Does high school shortchange grammar?
 

YES
Steve Parks:
There is more to grammar than knowing the rules

It is a common attitude among college faculty that students are not prepared to write for college. If only, they opine, high schools would bother to teach students the proper grammar to use when writing academic papers. Why, they ask, is grammar being shortchanged?

The immediate answer is that on one level high school teachers are not shortchanging grammar at all. It might be argued that with the back-to-basics movement over the past 30 years as well as the increase in standardized testing, there is more instruction time devoted to grammar than ever before. There is, however, a more complicated and perhaps more accurate answer.

While it may appear grammar instruction has increased, students are still being shortchanged in how they are being taught grammar. Too often the assumption is that knowledge of grammar rules will be the silver bullet for writing problems and, consequently, the more grammar a student learns the better. Indeed, we act as if students must have the intricate knowledge of a linguist before they set out to write.

I would argue that we need to think harder about which grammar rules are actually necessary to be an effective writer. We also need to consider how different writing genres contain different grammar expectations. The grammar and sentence structure expectations of this article, for instance, are significantly different from those for a scholarly article. And, once we begin to think seriously about what elements of grammar instruction can actually improve writing, we need to think harder about how to teach those rules and terms so that they will actually serve the interests of the writer.

This is not to say grammar instruction should be eliminated. We need to recognize that students are in a rich language environment where different dialects and languages are constantly being spoken. They are witnesses to rapid and continual language changes. In such an environment, learning common grammatical terms as a category of analysis can give students conceptual tools to analyze changes in the language and their impact. We need to respect the historical importance of language study, that is, without fetishizing it as the silver bullet of writing instruction.

In short, we need to recognize that we are educating students to be both writers and critically engaged citizens. Enabling students to understand the grammar of their writing task is an important aspect of this work. Denying the ability of grammar to enable students to understand how language changes and adapts is to limit our role as teachers and citizens.

Grammar is more than diagramming sentences. It is both learning how to communicate and how to make sense of our linguistic environment. We need to make this clear to our students.

Steve Parks is an associate professor of English and director of New City Writing: An Institute for the Study of Literature, Literacy and Culture at Temple University.

NO
Mary Pizzimenti:
Rote learning isn’t the answer

Does the formal teaching of grammar improve writing? During the last few decades, research on this topic has influenced the teaching of writing. Research to date has shown no direct link between the study of grammar rules and the improvement of writing. So when the ACT released an article indicating the decline in student writing, why did the organization propose the formal teaching of grammar as a solution to the problem?

Rote learning is no longer a commonly practiced teaching technique. Perhaps this is why, in the same article, a survey polling the teaching of good writing elements showed that high school teachers ranked the teaching of grammar and usage last. These teachers consider the teaching of grammar as imbedded in the writing process and not as a separate skill. Writing is now taught as a recursive process that includes thinking skills, organization elements and editing. Grammar is neither a “fix” nor a focus of writing instruction. Its usefulness lies in the context of the revision process. Through the writing and editing process, the grammar concepts used can be reviewed in mini-lessons.

Beyond the different teaching styles used in writing instruction, the evolution of language is an issue. When teachers correct perceived errors on a writing assignment, we are comparing student work to a standard set of conventions. While standards are important to effective communication, many “red circles” indicating errors may be indicative of a social or generational bias. We may be ignoring the dynamic nature of our language if we refuse to accept some change brought on by culture or dialect.

The natural evolution of language in America is continuous and most clearly shown by our departure from the King’s English over the last 227 years. Much of this change has occurred through writing, and it is natural that our students would participate in this journey of change. English teachers should examine which rules are necessary for the clarity and understanding of a written message and which are remnants of social convention.

Teachers shouldn’t fixate on grammar: They should strive to improve students’ writing with strategies that work. Allow students to discuss the writing of published authors. Create assignments that ask students to write for a reader, not for teacher evaluation. Ask them to write for an audience and, later, when students edit their work, focus on grammatical concepts that will help improve the message they want to convey.

Audience feedback can motivate students to examine the quality and effectiveness of their message. That examination should include the study of related grammatical concepts.

These are effective, creative ways to explore grammar. What’s certain is that we should not respond by dusting off the grammar books.

Mary Pizzimenti is a resource teacher leader with the Dearborn (Mich.) Public Schools and works on district initiatives involving curriculum design. An educator for 24 years, she has been a classroom teacher and English department chair at Fordson High School in Dearborn.

Copyright by the American Federation of Teachers, AFL•CIO. All rights reserved. Photographs
and illustrations, as well as text, cannot be used without permission from the AFT.