Response To Haver

Haver also states that the traditional group also did better on "some levels of oral production" (xiv). Only one of the two traditional groups took the oral test, a group that performed much better than the other traditional group throughout the study. They were better than the experimental students only in their greater use of one aspect of the plural morpheme and the pronoun "they."

In summary, this study used a doubtful measure of linguistic competence, at best a weakened form of comprehensible input, and nevertheless found practically no advantage for direct teaching of grammar.

In conclusion, the three sources of support for Haver's claim of the effectiveness of grammar instruction fade away when examined in detail. In fact, they provide evidence showing that grammar instruction has only a weak effect, at best. For discussion of additional studies, see Krashen (2003).

REFERENCES

Asimov, N. 2000. Test Scores Up, Test-Takers Down: Link between participation, improvement on school exam prompts concern. San Francisco Chronicle, Saturday, July 22, 2000.

Bracey, G. and Biddle, B. 2000. No excuses, lots of reasons. A response to: No Excuses: Lessons from 21 High Performing, High-Poverty Schools, by Samuel Casey Carter. University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, School of Education: Center for Education Research, Analysis, and Innovation.
http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/EPRU/peer_reviews/cerai-00-19.htm.

Brownlee, S. 1998. Baby talk. US News and World Report, June 15: 48-55.

Carter, S. 2000. No Excuses: Lessons from 21 High-Performing High-Poverty Schools. Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation.

Cho, G. 2000. The role of heritage language in social interactions and relationships: Reflections from a language minority group. Bilingual Research Journal 24(4).
http://brj.asu.edu/v244/abstractt.html.

Coles, G. 2003. Reading The Naked Truth: Literacy, Legislation, and Lies. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Day, E. and Shapson, S. 1991. Integrating formal and informal approaches to language teaching in French immersion: An experimental study. Language Learning 41: 25-58.

Day, E. and Shapson, S. 1996. Studies in Immerson Education. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Eckman, F., Highland, D., Lee, P., Mileham, J. and Weber, R. (Eds.) 1995. Second Language Acquisition Theory and Pedagogy. Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.

Garan, E. 2002. Resisting Reading Mandates: How to Triumph with the Truth. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Greene, J. 1997. A Meta-Analysis of the Rossell and Baker review of bilingual education research. Bilingual Research Journal 21(2,3): 103-122.

Hakuta, K. 2000. Points on SAT-9 Performance and Proposition 227.
http://www.stanford.edu/~hakuta/SAT9/SAT9_2000/bullets.htm

Harley, B. 1989. Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom experiment. Applied Linguistics 10: 331-359.

Haver, J. 2003a. Structured English Immersion. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Haver, J. 2003b. Letter to the editor. Arizona Republic, April 4, 2003.

Ho, D. 1998. Inteview with David Ho.
http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/hoa0bio-1.

Johnson, J. 1992. Critical period effects in second language acquisition: The effect of written versus auditory materials on the assessment of grammatical competence. Language Learning 42(2): 217-248.