ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS RESOURCES
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS RESOURCESINTRODUCTION
Overview of Research
The North Carolina Standard Course of Study intends grammar and language usage to be taught in the context of writing because English research for decades has shown that grammar taught in the context of writing is more effectively retained and carried over into students' writing. Even so, many teachers still rely on traditional approaches to grammar instruction while struggling with the how and why of teaching grammar and language usage.
Traditional Approaches to Teaching Grammar
"The study of traditional school grammar has no effect on raising the
quality of student writing. . . . Taught in certain ways, grammar and mechanics
instruction has a deleterious effect on student writing."(Hillocks, 1986)
In general, teachers believe that teaching grammar will make students better writers. However, research into the value of grammar for improving writing has not confirmed its efficacy. Research questioning the value of teaching grammar to improve writing dates back as early as 1906. (Hoyt) More recently Braddock and his colleagues (1963) summarizing the research contend that "In view of the widespread agreement of research studies . . .the conclusion can be stated in strong and unqualified terms: the teaching of formal grammar has a negligible, or because it usually displaces some instruction and practice in actual composition, even a harmful effect on the improvement of writing." (37-38)
Hillocks (1986) provides a more thorough meta-analysis of the research and still concludes:
"The study of traditional school grammar (i.e., the definition of part of speech, the parsing of sentences, etc.) has no effect on raising the quality of student writing. . . . Taught in certain ways, grammar and mechanics instruction has a deleterious effect on student writing. In some studies a heavy emphasis on mechanics and usage (e.g., marking every error) resulted in significant losses in overall quality. . . . We need to learn how to teach standard usage and mechanics after careful task analysis and with minimal grammar. "(248-49)
Teaching Grammar and Language Usage in the Context of Writing
The answer is not eliminating grammar but teaching it with relevance in the
context of writing.
Given the research evidence, what is a teacher to do? The problems are clear. Without any grammar instruction, students and teachers lack a common language for discussing writing. Moreover, we are aware of people's judgments of others based on their ability to use the standard conventions of spoken and written English. Clearly the answer is not eliminating grammar but teaching it with relevance in the context of writing as indicated by the Standard Course of Study and as tested in the English I End of Course test.
Writing forms the heart of the English curriculum. Four of the six Environments focus on various modes of writing: Expressive, Informational, Argumentative, and Critical. Theother two Environments, Literary and Conventions, are integrated into all the others. Literature is not merely an end in itself but also provides models of effective writing and generates reasons to write. The two are inseparable.
Grammar taught in the context of writing becomes a tool for talking about writing - thewriting we create as well as read in literature books. Harry Noden, (1999) in ImageGrammar: Using Grammatical Structures to Teach Writing, describes the fundamentalelements of grammar as the brushstrokes that a writer uses to paint images of life. (1)He cites many examples showing how famous authors have used constructions such as participial phrases to create tension and action. Our understanding of the power of language increases when students come to recognize that syntax and diction work together to awaken the senses, bringing literature to life. Noden, drawing from classic and popular writing, sees literature as the model of a set of grammatical constructions that students can learn to imitate and then appropriate to enliven their own writing.
What to Teach
The errors give us a window into the students' processing and thus a place
to begin.
Teaching grammar in the context of writing requires teachers to be much more generative in their lesson design than teaching a set of structural components delineated by a text or curriculum. Teachers struggle with what to teach and how to ensure that students have all the skills they need. Two important studies provide some insight into the types of high leverage grammatical structures. Connors and Lunsford (1988) studied 3000 graded college essays to determine the errors that occurred most frequently as well as those most frequently marked by teachers. It will come as no surprise to high school teachers that spelling errors were the most frequent. But spelling errors are also the most idiosyncratic errors as well as one of the easiest to correct. The remaining errors give us a window into the students' processing, and thus a place to begin.
