Jeff Anderson runs the Wordstock for Teachers workshop on Friday, October 9 (8 a.m.-4 p.m. at the Ambridge Event Center, 1333 NE MLK Blvd). He is author of Mechanically Inclined.
Nothing is shocking about my subject line—there are many who tout the importance of grammar, the importance of being correct and proper. And, while I don’t disagree with the fact that correctness matters, I don’t think this is the only reason—or even the most important reason—grammar matters. Grammar is a tool for expression, a way to embed detail and life and style in our writing. I want my students (and the teachers I work with) to know the power of grammatical patterns, the power they give writers to express themselves. Frankly, it’s not an endless list.
Start small, go deep, and students will know what they need to know. By knowing a few patterns of power (like a compound sentence or a serial comma), young writers can begin to find their voice, to find the power of their very own words. I think our obsession with correctness does grammar a disservice. My work has been about looking again at grammar instruction and how we can do it so that it makes sense for students, so they can actually use it, so they are not running away from it, afraid.
When we stop clamoring about not ending a sentence with a preposition or starting a sentence with “but” and focus on patterns that actually help students express the power of their words with clarity and grace, we are going a long way toward showing them that grammar is a creational facility rather than a correctional one. I hope you bring your voice and your open mind to Wordstock.
Ouch, Jeff! Was that “they’re” error in the second paragraph just to see if your readers are awake?
Touche, Martha! Fixed!
I appreciate your work, Jeff. Your practical approach makes sense; however to dig a bit deeper seems important to understand the underpinnings of the grammar debate.
It seems to me that the key lines of division within grammar instruction (meaning syntax, word choice, usage, punctuation, and even spelling—a catch-all term that most English language-arts teachers use to describe the “stuff” that we “have to , but don’t want to” teach) have been drawn between those who favor part to whole and whole to part instruction. As a brief aside… isn’t this much akin to the graphophonic (phonics-based) and whole language reading debate? Anyway, here is my take on the assumptions of both positions:
Advocates of part to whole instruction believe that front-loading instruction in the discrete parts of language will best enable students to apply these parts to the whole process of writing. Following are the key components of this inductive approach.
1. Memorization of the key terminology and definitions of grammar to provide a common language of instruction.
2. Identification of grammatical constructions leads to application.
3. Familiarity with the rules of grammar leads to correct application.
4. Teaching the components of sentence construction leads to application.
5. Distrust of one’s own oral language as a grammatical filter .
Advocates of whole to part instruction believe that back-loading instruction in the discrete parts of language, as is determined by needs of the writing task, will best enable students to write fluently and meaningfully. Following are the key components of this deductive approach.
1. Minimal memorization of the key terminology and definitions of grammar and minimal practice in identification of grammatical constructions.
2. Connection to one’s oral language is essential to inform fluent and effective writing.
3. Reading and listening to exemplary literature and poetry provides the models that students need to mimic and revise as they develop their own writing style.
4. Minimal error analysis.
5. Teaching writing as a process with a focus on coherence will best enable students to apply the discreet parts such as subjects, predicates, parts of speech, phrases, clauses, sentences, and transitions to say something meaningful.
Of course, how teachers align themselves within the Great Grammar Debate (See http://penningtonpublishing.com/blog/grammar_mechanics/the-great-grammar-debate/) is not necessarily an “either-or” decision. Most teachers apply bits and pieces of each approach to teaching grammar. I take a stab on how to integrate the inductive and deductive approaches in How to Integrate Grammar and Writing Instruction (See http://penningtonpublishing.com/blog/grammar_mechanics/how-to-integrate-grammar-and-writing-instruction/).