Conversations on Teaching Grammar

In this post, I connect thoughts of English Education scholars with personal reflections in order to demonstrate my ideas about teaching grammar.

We have taken what is potentially the most personal, energizing, and richly meaningful subject in the whole curriculum and sucked the meaning out of it.  [Steven Zemelman and Harvey Daniels, "The English Teacher's Red Pen"]
 
Zemelman and Daniels are, of course, talking about writing.  Specifically, they are criticizing the English teacher status quo of correcting every minuscule error in student writing.  We've discussed this a lot in class: What do we value in student writing?  If my answer is content and student voice, how can I justify a grading scale rooted in mechanics?
 

In writing, on the other hand, we think that every word that every kid ever writes must pass beneath a teacher’s red pen. And kids who risk writing anything imperfect, exploratory, playful, or over their heads are told, in effect, “This is terrible. You flunk. Don’t try this again until you can do it perfectly. " [Steven Zemelman and Harvey Daniels, "The English Teacher's Red Pen"]

 

This passage recalls Gallagher's question: Does every piece of writing in the classroom need to be graded?  What if students are allowed to write without the apprehension of the red pen? The English classroom should be a space in which students can explore, question, experiment, and challenge.  When teachers highlight every error in student writing, the opportunity for inquiry is lost.  It reinforces the idea that the teacher is a reservoir of correct answers.  This does not foster creative, critical, and confident writers.  In fact, the scholars that we have encountered all suggest the opposite.

 

I said it better than I can say it...  This is a selection from my History and Structure blog from last semester: "Language is power: How something is said is just as important - if not more important - than what is said. We gravitate to errors; they glare at us, obscuring whatever meaning is within them. But when we bleed corrections over a student's page, the student is cut too. If you are always told that you are doing wrong, you begin to feel wrong."

Teachers need to begin by showing students that they have a voice, and then teach them how to hone that voice to effectively communicate their thoughts.

 

[M]any primary teachers will tell you that the surface of a kid’s piece of writing should be inviolate, that it’s an expression of a self, a work of art or artifact that should never be defaced by anyone else’s markings or revisions . . . We assume, of course, that our students have developed to the stage where they can “take it” when their paper comes back to them all marked up. But can they?  [Steven Zemelman and Harvey Daniels, "The English Teacher's Red Pen"]

 

When I reflect on my elementary writing experiences, this statement rings true.  In my previous post, I shared a selection from my volumes of journals.  It's not one of my best pieces of writing.  There are spelling issues, punctuation issues, and logic issues.  When this first entry is compared to entries written at the end of the school year, my writing is exponentially improved.  Yet there is not a single red corrective mark on any page in that journal.  I suppose I will be forever in graditude to Mrs. Tully for giving me such a positive first writing experience.

 

How do we extend this kind of safe writing environment into the secondary classroom?  I think that we have to restore the authority of student voice and encourage risks. We have to develop the patience to understand, like Mrs. Tully with my journal, that the grammar will improve while we focus on teaching the power of the written word.  We have to loosen our grip on the red pen and allow freedom in student writing.

 

The writer is an artist, painting images of life with specific and identifiable brush strokes, images as realistic as Wyeth and as abstract as Picasso.  In the act of creation, the writer, like the artist, relies on fundamental elements.  [Harry R. Noden, Image Grammar]

 

Constance Weaver challenges the traditional understanding of grammar as a "list of rules" by redefining it as a "box of tools."  Noden's passage adds to this discussion by suggesting that grammar exists to bring writing to life.  Grammar needs to be taught through this lens!  If grammar is taught as a tool through which to better stucture, enrich, and express their thoughts, it becomes more accessible to students.  I wrote this in my History and Structure blog last semester: "As students untangle the rules of grammar, they assume control over grammar and, thus, their writing. This is not to say that students are able to use certain standards of grammar and discard others but that students are empowered to use grammar to enhance their writing instead of having adding grammar that limits their writing."
 

Noden's lesson models further illustrate this idea. Students are taught what a participle is, for example, not so they can know what it is but so they can use it. 

Grammar, like all areas of instruction, needs to be student-centered.

__________________________________________________

The ultimate thread that I identify through all of the scholars' writings is that teachers should use grammar to develop the student writer as opposed to using grammar to fix student writing.  Teaching is, after all, ultimately about the students.

Writing

"On vacsonon 1999 we went to New Jersy. We visted our grandma and grandpa and coinsen. It was fun. Vacsonon is better than school, but I think school is better."

That is my very first journal entry, written in 3rd grade on August 17, 1999.

