Darche and Sobel 1
C.Darche and M. Sobel
Dr. Jones
ENGL 6415
10 May 2010
The Case for School Grammar
Grammar Instruction: A Review
The majority of the grammar research of the past ten years has centered on determining
whether formal grammar instruction should be taught in schools. The general consensus among
anti-grammarians seems to be that “grammar instruction is unquestionably unfashionable” in
schools today (Micciche 716). Essentially, this stance stems from the commonly held idea that
explicit grammar instruction does not make a substantial difference in student writing, that there
is no retention of the grammatical rules taught, and that it does not produce longstanding
results. Patrick Hartwell, a recognized anti-grammarian, has made a strong case for abandoning
school grammar instruction, and his article, “Grammar, Grammars, and the Teaching of
Grammar,” has influenced many researchers and educators. Asserting that there is not one
overarching definition of grammar, Hartwell categorizes grammar into five different
meanings. Grammar one refers to the grammar we learn through everyday interaction; grammar
two refers to the formal linguistic rules applied to grammar one; grammar three refers to
linguistic etiquette or usage; grammar four refers to school grammar, and grammar five refers to
stylistic grammar (Hartwell 110). Grammar four, school grammar, is the grammar he takes
issue with. Hartwell latches onto the research of H. Lamb and M. Whyllie, supporting their
position that "…the formal study of grammar, whether transformational or traditional, improved
neither writing quality nor control over surface correctness" (Hartwell 107). He maintains that
the traditional instruction of grammar rules in the classroom setting does not enhance writing and
Darche and Sobel 2
therefore holds no value in education.
Hartwell's voice, however, is not the only one heard amongst anti-grammarians in the
case against formal grammar instruction. Joseph M. Williams supports Hartwell's claims and
enters himself into the dialogue on grammar education with his argument, "…no matter how
'atrocious' or ' horrible' or 'illiterate' we think an error like irregardless or a like for an as might
be… unlike social errors, linguistic errors do not ordinarily require that we apologize for them"
(Williams 153 original emphasis). He believes that in most cases grammatical errors do not have
a substantial impact on how we understand ideas, whether written or spoken; the errors are so
slight that they do not matter. Several researchers go as far as to claim that grammar instruction
is actually harmful for students. In her “Contemporary Grammar Pedagogies: A Brief Review,”
Joan Livingston-Webber’s notes that the 1963 Braddock report states, “The teaching of formal
grammar has a negligible or, because it usually displaces some instruction and practice in
actually composition, even a harmful effect on the improvement of writing” (qtd. in LivingstonWebber 7). She goes on to note that Hillocks supports Braddock’s claim and argues, “School
boards, administrators, and teachers who impose the systematic study of traditional school
grammar on their students over lengthy periods of time in the name of teaching writing do them
a gross disservice which should not be tolerated by anyone concerned with the effective teaching
of good writing” (qtd. in Livingston-Webber 7).
Taking this conversation even further, some anti-grammarian educators maintain that
grammatical errors can even be good. For example, Melissa Allen explains that during her
experience teaching ESL students, she learned to appreciate the grammatical errors because she
felt the sentences were more authentic (“Mapping the Frontier” 36). Additionally, Gary Vaughn
and Barbara Wenner feel that both students and teachers should “recognize error in student
Darche and Sobel 3
writing as an opportunity to unleash imagination, play with language in the reading of it, and
generate text that is more aware of the possibilities in language use” (qtd. in “Mapping the
Frontier” 36). Donna Gorrelia points out that “published writers write sentence fragments, use
passive voice with impunity, begin their sentences with ‘and’ and end them with prepositions,
use the first-person pronoun ‘I,’ contract their words, and even splice their sentences with
commas” (qtd. in “Mapping the Frontier” 33). Her argument is that teachers cannot fairly stress
the importance of grammar in writing when students see the authors they study breaking those
same rules all of the time.