- No comma after an introductory element
- Vague pronoun reference
- No comma in compound sentence
- Wrong word
- No comma in nonrestrictive element
- Wrong/missing inflected endings
- Wrong or missing preposition
- Comma splice
- Possessive apostrophe error
- Tense shift
- Unnecessary shift in person
- Sentence fragment
- Wrong tense or verb form
- Subject-verb agreement
- Lack of comma in series
- Pronoun agreement error
- Unnecessary comma with restrictive element
- Run-on or fused sentence
- Dangling or misplaced modifier
- Its/It's error
Looking at this list and grouping it provide some basic categories that may indicate high leverage issues for grammar instruction. For example, errors 3, 8, 12, and 18 deal with sentence and clause boundaries and their correct punctuation. Related to those errors are the comma errors that arise from confusion about clauses. In Noguchi's analysis, sentence or clause boundary errors make up seven of the top twenty stylistic errors and four of the top ten, a grouping not exceeded by any other category. (21-22) A teacher focusing on sentence and clause formation and usage would be addressing many of these errors without extended tedious traditional drill. By using the technique of sentence combining, students can expand their capacity to write varied sentence types while coming to understand the functions and boundaries of clauses. The student-generated sentences would provide practice for exploring the effect of punctuation on meaning, providing practical ways to connect students' use of commas to the intent of the sentence.
The Non-Educators View of Grammatical Errors
While Connors and Lundsford's study provides an interesting starting place
for teachers, it is still an insider's look at its own profession, an
analysis of student errors and teacher-marking of those errors. To get outside
the educator's world and see how non-educators judge grammatical expression,
we look at Maxine Hairston's (1981) study of the attitudes of other professionals
toward writing errors. Hairston sent our sixty-five sentences containing a different
grammatical error to 101 professional people and received 84 responses from
professionals in fields such as business, law, newspapers, real estate, finance,
and architecture. The professionals indicated the degree to which the error
bothered them and Hairston classified them into groups from the most serious
to the least serious in these people's estimations. Those responding reacted
very strongly to the group of errors marked "Status Marking" and
less strongly toward those classed as "Very Serious," "Serious,"
"Moderately Serious," and "Minor or Unimportant."
STATUS MARKING
- Nonstandard verb forms in past or past participle: brung instead of brought; had went instead of had gone
- Lack of subject-verb agreement: We was instead of We were; Jones don't think it's acceptable instead of Jones doesn't think it is acceptable
- Double negatives
- Objective pronoun as the subject: Him and Richard were the last one hired.
VERY SERIOUS
- Sentence fragments
- Run-on sentences
- Noncapitalization of proper nouns
- Would of instead of Would have
- Lack of subject-verb agreement (non-status marking)
- Insertion of comma between the verb and its complement
- Nonparallelism
- Faulty adverb forms: He treats his men bad
- Use of transitive verb set for intransitive sit
SERIOUS
- Predication errors: The policy intimidates hiring.
- Dangling modifiers
- I as an objective pronoun
- Lack of commas to set of interrupters like however
- Lack of commas in a series
- Tense switching
- Use of a plural modifier with a singular noun: These kind of errors
MODERATELY SERIOUS
- Lack of possessive form before a gerund
- Lack of commas to set of an appositive
- Inappropriate use of quotation marks
- Lack of subjunctive mood
- Writing That is her across the street
- Use of whoever instead of whomever
- Use of the construction The situation is . . .when
- Failure to distinguish between among and between
- Comma splices
MINOR OR UNIMPORTANT
- Use of a qualifier before Unique: That is the most unique city
- Writing different than instead of different from
- Use of a singular verb with data
- Use of a colon after a linking verb: Three causes of inflation are:
- Omission of the apostrophe in the contraction it's
Chart as presented in Noguchi (1991) p. 25
It is important for us to remember that our students will be judged by their writing in the outside world.
