B-1. A l t h o u g h e x p e r i m e n t a l c o m p o s i t i o n s were chosen as s u p e r i o r by s e v e n o u t o f the n i n e t e a c h e r s , t h e s e c h o i c e s o f e x p e r i m e n t a l c o m p o s i t i o n s d i d n o t appear t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y s u p e r i o r a t p_< .05 106 l e v e l (required " r " = 0, observed " r " = 1). Another sign test was ca r r i e d out with Section B-2 data, the r e s u l t s of which showed no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the choices of experimental and c o n t r o l compositions (required " r " = 0, observed " r " = 3). Summary A. Analysis of the Data on the Two Indices of Syntactic Maturity: 1. In both the free w r i t i n g and the r e v i s i o n of the Aluminum passage, there were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s , at the .001 l e v e l , between the mean change scores i n T-Unit length of the control group and the experimental group. The sentence-combining control group had s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater growth than the experimental group. 2. On the words per clause index, the growth i n s y n t a c t i c maturity of the control group was s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater, at the .04 l e v e l , than that of the experimental group. B. Analysis of the Data on the Quality of the Writing Sample Judged by Nine Markers Showed: 1. There were some differences between the markers' choices i n the two modes, as they judged the experimental composi-tions superior i n the expository mode, and the c o n t r o l superior i n the d e s c r i p t i v e mode. When sign tests were used to test the differences between the number of times an experimental or a control composition was chosen from a matched p a i r , the observed " r " was not s i g n i f i c a n t at p < .05 l e v e l . S i m i l a r l y , when the data was analyzed to t e s t the d i f f e r -ence between the t o t a l number of times each marker had selected e i t h e r an experimental or control composition, t h i s d i f f e r e n c e was not s i g n i f i c a n t at p < .05 l e v e l . 108 CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS The present research was designed to t e s t whether a study of c e r t a i n aspects of t r a d i t i o n a l grammar could be as e f f e c t i v e i n increasing the normal rate of growth of s y n t a c t i c maturity i n the free w r i t i n g of grade ten students as the non-grammatical sentence-combining approach advocated by O'Hare. To do t h i s , two small-group control classes having 29 p u p i l s , and two small group experimental classes having 27 students, were used. The experimental group was concerned p r i m a r i l y with those aspects of sentence structure which Hunt (1965) and Potter (1967) had documented as being c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the w r i t i n g of better students. The control group used the text Sentencecraft, with i t s expanded program of sentence-combining devised by O'Hare. Both groups followed the same curriculum i n regular classes, and i n the small groups, the grammar-study c l a s s did exactly the Same amount of free w r i t i n g , based upon the "Writing Workshops" i n O'Hare's text, as did the sentence-combining c l a s s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , the present study sought the answer to two questions. Would the experimental group, with i t s study of sentence structure (1) be able 109 to show more growth in syntactic maturity in their free writing than the control group and (2) be able to write compositions that would be judged superior in overall quality to those of the control group? Conclusions As a result of the analyses presented in Chapter 3, i t was concluded that the role hypothesized for the experimental grammar group, that i t would achieve greater growth in syntactic maturity than the control group, was not f u l f i l l e d . Contrary to the expec-tations of the researcher, the sentence-combining control group wrote significantly longer clauses, and as a result, longer T-Units, than did the experimental group. When nine experienced English teachers were asked to judge the overall writing quality of fourteen pairs of experimental and control compositions written in the expository mode, they chose more of the experimental than the control compositions. However, when they evaluated thirteen pairs of descriptive compositions, the markers selected more of the control papers. The differences in choices, however, did not appear to be significant in either mode, and as a result the null hypothesis could not be rejected. 110 Discussion of Conclusions  Syntactic Maturity In hypothesizing that the experimental grammar group would achieve more growth i n syn t a c t i c maturity that the sentence-combining control group, the present researcher's expectations were the opposite of those of O'Hare and Combs, both of whom had sought to prove that the p r a c t i c e of sentence-combining would s i g n i f i c a n t l y increase the a b i l i t y of t h e i r experimental cl a s s to manipulate sentence structure. Mellon's hypothesis had been s i m i l a r , except that he had taught h i s experimental group the nomenclature of transformational grammar i n order that the students would understand the grammatical s i g n a l s used i n h i s sentence-combining problems. O'Hare speculated that the reason that Mellon's gains were considerably l e s s than h i s own was because of t h e i r grammar study. O'Hare, and Combs a f t e r him, did not have t h e i r experimental or control groups study any kind of grammar, but Mellon's control group studied t r a d i t i o n a l grammar. The data presented i n Chapter 3 indicated that the present study confirmed the findings of i t s predecessors i n that the experi-mental-grammar group did not succeed i n achieving greater growth i n s y n t a c t i c maturity than did the c o n t r o l group. Section A of Table I I I Indicated that i n the free w r i t i n g , the gains of 4.87 words per T-Unit f o r the control group were considerably higher than those I l l TABLE I I I Co m p a r a t i v e D ata From O t h e r S t u d i e s S e c t i o n A Comparison o f P r e - and Post^-Treatment Change S c o r e s o f t h e S e n t e n c e -Combining and Non-Sentence-Combining Groups o f M e l l o n , O'Hare, Combs, and t h e P r e s e n t S t u d y on One I n d i c e o f S y n t a c t i c M a t u r i t y : Words/T-Unit S e n t e n c e - Non-Sentence-Combining Combining Study Program* Program* & & P r e - P o s t - & P r e - P o s t Grade Group T e s t T e s t Group T e s t T e s t M e l l o n 7 SC-Exp. 9.98 11.25 Grm. - Con. 9.94 10.20 O'Hare 7 SC-Exp. 9.63 15.75 No Grm.-- Cori. 9.69 9.96 Combs 7 SC-Exp. 9.48 11.65 No. Grm. - Con. 9.14 9.67 P r e s e n t 10 SC-Con. 12.20 17.07 Grm. - Exp. 12.73 14.40 SC — S e n t e n c e Combining, Exp. = E x p e r i m e n t a l , Grm. = Grammar, Con. = C o n t r o l S e c t i o n B Hunt's Data on Normal Growth i n F r e e W r i t i n g and i n t h e R e w r i t i n g o f t h e Aluminum P a s s a g e f o r Two I n d i c e s o f S y n t a c t i c M a t u r i t y : Words/T-Unit and Words/Clause Grade F r e e W r i t i n g Aluminum P a s s a g e T - U n i t C l a u s e L e n g t h T - U n i t C l a u s e L e n g t h 4 8.51 6.6 5.42 5.19 6 6.84 5.76 8 11.34 8.1 9.84 6.79 10 10.44 7.35 12 14.4 8.6 11.30 7.85 Ave r a g e A d u l t 11.85 8.40 S u p e r i o r A d u l t 20.3 11.5 14.78 9.95 112 o f M e l l o n ' s o r Combs' s u b j e c t s , b u t n o t q u i t e as h i g h as O'Hare's. T a b l e I i n t h e p r e v i o u s c h a p t e r had i n d i c a t e d t h a t i n t h e i r f r e e w r i t i n g , t h e p o s t - t e s t s c o r e o f t h e p r e s e n t c o n t r o l group on words p e r T - U n i t was 17.07, and on words p e r c l a u s e , 10.56. A c c o r d i n g t o Hunt's d a t a shown i n S e c t i o n B o f T a b l e I I I , t h e s e s c o r e s were n o t f a r f r o m t h e l e v e l o f s u p e r i o r a d u l t s . S i m i l a r l y , on t h e i r w r i t i n g o f t h e Aluminum p a s s a g e , t h e c o n t r o l group's p o s t - t e s t s c o r e s on T - U n i t l e n g t h (16.49) p l a c e d them beyond t h e l e v e l o f s u p e r i o r a d u l t s , and c l a u s e l e n g t h (8.59) p u t them between a v e r a g e and s u p e r i o r a d u l t s . I n c o m p a r i s o n to t h e c o n t r o l g r o u p , t h e g a i n s i n s y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l group seemed n o n - s i g h i f i c a n t , b u t i n c o n t r a s t t o o t h e r s t u d i e s ( T a b l e I I I , S e c t i o n A) t h e y d i d n o t appear t o be. T h e i r g a i n o f 1.67 words p e r T - U n i t i n t h e i r f r e e w r i t i n g compared f a v o u r a b l y w i t h t h e g a i n o f 1.27 words f o r M e l l o n ' s e x p e r i -m e n t a l group, w h i c h he had f ound s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .01 l e v e l . When d a t a f r o m T a b l e I was compared to Hunt's t a b l e s , shown i n S e c t i o n B o f T a b l e I I I , t h e p r e s e n t e x p e r i m e n t a l group's g a i n o f .48 words p e r c l a u s e i n t h e i r f r e e w r i t i n g was c o n s i d e r a b l e , as Hunt i n d i c a t e d o n l y a .5 change between'grade e i g h t and grade t w e l v e . T h e i r p o s t -t e s t s c o r e s on t h e i r f r e e w r i t i n g ( T - U n i t , 14.40; c l a u s e l e n g t h , 9.96) p l a c e d them, a c c o r d i n g t o Hunt's d a t a , a t t h e g r ade t w e l v e l e v e l on words p e r T - U n i t , and w e l l above i t i n c l a u s e l e n g t h . On t h e aluminum passage p o s t - t e s t s c o r e s on b o t h i n d i c e s ( T - U n i t , 13.48, c l a u s e l e n g t h , 8.05) p u t them a t t h e l e v e l o f a v e r a g e a d u l t s . The question of why the present study's grammar group had had only one-third of the syntactic gains of the control group was discussed in Chapter Two, where the researcher concluded that, although there was no direct evidence, she believed that the explana tion lay, in part, in the fact that the scope of the study was too broad. Too much time had to be spent in learning- grammatical termin ology, and not enough time remained to practise the many aspects of grammatical sentence-combining (as opposed to O'Hare's "non-grammatical" approach) that might have increased the grammar group's gains in syntactic maturity. Quality of Writing The results of a comparison of the writing quality of the two groups posed the rather interesting problem of why the sentence-combining control group, having achieved significant differential gains in syntactic maturity, did not write better compositions than the experimental group. In an effort to answer this question, a number of possible explanations were examined. 1. Lack of Emphasis on Sentence Structure. Any attempt to discover why syntactic maturity was not a more significant factor in identifying the quality of writing must take into consideration the fact that no special virtue was ever attached to the a b i l i t y to write complex sentences. Students in the control class did indeed 114 solve many sentence-combining problems by w r i t i n g sentences of con-siderable length and complexity, but t h i s a c t i v i t y was, to a l l intents and purposes, c a r r i e d on i n an " A - r h e t o r i c a l " s e t t i n g , for even though a program of free w r i t i n g was undertaken i n conjunction with the small group work, the l a t t e r was done out of c l a s s , and students were never admonished to p r a c t i s e t h e i r sentence-combining when w r i t i n g t h e i r compositions. The c l a s s regarded sentence-combining more as a challenge to t h e i r ingenuity, a rather enjoyable exercise quite divorced from the process of w r i t i n g . Although there was thus no conscious transfer of sentence-combining techniques to the w r i t i n g process, i t was obvious that enough had "rubbed o f f " for students to use longer T-Units and clauses i n t h e i r post-test compositions. In these, however, there was no evidence, as Mellon (1969) put i t , of "strained, garbled, or otherwise tortured sentence structure p e c u l i a r to the experimental group." (p. 69), as there might have been had they attached any p a r t i c u l a r importance to the complexity of sentence structure. 