Guest Blogger: Linda Stine
Like everyone else, I've been moaning and groaning my way through midterms this week. And, like perhaps at least some of you, I've been wondering if my grammar explanations have been doing more harm than good, as I note fragmented ideas and run-on sentences and commas popping up in locations that just seem to belie any rational explanation.
On a listserv for writing teachers recently, a good conversation has been taking place on the whole issue of grammar instruction, student writing, and transferability of writing skills. We know that learning a new concept causes temporary backsliding as students struggle to fit the new knowledge into their existing sense of language structure and begin questioning everything, even concepts that they had previously mastered. (I like to think that's the reason for all those inexplicable commas...). We know too that the same backsliding occurs when students are asked to write on more complicated issues or in other classes with different content matter. We know too that teaching grammar directly and explicitly does little to improve student writing.
So given that, I was wondering what ways you have found that help your students learn, internalize, master, and transfer effectively to other classes the basic concepts of academic grammar and mechanics? Do you discuss grammar rules and then ask students to practice them in exercises before applying them in their own writing? Do you start with the students' own writing and work mainly on getting them to clarify their thoughts, trusting that grammar issues will clear themselves up without formal instruction simply as a side effect of clearer thinking and wider reading? Do you note grammar errors on papers? How? Where? When? Why? Do you have any techniques that work well for you that you could share with the rest of us? Or do you have questions about the whole pesky "good grammar” issue that you keep wrestling with without finding a good answer?
What should we all be doing, I wonder, to ensure that we are graduating students who can write clear, standard, academic English?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I regularly note spelling and grammar mistakes on exams and in papers, while at the same time reassuring students that these won't detract from their grades (doesn't seem fair to do so in a Computer Science class). And I regularly discuss with them in class the importance of clear and correct communications, in any field.
ReplyDeleteLike so many of my "rubrics" :-) it's rather subjective. But however anecdotal, it's been my observation that such techniques help, at least in the short term. Which brings me back to one of my core premises - that of "zen teaching", for want of a better way to describe it. If we strive always to impress upon our students the importance of every facet of their education, the seed will take root, and even in many cases flourish ...
I like the zen concept! (And I think that lots of what we sow does indeed take root; the problem is the time it may take to do so.)
ReplyDeleteOne question: If you note spelling and grammar problems as errors but at the same time assure students that such errors aren't really problems because they don't affect the grade, does the student get a contradictory message?
Re: contradictory message, I think/hope not. I try to make it clear to students that since, in the strictest sense, they're being assessed on databases or C++ programming or user interface design or whatever other CS topic is at hand, I don't think it fair to make grammar and spelling errors part of their grade. But at the same time I stress to them that clear communications are "the tool with which we build all other tools", and that my practice of not including such errors in their grades isn't meant to imply that such factors aren't quite important in their own right.
ReplyDeleteIn a nutshell, I distinguish between what they need to do to earn their grade in a specific course, and what other skills they'll need to acquire for success on a larger scale.
Linda says: "We know too that teaching grammar directly and explicitly does little to improve student writing."
ReplyDeleteReally? How do we know this? As far as I know, that statement may be false, unless it means there are better methods than teaching grammar directly and explicitly. Some countries consider that the most effective means of getting (foreign) students to write good English.
In my opinion, the answer to the main question, "what ways you have found that help your students learn, internalize, master, and transfer effectively to other classes the basic concepts of academic grammar and mechanics?," is to demand and reward high (academic grammar and mechanics) standards (in each class) across disciplines.
Yes, I agree that clear and consistent and high expectations are important.
ReplyDeleteAs for your "how do we know this" question, here's a quote from one of many similar articles on writing instruction: "Fifty years of research into grammar instruction confirms what many teachers have long suspected: when it comes to improving writing, traditional grammar instruction simply does not work. In fact, the most unequivocal conclusion reached by George Hillocks in his 1986 meta-analysis of twenty-five years of writing research was that traditional grammar instruction was the most ineffective method of improving writing."
Now of course that doesn't mean that grammar isn't important; his research, though, which is considered seminal in the composition field, suggests that teaching grammar per se in a writing class does little to improve either the students' writing or their grammar. That's the point I was trying to make.
It strikes me that the reason traditional grammar instruction fails to improve writing skills significantly is that the method is analogous to trying to teach someone to drive a standard-transmission car by putting them in a "simulator" that offers a fake clutch and gearing. Contextual elements such as speed, traffic, distractions of noise and so on, are missing. Improving writing skills must first draw students out, remind them that they have something worthwhile to say. Once they realize/believe that, they'll be much more receptive to the mechanics.