While these classifications are based on the reader's perceptions of the seriousness of the error and as English teachers our perceptions may differ, it is important for us to remember that our students will be judged by their writing in the outside world and that as English-language enthusiasts/experts we may be more interested in the intricacies of language usage than the professional communities that our students will enter once they leave our classrooms. It is also important for us to remember that what is considered "correct" grammar is a moving, if slow-moving, target. While Hairston's respondents in 1981 considered the lack of a possessive form before a gerund to be a "Moderately Serious" error, several current usage sources no longer consider this an error at all. Still, Hairston concluded her study by reminding us that "Although there seem to be some signs of change, and on some usage items the public may be ahead of the professions, I think that we cannot afford to let students leave our classrooms thinking that surface features of discourse do not matter. They do." (799)
Instructional Implications
Instead the most critical concepts are better taught during writing workshop within the context of individual student writing
Both Constance Weaver and Noguchi agree that few of the frequently occurring errors or even the status-marking errors from Hairston's study need to be addressed by the formal structural grammar or drills that are frequently taught in English classes. Instead the most critical concepts are better taught during writing workshop within the context of individual student writing. The crucial concepts seem to be:
- Sentence and clause (dependent and independent)
- Non-sentence (fragment and phrase)
- The concept of modification (by words, phrases, clauses).
(These concepts allow issues such as run-on sentences and comma splices to be addressed.) With this restricted set of basic concepts, teachers have the opportunity to begin to tailor instruction to the specific needs of the class and the individual student.
Grammar Mini-Lessons
The essence of the mini-lesson is its connection to the observational assessment
of need that the teacher draws from observation of student writing.
The key technique for teaching grammar in the context of writing is the mini-lesson. Many teachers believe that they are teaching grammar in context because they have broken up their grammar instruction into a series of small lessons spaced out across the year rather than teaching a unit on grammar. A series of randomly occurring lessons is not the same as teaching grammar in the context of writing. The essence of the minilesson is its connection to the observational assessment of need that the teacher draws from analysis of student writing. Rather than teaching from a list of grammar skills or a curriculum designed by a textbook company, the teacher observes in student writing certain problems that occur frequently. These observations lead the teacher to frame objectives that are shared with students as hints for improving their writing or areas to work on drawn from their own work. The teacher provides a demonstration and explanation of the objective. Students have some time for guided application of the concept by writing, not by completing a series of exercises or drills. Further observation of student writing assesses understanding. When students next use the concept independently in their writing, the teacher continues to monitor that the lesson has been incorporated into their repertoires of writing skills. The entire lesson can be individuated for groups of students whose writing indicates specific needs. The following chart compares a traditional grammar lesson to grammar taught in the context of writing:
TRADITIONAL GRAMMAR LESSON
- Objective drawn from teacher observation of student writing and phased as helpful hints or ideas
- Demonstration of the concept and explanations of reasoning
- Guided application (generating sentences demonstrating the topic or finding examples in their writing)
- Assessment through further observation of writing by teacher and/or peer groups
- Independent application of the concept if subsequent writing
- Further assessment through observation.
(Adapted from Weaver, Grammar in Context, p. 156)
Overview of Research
The North Carolina Standard Course of Study intends grammar and language usage
to be taught in the context of writing because English research for decades
has shown that grammar taught in the context of writing is more effectively
retained and carried over into students' writing. Even so, many teachers
still rely on traditional approaches to grammar instruction while struggling
with the how and why of teaching grammar and language usage.
