Is grammar too difficult?
The earliest research questioning the value of grammar teaching found that it was simply a waste of time in the sense that most children could not apply any of the categories even after many years of teaching (Cawley 1957; Hudson 1987; Macauley 1947). This is clearly a fundamental objection if it is true, but most research has found that, when well taught, any kind of grammar (traditional or modern) can be learned by most school children at least at secondary level (Bateman and Zidonis 1966; Elley 1994; Elley and others 1975; Elley and others 1979; Harris 1962; Herriman 1994; Kennedy and Larson 1969; Mellon 1969; Quattlebaum 1994; Tomlinson 1994; Tordoir and Wesdorp 1979) and in some cases at primary level - for example, fifth-graders (Gale 1967). My international survey showed that grammatical analysis is regularly taught in some countries to children as young as six or seven (Hudson 1998), and the evidence from developmental psychology is that metalinguistic awareness starts to develop naturally between 5 and 7 years (Herriman 1994).
All that the early research seems to show, therefore, is that it is possible to teach grammar in such a way that children learn nothing; but this is hardly surprising - the same is surely true of any subject. However the early research should act as a warning to any who might argue that any kind of grammar teaching is better than none. It is also interesting to remember that grammar was one of the few subjects that teachers taught purely on the basis of what they themselves learned at school, without any kind of 'boost' at university; a subject with such weak intellectual underpinnings is doomed to eventual extinction, so it is imperative to ensure that the same mistake is not repeated.
GOOD WISHES