2. V a r i a t i o n i n T-Units. Further evidence that the students had no undue concern about the manipulation of syntax was evident when T-Unit length was counted i n the pre- and post-test compositions. Some of the most able writers i n each group were quite unpredictable insofar as T-Unit length was concerned. One boy i n the sentence-combining cl a s s had a pre-test mean score of 20.3 and a post-test mean of 17.9, while another, i n the grammar 115 group, had a negative change from 25.7 to 16.8 words per T-Unit. In both instances t h e i r post-test w r i t i n g was excellent, and had i t been compared to t h e i r pre-test, i t would almost c e r t a i n l y have been judged superior. In addition, a boy i n the experimental group, whose w r i t i n g a b i l i t y was superior to most of the other students, averaged 16.8 words per T-Unit i n h i s post-test compositions, but t h i s was a mean of three scores ranging from 9.7 to 22.8, which were taken from papers of equally f i n e q u a l i t y . With t h i s student and many others, T-Unit length was suited to the ideas and a t t i t u d e they wished to convey. This p a r t i c u l a r boy, i n r e v i s i n g the aluminum passage, reduced the material to 66 words from a t o t a l of 139, leaving out no s a l i e n t information. In doing so, he used seven T-Units, giving him an average of 9.6 words, yet h i s version was much more succinct than those i n which the data had been combined into four or f i v e T-Units of greater length and complexity. On the other hand, two students who had a great deal of d i f f i c u l t y i n expressing themselves c l e a r l y , had an average of 18.1 and 15.5 words per T-Unit i n t h e i r post-test w r i t i n g , i n which the sentences were convoluted and the meaning unclear. This did not mean that sentence-combining caused the l a c k of c l a r i t y , for those boys wrote long, complicated T-Units i n t h e i r pre-tests; however, i t d i d suggest that length of T-Unit might not always be an accurate i n d i c a t i o n of fluency or c l a r i t y . 116 3. Words Per Clause Preferable. I t was p o s s i b l e that the words per clause index might more c l o s e l y measure the maturity of sentence structure at the grade ten l e v e l . Hunt (1970) had found that a student's mental a b i l i t y and chronological age seemed to be c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to h i s clause length. In h i s e a r l i e r study (1965), he had discovered many of the hallmarks of mature w r i t i n g had c o r r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y with clause length. In the present study, there seemed to be a c o r r e l a t i o n between length of clause and w r i t i n g performance. The superior writers mentioned above had mean clause lengths of 15.5, 14.2, and 13.2, i n comparison to Hunt's score of 11.5 for superior adults. In these cases, clause length i n d i c a t e d t h e i r s u p e r i o r i t y where T-Unit length had not. The p o s t - t e s t score of the experimental group i n clause length was 9.96 words, and although t h i s d i d not represent as large a gain, i t was f a i r l y close to the c o n t r o l c l a s s ' s 10.56 words. I f clause length were a better measure of "maturity" than T-Unit length, the r e l a t i v e closeness of these scores might help to explain why there was so l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e i n the q u a l i t y of w r i t i n g of the two groups when the matched compositions were judged. 4. Writing Workshops. The i n v e s t i g a t o r next explored the r o l e of the w r i t i n g program which stemmed from the "Writing Workshops" designed by O'Hare as part of h i s e l e c t i v e course i n w r i t i n g and included i n the sentence-combining text. How much influence the small group programs had upon the q u a l i t y of w r i t i n g 117 i n the matched pai r s of compositions judged by the nine English teachers was almost impossible to determine, but i t was at l e a s t p ossible that the intensive nature of the w r i t i n g p r a c t i c e engaged i n by the students was the common denominator that proved equally e f f e c t i v e i n p o l i s h i n g the " s t y l e " of both the control and experimental groups. 5. Grade Level. Sentence sense was undoubtedly an im-portant aspect of s t y l e , and the student who could frame h i s thoughts i n smooth, wellr-ordered sentences couched i n standard English had a great advantage over the p u p i l whose prose was characterized by short, choppy sentences, long, stringy sentences, fragments, or frequent grammatical e r r o r s . However, such prose was surely more common among younger writers than i t was at the grade ten l e v e l where most students could write well-formed sentences. The question then arose as to whether the syntactic gains r e s u l t i n g from the p r a c t i c e of sentence-combining might more e f f e c t i v e l y determine the " q u a l i t y " of w r i t i n g i n grade seven, where a l l of,.the previous studies were conducted. 6. Syntactic Maturity Only One C r i t e r i o n Among Five. In judging the " o v e r a l l q u a l i t y " of the w r i t i n g sample from the con-t r o l and experimental classes, the markers were not p r i m a r i l y con-cerned with sentence structure; as Mellon s a i d , ". . . i t was merely one factor among f i v e which they were simultaneously attending." (p.69) 118 C e r t a i n l y t h e r a t e r s were n o t t o l d o f any s p e c i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e b e i n g a t t a c h e d t o t h e c o m p l e x i t y o r g r a m m a t i c a l i t y o f s e n t e n c e s . I f s e n t e n c e s were w e l l - c o n s t r u c t e d , and i n c o r r e c t E n g l i s h , t h e r a t e r w o u l d go on t o a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e i d e a s t h e y e x p r e s s e d . I n d o i n g s o , he w o u l d t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e s e i d e a s , t h e d i c t i o n , and t h e s t y l e o f t h e w r i t e r . " S t y l e " was used t o mean the way i n w h i c h t h e w r i t e r , i n a d a p t i n g h i s l a n g u a g e t o h i s i d e a s , r e f l e c t e d h i s i n d i v i d u a l i t y , and t h e way i n w h i c h h i s l i v e l i n e s s and immediacy h e l d t h e i n t e r e s t o f h i s r e a d e r . I n d e c i d i n g between a p a i r o f c o m p o s i t i o n s t h a t a p p e a r e d t o be c l o s e l y matched on a l l c r i t e r i a , t h e m a r k e r ' s i n d i v i d u a l p r e f e r e n c e i n s t y l e s m i g h t w e l l be t h e d e c i d i n g f a c t o r i n h i s c h o i c e . I f one s t u d e n t gave a t e r s e , u n e m o t i o n a l , b u t g r a p h i c a c c o u n t o f a d r a m a t i c i n c i d e n t , w h i l e a n o t h e r w r o t e a more o r n a t e and i m p a s s i o n e d , b u t e q u a l l y c o m p e l l i n g v e r s i o n , t h e n t h e r a t e r chose between " s t y l e s " a c c o r d i n g t o h i s own c o n c e p t o f " q u a l i t y . " When m a t u r i t y o f s e n t e n c e s t r u c t u r e was o n l y one i n d e x i n f i v e , and no more i m p o r t a n t t h a n t h e r e s t , t h e n the-g a i n s o f t h e c o n t r o l group m i g h t w e l l have n o t been a d e t e r m i n i n g f a c t o r i n t h e judgment o f " q u a l i t y " by t h e m a r k e r s . 6. R a t e r V a r i a b l e . One f i n a l m a t t e r t h a t must be i n -c l u d e d i n t h i s d i s c u s s i o n o f c o m p o s i t i o n s c o n c e r n s t h e r a t e r v a r i a b l e . P o t t e r ( 1 9 6 7 ) , i n s p e a k i n g o f r e s e a r c h d e s i g n e d t o t e s t v a r i o u s a p p r o a c h e s t o t h e improvement o f w r i t i n g , warned t h a t c a r e 119 should be taken to e s t a b l i s h what was meant by " q u a l i t y . " I t was possible that i n c e r t a i n instances the lack of agreement between markers could stem from i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the c r i t e r i a , for even highly q u a l i f i e d , thoroughly experienced English teachers might d i f f e r considerably i n t h e i r conceptions of " q u a l i t y " and the influence of " s t y l e " i n determining i t . I t might be that p r i o r to the commencement of marking, too l i t t l e time was spent i n an e f f o r t to secure some mutual agreement about what constituted " q u a l i t y " i n sentence structure, organization, d i c t i o n , s t y l e , and ideas. Perhaps more compositions, c a r e f u l l y selected, should have been compared i n the p r a c t i c e session. Implications In the foregoing discussion, a number of p o s s i b i l i t i e s were explored i n an e f f o r t to explain the apparent inconsistencies i n the conclusions drawn from the r e s u l t s of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . S p e c i f i c a l l y , the exploration sought to discover why (1) the experi-mental group did not achieve the s y n t a c t i c growth hypothesized for i t , and (2) the o v e r a l l q u a l i t y of the w r i t i n g of t h i s group was considered equal to that of the c o n t r o l group despite the l a t t e r ' s s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater gains i n s y n t a c t i c maturity. During t h i s process of "belabouring the conclusions," as Mellon (p. 71) c a l l e d i t , a number of implications were made: 120 1. That c e r t a i n problems arose when r e p l i c a t i n g at the grade ten l e v e l a study designed f o r the grade seven l e v e l , as growth i n "sy n t a c t i c maturity" did not seem to be as di s c r i m i n a t i n g a c r i t e r i o n of q u a l i t y i n the wr i t i n g of older students. 2. That clause length might be a better index of maturity than T-Unit length with grade ten classes, as the length of T-Units was not always i n d i c a t i v e of good w r i t i n g . 3. That s y n t a c t i c complexity, measured by clause and T-Unit length, was more pronounced i n d e s c r i p t i v e w r i t i n g than i n the other modes. 4. That an intensive program of free w r i t i n g might be more e f f e c t i v e i n influ e n c i n g the " s t y l e " or " q u a l i t y " of students' w r i t i n g than ei t h e r a grammatical or non-grammatical approach to the st r u c t u r i n g of sentences. 5. That a la r g e r , more heterogeneous subject population might ensure more conclusive r e s u l t s . 6. That the aspect of s t y l e which r e f l e c t e d the i n d i v i d u a l -i t y of the writer i n h i s approach to h i s subject, and the l i v e l i n e s s and immediacy of h i s discourse might be a more e f f e c t i v e measure than the complexity or "maturity" of sentence structure i n d i s t i n g u i s h i n g " q u a l i t y . " 121 7. That a grammar-oriented approach to the acquisition of syntactic s k i l l s should limit the range of grammatical concepts studied in order than less time might be spent in learning terminology and more in the application of those terms to a variety of sentence-combining techniques. 