Research, Invention and Question Reformulation

From last week's blog:
Argumentative Research Paper Topic: Grammar in the Twenty-First Century

Thesis: The function of grammar in the modern high school English classroom is a reflection of the society around it, where students live bombarded by stimuli integrated into their existence from a plethora of mediums as they face a wide variety of academic and assessment challenges.  Effective teaching of any concept therefore requires multi-tiered approaches.

Counter-thesis: Grammar should provide the foundation on which writing is built, and basic concepts must be understood before construction of complex sentences can even begin.

This question isn't really formulated as a question, so to take what is there and turn it into one:

Does the teaching of grammar in the twenty-first century require a multi-tiered, integrated classroom approach, or should it be taught in isolation to formulate and strengthen basic concepts?

Further analysis based on last week's "Using Research for Invention":

The question is formulated beyond the constraints of a yes or no question, and thus beyond appropriate techniques for beginning writers, who respond to the yes or no structure by stating opinions and "feelings" about the topic. To answer this question requires some research on both sides of it, so it is also beyond the "second-tier" question from last week's handout, which essentially focused on listing. Therefore it is a third level, complex question requiring research, analysis and a conclusion.

Restating the question based on two approaches:

Comparison/Contrast (Podis):

Does the teaching of grammar in the twenty-first century require a multi-tiered, integrated classroom approach, or should it be taught in isolation to formulate and strengthen basic concepts?

(I think the question is already set up as a comparison/contrast structure)

Appearance and Reality (Podis):

Many in modern society believe that casual electronic communication has destroyed writers' abilities to use grammar effectively, and are calling for a return to fundamental grammar teaching in an isolated context; however, this is precisely what should not be done. Students accustomed to multi-tiered, sensory-integrated environments in every other aspect of their lives need to learn grammar in the same way.

The comparison/contrast model seems to me to direct the tone of the paper to an analysis of teaching techniques on both sides of the question, and then an analysis based on the strengths and weaknesses of the approaches.

The Appearance vs. Reality question skews it more toward societal perceptions, and would require research into how grammar is used outside of the classroom before going back into an analysis of teaching. I think perhaps it is too broad in scope for the length of the paper required.