This week's readings fueled me up and readied me to launch into teaching writing. So inspired. Here's why: They demonstrated how grammar can be explored rather than taught.
I take insignificant umbrage with teaching grammar explicitly, but I want to celebrate it in context so much more. As I read the Bush article, I wrote "SHOW EXAMPLES" and "TEACH THRU STUDENTS" just as you see the phrases now, and I rarely use capital letters outside of sentence starters and proper nouns. Illustrating grammar rather than teaching it, per se, must make the rules so much more germane for students. If they see how a classmate utilized repetition - perhaps unintentionally - they will buy into its applicability so much more than if I taught it without context.
I also loved the point late in the Bush article to get away from always pointing out errors in sentences. Rather, find examples of good writing and ask students to highlight what's right about it, what they like. Such positive examples doesn't mean we shouldn't correct errors, but they should be balanced so writing doesn't seem like a gauntlet of rules. This would be all the more effective if it was a classmate's writing, the author not revealed until after the exercise. What a self-esteem boost that could be.
I do harbor fears about this, though. Will I get to all the rules the state tells me the students need to know? Will it matter? Will they care about grammar as much as I do? All worries of mine. I hope I can avoid some of these by teaching to the mistakes and successes that I see in students' writings and by adhering to current writings and events. Then, when students see examples in close proximity - hearkens back to Vygotsky's zone - I'd bet they would be willing to try a new technique. But it has to be relevant.
Goodness, I could go on to talk about the writing conferences, revision processes and strategies, all sorts of applicabilities (made it up! but you know what it means) from the readings, but I will end instead with a quote from Page 99 of the Bush study. I want to "make my class about discovery, models, beauty, categorization, visuals, and writers using grammar and mechanics to shape text and create meaning."
External Resource:
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/
This particular site holds a special place in the grammatical corner of my heart. Paul Brians teaches at Washington State University and has cobbled together hundreds of common errors of usage by writers and speakers of English. He e-mailed me many mornings after he read my "Word of the Day" saga in our college newspaper, inevitably with a report of an error. Good for keeping the ol' ego in check.
Anyhow, this is a dynamite collection, organized sensibly.
Hey Dan-
ReplyDeleteFirst, let me admit, that over the last few days, in all of my writing, I have caught myself writing "often times" and looking up whether or not it is an accepted expression. Which by the way, I have read that it is most certainly accepted under the rules of grammar one, but there is debate about whether or not it has faded away from accepted form. However, my point here is that you corrected me in action, and it left a lasting impact with me. You didn't just one day tell me that "often times" was not correct English. You saw that this was a piece of knowledge that I did not know and you used my own work to teach me. You did it in context, thus making it more effective. Right?
Well, I'm not sure. You and I are probably into grammar a lot more than the average folk. I mean we can see an example of a writer using repetition and find it fascinating, but is a student really going to care? This is my biggest problem with these readings. While grammar and writing form seem like they would be more interesting and useful when taken in context, I'm simply not sure if this is going to resonate with the student any more. Also, I share the same concern with you about how this approach will affect the time and scope of what we introduce to our students. Will students really be able to master the English language enough without the teaching of punctuation rules and the benefits of direct teaching and repetition and practice? Does this mean that we should get rid of grammar worksheets altogether? I'm not convinced...
Hey Dan,
ReplyDeleteI was excited to read your post this week, being the grammarphile that you are. Getting to the grammar is legit fear. Most people I speak to admit that they did not learn grammar well until mid college and even post college. They learned it, sure, so we can have faith our students will too, but like all guardians (huzzah hyperbole) we want students to have it better than we did. We want them to rock Strunk and White in one back pocket and Catcher in the other, or Belljar.
Contextualizing grammar is good, and I can only imagine all of the ideas that you have for doing this. I guess correcting sentences on the board has its place, but teachers quickly lose students during it.
Don't give up the red pen. Students will learn to love it. It could one more tool helping to build them a road to the future....yep, said it.