8. That an effort be made to define more closely what is meant by "quality" in writing, and to ensure a common interpretation of the criterion of "style." As one of the principal concerns of the present research had been to determine whether or not an increased s k i l l in structur-ing sentences would be transferred to the writing process, i t was unfortunate that no clear evidence of such a transfer was obtained. However, even though overall quality might not have been improved by the treatments, the treatments were of some benefit in themselves. Benefits of Sentence Combining An evaluation of the sentence-combining program carried on during the year in the control group, revealed that i t had been beneficial in a number of ways: 1. In being exposed to a wide variety of sentence-combining techniques, including subordination, reduction, and cumulation, the student's "syntactic choices" were broadened, and his a b i l i t y to structure language enhanced. These s k i l l s m i g ht have c o n t r i b u t e d t o " h i s ease o f e x p r e s s i o n , " p a r t i c u l a r l y i n d e s c r i p t i v e w r i t i n g , b u t whether o r n o t th e y i n f l u e n c e d " q u a l i t y " depended upon a d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e term. The s y n t a c t i c s k i l l t h e y a c q u i r e d was employed i n a c o n s t r u c t i v e b u i l d i n g p r o c e s s d u r i n g w h i c h t h e s t u d e n t l e a r n e d t o h o l d l o n g e r and l o n g e r d i s c o u r s e i n h i s head, an achievement w h i c h may have c o n t r i b u t e d s o m e t h i n g t o h i s c o g n i t i v e development. About t h i s M e l l o n o b s e r v e d : I n r e h e a r s i n g t h e f u l l s t a t e m e n t w h i l e f o r m i n g i t and a p p r a i s i n g i t s g r a m m a t i c a l i t y , t h e s t u d e n t e x p e r i e n c e s i t r e p e a t e d l y and t h u s i n a p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e n s i v e manner. L a s t l y , he must r e t a i n t h e f u l l y formed s e n t e n c e i n memory w h i l e he w r i t e s i t , and p r a c t i c e i n t h i s mnemonic s k i l l may i n d e e d be c r u c i a l , , (p. 36) I n commenting upon t h i s o b s e r v a t i o n , S t o t s k y (1975) com-p a r e d i t t o V y g o t s k y ' s (1962) d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e a c t o f w r i t i n g : W r i t i n g . . . r e q u i r e s d e l i b e r a t e a n a l y t i c a l a c t i o n on t h e p a r t o f t h e c h i l d . . . . The change . . . t o m a x i m a l l y d e t a i l e d w r i t t e n s p e e c h r e q u i r e s what m i g h t be c a l l e d d e l i b e r a t e s e m a n t i c s — d e l i b e r a t e s t r u c t u r i n g o f t h e web o f meaning. W. S t r a n g , i n an a r t i c l e i n t h e E n g l i s h J o u r n a l ( F e b r u a r y 1 9 7 6 ) , r e f l e c t e d V y g o t s k y ' s v i e w , as he s a i d o f s e n t e n c e -c o m b i n i n g : 123 . . . i t helps kids bridge a l i n g u i s t i c gap between the i n c r e d i b l e transforming power i n speech and the p a i n f u l s i l e n c e they often experience when they confront a blank piece of paper, (p.64) 3. The process of sentence-combining was based upon the student's inherent sense of grammaticality, which would usually enable him to t e l l whether a s o l u t i o n was acceptable. Oral work i n p a r t i c u l a r helped him to judge whether a sentence "sounded r i g h t . " As Strang commented i n the above a r t i c l e , " a l l the kids we teach are sentence-generating geniuses—transformational wizards who have tremendous banks of l i n g u i s t i c data already programmed into t h e i r b r a i n computers" and sentence-combining helped students to "tap t h e i r own l i n g u i s t i c resources." (p. 56) 4. Sentence-combining helped to increase the self-confidence of students because of the success they achieved i n the process. A l l p u p i l s , even the weaker ones, p a r t i c i p a t e d when solutions were tested o r a l l y i n the easy give-and-take workshop atmosphere of the small group classes, which were not threatened by any form of examination. Benefits of Grammar Study In comparison to the advantage of the sentence-combining program, the benefits of the grammar study were more d i f f i c u l t to enumerate, as i t was undoubtedly tedious for the students. However, 124 they recognized the usefulness of a guide to "what was to be pre-ferred and what avoided i n the i n f l e c t i o n and syntax of t h e i r w r i t i n g . " There was no c e r t a i n t y , of course, that the knowledge they acquired would not also be halved a f t e r the summer holiday, or perhaps quartered. One could only hope that the f r a c t i o n remaining would be s u f f i c i e n t to enable the students, a f t e r a thoughtful reappraisal of what they had written, to recognize any inadequacies i n the structure, to t e s t i t s grammaticality, and to determine whether there were any better, more concise way of adapting t h e i r language to t h e i r ideas. Students learned the importance of r e s t r u c t u r i n g sentences i n order to improve t h e i r s t y l e when they were e d i t i n g t h e i r work for publishing. The r e l a t i o n s h i p of s t y l e to syntax was an i n t e r e s t -ing one that needed further research, as did the connection between synta c t i c and cognitive growth. I f the p o s s i b i l i t y that sentence-combining promoted cognitive growth could be entertained, then c e r t a i n l y the same could be said of grammar. In the a r t i c l e by Stotsky (1975), a further quotation of Vygotsky's confirmed t h i s : . . . our analysis c l e a r l y showed the study of grammar to be of paramount importance for the mental development of the c h i l d . . . . Grammar and w r i t i n g help the c h i l d to r i s e to a higher l e v e l of speech development, (pp.100-101) Suggestions for Further Research Throughout t h i s chapter a number of suggestions were made f o r further research i n the study of s y n t a c t i c maturity and i t s r e l a t i o n to the w r i t i n g process. A summary of these would include: More conclusive r e s u l t s might be achieved i f the scope of the study were widened to include a more heterogeneous group. Valuable information could be gained by extending the experi-ment over a longer period i n order that delayed post-tests could e s t a b l i s h the r e l a t i v e permanence of the gains. I f funds were a v a i l a b l e to pay markers, more time could be spent on rater t r a i n i n g , and on a more-precise evaluation of the sample of post-test compositions compared for q u a l i t y . In addition, the number of pre- and post-treatment compositions written by the students could be increased i n order to get a more adequate sample of w r i t i n g at each t e s t i n g period. I f t h i s were done, the question of whether s i g n i f i c a n t gains i n s y n t a c t i c maturity should be recognizable i n improved s t y l e could be more adequately tested. Important information could be provided by a study of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between growth i n s y n t a c t i c s k i l l s and cognitive growth. I t would be of i n t e r e s t to determine whether the sentence-combining process improved reading s k i l l s . A reading comprehension test could be given at pre- and post-test periods to measure any change. Research i n v o l v i n g a sentence-combining experimental cl a s s and a c o n t r o l class doing free w r i t i n g might give some 126 new i n s i g h t into which process was more e f f e c t i v e i n improving the q u a l i t y of w r i t i n g . The present study has caused the researcher to conclude that sentence-combining would be most appropriate as a s k i l l - b u i l d i n g adjunct to the composition program. I t would perhaps be more useful without any s i g n a l s , i n the open format suggested by Strang. Although, as Combs remarked, sentence-combining was "no panacea" for a l l the i l l s of student w r i t i n g , i t was a most useful procedure for demon-s t r a t i n g the great v a r i e t y of options a v a i l a b l e to the student when putting h i s thoughts on paper. As he learned to choose the most e f f e c t i v e methods of adapting h i s language to h i s ideas, he created more pleasing patterns i n h i s work, and enhanced h i s s t y l e . However, the problem with t h i s approach was not unlike that of a grammatical approach, as both, taught i n i s o l a t i o n , were of l i t t l e l a s t i n g b e n e f i t . Although the " a - r h e t o r i c a l " p r a c t i c e of sentence-combining did not lead to a "conscious" transfer to the w r i t i n g process of the s k i l l s acquired, some did "rub-off" and was manifested i n a greater complexity of sentence structure, but t h i s carry-over might be f o r only a l i m i t e d time. I t would seem that a "conscious" transfer of t h i s a b i l i t y to manipulate language was what was needed by students. In order for a "grammatical" or "non-grammatical" study of sentence structure to be of greater permanent value, i t should be c a r r i e d on i n a 127 " r h e t o r i c a l " s e t t i n g , where students learned to manipulate t h e i r own sentences, reorganizing, combining, reducing, or c l u s t e r i n g , i n order to create more v a r i e t y , conciseness, or c l a r i t y i n t h e i r w r i t i n g . This process would involve considerably more d i s c i p l i n e and hard work, but once learned, should be of inestimable value to the maturing student who was beginning to view h i s e f f o r t s with a more c r i t i c a l eye, and to seek a more e f f e c t i v e way of expressing h i s ideas. This sort of s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n and r e v i s i o n would not be evident i n compositions written i n class under the pressure of time, but would r e s u l t i n a higher " q u a l i t y " of composition when the writer was not rushed i n his e d i t i n g . The goal of improving " s y n t a c t i c maturity" i n student w r i t i n g might be reached most e f f e c t i v e l y by an approach r e f l e c t -ing the ideas of both the psycholinguists and the r h e t o r i c i a n s . Piaget, Moffett, B r i t t o n , and Holbrook stressed the importance of a student-centered w r i t i n g curriculum i n which process was more important than product, for clear w r i t i n g could only be derived from clear thinking. To reach t h i s end, teachers worked with the students' own composition and evinced a sympathetic understanding of student problems. Rhetoricians, on the other hand, emphasized the need for maintaining higher standards i n "a society which reared i t s c h i l d r e n on sentimental and shoddy reading matter, which bathed them i n the l i n g u i s t i c sludge of t e l e v i s i o n , and which debased the English language i n the place where i t a l l began: at home." A. Giamette, i n w r i t i n g thus i n the January, 1976 issue of Yale  Alumni Magazine, decried the sentimentality of modern trends toward f r e e i n g language from "the shackles of syntax, the racism of grammar, the e l i t i s m of s t y l e . " Therefore, an i d e a l approach to the study of sentence s t r u c t u r i n g would be one that was integrated with the composing process i n order that the product might conform to higher standards of excellence. 