Traditional Approaches to Teaching Grammar
"The study of traditional school grammar has no effect on raising the
quality of student writing. . . . Taught in certain ways, grammar and mechanics
instruction has a deleterious effect on student writing."(Hillocks, 1986)
In general, teachers believe that teaching grammar will make students better writers. However, research into the value of grammar for improving writing has not confirmed its efficacy. Research questioning the value of teaching grammar to improve writing dates back as early as 1906. (Hoyt) More recently Braddock and his colleagues (1963) summarizing the research contend that "In view of the widespread agreement of research studies . . .the conclusion can be stated in strong and unqualified terms: the teaching of formal grammar has a negligible, or because it usually displaces some instruction and practice in actual composition, even a harmful effect on the improvement of writing." (37-38)
Hillocks (1986) provides a more thorough meta-analysis of the research and still concludes:
"The study of traditional school grammar (i.e., the definition of part of speech, the parsing of sentences, etc.) has no effect on raising the quality of student writing. . . . Taught in certain ways, grammar and mechanics instruction has a deleterious effect on student writing. In some studies a heavy emphasis on mechanics and usage (e.g., marking every error) resulted in significant losses in overall quality. . . . We need to learn how to teach standard usage and mechanics after careful task analysis and with minimal grammar. "(248-49)
Teaching Grammar and Language Usage in the Context of Writing
The answer is not eliminating grammar but teaching it with relevance in the
context of writing.
Given the research evidence, what is a teacher to do? The problems are clear. Without any grammar instruction, students and teachers lack a common language for discussing writing. Moreover, we are aware of people's judgments of others based on their ability to use the standard conventions of spoken and written English. Clearly the answer is not eliminating grammar but teaching it with relevance in the context of writing as indicated by the Standard Course of Study and as tested in the English I End of Course test.
Writing forms the heart of the English curriculum. Four of the six Environments focus on various modes of writing: Expressive, Informational, Argumentative, and Critical. Theother two Environments, Literary and Conventions, are integrated into all the others. Literature is not merely an end in itself but also provides models of effective writing and generates reasons to write. The two are inseparable.
Grammar taught in the context of writing becomes a tool for talking about writing - thewriting we create as well as read in literature books. Harry Noden, (1999) in ImageGrammar: Using Grammatical Structures to Teach Writing, describes the fundamentalelements of grammar as the brushstrokes that a writer uses to paint images of life. (1)He cites many examples showing how famous authors have used constructions such as participial phrases to create tension and action. Our understanding of the power of language increases when students come to recognize that syntax and diction work together to awaken the senses, bringing literature to life. Noden, drawing from classic and popular writing, sees literature as the model of a set of grammatical constructions that students can learn to imitate and then appropriate to enliven their own writing.
What to Teach
The errors give us a window into the students' processing and thus a place
to begin.
Teaching grammar in the context of writing requires teachers to be much more generative in their lesson design than teaching a set of structural components delineated by a text or curriculum. Teachers struggle with what to teach and how to ensure that students have all the skills they need. Two important studies provide some insight into the types of high leverage grammatical structures. Connors and Lunsford (1988) studied 3000 graded college essays to determine the errors that occurred most frequently as well as those most frequently marked by teachers. It will come as no surprise to high school teachers that spelling errors were the most frequent. But spelling errors are also the most idiosyncratic errors as well as one of the easiest to correct. The remaining errors give us a window into the students' processing, and thus a place to begin.
No comma after an introductory element
Vague pronoun reference
No comma in compound sentence
Wrong word
No comma in nonrestrictive element
Wrong/missing inflected endings
Wrong or missing preposition
Comma splice
Possessive apostrophe error
Tense shift
Unnecessary shift in person
Sentence fragment
Wrong tense or verb form
Subject-verb agreement
Lack of comma in series
Pronoun agreement error
Unnecessary comma with restrictive element
Run-on or fused sentence
Dangling or misplaced modifier
Its/It's error
Looking at this list and grouping it provide some basic categories that may
indicate high leverage issues for grammar instruction. For example, errors 3,
8, 12, and 18 deal with sentence and clause boundaries and their correct punctuation.
Related to those errors are the comma errors that arise from confusion about
clauses. In Noguchi's analysis, sentence or clause boundary errors make
up seven of the top twenty stylistic errors and four of the top ten, a grouping
not exceeded by any other category. (21-22) A teacher focusing on sentence and
clause formation and usage would be addressing many of these errors without
extended tedious traditional drill. By using the technique of sentence combining,
students can expand their capacity to write varied sentence types while coming
to understand the functions and boundaries of clauses. The student-generated
sentences would provide practice for exploring the effect of punctuation on
meaning, providing practical ways to connect students' use of commas to
the intent of the sentence.
