Is Grammar a Scam?
The teaching of grammar in the language arts classroom has been a much debated topic
throughout the years. Although the question that has been debated is whether or not grammar
should be taught in the classroom, the true question is: how should grammar be taught in the
classroom. Much of the research out there about how to teach grammar, and help improve
student writing, debates whether or not grammar should be taught in isolation or in context. The
consensus seems to be that grammar should be taught in context because, when taught in
isolation, it can have detrimental effects on students’ abilities to write well. One way of teaching
grammar in context is to teach it within the context of a student’s writing, which seemed to work
pretty well. Through practice in one’s own writing and editing one’s own writing for grammar
correctness students are able to learn the concepts f grammar and more effectively apply them to
any writing assignment or any writing done for fun.
I have always hated the way in which I was taught grammar in the classroom and wanted
to know if there was any research about more interesting and effective ways of teaching
grammar. It would also help me, as I am sure it would many other students, to see real world
examples of the rules of grammar. In seeing these rules executed in our own writing and in the
writing of others we are better able to contextualize them and apply them to future pieces of
writing. I know I can do worksheets for many of the grammar rules, but being able to apply
those rules to my own writing is a little hard because I have only learned them through the doing
of worksheets. Additionally, these worksheets provide such awful, and often times nonsensical
example sentences that students don’t even know what to do with them.
I have placed the articles for my annotated bibliography in this order because I believe
the most important articles concerning my topic come first and then there are a few articles that
support my topic and provide additional information. The first few articles—“Undoing the Great
Grammatical Scam” by Jeffrey D. Wilhelm (2001); “To Grammar or Not to Grammar: That Is
Not the Question!” by Constance Weaver, Carol McNally, & Sharon Moerman (2001); and “A
Systematic Approach to Grammar Instruction” by Joan Berger (2001)—all seem to say the same
thing: Grammar should be taught in context rather than in isolation, which is why I chose them.
I strongly believe that teaching anything in isolation will not produce favorable results; you
cannot learn theory without practice in real world experiences. Then the next article, “Just the
Facts: Research and Theory about Grammar Instruction” by Nancy G. Patterson (2001),
compiles research to support this claim. I need some proof of these the theories presented in the
first three articles, because, even though I strongly agree with what the authors of the articles are
saying, we could both be wrong. So it is a good thing to have an article that compiles research to
prove that we were right. The two articles after that provide additional information about
teaching grammar that supports the idea of not teaching grammar in isolation. “Developing
Students’ Textual Intelligence through Grammar” by Jim Burke (2001) describes the idea of
Textual intelligence (TI), which refers to how the text works, which if students can understand
this, they have more options as a writer and can write better. I chose this article because it gives
good examples of how understanding text can help students write better. I think if we want to
teach grammar through student’s and other’s writing it is important for students to first
understand the text. I chose the article “Image Grammar: Painting Images with Grammatical
Structures” by Harry Noden (2001) because it is important for the reader to be able to visualize
what the author is saying, which means that creating images with their writing is a very
important skill to have. This article explains the ways in which we can better obtain that skill.
Overall I learned that grammar should not be taught in isolation. I learned that teaching
grammar in isolation most often has negative effects, rather than positives ones as we may hope,
on students’ abilities to write well. When grammar is taught in isolation students are unable to
successfully translate that knowledge into their own writing; they are only able to do grammar in
isolation, which will not help them in the future.
Wilhelm, Jeffrey D. (2001). Undoing the great grammatical scam. Voices from the Middle, 8,
62.
Summary: In “Undoing the great grammatical scam,” Jeffrey D. Wilhelm poses the question:
What is it that we really want our students to know and be able do to? He says that most of us
want our students to learn correct language use, with its numerous aspects, such as proofreading,
correcting mistakes, and appreciating skillfully created pieces. He makes a point to explain that,
even though Written English is not the only language of students, it is important for them to
know it because it will have a great impact on their future. Research shows that what a person
learns greatly depends on how they are taught and the situation in which they are taught (situated
grammar). So, he explains that teaching students through worksheets and sentence diagrams
results in students who are good at doing just that—worksheets and diagrams—and nothing else.