129 BIBLIOGRAPHY A n d e r s o n , C.C. "The New STEP E s s a y T e s t as a Measure o f C o m p o s i t i o n A b i l i t y , " E d u c a t i o n a l and P s y c h o l o g i c a l Measurement, 20 ( 1 9 6 0 ) , 95-102. A n d e r s o n , J.E. "An E v a l u a t i o n o f V a r i o u s I n d i c e s o f L i n g u i s t i c Development," C h i l d Development, 8 ( 1 9 3 7 ) , 62-68. Bateman, D.R. and F . J . Z i d o n i s . The E f f e c t o f a S t u d y o f T r a n s f o r m a - t i o n a l Grammar on the W r i t i n g o f N i n t h and T e n t h G r a d e r s , R e s e a r c h R e p o r t No. 6, Urbana, I l l i n o i s : N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l o f T e a c h e r s o f E n g l i s h , 1966. B l o o m f i e l d , L. Language. New Y o r k : Henry H o l t and Co., 1933. Boas, F r a n z . Handbook o f A m e r i c a n I n d i a n Language. Wa s h i n g t o n : GPO, 1911. Braddock, R., R. L l o y d - J o n e s , and L. Schoer. R e s e a r c h i n W r i t t e n  C o m p o s i t i o n . Champaign, I l l i n o i s : N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l o f T e a c h e r s o f E n g l i s h , 1963. B r i t t o n , James. E x p l o r a t i o n s i n C h i l d r e n ' s W r i t i n g . E l d o n n a E v e r t t s , e d . , Urbana, I l l i n o i s : N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l o f T e a c h e r s o f E n g l i s h , 1970. B r u n e r , Jerome. "The Course o f C o g n i t i v e Growth," A m e r i c a n P s y c h o - l o g i s t , 19 ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 1-15. B u r r u e l , Joe M., Gomez, J u l i e and James W. Ney. " T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l S e n t e n c e Combining i n a B a r r i o S c h o o l . " On TESOL 1974, e d i t e d by Ruth Crymes and W i l l i a m E. N o r r i s , W a s h i n g t o n , D.C.: TESOL. B u t t e r f i e l d , C l a i r J . "The E f f e c t o f a Knowledge o f C e r t a i n Gramma-t i c a l E l e m e n t s on t h e A c q u i s i t i o n and R e t e n t i o n o f R e l a t e d P u n c t u a t i o n S k i l l s . " U n p u b l i s h e d Ph.D. t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f Iowa, 1945. B u x t o n , E.W. "An E x p e r i m e n t t o T e s t t h e E f f e c t s o f W r i t i n g F r e -quency and Guided P r a c t i c e upon S t u d e n t s ' S k i l l i n W r i t t e n C o m p o s i t i o n . " U n p u b l i s h e d Ph.D. t h e s i s , S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y , 1958. 130 C a r r o l l , J.B. "Language Development." I n C.W. H a r r i s ( e d . ) , E n c y c l o p e d i a o f E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h . New Y o r k : The M a c M i l l a n Company, 1960. Catherwood, C. "A Study o f R e l a t i o n s h i p s Between a Knowledge o f R u l e s and A b i l i t y t o C o r r e c t G r a m m a t i c a l E r r o r s and Between I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f Sentences and Knowledge o f S u b j e c t and P r e d i c a t e . " U n p u b l i s h e d M.A. t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f M i n n e s o t a , 1932. Chomsky, N. S y n t a c t i c S t r u c t u r e s . The Hague: Mouton P u b l i s h e r s , 1957. . A s p e c t s o f the Theory o f S y n t a x . Cambridge: The MIT P r e s s , 1965. . Language and Mind. New Y o r k : H a r c o u n t , B r a c e , and W o r l d , 1968. C h o t l a s , J.W. " S t u d i e s i n Language B e h a v i o u r IV: A S t a t i s t i c a l and Co m p a r a t i v e A n a l y s i s o f I n d i v i d u a l W r i t t e n Language Samples," P s y c h o l o g i c a l Monographs, 56 ( 1 9 4 4 ) , 77-111. C h r i s t e n s e n , F. Not e s Toward a New R h e t o r i c . New Y o r k : H a r p e r and Row, 1967. . "The P r o b l e m o f D e f i n i n g a Mature S t y l e , " E n g l i s h J o u r n a l , 57 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 572-579. . The C h r i s t e n s e n R h e t o r i c Program. New Y o r k : H a r p e r and Row, 1968. Combs, Warren. " F u r t h e r E f f e c t s o f Sentence Combining P r a c t i c e on W r i t i n g A b i l i t y , " R e s e a r c h i n t h e T e a c h i n g o f E n g l i s h , 10, 2 ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 137-149. C r a w f o r d , C . C , and R. Royer. " O r a l D r i l l V e r s u s Grammar S t u d y , " E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l J o u r n a l , 36 ( 1 9 3 5 ) , 116-117. Crews, R u t h e l l e n . "A L i n g u i s t i c V e r s u s a T r a d i t i o n a l Grammar Program o f E f f e c t s on W r i t t e n Sentence S t r u c t u r e and Comprehension," E d u c a t i o n a l L e a d e r s h i p , 5 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 145-149. C u t w r i g h t , P. "A Comparison o f Methods o f S e c u r i n g C o r r e c t Language Usage," E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l J o u r n a l , 34 ( 1 9 3 4 ) , 681-690. 131 D i e d r i c h , R.E., F r e n c h , S.W., and S.T. C a r l t o n . F a c t o r s I n Judgments  o f W r i t i n g A b i l i t y , R e s e a r c h B u l l e t i n RB-61-15. P r i n c e t o n : E d u c a t i o n a l T e s t i n g S e r v i c e , 1961. E r w i n , S., and W.R. M i l l e r . "Language Development." I n C h i l d P s y c h o l o g y , ed. H.W. S t e v e n s o n . C h i c a g o : N a t i o n a l S o c i e t y f o r t h e Study o f E d u c a t i o n , 1963, 108-143. Evans, J.W. "The S o c i a l I m p o r t a n c e and t h e P u p i l C o n t r o l o f C e r t a i n P u n c t u a t i o n V a r i a n t s . " U n p u b l i s h e d Ph. D. t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f Iowa, 1939. F o l l m a n , J. and J . A n d e r s o n . "An I n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e R e l i a b i l i t y o f F i v e P r o c e d u r e s f o r G r a d i n g E n g l i s h Themes," R e s e a r c h i n  the T e a c h i n g o f E n g l i s h , ! ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 190-200. F r i e s , C h a r l e s C. The S t r u c t u r e o f E n g l i s h : An I n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e  C o n s t r u c t i o n o f E n g l i s h S e n t e n c e s . New Y o r k : H a r c o u r t , B r a c e , and W o r l d , 1952. F r o g n e r , E. "Problems o f Sentence S t r u c t u r e i n P u p i l s ' Themes," E n g l i s h J o u r n a l , 22 ( 1 9 3 3 ) , 742-749. . "Grammar Appr o a c h V e r s u s Thought Ap p r o a c h i n T e a c h i n g Sentence S t r u c t u r e , " E n g l i s h J o u r n a l , 28 ( 1 9 3 9 ) , 518-526. Green, E v e r e s t . "An E x p e r i m e n t a l Study o f Se n t e n c e - C o m b i n i n g t o Improve W r i t t e n S y n t a c t i c F l u e n c y i n F i f t h Grade C h i l d r e n . " D eKalb, I l l i n o i s . U n p u b l i s h e d Ph.D. t h e s i s , N o r t h e r n I l l i n o i s U n i v e r s i t y , 1972. H a r r i s , R . J . "An E x p e r i m e n t a l I n q u i r y i n t o t h e F u n c t i o n s and V a l u e o f F o r m a l Grammar i n t h e T e a c h i n g o f E n g l i s h , w i t h S p e c i a l R e f e r e n c e t o t h e T e a c h i n g o f C o r r e c t W r i t t e n E n g l i s h t o C h i l d r e n Aged Twelve t o F o u r t e e n . " U n p u b l i s h e d Ph.D. t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f Longon, 1962. H e i d e r , F. and G. H e i d e r . "A Comparison o f Sentence S t r u c t u r e o f Deaf and H e a r i n g C h i l d r e n , " P s y c h o l o g i c a l Monographs, 52 ( 1 9 4 0 ) , 42-103. H o l b r o o k , D a v i d . C h i l d r e n ' s W r i t i n g . Cambridge E n g l a n d : The U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1967. E n g l i s h f o r t h e R e j e c t e d : T r a i n i n g L i t e r a c y i n Lower Streams o f t h e Secondary S c h o o l . New Y o r k : Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1964. 132 Hunt, K e l l o g g . G r a m m a t i c a l S t r u c t u r e s W r i t t e n a t Three Grade L e v e l s . R e s e a r c h R e p o r t No. 3, Urbana, I l l i n o i s : N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l o f T e a c h e r s o f E n g l i s h , 1965. . "How L i t t l e S e n t e n c e s Grow i n t o B i g Ones," New D i r e c t i o n s i n E l e m e n t a r y E n g l i s h . Urbana, I l l i n o i s : N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l o f T e a c h e r s o f E n g l i s h , 1967. . "Recent Measures i n S y n t a c t i c Development," E l e m e n t a r y E n g l i s h 43 ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 732-739. . " S y n t a c t i c M a t u r i t y i n S c h o o l C h i l d r e n and A d u l t s , " Mono- graphs o f t h e S o c i e t y f o r R e s e a r c h i n C h i l d Development, S e r i a l No. 134, 35 (1970), No. 3. J e s p e r s o n , O t t o . A Modern E n g l i s h Grammar on H i s t o r i c a l P r i n c i p l e s . 7 v o l s . H e i d e l b e r g : C a r l W i n t e r , 1909-1949. Johnson, L o i s . " C h i l d r e n ' s W r i t i n g i n Three Forms o f C o m p o s i t i o n , " E l e m e n t a r y E n g l i s h , 44 ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 265-269. K i n c a i d , G.L. "Some F a c t o r s A f f e c t i n g V a r i a t i o n s i n t h e Q u a l i t y o f S t u d e n t s ' W r i t i n g . " U n p u b l i s h e d Ph.D. t h e s i s , M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1953. K r u i s i n g a , E. A Handbook o f P r e s e n t - D a y E n g l i s h . F i f t h e d i t i o n , 3 v o l s . G r o n i n g e n : P. N o o r d h o f f , 1931. L a B r a n t , L o u L. "A Study o f C e r t a i n Language Developments o f C h i l d r e n , i n Grade Four t o Twelve, I n c l u s i v e , " G e n e t i c  P s y c h o l o g y Monographs, 14 ( 1 9 3 3 ) , 387-491. Lamb, S.K. O u t l i n e o f S t r a t i f i c a t i o n a l Grammar. Was h i n g t o n : George-town U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1966. Loban, W a l t e r . The Language o f E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l C h i l d r e n , R e s e a r c h R e p o r t No. 1, Urbana, I l l i n o i s : N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l o f T e a c h e r s o f E n g l i s h , 1963. . S t a g e s , V e l o c i t y , and P r e d i c t i o n o f Language Development: K i n d e r g a r t e n Through Grade Twelve, F i n a l R e p o r t , O f f i c e o f E d u c a t i o n , B ureau o f R e s e a r c h , U.S. Department o f HEW, 1970. . Language Development: K i n d e r g a r t e n Through Grade Twelve. R e s e a r c h R e p o r t No. 18. Champaign, I l l i n o i s : N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l o f Teachers o f E n g l i s h , 1976. 133 M c C a r t h y , D. "Language Development i n C h i l d r e n . " I n L. C a r m i c h a e l ( e d . ) , Manual o f C h i l d P s y c h o l o g y . New Y o r k : John W i l e y and Sons, 1954, 492-630. M a r t i n , J.H. "The Development o f S e n t e n c e - W r i t i n g S k i l l s a t Grades Three, Four and F i v e . " U n p u b l i s h e d Ph.D. t h e s i s , U n i v e r -s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , B e r k e l e y , 1968. D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s , 30, 3. Marzano, R. "The Sentence Combining Myth," E n g l i s h J o u r n a l , 65 (197:6) , 57-59. . "On t h e V a l i d i t y o f A n a l y t i c R a t i n g s . " Mimeographed r e p o r t , U n i v e r s i t y o f C o l o r a d o a t Denver, 1975. . A F a c t o r A n a l y t i c Study t o Determine t h e R e l a t i o n s h i p Between T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l Theory and Language P e r f o r m a n c e . Ann A r b o r , M i c h i g a n : U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s , 1974. M e c k e l , H.C. " R e s e a r c h on T e a c h i n g C o m p o s i t i o n and L i t e r a t u r e . " I n N.L. Gage ( e d . ) , Handbook o f R e s e a r c h on T e a c h i n g . C h i c a g o : Rand M c N a l l y , 1969. M e l l o n , J.C. " M e t h o d o l o g i c a l Problems i n R e l a t i n g Grammar I n s t r u c t i o n to W r i t i n g A b i l i t y : A C r i t i c a l Review o f S e l e c t e d R e s e a r c h . " U n p u b l i s h e d q u a l i f y i n g p a p e r , Graduate S c h o o l o f E d u c a t i o n , H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y , 1965. Our Sentences and T h e i r Grammar: A Modern Grammar o f E n g l i s h , Grade Seven. Graduate S c h o o l o f E d u c a t i o n , H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y , 1965. . T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l S e n t e n c e - C o m b i n i n g : A Method f o r E n h a n c i n g t h e Development o f S y n t a c t i c F l u e n c y i n E n g l i s h C o m p o s i t i o n . R e s e a r c h R e p o r t No. 10, Urbana, I l l i n o i s : N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l o f T e a c h e r s o f E n g l i s h , 1969. M i l l e r , B.D. and J.W. Ney. "The E f f e c t o f S y s t e m a t i c O r a l E x e r c i s e s on t h e W r i t i n g o f F o u r t h - G r a d e S t u d e n t s , " R e s e a r c h i n t h e T e a c h i n g o f E n g l i s h , 2 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 44-61. M i l l i g a n , J . P. "An E v a l u a t i o n o f Two Methods o f T e a c h i n g W r i t t e n Sentence S t r u c t u r e , " E l e m e n t a r y E n g l i s h Review, 16 ( 1 9 3 9 ) , 91-92, 106. M o f f e t t , James. A S t u d e n t - C e n t e r e d Language A r t s C u r r i c u l u m , Grades K — 1 3 . B o s t o n : H o u g h t o n - M i f f l i n , 1968. 