The Non-Educators View of Grammatical Errors
While Connors and Lundsford's study provides an interesting starting place
for teachers, it is still an insider's look at its own profession, an
analysis of student errors and teacher-marking of those errors. To get outside
the educator's world and see how non-educators judge grammatical expression,
we look at Maxine Hairston's (1981) study of the attitudes of other professionals
toward writing errors. Hairston sent our sixty-five sentences containing a different
grammatical error to 101 professional people and received 84 responses from
professionals in fields such as business, law, newspapers, real estate, finance,
and architecture. The professionals indicated the degree to which the error
bothered them and Hairston classified them into groups from the most serious
to the least serious in these people's estimations. Those responding reacted
very strongly to the group of errors marked "Status Marking" and
less strongly toward those classed as "Very Serious," "Serious,"
"Moderately Serious," and "Minor or Unimportant."
STATUS MARKING
Nonstandard verb forms in past or past participle: brung instead of brought;
had went instead of had gone
Lack of subject-verb agreement: We was instead of We were; Jones don't
think it's acceptable instead of Jones doesn't think it is acceptable
Double negatives
Objective pronoun as the subject: Him and Richard were the last one hired.
VERY SERIOUS
Sentence fragments
Run-on sentences
Noncapitalization of proper nouns
Would of instead of Would have
Lack of subject-verb agreement (non-status marking)
Insertion of comma between the verb and its complement
Nonparallelism
Faulty adverb forms: He treats his men bad.
Use of transitive verb set for intransitive sit
SERIOUS
Predication errors: The policy intimidates hiring.
Dangling modifiers
I as an objective pronoun
Lack of commas to set of interrupters like however
Lack of commas in a series
Tense switching
Use of a plural modifier with a singular noun: These kind of errors
MODERATELY SERIOUS
Lack of possessive form before a gerund
Lack of commas to set of an appositive
Inappropriate use of quotation marks
Lack of subjunctive mood
Writing That is her across the street
Use of whoever instead of whomever
Use of the construction The situation is . . .when
Failure to distinguish between among and between
Comma splices
MINOR OR UNIMPORTANT
Use of a qualifier before Unique: That is the most unique city
Writing different than instead of different from
Use of a singular verb with data
Use of a colon after a linking verb: Three causes of inflation are:
Omission of the apostrophe in the contraction it's
Chart as presented in Noguchi (1991) p. 25
It is important for us to remember that our students will be judged by their writing in the outside world.
While these classifications are based on the reader's perceptions of the seriousness of the error and as English teachers our perceptions may differ, it is important for us to remember that our students will be judged by their writing in the outside world and that as English-language enthusiasts/experts we may be more interested in the intricacies of language usage than the professional communities that our students will enter once they leave our classrooms. It is also important for us to remember that what is considered "correct" grammar is a moving, if slow-moving, target. While Hairston's respondents in 1981 considered the lack of a possessive form before a gerund to be a "Moderately Serious" error, several current usage sources no longer consider this an error at all. Still, Hairston concluded her study by reminding us that "Although there seem to be some signs of change, and on some usage items the public may be ahead of the professions, I think that we cannot afford to let students leave our classrooms thinking that surface features of discourse do not matter. They do." (799)
Instructional Implications
Instead the most critical concepts are better taught during writing workshop within the context of individual student writing
Both Constance Weaver and Noguchi agree that few of the frequently occurring errors or even the status-marking errors from Hairston's study need to be addressed by the formal structural grammar or drills that are frequently taught in English classes. Instead the most critical concepts are better taught during writing workshop within the context of individual student writing. The crucial concepts seem to be:
Sentence and clause (dependent and independent)
Non-sentence (fragment and phrase)
The concept of modification (by words, phrases, clauses).