He suggests that teachers should then teach language use in the context of student writing to
teach it effectively. This also lends itself to learning specific uses of language. He says that
through the use of students’ writing they can see how meaning changes with the use or misuse of
standard conventions. He explains that powerful teaching is when teachers assist their students
in gaining competence through real world practice.
Response: The question he poses—“What is it we really want our students to know and be able
to do?”—seems like a widely debated question that should be easy to answer and should have a
universal answer, and should have this answer by now. We should not have to debate this.
Wilhelm makes a good point in saying that we will learn differently in different situations and
depending on how we are taught. It makes a whole lot of sense that if you only learn to do
worksheets, that that is all you will be able to do; you will not be able to translate it into real
world experiences or your own writing.
Weaver Constance, McNally, Carol, & Moerman, Sharon (2001). To grammar or not to
grammar: That is not the question! Voices from the Middle, 8, 17-33.
Summary: “To Grammar or Not to Grammar: That Is Not the Question!” by Constance Weaver
et al confronts the misconception that if teachers teach something well, students will learn it and
be able to apply it well. They believe that students need guidance to developing concepts and
help in applying them in practical situation. They also state that knowing just a little grammar
will help students edit for standard conventions in their writing, allowing concepts to be taught
through the discussion of that writing and literature. Another problem discussed in the article is
the tendency to equate grammar with correctness. Then the article suggests that teaching
grammar in context will benefit students more than teaching it in isolation. The authors also
express that teaching grammar in context is in line with the NCTE standards for the English
language arts. Grammar can emerge naturally in the classroom is through pre-writing activities
and arts and literature another way the authors propose introducing grammar until classroom is
through the reproduction of sentences and paragraphs within a students work. The authors say
that we, as teachers, need to put conventions into perspective and helps students edit their work
according to those conventions. They also believe that teachers must take risks which will
encourage their students to take risks,
Response: I believe, like the authors of this article have stated, that grammar can arise naturally
within a classroom. I think it would greatly improve a student's writing to edit their work with
them explaining the conventions behind the ways in which you, as a teacher, would edit their
work to give it a little more style and make it sound better.
Berger, Joan (2001). A systematic approach to grammar instruction. Voices from the Middle, 8,
43-49.
Summary: In “A Systematic Approach to Grammar Instruction,” Joan Berger expresses one of
his main goals for her middle school students: She wants them to write with more passion, about
interesting topics, and use the standard conventions of English usage and grammar that make the
writing meaningful. She believes that, through many lessons and individual conferences, her
students’ writing will improve with both in the English/language arts classroom and within other
classes. But, because she did not see this improvement across other subjects, she developed a
two-year grammar sequence that is used in the seventh and eighth grades. The program offered
purposeful progression through a variety of sentence constructions. Within this program,
students are required to incorporate, in a conscious way, the construction just learned into their
writing. Then this construct becomes part of the editing process. Through this program students
improve both their writing and their reading. Berger also says that the responsibility for the
“correctness” of any piece falls on the student. And that once they know the rules of conventions
they are able to decide when, and if, to break them. She explains that students become editors of
their own writing and stronger critics of other writing when exposed to grammar in the way he
has proposed.
Response: I love Berger’s whole idea of being able to break the rules once you know them. My
high school teacher taught me this and I just loved learning grammar from her. I also think that
there is a necessity for students to incorporate what they have just learned into their writing in a
conscious way because I do not think that you can learn something without practicing it; it is like
putting theory into practice, which as teachers we know all too much about.
Patterson, Nancy G. (2001). Just the facts: Research and theory about grammar instruction.
Voices from the Middle, 8, 50-55.
Summary: In “Just the Facts: Research and Theory about Grammar Instruction,” Nancy G.