134 M o f f e t t , James. T e a c h i n g t h e U n i v e r s e o f D i s c o u r s e . B o s t o n : Houghton-M i f f l i n , 1968. Ney, James W. L i n g u i s t i c s , Language T e a c h i n g and C o m p o s i t i o n i n t h e  Grades. The Hague: Mouton, 1975. __ . "Notes Towards a P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c Model o f t h e W r i t i n g P r o c e s s , " R e s e a r c h i n t h e T e a c h i n g o f E n g l i s h , 8 ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 157-159. Noyes, E.S. " E s s a y and O b j e c t i v e T e s t s i n E n g l i s h , " C o l l e g e B o a r d  Review, No. 49, 1963. O b e n c h a i n , Anne. " E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e P r e c i s e E s s a y Q u e s t i o n i n Programming t h e S e q u e n t i a l Development o f W r i t t e n C o m p o s i t i o n S k i l l s and t h e S i m u l t a n e o u s Development o f C r i t i c a l R e a d i n g S k i l l s . " U n p u b l i s h e d M.A. t h e s i s , George Washington U n i v e r s i t y , 1971. . S e q u e n t i a l S t e p s t o E f f e c t i v e W r i t i n g : A Programmed A p p r o a c h w i t h D i r e c t i o n o f R e a d i n g S k i l l s and L i t e r a t u r e A p p r e c i a t i o n . A r l i n g t o n , V i r g i n i a : C o o p e r - T r e n t , 1972. O ' D o n n e l l , Roy, G r i f f i n , W.J. and R.C. N o r r i s . S y n t a x o f K i n d e r g a r t e n  and E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l C h i l d r e n : A T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l A n a l y s i s . R e s e a r c h R e p o r t Number 8, Urbana, I l l i n o i s : N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l o f T e a c h e r s o f E n g l i s h , 1967. . "An O b j e c t i v e Measure o f S t r u c t u r a l C o m p l e x i t y i n C h i l d r e n ' s W r i t i n g . " U n p u b l i s h e d p a p e r d e l i v e r e d a t A m e r i c a n Educa-t i o n a l R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t i o n M e e t i n g , 1968. . " S y n t a c t i c D i f f e r e n c e s Between Speech and W r i t i n g , " A m e r i c a n Speech, 49 ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 102-110. . "A C r i t i q u e o f Some I n d i c e s of S y n t a c t i c M a t u r i t y , " R e s e a r c h i n t h e T e a c h i n g o f E n g l i s h , 10 ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 31-38. O'Hare, F r a n k . S e n t e n c e - C o m b i n i n g : I m p r o v i n g S t u d e n t W r i t i n g W i t h o u t F o r m a l Grammar I n s t r u c t i o n , R e s e a r c h R e p o r t No. 15. Urbana, I l l i n o i s : N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l o f T e a c h e r s o f E n g l i s h , 1973. S e n t e n c e c r a f t : An E l e c t i v e Course i n W r i t i n g . S c a r b o r o u g h : G i n n and Company, 1975. 135 P e d e r s e n , E. " S y n t a c t i c M a t u r i t y as Measured by C o n c e p t u a l o r I d e a t i o n a l L o a d i n g . " U n p u b l i s h e d Ph.D. t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f M i n n e s o t a , i n p r o g r e s s . P e r r o n , J.D. "An E x p l o r a t o r y A p p r o a c h t o E x t e n d i n g t h e S y n t a c t i c Development o f F o u r t h - G r a d e S t u d e n t s Through t h e Use o f Sentence-Combining Methods." D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s  I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 35 ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 4316A. P i a g e t , J e a n . The Language and Thought o f the C h i l d . (M. G a b a i n , t r a n s . ) , New Y o r k : M e r i d a n Books, 1955. P i k e , K.L. Language i n R e l a t i o n t o a U n i f i e d Theory o f t h e S t r u c t u r e o f Human B e h a v i o u r . 2nd. E d i t i o n , Summer I n s t i t u t e o f L i n g u i s t i c s , 1967. . Tagmemics i n M a t r i x L i n g u i s t i c s A p p l i e d t o S e l e c t e d A f r i c a n Languages. P u b l i c a t i o n s i n L i n g u i s t i c s and R e l a t e d F i e l d S e r i e s , No. 23. Summer I n s t i t u t e o f L i n g u i s t i c s : 1970. Postman, N. " L i n g u i s t i c s and t h e P u r s u i t o f R e l e v a n c e , " E n g l i s h  J o u r n a l , 56 ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 1160-1165. P o t t e r , R o b e r t . " S e n t e n c e S t r u c t u r e and P r o s e Q u a l i t y : An E x p l o r a t o r y S t u d y , " R e s e a r c h i n t h e T e a c h i n g o f E n g l i s h , 1 ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 17-28. Poutsma, H e n d r i c k . A Grammar o f L a t e Modern E n g l i s h . 5 v o l s . G r o n i n g e n : P. N o o r d h o f f , 1904-1929. R e e s i n k , G.P. e t a l . "Development o f S y n t a x Among S c h o o l C h i l d r e n and A d u l t s : A R e p l i c a t i o n - I n v e s t i g a t i o n , " N e d e r l a n d s T i j d s c h r i f t v o o r do P s y c h o l o g i e en h a a r G r e n s g e b i e d e n , 26 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 335-364. P s y c h o l o g i c a l A b s t r a c t s , 47, 10536. S a p i r , Edward. Language: An I n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e Study o f Speech. New Y o r k : H a r c o u r t , B r a c e , and W o r l d , 1921. S a u s s u r e , F e r d i n a n d de. Course i n G e n e r a l L i n g u i s t i c s . (Wade B a s k i n , t r a n s . ) , New Y o r k : P h i l o s o p h i c a l L i b r a r y , 1959. S c h u s t e r , E.H. "How Good I s The New Grammar?" E n g l i s h J o u r n a l , 50 ( 1 9 6 1 ) , 392-397. S e e g e r s , J.C. "Form o f D i s c o u r s e and S e n t e n c e S t r u c t u r e , " E l e m e n t a r y  E n g l i s h Review, 10 ( 1 9 3 3 ) , 51-54. 136 S h e r w i n , J .S. Four Problems I n T e a c h i n g E n g l i s h : A C r i t i q u e o f  R e s e a r c h . S c r a n t o n , P e n n s y l v a n i a : I n t e r n a t i o n a l T extbook Company, 1969. S t a l n a k e r , J.M. "The C o n s t r u c t i o n and R e s u l t s o f a Twelve-hour T e s t i n E n g l i s h C o m p o s i t i o n , " S c h o o l and S o c i e t y , 39 ( 1 9 3 4 ) , 218-224. S t o t s k y , S.L. "S e n t e n c e - C o m b i n i n g as a C u r r i c u l a r A c t i v i t y : I t s E f f e c t on W r i t t e n Language Development and R e a d i n g Comprehension," R e s e a r c h i n t h e T e a c h i n g o f E n g l i s h , 9, 1 ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 30-71. S t r o n g , W. Sen t e n c e - C o m b i n i n g : A Composing Book. New Y o r k : Random House, 1973. . "Sentence Combining: Back t o t h e B a s i c s - And Beyond," E n g l i s h J o u r n a l , 65, 2 ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 56, 60-64. Suggs, L.R. " S t r u c t u r a l Grammar V e r s u s T r a d i t i o n a l Grammar i n I n f l u e n c i n g W r i t i n g , " E n g l i s h J o u r n a l , 50 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 521-525. S t a r r i n g , R.W. "A Study o f R a t i n g s o f Comprehensive E x a m i n a t i o n Themes When C e r t a i n E l e m e n t s A r e Weakened." U n p u b l i s h e d Ph. D. t h e s i s , M i c h i g a n S t a t e C o l l e g e , 1952. Symonds, P.M. " P r a c t i c e V e r s u s Grammar i n t h e L e a r n i n g o f C o r r e c t E n g l i s h Usage," J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y , 6 1 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 81-95. Thomas,. Owen. "Some P e r s p e c t i v e s on Grammar and L i n g u i s t i c s , " E n g l i s h  J o u r n a l , 61, 9 (1974) 63. V e a l , Ramon L. and M. T i l l m a n . "Mode o f D i s c o u r s e V a r i a t i o n i n t h e E v a l u a t i o n o f C h i l d r e n ' s W r i t i n g , " R e s e a r c h i n t h e Teach- i n g o f E n g l i s h , 5, 1, ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 37-45. V i t a l e , M.R., K i n g , F . J . , S h o n t z , D.W. and G.W. H u n t l e y . " E f f e c t o f S e n t e n c e - C o m b i n i n g E x e r c i s e s Upon S e v e r a l R e s t r i c t e d W r i t t e n C o m p o s i t i o n T a s k s , " J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l  P s y c h o l o g y , 61 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 521-525. V y g o t s k y , L. Thought and Language. Cambridge: MIT P r e s s , 1962. W e i n f e l d , F.D. "A F a c t o r A n a l y t i c A p p r o a c h t o t h e Measurement o f D i f f e r e n t i a l E f f e c t s o f T r a i n i n g : An E v a l u a t i o n o f Three Methods o f T e a c h i n g E n g l i s h C o m p o s i t i o n . " An u n p u b l i s h e d Ph.D. t h e s i s , Graduate S c h o o l o f E d u c a t i o n , H a r v a r d U n i v e r -s i t y , 1959. ' 137 Wilkinson, Andrew. The Foundations of Language. London: Oxford Uni v e r s i t y Press, 1971. 138 APPENDIX A ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE FOR T-UNIT LENGTH SCORES OF 26 EXPERIMENTAL AND 25 CONTROL SUBJECTS* FREE WRITING PASSAGES Source Sum of Squares I Degrees of Mean Freedom | Square Prob. F Exceeded Beta Estimates Mean 6.69946 G 28.95996 1- st Covariate 36.30009 2- nd Covariate 24.29561 A l l Covariates Error R RG Error 145.63062 354.08862 272.66528 65.36768 256.23120 1 1 1 1 2 47 1 1 49 Pooled Regression Coefficients 1- st Covariate 0.30880 2- nd Covariate .07781 6.69946 28.95996 36.30009 24.29561 72.81531 7.53380 272.66528 65.36768 5.22921 0.88925 3.84400 4.81830 3.22488 9.66515 52.14275 12.50049 0.351 0.056 0.033 0.079 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.30880 0.07781 4 control and 1 experimental subjects not included in analysis because of missing data. 139 APPENDIX B ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE FOR CLAUSE LENGTH SCORES OF 26 EXPERIMENTAL AND 25 CONTROL SUBJECTS' FREE WRITING PASSAGES Source Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square Exceeded Estimates Mean G 5.38687 0.13705 1- st Covariate 28.85620 I 2- nd Covariate 7.42207 I A l l Covariates 81.55562 Error R RG Error 165.68527 33.49889 11.29320 120.29320 1 1 1 1 2 47 1 1 49 5.38687 0.13705 28.85620 7.42207 40.77780 3.52522 33.49889 11.29320 2.45496 1.52810 0.03888 8.18565 2.10542 11.56745 13.64537 4.60015 0.223 0.845 0.006 0.153 0.000 0.001 0.037 0.27533 0.04301 Pooled Regression C o e f f i c i e n t s 1- st Covariate 0.27533 2- nd Covariate 0.04301 4 control and 1 experimental subject not included i n analysis because of missing data 140 APPENDIX C ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE FOR T-UNIT LENGTH SCORES OF 26 EXPERIMENTAL AND 25 CONTROL SUBJECTS'* ALUMINUM PASSAGE Source Sum o f Squares Degrees o f Freedom Mean Square F P r o b . F Exceeded B e t a E s t i m a t e s Mean 2.37402 1 2.37402 0.25060 0.619 G 28.33154 1 28.33154 2.99066 0.090 1 - s t C o v a r i a t e 0.01796 1 0.01796 0.00190 0.965 -0.00687 2-nd C o v a r i a t e 80.10275 1 80.10275 8.45559 0.006 0.14129 A l l C o v a r i a t e s 120.08398 2 60.04199 6.33799 0.004 E r r o r 445.24731 47 9.47335 R 391.07642 1 391.07642 58.92581 0.000 RG 98.23047 1 98.23047 14.80097 0.000 E r r o r 325.20117 49 6.63676 P o o l e d R e g r e s s i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s 1- s t C o v a r i a t e -0.00687 2- nd C o v a r i a t e 0.14129 141 APPENDIX D ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE FOR CLAUSE LENGTH SCORES OF 26 EXPERIMENTAL AND 25 CONTROL SUBJECTS'* ALUMINUM PASSAGE Source Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F Prob. F Exceeded Beta Estimates Mean 14.47649 • 1 14.47649 9.95562 0.003 G 0.73607 1 0.73607 0.50620 0.480 1-st Covarlate 0.41000 1 0.41000 0.28196 0.598 -0.03282 2-nd Covarlate 1.12943 1 1.12943 0.77672 0.383 0.01678 A l l Covariates 1.12987 2 0.56493 0.38851 0.680 Error 68.34280 47 1.45410 R 19.46092 1 19.46092 14.57150 0.000 RG 3.34459 1 3.34459 2.50428 0.120 Error 65.44182 49 1.33555 Pooled Regression C o e f f i c i e n t s 1- st Covariate -0.03282 2- nd Covariate 0.01678 * 4 con t r o l and 1 experimental subjects not included i n analysis because of missing data APPENDIX E GRAMMAR EXAM - EXPERIMENTAL GROUP MARKS OF EXAM APPENDIX GRAMMAR EXAM - EXPERIMENTAL GROUP GRADE TEN GRAMMAR EXAM INSTRUCTIONS: Rewrite the following sentences on foolscap, correcting each i n the way specified i n each set. SET I - Faulty Coordination - occurs when two unequal ideas are placed in coordinate clauses as though they were of equal importance. A. Correct by the use of a subordinate clause: 1. Peter i s going to college i n the West, and he came in to say goodbye. 