Since then, writing has been my window of expression.  Writing provokes learning.  Writing engages new thoughts and ideas.  Writing inspires the imagination.  Writing is freedom.  My writing is my voice.

This is what I want for my students.  Even if they do not journal for the rest of their lives, I want them to take ownership of their writing.

Gallagher and Smagorinsky both suggest AWESOME ways to make this happen.

They both underscore the importance of helping students identify the purpose of writing.  This goes hand-in-hand with the idea that classroom writing must connect to real-world writing.  Early in the year, I would love to have a conversation with my students about why writing is important.  It would be more meaningful to construct this knowledge together.  Writing thus becomes accessible and student-controlled.

Students need to have choice in their writing.  This is important because writing then becomes relevant and interesting.  It further helps to develop their voices.  When students write about topics that they care about, they take writing seriously because it becomes an extension of them.  It is their passion in ink on paper for the world to read.

Daily journal (or blog) writing is one of my preferred strategies for writing development.

Dialogue journals are also great because they demonstrate how writing fosters conversation and sparks new questions.  This does not need to be in the form of a notebook either; students can write together in blogs or other online resources (Tumblr, class Facebook pages, etc.).

Dialogue journals (and online resources) allow students to write for each other (and the world).  Gallagher introduces a discussion on audience, suggesting that if students are going to take their writing seriously, the teacher cannot be the only reader of their writing.  I am particularly excited about hosting open mic opportunities (especially in the community) and having student work available to check out in the school library (and possibly even in the local public library).  On this thread, I plan on having anthologies in my classroom as well, in which students can choose their best or favorite piece of writing from the year to be immortalized in the class library.

Today, in the 12^th grade classes that I am observing, the students wrote dialect dialogues to explore the use of dialect in Zora Neale Hurston’s Their Eyes Were Watching God.  After they wrote their pieces, Mrs. Duong invited the students to perform their pieces in front of the classroom.  It was so cool to see how excited the students were while writing their dialogues.  Mrs. Duong allowed a lot of choice: The students chose the characters, dialect, and situation for their writing.  They also worked hard because they had the opportunity to share their work with their peers.  In the end, it was so much fun to watch the students share their work.  They demonstrated incredible creativity and humor.

When students choose, they are passionate about their work.  It becomes their own, and anything that belongs to us is sacred – especially our voices.  Students need to be taught that their voices are sacred.  Then, they need time and opportunity to develop and share those voices.

I would further love to invite writers of various mediums (prose, poetry, blogs, newspapers, etc.) into my classroom to share and inspire writing.  It could be valuable for students to enter into conversations about writing with professional writers, especially if students are able to share their writing with them and receive feedback.  Gallagher discusses removing the “Grecian Urn” from the classroom by showing the teacher’s initial sloppy writing.  Imagine the potential for breaking down this “Grecian Urn” when a professional writer shares his sloppy drafts.  This becomes a great way to demonstrate the accessibility of writing – as long as I find supportive and encouraging writers!

Writing also is a way to teach students to ask questions.  This past weekend, I attended a conference.  In one of the sessions, a professor was talking about student research and writing.  She noted: “Students look for answers and once they find them, the research and inquiry stops.”

Asking questions does not only expand and deepen writing, but also critical thinking.  Writing is, thus, also a means to develop students’ critical thinking skills.  Gallagher notes that “students (and adults) who cannot identify an author’s purpose will go through life susceptible” (127).  This is an imperative skill to have in today’s world, especially with an Internet culture in which anyone can say anything.

Gallagher’s ultimate goal for writing in his classroom is: “Everyone improves” (142).  I love this because it takes away the stress of enforcing a standard of writing by promoting the growth of each individual writer instead.

I love all of Gallagher’s and Smagorinky’s ideas, and would love to implement a lot of them.  However, after observing all of the craziness in my first placement, I have to admit to some doubt about making my real classroom coincide with the ideal classroom that I imagine.  Gallagher suggests putting the standards on hold in order to develop strong – and necessary – writing and thinking skills.  I absolutely agree with him – 100%.  But in the classrooms that I have observed, there is so little time and so much to do.  Between daily assignments required and reviewed by the administration and too much material to cover, there was hardly any time for the students to write.

The last thing I want is to be a teacher who pays lip-service to the importance of writing while implementing writing-done-wrong in my classroom.  I love authentic writing, and I want to fight for it in my classroom.  However, I am trying to be a little more realistic about all of this and, in the process, am struggling to  understand how this methodology will be possible.