Where are we with grammar instruction?

[Jim Burke]

Various conversations on the ECN, combined with recent rounds of state testing raise the question about the study of grammar and in ways that make a difference. What are people going, using, thinking, assigning, and teaching and to whom (e.g., 9th? 11th? 12th?!). What do you do, when, how, with whom, and why? Do you sleep with Warriner's under your pillow? Use it as a doorstop? Bathroom pass? Sacred text? Are have you gone digital? Online? LCD? A touchy subject, which is why it's fun---and important---to talk about it.

[Mark Pennington]

I understand the need to teach in the real world of such tests, but wouldn't it be better to diagnostically assess where each student is, in terms of grammar, usage, and mechanics, and then remediate via grammar books/worksheets/mini lessons as needed? DOL just does not differentiate instruction. Try my grammar/mechanics diagnostic with accompanying recording matrices and see if this is method is more efficient. http://penningtonpublishing.com/assessments.php

[Rene Alligood]

I am currently interning in my methods course, and we're using The English Teacher's Companion. Despite the great ideas offered in this specific text, many of my friends who are already in schools have noted that grammar is still being taught in isolation. I find this very frustrating because as noted above, we are studying texts which offer more engaging activities for students. At the undergrad level, I'm finding a definite disconnect between what we're being taught and the obsolete grammar instruction being used in schools.

[Carol Sanders]

Obsolete . . . are we to give up grammar instruction altogether? Are we to expect young people to learn proper sentence structure purely by osmosis? The osmosis they have is flawed--they write "Me and him went to the movie, it was hilareous."

I find that students DO improve in understanding of language over time. My seniors have a better grasp than my sophomores. While grammar instruction may seem futile, we need to remember that our students are children whose brains are not fully developed. They need time to digest and comprehend all the concepts. That doesn't mean we should not teach those concepts. SOME of the material sinks in.

[Karen Pearce]

I have enjoyed reading what others have written. The same discussion is one we often have at my school. I bring my perspective from the point of one who has seen traditional, transformational, and no grammar in the curriculum. Grammar is what it always has been -- the technical language of writers. I teach grammar so that my students and I have a common lexicon. When we look at the complexity of sentence length, beginning, and type in a passage, we need words for what we see. I need words that they will understand to use when we confer about writing. It isn't easy, and since my county has embraced the whole new language of Martha Kolln's structural grammar, I am both a learner and a teacher.
The concept of a shared language gives me a reason to teach grammar -- and a reason to refrain from making grammar the heart of any lesson. For instance, I teach the use of the appositive (NP) as a great way to give readers information quickly and economically.

[Daniel Sharkovitz]

Jim,

While I once made the teaching of grammar more complicated than it had to be both for me and for my students, things have changed.

These days I keep the process simple. And simplicity has meant improvement in this--and related areas--for my students.

1. Each student is given two growth charts--one for spelling and one for grammar, usage, and punctuation. The grammar chart has a column for incorrect use example, rule governing correct use, and corrected item.

2. Students create individual copy editing checklist, which they add to each time they get a paper back if there are new errors. Before submitting a new paper, students use the check list to copy edit current essay. Thus, if a student messed up and used effect for affect, she would check that. Even airline pilots use a checklist prior to takeoff regardless of how many hundreds of flights they have flown.

3. My students seem to appreciate the fact that this process eliminates busy work. They only have to learn what they need to achieve the goal of the paper they are writing. And I don't have to waste Meteus's time teaching him something that only Karen needs.

4. I teach students how to use both book-based and the online writing resources that are linked to my website under Grammar and Punctuation. When Fred gets a paper back with an incorrectly punctuated title, he will know where to go to locate information to help him learn correct method.

5. The effectiveness of these steps increases, I have found, in direct proportion to the value students see in the writing they do. But that is perhaps another another epic tale.

6. By requiring students to take responsibility, with my guidance, to improve in those areas of grammar, spelling, usage, and punctuation that they know they need to achieve the rhetorical goals of whatever writing they are doing, they seem to learn more stuff faster and retain it longer.

7. While there is no one correct way to teach these things, what I have described here works well for me, my students, and other teachers who have chosen to adopt this method.

Dan

[Mark Pennington]

I've been thinking more about Jim's question: Where are we with grammar instruction? In reviewing our discussion, most of our posts (including mine) have been focusing on the "grammar instruction" portion of the query. However, I started thinking more about the "we" teacher component of the question. So, here are my six reasons why I think "we" avoid grammar instruction.

First of all, grammar is a lot like Kleenex®. The brand name has been associated with many other similar products; Kleenex® has become a generic. If I ask my wife to “Please pass a Kleenex®, I would probably get irritated if she responded, “Is a generic tissue okay?” After all, I just want to blow my nose.

So, let’s connect on what we mean by teaching grammar. Grammar has come to mean a catch-all term that refers to everything English teachers would prefer to avoid teaching. This includes the part of a sentence, the function of these parts (such as the parts of speech), the arrangement of words with the sentence, word choice, punctuation, and capitalization, and assorted oddities that we think students should know, but wish they learned elsewhere. But, why do most English-language arts teachers detest teaching this collection of instructional essentials that we label as grammar?