2. I didn't understand how to do the assignment, and I didn't have my homework done. 3. Franklin was a scientist as well as a statesman, and he invented a new kind of stove. B. Correct by a modifying phrase: 1. We were delighted to receive a bushel of oranges, and they came from Florida. 2. He told me to look i n the unabridged dictionary, and i t was on his desk. C. Correct by an appositive: 1. Mr. Carter is a very fine man, and he is pastor of a very active church. 2. The v i o l i n was an old instrument with a beautiful tone, and i t belonged to my father. 3. The plane is the fastest passenger plane i n the world, and i t w i l l take you to Europe i n record time. D. The relationship between ideas i n the following sentences is not clear, either because the conjunctions used are not exact, or because the sentences contain faulty coordination. Improve the sentences by rewriting them. 1. You want me to help you with your homework, and you must help me with the dishes. 143 S t e w a r t H a r r i s o n was a famous d e t e c t i v e , and he c o u l d n o t s o l v e t h e a r s e n i c murder c a s e . U n c l e B i l l i s my f a v o u r i t e u n c l e , and he has i n v i t e d me to spend t h e summer w i t h him. SET I I - REFERENCE OF PRONOUNS - r e w r i t e the f o l l o w i n g s e n t e n c e s and c o r r e c t any g e n e r a l r e f e r e n c e (The boys wore s k i b o o t s t o c l a s s w h i c h t h e t e a c h e r d i d n o t l i k e ) , o r weak r e f e r e n c e (We f i s h e d a l l day, b u t d i d n ' t c a t c h o n e ) , o r the i n d e f i n i t e use o f pronouns s u c h as j f t , t h e y , and y o u , o r any u n c l e a r r e f e r -ence o f pronouns. 1. A number o f p e o p l e g a t h e r e d around t h e s p e a k e r and h i s m i c r o p h o n e , w h i c h was due t o c u r i o s i t y . 2. On p l a n e s t h a t a r e i n f l i g h t a t m e a l t i m e , t h e y s e r v e meals w i t h o u t c h a r g e . 3. He overcame h i s h i p i n j u r y w h i c h d o c t o r s had s a i d was i m p o s s i b l e . 4. F a t h e r Meyer came t o the house d a i l y , f r o m w h i c h a s t u r d y f r i e n d s h i p grew. 5. The w i t n e s s t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had s e e n t h e a c c u s e d when he was e a t i n g d i n n e r i n t h e d i n i n g c a r , w h i c h c o n v i n c e d t h e j u r y o f h i s p r e s e n c e on t h e t r a i n . SET I I I - M i s p l a c e d o r D a n g l i n g ' M o d i f i e r s - improve t h e s e n t e n c e s by p u t t i n g the m i s p l a c e d p h r a s e s o r c l a u s e s c l o s e r t o the word t h e y m o d i f y . Sometimes a d v e r b i a l m o d i f i e r s can be moved to t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e s e n t e n c e . A. 1. I f what t h e d i r e c t i o n s s a y i s t r u e on t h e package, t h i s i s a p o w e r f u l d r u g . 2. Mr. Simmons met a f r i e n d he hadn't s e e n f o r t e n y e a r s i n Grand C e n t r a l S t a t i o n . 3. W h i l e l i g h t i n g a c i g a r , t h e c a r swerved d a n g e r o u s l y toward a t e l e p h o n e p o l e . 4. E v e r c h a n g i n g c o l o u r , e v e r f o r m i n g new s h a p e s , h e r eyes f o l l o w e d t h e c l o u d s . 5. The n e x t c a s u a l t y t r e a t e d by t h e corpsmen was l y i n g o n a s t r e t c h e r s u f f e r i n g w i t h a b r o k e n l e g . 6. W h i l e w a t c h i n g t h e b a l l game, S i d ' s h o r s e r a n away. B. W r i t e two s e n t e n c e s o f y o u r own, u s i n g i n t r o d u c t o r y p a r t i c i p i a l p h r a s e s c o r r e c t l y . 144 SET IV - P a r a l l e l i s m - c o r r e c t t h e l a c k o f p a r a l l e l i s m i n t h e f o l l o w -i n g s e n t e n c e s by: (a) s e e i n g t h a t the c o r r e l a t i v e c o n -j u n c t i o n s a r e p r o p e r l y p l a c e d , (b) by making s u r e t h a t o n l y e q u a l terms a r e j o i n e d w i t h a c o o r d i n a t e c o n j u n c t i o n , and (c) i n c l u d i n g i n the second p a r t o f a p a r a l l e l c o n s t r u c t i o n a l l words n e c e s s a r y t o make i t c o m p l e t e . A. 1. T e l l me where you have been and an a c c o u n t o f y o u r a c t i v i t i e s t h e r e . 2. He r e g a r d e d a l l n a t i v e s as s l y , i g n o r a n t , and n o t to be depended upon. 3. P i o n e e r s came w i t h hopes o f b e i n g happy and f r e e and t o make t h e i r f o r t u n e s i n the new l a n d . 4. He n e i t h e r t o l d me t h a t I s h o u l d a t t e n d the m e e t i n g nor make a r e p o r t . 5. H i s f r i e n d s n o t o n l y were shocked by h i s f a i l u r e b u t a l s o t h e y f e l t a g r e a t d i s a p p o i n t m e n t . 6. To t h e i n e x p e r i e n c e d s o l d i e r , war may be a r o m a n t i c a d v e n t u r e , b u t a d u l l and d i r t y bus i n e s s i s t h e way t h e combat v e t e r a n r e g a r d s i t . B. 1. W r i t e a s e n t e n c e i l l u s t r a t i n g p a r a l l e l s t r u c t u r e w i t h the use o f c o r r e l a t i v e c o n j u n c t i o n s . 2. W r i t e a s e n t e n c e i l l u s t r a t i n g p a r a l l e l s t r u c t u r e w i t h i n f i n i -t i v e p h r a s e s , o r w i t h g e r u n d s . SET V - S h i f t s i n Verb Forms ( a c t i v e t o p a s s i v e w i t h i n the s e n t e n c e , o r i n t e n s e ) - s h i f t s f r o m one s u b j e c t t o a n o t h e r . R e w r i t e the f o l l o w i n g s e n t e n c e s t o a v o i d u n n e c e s s a r y s h i f t s . 1. Once a customer b i t e s i n t o one o f o u r s t e a k s , y ou w i l l n e v e r c o m p l a i n about o u r b i l l . 2. P r o p e r l y e q u i p p e d men c a n s u r v i v e f o r months i n t h e A r c t i c and no i l l e f f e c t s w i l l be s u f f e r e d . 3. A l t h o u g h we c o u l d n o t see the p l a n e s , t h e i r motors c o u l d be c l e a r l y h e a r d . 4. I f a p e r s o n w i s h e d t o s u c c e e d , you have t o work h a r d . SET V I - Sentence C o n c i s e n e s s - R e w r i t e t h e f o l l o w i n g p a s s a g e s , l e a v i n g o u t a l l u n n e c e s s a r y words. 1. As you c o n t i n u e on i n the book a l i t t l e f u r t h e r , y ou w i l l be s u r p r i s e d and amazed by t h e c l e v e r s k i l l o f the w r i t e r o f the book i n w e a v i n g i n t o g e t h e r the many p r e v i o u s l y un-r e l a t e d t h r e a d s o f the s t o r y . 145 2. His mental thought processes puzzled h i s school teachers and made them despair of h i s future success i n the years a f t e r h i s graduation from school. B. Avoid wordiness by reducing the following subordinate clauses according to d i r e c t i o n s . 1. When he was running for the bus, George f e l l and twisted h i s ankle. (Replace sub. c l . with a p a r t i c i p i a l phrase). 2. I f you leave at noon, you can get to Chicago by three. (Replace clause with a gerund phrase). 3. We decided that we would get an early s t a r t . (Replace clause with an i n f i n i t i v e phrase). 4. The teams which had come from the far West were not playing today. (Replace clause with a p r e p o s i t i o n a l phrase). 5. A f t e r you have graduated, you w i l l be looking for a job. (Replace clause with p r e p o s i t i o n a l phrase). 6. My mother, who i s the kindest woman i n the world, w i l l help you with your problem. (Replace clause with an apposi t i v e ) . 7. Since she i s an automobile dealer, Mrs. Holmes has promised her c h i l d r e n a car as a g i f t when they reach twenty-one. (Change the f i r s t clause to an appositive, and the second to a p r e p o s i t i o n a l phrase). 8. Her two s p e c i a l i t i e s , one of which i s cooking and the other sewing, helped her to get the job. (Change clause to two sin g l e word ap p o s i t i v e s ) . 9. We decided to wait f o r the bus i n order that we might save money. (Change clause to i n f i n i t i v e phrase). 10. Our days that we spent i n the north woods would have been perfect i f i t had not been for the mosquitoes that troubled us. (Reduce f i r s t clause to a p r e p o s i t i o n a l phrase, and the second clause to a si n g l e word). SET VII - Combine the following sentences into one smooth sentence, avoiding any unnecessary words, but leaving out no information. 1. Galen was a famous physician of the second century. He added greatly to our knowledge of the body. He discovered important facts about the a r t e r i e s , the brain, and the nervous system. 2. Serious w i l d l i f e p r otection began i n the United States i n the 1880's. It was headed by conservation groups. Among these groups were the National Audubon Society and the Crockett Club. 146 3. He stood at the top of the s t a i r s . He watched me. I was waiting for him to c a l l me up. He was h e s i t a t i n g to come down. His l i p s were nervous. They had the suggestion of a smile. My eyes were asking whether the smile meant come, or go away. SET VIII - Subject-Verb Agreement - Correct any errors i n subject-verb agreement, or pronoun-antecedent agreement i n the following sentences. 1. Everyone i n the class were instructed to f i l l out copies of t h e i r schedule. 2. Neither Smith nor Ford have remembered to have t h e i r uniform cleaned. 3. Everyone of us i s glad that we brought a coat. 4. Emily, as well as her cousin, walk to t h e i r school every day. 5. Neither Captain Travis nor the other o f f i c e r s t a l k about t h e i r experience. 6. The team of basketball players t r a v e l to t h e i r game i n Seattle. SET IX - Write a sentence i n each of the following patterns; underline and name the parts of each pattern: E.g., S + V + 0. The new player h i t the b a i l into l e f t f i e l d . A. 1. S + V (Use a gerund or i n f i n i t i v e as subject). 2. S + V + I O + 0 (Use a noun clause as o b j e c t ) . 3. S + "be" + C (Adj.) (Use an adjective clause to describe the subject) . 4. S + "be" + C (N) (Use a noun clause as subject). 5. S + l i n k v. + C (Use a verb i n the past perfect tense). 6. S + V + 0 + 0 C (N) (Use a verb i n the present progressive tense) B. Write a sentence i n the passive voice, giving a p o l i t i c i a n ' s answer to a question about why h i s government hasn't b u i l t new roads. SET X - Make any necessary corrections i n the following sentences. 1. The cannery manager was having trouble getting workers and advertisements promising high wages were used. 147 2. On t h e canoe t r i p we c a r r i e d a f i r s t a i d k i t because one n e v e r knows when you w i l l need one o f them. 3. The h o n e s t cowboys caught up w i t h t h e gang a t t h e bend o f t h e r o a d , and the n a f i e r c e b a t t l e e n s u e s . 4. S i n c e the c h i l d r e n e n j o y p i c n i c k i n g , we go on s e v e r a l e v e r y summer. 5. Y i e l d i n g t o the t e m p t a t i o n to l o o k a t a c l a s s m a t e ' s p a p e r , t h e t e a c h e r caught h e r c h e a t i n g . 