ReplyDeleteOK. That may be true: "teaching grammar per se in a writing class does little to improve either the students' writing or their grammar."
ReplyDeleteDo we know whether it makes a difference and, if so, by how much? For example, if 2 classes of students with similar intelligence and background had the same education except that (in addition to everything else) one class had direct and explicit grammar lessons and the other did not, would there be any difference in performance?
In any case, what is the definition of "traditional grammar instruction"? is it just "teaching grammar directly and explicitly" or something else?
As I understand Hillocks' research, he examined several hundred valid studies in which researchers were controlling for different variables. He found that doing things like instructing students on parts of sentences, how words fit together, etc. was counterproductive. So I think by traditional he means the typical "learn this rule and practice it 10 times in canned exercises" type of grammar teaching. His point is not that it's not important for students to understand grammar, but rather that just making that understanding the main focus of a writing class doesn't help.
ReplyDeleteWe learn to write better by writing.
My own feeling is that a teacher needs to do a bit of everything. So I do spend some time describing and discussing grammar rules for students who want to start with the rule and then apply it. It gives us a shared vocabulary. I also put a lot of grammar discussion into PowerPoints for visual learners, and I primarily use examples from students' own writing for practice fixing common sorts of incorrect grammar, like run-on sentences. But mostly I put my emphasis on revision--write it again, make it better, clear up your ideas, state it more simply, and often that is enough to clean up many of the grammar problems.
Michele, yes exactly. To help students improve their writing we must first "remind them that they have something worthwhile to say. Once they realize/believe that, they'll be much more receptive to the mechanics." I think that is the task of all teachers and the first thing we must do. And it's hard, especially for those students who don't feel they have anything valid to offer and want instead to tell us what Wikipedia thinks.
ReplyDeleteThanks. Yes, "revision--write it again, make it better, clear up your ideas, state it more simply, and often that is enough to clean up many of the grammar problems." But I'm not sure revision helps much to "transfer effectively to other classes the basic concepts of academic grammar and mechanics." Here, the effect may be similar to the attempt to revise our assessment reports, particularly if it's not sustainable in the long run and it leads to frustration.
ReplyDeleteQUESTION: "What should we all be doing, I wonder, to ensure that we are graduating students who can write clear, standard, academic English?"
ANSWER: In practice, I do not know; but, ideally, don't admit (into college) students who have not learned the basics (e.g. grade-school English).
Yes! Huzzah!! Indeed: we learn to write better by writing.
ReplyDeleteIf that process is carried out against a backdrop of encouraging students, of opening them up to what they're capable of, hopefully we can avoid frustration like that that has colored some of our discussions on assessment.
I've included below a list of broad, inclusive goals I hold for my students. It wasn't compiled in the context of grammar/spelling/writing, but I believe it pertains nonetheless.
1.A greater sense of self-confidence and self-motivation: Many of my students have shuddered at requirements like writing research papers or giving oral presentations. But many of them also took the plunge and performed quite well when advised simply to conduct the project in question as if they were conversing with or tutoring a friend.
2.Better facility with metaphor: In teaching computer science, I’ve frequently fallen back on such explanations as “Think of a variable in a C++ program as a little bucket in memory. We have to tell the system how big to make the bucket, because different types of data require different amounts of physical storage.” In as complex and technologically sophisticated a world as ours, such cognitive bridges are essential.
3.Better recognition of the larger significance of classroom topics: One might think it difficult to relate topics in computer science to the larger world. Actually, it’s quite easy. For example, a class in web site design has included examining the application of such paradigms as avoiding clutter, to critiquing web sites running the gamut from those devoted to peace to those of such groups as the American Nazi Party.
4.Greater intellectual curiosity: Many young people consider such curiosity as not cool. But when presented with paths of inquiry that relate to their own experiences, they come to see intellectual curiosity as an asset.
5.Improved study and work habits: In this era of seemingly instant answers by means of the Internet, students are largely ignorant of the need to, and ways to, dig more deeply. I once had a student give me several pages of printout of Google hits. When asked what it was, he responded, in all seriousness and innocence, “That’s my research paper.”
6.Improved verbal and written communications: A recent study showed that nearly 80% of high school seniors cannot write in cursive. One of my favorite writers once said “Language is the tool with which we build all other tools.” Niels Bohr took the position that, if one cannot explain one’s theories in plain language, one does not fully understand those theories oneself. Twitter and texting aside, students must be able to communicate effectively.