Patterson describes the research done by Harris; Braddock, Lloyd-Jones, and Schoer; Elley,
Barham, Lamb, and Wyllie; Hillocks; and Shaughnessy. When Harris compared a group of
students that were taught traditional grammar and a group of students that were taught grammar
within the context of language use he discovered that the teaching of traditional grammar had
undesirable effects on the students' abilities to write well. In a meta-study done by Braddock et
al, they discovered that the teaching of formal grammar can actually have a harmful effect on the
improvement of student writing. Elley et al split students into three different language arts
curricular strands—(1) Transformational Grammar, rhetoric, and literature; (2) rhetoric and
literature; and (3) traditional grammar—and found, again, that isolated teaching of grammar does
not work to improve writing skills. In another important meta-study, Hillocks also concluded
that the teaching of grammar in isolation does not improve writing and that it could have
negative effects. Through Shaughnessy’s study, she discovered that the focus of grammar
should be meaning rather than correctness and that students can take risks and experiment with
writing to build their linguistic control.
Response: I think the article emphasized the idea that grammar cannot be taught in isolation;
that it has to be taught in context. I would definitely agree with this because I think that the
isolated sentences found in grammar textbooks are often very stupid and nonsensical. Even
though this is the way I was taught, I believe I would have learned better had I been taught using
my own pieces of writing for example sentences.
Burke, Jim (2001). Developing students’ textual intelligence through grammar. Voices from the
Middle, 8, 56-61.
Summary: “Developing Students’ Textual Intelligence Through Grammar” by Jim Burke
explains how, we as teachers, can develop a student’s textual intelligence (TI) through lesson
before and after reading and writing takes place. These lessons can be created through the
questions asked by the TI. He wants students to understand how language shapes meaning.
Burke says that teachers can integrate it into units, look for natural and appropriate opportunities
to address grammar in context, and introduce specific grammatical structures through
minilessons prior to writing or within the context of a particular assignment. The before
reading/writing activities that he focuses on include: grammar brainstorming (columns of nouns,
verbs, and adjectives), grammatical synthesis (list of adjectives to describe a character), and
annotate directions on tests and assignments (identifying verbs in written directions). The after
reading/writing activities include: revising the weak or inappropriate verbs, changing the tense of
the verbs, and sentence combining. Burke also expresses a dislike for standardized tests because
they focus too much on the curriculum and not enough on the students. He believes that we
should be teaching students to live and work in the real world rather than to memorize concepts
to regurgitate on a standardized test.
Response: I think that Burke provides many good ways to incorporate grammar into your
classroom so that it is not being taught in isolation, which will not do any good. I also love his
dislike for standardized test, which I feel is a common belief held by teachers. I know I do not
like them and will not suddenly like them when I become a teacher. The focus of teaching needs
to be the students not the test.
Noden, Harry (2001). Image Grammar: Painting images with grammatical structures. Voices
from the Middle, 8, 7-16.
Summary: Harry Noden, in “Image Grammar: Painting Images with Grammatical Structures,”
Noden describes an incense that happened at the middle school he was teaching at from the
simple exchange of two letters. This incident is a cause the English/language arts faculty to take
sides in a controversy that continues to this day. Teachers that advocate a linguistic approach are
on one side of this debate and teachers to champion a traditional approach on the other side.
After identifying the two approaches, Noden decided to put theory into practice. He started it by
teaching them traditional grammar, but after a few years began to realize what many researchers
were saying when they explained that traditional grammar in isolation as null carryover and
writing. Because of this Noden switched to a linguistic approach, focusing on transformational
grammar. He believed that, through grammar, students can create an image with their writing.
He breaks this into different categories: images of style (showing rather than telling), images of
form (the feel of the writing), and images of content (grammatical structures that shifted the
meaning).
Response: The way this article focuses on showing rather than telling resonates with me because
I have had multiple teachers expressed this view in their classrooms. It seems that no matter
what you write, or when you write it, it is important to show the reader what you mean, rather
than telling them. Imagery seems to be a very important part of writing and it would be a good
skill to learn to be able to manipulate the language to create vivid images.