6. He th o u g h t i t e a s i e r t o l i s t e n to news on the r a d i o t h a n r e a d i n g t h e newspaper. 148 APPENDIX E Experimental Group 1s Marks Grammar Examination, June, 1977 Lette r Grade A B C+ C C- D Total Percentage Equivalent 80+ 74-79 67-73 58-66 50-57 Below 50 Number of Students i n Each Category 3 7 4 6 4 3 27 Percentage of Students i n Each Category 11.1 25.9 14.8 22.2 14.8 11.1 99.9 APPENDIX F COMPOSITIONS TOPICS - IN PARALLEL FORMS DESCRIPTIVE NARRATIVE EXPOSITORY ALUMINUM PASSAGE 149a COMPOSITION TOPICS (Form A, F a l l ) DESCRIPTIVE Good writers can use words to paint p i c t u r e s . Not only that, but they can use words to convey sounds, smells, tastes, and things that you f e e l . When you describe a scene, you tr y to make words t e l l what the things you see are doing and what they look l i k e . You also try to say what they sound l i k e , and how they smell or taste, and how they f e e l . Select one of the following scenes, and imagine that you can see i t i n your mind's eye, they describe i t with v i v i d , l i f e l i k e word p i c t u r e s . Don't t e l l a story, j u s t describe the scene. Write two to three paragraphs, or approxi-mately a page. 1. The Dinner Table at Thanksgiving 2. Hallowe'en Night 3. An Afternoon i n Midsummer at the Beach 4. The Auditorium During A School Dance 5. A Frightening Storm 6. A Birthday Party 7. A Busy A i r p o r t or Bus Depot. 150 COMPOSITION TOPICS (Form B, Spring) Good writers can use words to paint p i c t u r e s . Not only that, but they can use words to convey sounds, smells, tastes, or fe e l i n g s . When you describe a scene, you try to make words t e l l what the things you see are doing and what they look l i k e . You also try to say what they sound l i k e , and how they smell or taste, as well as how they f e e l . Choose one of the following scenes, and t r y to describe i t as v i v i d l y as you can. Make your d e s c r i p t i o n approximately one page long. 1. Our Recreation Room A f t e r A Party 2. A Horrible Accident That I Saw 3. A T e r r i b l e F i r e That I Saw 4. A Meal I Greatly Enjoyed 5. The Beach i n the Early Morning 6. A Spring Scene i n Stanley Park (or other region). COMPOSITION TOPICS (Form A, Fall) NARRATIVE Biographies t e l l where a person was born, where he grew up, what he did in l i f e , and when he died. But the l i t t l e things that happen to you sometimes make more interesting stories. Choose one of the following and write a TRUE story about i t . When you write about something that really happened, you write with more feeling and intensity. Be sure to say when and where i t happened, what you were doing at the time, what actually took place, and how you f e l t about i t then or later. Write about three paragraphs, or about one page. 1. The Worst Weekend I Ever Had 2. The Unhappiest Day of My Life 3. The Fir s t Time I Felt Real Fear 4. My Most Embarrassing Experience 5. My Fi r s t Time in the Principal's Office 6. My Fir s t Day on a New Job 7. My Fi r s t Fight With a Friend 8. The Firs t Time I Felt Real Sadness 152 COMPOSITION TOPICS (Form B, Spring) NARRATIVE Biographies t e l l where a person was born, where he grew up, what he did i n l i f e , and when he died. However, the l i t t l e things that happen to you sometimes make more i n t e r e s t i n g s t o r i e s . Choose one of the following and write a TRUE story about i t . Be sure to say when and where i t happened, what you were doing at the time, what a c t u a l l y took place, and how you f e l t about i t then or l a t e r . Write about three paragraphs, or approximately one page. 1. My Luckiest Day 2. My F i r s t Encounter With the P o l i c e 3. My F i r s t Day at a New School 4. A T e r r i b l e Quarrel that Really Frightened Me 5. The F i r s t Time I F e l t Fear at a Party 6. My Greatest Disappointment 7. My F i r s t Experience With Drinking 8. The Problems of Being i n too Many A c t i v i t i e s at School 153 COMPOSITION TOPICS (Form A, F a l l ) EXPOSITORY I t i s very important to be able to t e l l someone else how to do something, or how something operates. Choose one of Topics A or B, which ask you to explain how a system works: (Write two or three paragraphs—about a page). A. Imagine you have been appointed as administrator of a large new school. You were selected because of the statement you submitted, which t o l d how you would run an i d e a l school. Your ideas on grade ten were of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t , as you stated what number of subjects students should have, which should be compulsory, what e l e c t i v e s would be possible, how teachers would be selected, what forms of d i s c i p l i n e would be used, how long the school day and what amounts of free time there would be, as w e l l as your views on holidays, homework, and e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s . Make your school as innovative as you l i k e , as long as you can persuade your audience i t i s i d e a l (at l e a s t for students) as well as reasonable. B. A man l i k e Benjamin F r a n k l i n was an expert on gadgets and appliances f or the home i n h i s day. He even invented a few 154 new appliances himself, such as the famous Fr a n k l i n stove. Pretend that a time machine i s bringing Franklin to v i s i t the modern age. Your task i s to bring him up to date on develop-ments i n the home since h i s time. Write a report that you could give him, t e l l i n g about several home appliances and gadgets that have been invented between h i s day and our own. T e l l him how they work and what they can do, and anything else you think he might l i k e to know. OR Do One of the following: Whenever we f e e l strongly about something, we often try to persuade others to think as we do, or to do what we want them to do. We usually t r y to think of as many good reasons as possible to persuade them to believe as we do, or to act as we want them to act. Choose one of the s i t u a t i o n s l i s t e d below, and write a composition of two to three paragraphs. You should have approximately a page of w r i t i n g . I f you wish, you could express your views i n a l e t t e r to a newspaper ed i t o r , a school p r i n c i p a l , a counsellor, or a parent. 1. Imagine you have won a two-week holiday to Hawaii, and you are t r y i n g to persuade your parents that you should be able to take a f r i e n d and go on your own (marshall as many arguments as you can). Write them a l e t t e r as they are away when you get the news. 155 2. Imagine you are being interviewed by the personnel manager of Safeway's, who has a job opening at $8.00 an hour, for work on Thursday and Friday evenings, and a l l day Saturday. (a) Persuade the manager to h i r e you OR (b) Imagine you have been offered the joy—persuade your parents to allow you to accept i t ! 3. Persuade an English teacher to l i m i t homework to once a week, and tests to once a month. 4. Persuade your fellow students that r a c i a l and other forms of prejudice do e x i s t i n your school, give s p e c i f i c instances, and show how t h i s prejudice can be eliminated. 5. Persuade your parents that t h e i r ideas on d i s c i p l i n e are outdated, and that a more l i b e r a l a t t i t u d e whould be much more e f f e c t i v e . 6. Persuade your parents that you are now too o l d to go on holidays with them. Explain why you no longer enjoy accompany-ing them, and suggest ways of dealing with the s i t u a t i o n . COMPOSITION TOPICS (Form B, Spring) EXPOSITORY It i s very important to be able to t e l l someone else how to do something, or how something operates. Choose one of Topics A or B, which ask you to explain how a system works: (Write 2 or 3 paragraphs—about a page) A. Perhaps you know someone your own age who l i v e s i n a foreign country, who has never v i s i t e d Canada, and i s extremely i n t e r -ested i n our way of l i f e . Write your f r i e n d a l e t t e r i n which you t e l l him everything that happens to you during a normal day i n your school—what classes you attend, how they are taught, what the other a c t i v i t i e s are, what the rules and p r i v i l e g e s are, and any of the things that you think are " s p e c i a l " about Canadian schools that might i n t e r e s t him. Remember that you are informing him, but also persuading him how great the Canadian education system i s . B. A Man l i k e Daniel Boone was an expert on transportation i n h i s day. He knew a l l about horses, coaches, canal boats, and ships, as well as walking! Pretend that a time machine i s bringing Daniel Boone back to v i s i t the modern age. Your task i s to 1 5 7 b r i n g h i m u p t o d a t e o n d e v e l o p m e n t s i n t r a n s p o r t a t i o n s i n c e h i s t i m e . W r i t e a r e p o r t t h a t y o u c o u l d g i v e t o h i m , t e l l i n g h i m a b o u t s e v e r a l m o d e r n m e a n s o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , h o w t h e y w o r k , w h a t t h e y c a n d o , o r a n y t h i n g y o u t h i n k h e w o u l d w a n t t o k n o w . I n f o r m h i m , b u t a l s o p e r s u a d e h i m h o w g r e a t t h e i m p r o v e m e n t s a r e ! O R D o O N E o f t h e f o l l o w i n g W h e n e v e r w e f e e l s t r o n g l y a b o u t s o m e t h i n g , w e o f t e n t r y t o p e r -s u a d e o t h e r s t o t h i n k a s w e d o , o r t o d o w h a t w e w a n t t h e m t o d o . W e u s u a l l y t r y t o t h i n k o f a s m a n y g o o d r e a s o n s a s p o s s i b l e t o p e r -s u a d e t h e m t o b e l i e v e a s w e d o , o r t o a c t a s w e w a n t t h e m t o a c t . C h o o s e o n e o f t h e s i t u a t i o n s l i s t e d b e l o w , a n d w r i t e a c o m p o s i t i o n o f t w o t o t h r e e p a r a g r a p h s . Y o u s h o u l d h a v e a p p r o x i m a t e l y a p a g e o f w r i t i n g , u n l e s s y o u r w r i t i n g i s v e r y l a r g e , i n w h i c h c a s e y o u w i l l n e e d m o r e s p a c e . I f y o u w i s h , y o u c o u l d e x p r e s s y o u r v i e w s i n a l e t t e r t o : a n e w s p a p e r e d i t o r , a s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l , a c o u n s e l l o r , o r a p a r e n t . 1 . T h e H i g h C o s t o f D r i v e r T r a i n i n g a n d L i c e n s e s f o r Y o u n g D r i v e r s 2 . T h e A d v a n t a g e s ( o r D i s a d v a n t a g e s , o r b o t h ) o f T e l e v i s i o n f o r M e 3 . M y A t t i t u d e T o w a r d T e e n a g e D r i n k i n g 4 . W h a t D i v o r c e D o e s t o a F a m i l y 5 . T h e M a n y F o r m s o f C h e a t i n g T h a t G o o n i n S c h o o l 6 . T h e A d v a n t a g e s ( o r D i s a d v a n t a g e s , o r B o t h ) o f a n A f t e r S c h o o l J o b 7 . H o w I F e e l A b o u t t h e P o l i c e . 158 ALLUMINUM PASSAGE SET I Directions: Read the passage a l l the way through. You w i l l notice that the sentences are short and choppy. Study the passage, and then rewrite i t i n a better way. You may combine sentences, change the order of words, and omit words that are repeated too many times, but t r y not to leave out any of the information. Aluminum i s a metal. I t i s abundant. I t has many uses. I t comes from bauxite. Bauxite i s an ore. Bauxite looks l i k e clay. Bauxite contains aluminum. I t contains several other substances. Workmen extract these other substances from the bauxite. They grind the bauxite. They put i t i n tanks. Pressure i s i n the tanks. The other substances form a mass. They remove the mass. They use f i l t e r s . A l i q u i d remains. They put i t through several other processes. I t f i n a l l y y i e l d s a chemical. The chemical i s powdery. I t i s white. The chemical i s alumina. I t i s a mixture. I t contains aluminum. I t contains oxygen. Workmen separate the aluminum from the oxygen. They use e l e c t r i c i t y . They f i n a l l y produce a metal. The metal i s l i g h t . I t has a l u s t e r . The l u s t e r i s bri g h t . The l u s t e r i s s i l v e r y . This metal comes i n many forms. 