(These concepts allow issues such as run-on sentences and comma splices to be
addressed.) With this restricted set of basic concepts, teachers have the opportunity
to begin to tailor instruction to the specific needs of the class and the individual
student.
Grammar Mini-Lessons
The essence of the mini-lesson is its connection to the observational assessment
of need that the teacher draws from observation of student writing.
The key technique for teaching grammar in the context of writing is the mini-lesson. Many teachers believe that they are teaching grammar in context because they have broken up their grammar instruction into a series of small lessons spaced out across the year rather than teaching a unit on grammar. A series of randomly occurring lessons is not the same as teaching grammar in the context of writing. The essence of the minilesson is its connection to the observational assessment of need that the teacher draws from analysis of student writing. Rather than teaching from a list of grammar skills or a curriculum designed by a textbook company, the teacher observes in student writing certain problems that occur frequently. These observations lead the teacher to frame objectives that are shared with students as hints for improving their writing or areas to work on drawn from their own work. The teacher provides a demonstration and explanation of the objective. Students have some time for guided application of the concept by writing, not by completing a series of exercises or drills. Further observation of student writing assesses understanding. When students next use the concept independently in their writing, the teacher continues to monitor that the lesson has been incorporated into their repertoires of writing skills. The entire lesson can be individuated for groups of students whose writing indicates specific needs. The following chart compares a traditional grammar lesson to grammar taught in the context of writing:
TRADITIONAL GRAMMAR LESSON
1. Anticipatory set or statement of objective from predetermined curriculum
2. Instruction and modeling
3. Checking for understanding
4. Guided practice (often a set of sentences for identification or correction of the problem)
5. Independent practice (more sentences for drill)
6. Assessment
GRAMMAR IN THE CONTEXT OF WRITING
1. Objective drawn from teacher observation of student writing and phased as helpful hints or ideas
2. Demonstration of the concept and explanations of reasoning
3. Guided application (generating sentences demonstrating the topic or finding examples in their writing)
4. Assessment through further observation of writing by teacher and/or peer groups
5. Independent application of the concept if subsequent writing
6. Further assessment through observation.
(Adapted from Weaver, Grammar in Context, p. 156)
Concluding thoughts
Everyone who takes any risks with writing makes errors. Since the heart of a
dynamic English classroom is the collaborative community of writers and readers
of writing created and facilitated by a teacher who reads and writes as part
of that community, it is crucial that the classroom feel like a safe place for
students to take risks in their writing. If we speculate on why traditional
grammar instruction has a tendency to decrease the quality of writing, it might
be that students become so intent on correctness that they are unwilling to
risk making grammatical errors that night arise as they push their writing past
their comfort zones of style and syntax. For all of us to grow as writers, we
must take those risks and feel safe in doing so. Even so, students must become
aware of their own set of errors and the thinking that reinforces making those
mistakes. Our job as teachers is to lead students into that awareness and help
them build a toolkit of ways to resolve the problems without losing the voice
and style that makes writing come to life.
References
Braddock, R., R. Lloyd-Jones & L. Schoer. (1963). Research in Written Composition. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Connors, R. J. & Lunsford, A. A. (1988). Frequency of formal errors in current college writing, or Ma and Pa Kettle do research. College Composition and Communication, 39, 395-409.
Hairston, M.(1981). Not all errors are created equal: Nonacademic readers in the professions respond to lapses in usage. College English. 43, 794-806.
Hoyt, F.S. (1906). The place of grammar in the elementary curriculum. Teachers College Record, 7, 467-500.
Noden, H. (1999). Image Grammar: Using Grammatical Structures to Teach Writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Noguchi, R. R. (1991). Grammar and the Teaching of Writing: Limits and Possibilities. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Weaver, C. (1996). Teaching Grammar in Context. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Weaver, C. (1998). Lessons to Share on Teaching Grammar in Context. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
<< Back | Table of Contents | Next >>