1. We fear the unknown. ELA teachers live in the day-to-day fear that one of our colleagues might ask us how we incorporate teaching past perfect participles into our persuasive essays. Teachers naturally tend to avoid teaching things that they do not understand. Most ELA teachers were trained to love literature, poetry, and writing (or at least one of the three). Few were trained in teaching grammar. Some of us have picked up a few tidbits here and there over the years or were educated in Catholic schools.

2. There is not enough time. Teachers have their comprehensive lists of standards and courses of study on their “to-do” lists. There are pressures from administrators, the omnipresent district or state testing, and our own colleagues to check off items on these lists. Of course, we have our favorite novels and projects. Grammar instruction does not make our Letterman’s Top Ten. “If I had unlimited time… then, maybe. But to be honest… Socratic Seminars, readers theater, and that Steinbeck novel would probably shove their way into my lesson plans first.”

3. The “research” says not to teach grammar. We trot out a few studies as convenient excuses to avoid teaching grammar and gloss over the real language of the research conclusions, i.e., “teaching grammar in isolation outside of the meaningful context of writing is ineffective.” Some teachers do parrot these research conclusions accurately, but few actively address the variables of the research and actually teach grammar in the meaningful context of writing.

4. The fact that students are grammatically-challenged is someone else’s fault. “Students should know this stuff by now. The grade-level standards emphasize review of grammar, not introduction of grammar. I can only teach what I am supposed to teach. I can’t be responsible for other teachers’ shortcomings. I have my grade-level standards to teach. If I spent all my efforts on what they already should know, students would never learn anything new. Hopefully, they’ll pick it up later, somehow.”

5. Students don’t like grammar and they don’t remember what they are taught. “Grammar is boring. I want to be a fun and interesting teacher. I’m shooting for Teacher-of-the-Year and I’m not about to let grammar get in the way. Besides, the pay-offs from teaching grammar seem minimal, anyway. The students have learned the parts of speech every year and they couldn’t define or identify an adverb, if their lives depended on it. An adverbial clause? You’ve got to be kidding. I won’t drill and kill my students.”

6. We don’t know what we don’t know. Teachers teach from personal experience and professional development. Most teachers in their twenties, thirties, and forties had little grammatical instruction in their school years and few university professors have trained these teachers in grammar for the reasons already discussed. The pervasive “whole language” philosophy of the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s de-emphasized grammar instruction and relegated it to the editing step within the writing process. “I didn’t learn grammar, and I turned out alright” is an often thought, if not spoken, rationale for ditching grammar instruction.

[Daniel Sharkovitz]

Mark,

I'm having a difficult time finding my teacher self in your six points about teachers--all teachers apparently. But, before I spend an inordinate amount of time interrogating what I see to be some of the more significant assumptions inherent in your argument, I thought I would take a moment to ask a question to make certain that I have not misunderstood your argument. Do you really mean to generalize all of your key assertions so that they include all teachers? If yes, I would find of great value your rationale for including me as one of the many referents of the pronoun "we" in the above.

Of course, if I have misread your argument, my bad.

Thank you.

Dan

[Mark Pennington]

Daniel,

I would not say that all six points fit all ELA teachers I have known. To be honest, I will say that all six points have fit me at points of my twenty-nine year teaching career. And I would hazard to guess that one or more of the points would resonate with most. I have met some teachers who seem very comfortable in their own grammar skins, but not many. As a reading specialist, I have had the opportunity to work with dozens of elementary teachers. I can't remember one who would say he or she felt comfortable with grammar instruction. As an ELA teacher at the middle school and high school levels, I have struggled with the issues inherent in the Great Grammar Debate, as have my colleagues, and my thinking has changed over the years (See my blog at http://penningtonpublishing.com/blog/grammar_mechanics/the-great-gr...) to understand my perspective), and even in part-timing at the community college level I have run into similar issues and rationalizations.

Please interrogate away. I always love your posts. Iron sharpens iron.

Mark

[Daniel Sharkovitz]

Mark,

Thank you for clarifying. I sort of thought that your original post did not actually mean to include everyone in its key assertions. I mean, how could it?

Dan

[Debbie Thornton]

Very interesting discussion with many valid points. I would like to add or emphasize what one poster has already mentioned, lets look at what the resarch has to say. This poster mentioned the NTCE Guidelines and I would like to quote their position on errors in writing, which seems to be a major frustration for many. The NTCE says "Teaching grammar will not make writing errors go away. Students make errors in the process of learning, and as they learn about writing, they ofen make new errors, not necessarily fewer ones. But knowing basic grammatical terminology does provide students with a tool for thinking about and discussing sentences. And lots of discussion of language, along with lots of reading and lots of writing, are the three ingredients for helping students write in accordance with the conventions of standard English"

I think many of us forget the part about students making mistakes while learning and at some point there are more mistakes rather than fewer. I know that I get frustrated with my second graders use or lack of use of capital letters in their writing, so I wanted to post this quote so others will be less frustrated.