159 APPENDIX G 159* APPENDIX G Academic Degrees Held and P r i o r Experience of Teacher Evaluators Teacher Sex Degree Grades Taught Years of Experience 1 F B. Ed. (Secondary) 8, 9 1 2 F B. Ed. (Secondary) 8, 11 1 3 M B. Ed. (Secondary) 10, 12 18 4, M B.A':.,. M. Ed. 9, 10 18 5 F B. Sc. 11, 12 13 6 F B.A. 8, 12 10 7 M B.S., M.Ed. 8 ,11, 12 ]5 8 F B.A. Engl i s h Mai •ker 10 9 F B.A., M.A. 11, 12 18 APPENDIX H RAW SCORES 160 a Pre- and Post-Test Scores on Two Indices of Syntactic Maturity I.Q., and Letter Grade of the Experimental Group 3 Pretest Compositions 3 Post-test Compositions Narr. Expos. & Descr. Narr. Expos. & Descr. Student T-Unit Clause T-Unit Clause I . Q . Letter Length Length Length Length Grade 1 13.9 9.3 14.6 10.2 119 A -2 12.0 8.5 16.8 14.2 119 A 3 10.8 7.3 10.9 9.0 104 C-4 12.8 9.9 13.3 8.9 111 A -5 15.2 10.0 16.2 11.1 B 6 11.9 9.4 13.9 10.7 111 A -7 11.8 8.9 15.4 8.2 104 C 8 15.1 12.9 13.9 9.4 116 A. 9 11.9 9.0 11.5 8.7 107 C+ 10 9.9 7.6 13.5 9.6 106 B 11 12.8 9.7 14.4 10.0 110 C 12 11.6 7.8 14.5 9.6 105 C 13 11.4 8.7 15.9 12.0 112 B T ^ a l 160.9 119.0 184.8 131.6 1324 1 11.8 10.2 14.5 11.3 115 A 2 14.6 10.0 20.4 11.3 119 B+ 3 25-7 20.3 16.8 13.4 119 A -4 11.5 7.2 18.0 13.6 102 C 5 10.6 8.1 10.4 7.6 106 C 6 10.5 7.2 9.6 6.7 100 C-7 12.3 10.0 13.5 9.3 104 C+ 8 14.1 8.7 14.5 8.5 122 A -9 12.9 11.2 14.4 8.9 112 C+ 10 14.8 10.0 17.4 11.4 111 A l l 13.2 9.8 16.3 9.4 114 C+ 12 10.5 8.1 13.5 8.7 112 C 13 12.1 8.7 12.6 9.3 108 C-14 9.4 7-3 12.8 8.4 85 C-Sub Total l84.o 136.8 204.7 137.8- 1529 Total 344.9 255.8 389.5 269.4 2853 2 Groups  Mean 12777 <PJ7 : 14.42 9»97 109.7 Score Mean Change—T-Unit Length-- I . 6 5 Clause Length—.50 Pre- and Post-Test Scores on Two Indices of Syntactic Maturity, 161 I.Q., and Letter Grade of the Control Group 3 Pre-test Compositions 3 Post-test Compositions Narr. Expos. & Descr. Narr. Expos. & Descr. Student T-Unit Clause T-Unit Clause I.Q. Letter Length Length Length Length Grade 1 11.3 7.7 16.9 11.4 113 B+ 2 16.5 10.8 16.6 9.5 115 A, • 3 12.9 10.7 14.3 9-7 114 A. 4 12.9 9.3 20.4 12.6 102 B 5 12.5 8.9 18.6 9.5 C-6 12.0 10>O 13.8 9.5 113 B+ 7 14.1 8.o 20.5 12.3 101 C-8 13.7 8.9 19.2 11.5 102 C 9 11.2 8.3 11.9 7.6 105 C-10 12.6 8.3 12.0 9.1 108 C 11 11.4 9.7 17.6 10.2 100 B 12 7.k 6.6 13.5 9.4 100 C-3.3 9-4 7.3 15.9 8.6 100 C 14 10.5 8.1 15.3 9.6 104 C 15 11.0 8.5 17.4 9.5 c+ Sub-total 179.4 131.1 243.9 150.0 1377 1 13.3 10.1 25.9 15.5 112 A 2 10.8 8.5 17.3 10.4 108 C 3 9.9 6.9 14.1 7.8 103 B-s-4 12.1 6.8 18.8 10.4 116 C 5 20.3 11.5 17.9 13.2 124 C 6 12.0 10.4 18.4 11.3 124 A 7 13.3 9.7 18.7 9.6 111 B 8 11.8 8.9 15.1 10.3 108 C 9 10.6 7.7 13.7 9.2 107 C+ 10 12.5 8.3 16.3 10.2 118 c+ 11 10.0 8*3 22.9 13.7 125 B 12 13.2 8.7 13.3 9.5 107 c 13 13.3 10.0 15.3 9.2 109 c-14 13.1 8.0 14.0 9.8 118 A Sub-total 176.2 123.8 241.7 150.1 1600 Total of 2 Groups 355.6 254.9 485.6 300.1 2977 Mean Score 12.26 8.78 l6.?4 10.35 110.2 Mean Change—T-Unit Length—4.48 Clause Length—1.57 Pre- and Post-test Scores on Two Indices of Syntactic Maturity Aluminum Passage—Experimental Group Pre-test Post-test ;udent T-Unit Clause T-Unit Clause length Length Length Length 1 12.5 7.5 12.8 7 . 7 2 1 5 . 3 8.1 9 . 6 8 . 3 3 10.8 6 . 0 1 2 . 3 8.5 4 11.9 7.9 11.1 7 . 2 5 1 3 . 6 8.4 6 10.8 6.9 12.1 8.4 7 8.4 6 . 6 1 2 . 3 8.5 8 1 2 . 7 7.1 11 . 0 7 . 3 9 11 . 3 7 . 2 1 0 . 8 6 . 7 1 0 9.9 7.1 14 . 0 7.5 11 1 2 . 7 1 0 . 6 14.9 7.9 1 2 1 2 . 0 8 . 0 11 .7 5.9 1 3 13.4 7 . 6 1 3 . 3 7.1 Total 141.7 9 0 . 6 145.9 91 .0 1 11.5 8.8 10.5 8.8 2 1 2 . 7 7.9 27.8 7.9 3 15.1 7 . 6 14.3 8.4 4 11.9 8 .2' 14.4 8.4 5 9.8 6.9 13.4 8 . 2 6 7 . 7 6 . 6 9 . 3 7 . 0 7 9.4 8 . 7 12.4 9 . 3 8 11 .7 6 . 3 1 5 . 7 1 0 . 0 9 12.5 7 . 7 17.5 8.1 1 0 11.8 6 . 2 1 6 . 0 8 . 7 11 1 0 . 7 6 . 9 14 .0 8 . 6 1 2 1 3 . 0 8 . 7 1 6 . 7 8.9 1 3 1 2 . 0 8 . 6 10.4 6.1 14 7 . 0 6 . 3 11 . 0 9.9 Total 156.8 105.4 203.4 1 1 8 . 3 Total- 2 9 8.5 1 9 6 . 0 3 4 9 . 3 2 0 9 . 3 Both Gr-. ^Sofe 11.48 7-5^ 1 3 . 4 3 8 . 0 5 Mean Change—T-Unit Length—1.95 Clause Length-Pre- and Post-test Scores on Two Indices of Syntactic Maturity Aluminum Passage—Control Group Pre-test Post-test ;udent T-Unit Length Clause Length T-Unit Length Clause Length 1 11.4 7.9 16.9 9.2 2 13.3 8.8 17.7 8.2 3 9.7 7.6 4 11.6 7.7 21.2 7.7 5 15.1 8.2 6 10.7 8.5 13.0 8.7 7. 14.0 7.6 18.1 7.8 8 16.8 9.3 15.5 8.4 9 7.1 5.8 10 11.3 7.3 11 8.0 6.2 14.0 8.0 12 9.1 7.1 11.0 7.3 13 11.6 6.8 12.3 7.7 14 10.7 8.1 11.0 8.5 15 10.4 9.4 16.8 10.1 Total 155.7 108.1 182.8 99.8 1 11.4 6.8 19.0 10.4 2 11.3 8.1 11.7 8.4 3 8.8 6.4 14.0 7.0 k 13.4 7.1 25.0 14.3 5 14.2 7.5 25.0 9.1 6 10.5 8.1 19.4 8.8 7 9.4 6.8 18.0 10.8 8 7-5 5.5 18.8 7.8 9 7.8 6.6 16.0 8.6 10 7.7 6.0 15.7 7.3 11 10.2 6.0 17.5 7.0 12 9.6 6.6 16.3 7.5 13 13.3 10.0 lk 7.3 7.3 15.1 8.2 Total 129.1 88.8 250.2 123.4 Total—both groups 284.8 196.8 433.0 223.2 Mean Score IO.55 7.29 16.65 8.58 Mean Change--T-Unit Length—6.10 Clause Length— APPENDIX I POTTER'S DATA 164 a, Potter's Quantitative Data on "Good" and "Poor" Writing Examined Item "Good" "Poor" Papers Papers Mean Sentence length in words 17.8 15.9 Mean T-Unit length in words 16.0 14.2 Total number of T-Units 568 645 T-Units under six words i n length 17 42 T-Units over thirty words in length 30 18 Subordination index .43 .43 Sentence patterns ( i n raw totals) Subject+Verb+Adverbial (Optional) 65 100 Subject+Verb+Object 216 330 (Passives) 42 21 Subject+Verb+Object+Complement 39 Subject+Linking Verb+Complement 208 193 Sentence openers Clauses Conditional 24 53 Temporal 14 18 Others 9 8 "Thought linking" transitional expressions 64 47 Percentage of T-Units having openers 31 31 Prepositional phrases 799 684 Different prepositions used 46 40 Objects of prepositions Modified by phrase 100 59 Modified by clause 43 27 Modified by verbal 15 6 Clause as object 15 12 Verbal as object 33 21 Nominal clauses 124 149 Using 0 for "that" 25 5<* Using "that" 52 41 E l l i p t i c a l nominal clauses 10 3 Adverbial clauses 152 181 Introductory " i f " clauses 30 60 Adjectival clauses 144 148 Using0 for "which" 16 37 Using "which" 32 19 Relative in subject position 86 67 Relative in object position 38 44 Verbals Used as sentence openers 17 7 Used as subjects i ? 2 Used as adjective modifiers 33 6 ^sed as post-noun modifiers 42 2? 165-APPENDIX J CRITICAL V A L U E S O F r FOR T H E SIGN T E S T A-lOa Two-tail percentage points are given for the binomial for p = .5) N 1% 5% 10% 25% iV 1% 5% 10% 25% 1 51 15 18 19 20 2 52 16 18 19 21 3 0 53 16 18 20 21 4 0 54 17 19 20 22 5 0 0 55 17 19 20 22 6 0 0 1 56 17 20 21 23 7 0 0 1 57 18 20 21 23 S 0 0 1 1 58 18 21 22 24 9 0 1 i 2 59 19 21 22 24 10 0 1 l 2 60 19 21 23 25 11 0 1 2 3 61 20 22 23 25 12 1 2 2 3 62 20 22 24 25 13 1 2 3 3 63 20 23 24 26 1-1 1 2 3 4 64 21 23 24 26 15 • 2 3 3 4 65 21 24 25 27 16 2 3 4 5 66 22 24 25 27 17 2 4 4 5 67 22 25 26 •2S 18 3 4 5 6 6S 22 25 26 23 19 3 4' 5 6 69 23 25 27 29 20 3 5 5 6 70 23 26 27 29 21 4 5 6 7 71 24 26 28 30 22 4 5 6 7 72 24 27 28 30 23 4 6 7 8 73 25 27 2S 31 24 5 6 7 8 74 25 28 29 31 25 5 7 7 9 75 25 2S 29 32 26 6 7 8 9 70 26 2S 30 32 27 6 7 8 10 77 26 29 30 32 23 0 8 9 10 78 27 29 31 33 29 7 8 9 10 79 27 30 31 33 30 7 9 10 11 SO 2S 30 32 34 31 7 9 10 11 81 28 31 32 34 32 S 9 10 12 82 2S 31 33 35 33 S 10 11 12 S3 29 32 33 35 34 9 10 11 13 84 29 32 33 30 35 9 11 12 13 S5 30 32 34 36 30 9 11 12 14 80 30 33 34 37 37 10 12 13 14 87 31 33 35 37 3S 10 12 13 14 SS 31 34 35 3S 39 11 12 13 15 89 31 34 30 38 40 11 13 14 15 90 32 35 30 39 41 11 13 14 10 91 32 35 37 39 42 12 14 15 10 92 33 30 37 39 13 12 14 15 17 93 33 30 3S 40 44 13 15 If. 17 91 34 37 3S 40 45 13 15 16 IS 95 34 37 3S 41 40 13 15 10 IS 90 34 37 39 41 47 11 10 17 1!) 97 35 3S 39 42 4.H 14 10 17 19 9S 35 3S 40 42 49 15 17 IS 19 99 30 39 4(> 43 50 15 17 IS •JO 100 30 39 41 43 or V i lilies o f A' larger tl an 100, approximate values of r in:iy he f n t i i i i l l>y ( V.iil t l l . ' l l l (X - l)/2 - * / A M . W lit:I'd k is 1.2 -.79, O.OSOO, 0 S22; .5752 f o r tl,r: 1, ',, 10, 25 % valu •s, re.-ipertiv.ly. APPENDIX K WRITING WORKSHOP SAMPLE WRITING WORKSHOP 166 a O b i t u a r y Column: w r i t e a mock o b i t u a r y mourning t h e d e a t h o f s e l f l e s s n e s s , 5<! candy b a r s , t h e i n t e r n a l c o m b u s t i o n e n g i n e , m o r a l i t y , o r s o m e t h i n g e l s e t h a t you f e e l h as p a s s e d away. Sample Responses NATURE, MOTHER: The p a s s i n g t o d a y was announced o f M o t h e r N a t u r e . She p a s s e d away l a s t n i g h t a t 6:30 p.m., o f s e v e r e p o l l u t i o n . Hope was f o u n d e a r l i e r i n t h e day w i t h t h e d i s c o v e r y o f a s m a l l p a t c h o f c l e a n a i r o v e r t h e c e n t r a l A l p s . However, i t d i s s i p a t e d l a t e r i n t h e day. She had been r e c e n t l y s a d -dened by t h e l o s s o f h e r c h i l d r e n , known t o f r i e n d s a s T r e e s and A n i m a l s . M o t h e r N a t u r e ' s s e v e r e i l l n e s s began i n t h e e a r l y I n d u s t r i a l R e v o l u -t i o n , a l t h o u g h h e r a i l m e n t s were not n o t i c e d u n t i l t h e raid-twentieth c e n -t u r y . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , h e r t e n a n t s , Men, were u n c o n c e r n e d b y h e r i l l n e s s u n t i l t h e y were a f f e c t e d , by w h i c h t i m e i t was t o o l a t e . A t t h e t i m e o f h e r p a s s i n g she was a l o n e , f o r by t h e t i m e she had r e c e i v e d p r o p e r c a r e , she had l o s t h e r b e l o v e d R e s o u r c e s and Ozone L a y e r . T r u l y , a l l were saddened by h e r p a s s i n g . She was s u r v i v e d by no one. RESPECT, F. P.: F u n e r a l s e r v i c e s were h e l d y e s t e r d a y t o mourn t h e d e a t h o f so m e t h i n g t r e a s u r e d — r e s p e c t f o r p a r -e n t s . A l t h o u g h e x p e c t e d , t h e d e a t h o f r e s p e c t was a l i n g e r i n g one, and t h e end came a s a sho c k t o many, e s p e c i a l l y t h o s e o v e r f o r t y y e a r s o f a g e . The s l o w demise o f p a r e n t a l r e s p e c t began i n t h e m i d - s i x t i e s when young p e o p l e began t o r i o t a nd t u r n a g a i n s t t h e c r a s s m a t e r -i a l i s m o f t h e i r p a r e n t s ( a l t h o u g h a t t h e t i m e t h e y were r e v o l t i n g t h e y were a t t e n d i n g u n i v e r s i t y a t t h e expense o f t h e i r a f o r e m e n t i o n e d p a r e n t s ) . The d e a t h m y s t i f i e d most d o c t o r s , who d i d e v e r y t h i n g p o s s i b l e f o r t h e v i c t i m . M a s s i v e d o s e s o f d i s c i p l i n e , l e c t u r e s , and eve n , i n r a r e e m e r g e n c i e s , t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f s e v e r e p r e s s u r e t o t h e anatomy, were a d m i n i s t e r e d , b u t a l l t o no a v a i l . R e s p e c t f o r p a r e n t s , b e i n g .:• b o r n i n t h e y e a r one, was comatose f o r t h e p a s t few y e a r s , b u t f i n a l l y and m e r c i f u l l y was l e f t t o d i e . Such p r o m i n e n t p o l i t i c a l f i g u r e s a s Dave B a r r e t t , and B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a ' s Human R e s o u r c e s M i n i s t e r B i l l V a n d e r Zalm e x p r e s s e d t h e i r s i n c e r e s t h e a r t -f e l t sympathy f o r s e v e r a l h o u r s . The e u l o g y was d e l i v e r e d by a p a r e n t a f f e c t e d by t h e d e a t h , t o a l a r g e group o f mourners who l a t e r s t o o d i n l i n e f o r h o u r s t o v i e w t h e r e m a i n s l y i n g i n s t a t e . The p a l l -b e a r e r s i n c l u d e d L o v e - f o r - P a r e n t s , t h e F a m i l y - U n i t , and O b e d i e n c e . R e s p e c t f o r P a r e n t s i s s u r v i v e d b y Rudeness, Bad B e h a v i o u r , and Gen-e r a l Contempt f o r t h e O l d e r G e n e r a -t i o n . 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0055711/manifest

Comment

Related Items