On the other end of the spectrum, grammarians persist in their fight. In “Making a Case
for Rhetorical Grammar,” Laura Micciche argues that rhetorical grammar is “just as central to
composition’s driving commitment to teach critical thinking and cultural critique as is reading
rhetorically, understanding significance of cultural difference, and engaging in community work
through service learning initiatives” (Micciche 718). Her thought is that if teachers fail to teach
grammar, they are hindering their students’ progress as writers. While many of the
abovementioned anti-grammarians claim that the problem lay in the fact that students do not
retain knowledge from formal grammar instruction, Mina Shaughnessy believes it is normal for
students to continue to make mistakes; their mistakes do not necessarily mean that instruction is
not working. She argues that they commit errors “not because they are slow or non-verbal,
indifferent to or incapable of academic excellence, but because they are beginners and must, like
all beginners, learn by making mistakes” (qtd. in “Mapping the Frontier” 30). Shaughnessy
encourages researchers and educators to study the problems students have with grammar in
attempt to find more effective ways to teach. The problem may not always lay with students’
inability to retain knowledge on grammar rules.
Darche and Sobel 4
While grammarian educators stress the importance of grammar education, this too
presents a controversy as many researchers have argued that the largest problem concerning
grammar instruction is that teachers are not trained in it, hence why the students have problems
comprehending it. In her article, “The Meaning in Grammar,” Mary Schleppegrell argues that
teachers should focus on teaching functional grammar, a way of analyzing language that
“highlights issues of overall organization and voice and goes beyond structural categories such
as noun and very to show the meanings that follow from different language choices”
(Schleppegrell 123). However, she also says that the greatest challenge is the fact that teacher
education falls short of providing teachers with a foundation in grammar, let alone particular
methods by which to teach it (Schleppegreell126). Bill Gribbin admits in his article, “Our
Ambivalence toward Teaching Grammar,” that during his student teaching experience, he was
asked to teach a grammar unit and panicked because even after four years as an English major,
he had not learned enough grammar to teach it (Gribbin 17). However, he then proceeds to
argue that this is largely due to the fact that the English teaching profession is “decidedly antigrammar” (Gribbin 18). While he confirms Schleppegrell’s belief that teachers are generally
inept when it comes to grammar instruction, Gribbin takes an anti-grammarian stance and instead
of arguing that research be done to help train educators, he suggests that teaching grammar may
very well be a waste of time (18).
Although grammarians freely admit that there are flaws with the traditional grammar
instruction, no one has developed an argument or the research suitable enough to quell responses
from the anti-grammarian side. Most grammarians agree with Hartwell that grammar instruction
should not be taught in isolation. Grammarians continue to notice and point out the gap between
what is "perfectly clear to the teacher or textbook writer" but what is also not making its way into
Darche and Sobel 5
students' writing (Harris and Rowan 258). Therefore, in an effort to develop interesting and
innovative ways to teach grammar that are not only appealing for students but also improve the
retention of grammar for future use, grammarians have invented various "alternative methods" of
teaching grammar. Aside from the debate of whether or not grammar should even be taught in
schools, there are countless internal debates amongst grammarians attempting to establish what
the most effective method of teaching formal grammar truly is. Whereas diagramming sentences
have come out of fashion due to complaints that this method is ineffective, new methods that
address multiple learning styles have grown to become a part grammar instruction
conversation. Focusing on auditory, visual, and kinesthetic learners, Krauthamer calls for
"flexible pedagogies to reach all…students…" (Krauthamer 122). Rhoda Byler Yoder uses this
alternative grammar instruction in her development of "Useful Grammar" that teaches
elementary and middle school students grammar through colloquial terms such as " 'adult
chunks' for independent clauses, 'kid chunks' for dependent clauses, and 'fake verbs for gerunds,
participles, and infinitives" (qtd. in Krauthamer 122). Influenced by Noguchi’s concept of
teaching only the bare bones of grammar, Krauthamer developed her own method, which she
calls “concrete grammar” (123). Concrete grammar is essentially based on the constructivist
learning theory, where students are active participants in their learning. Krauthamer explains,
“Students construct their own hypotheses about language; they apply what they learn to their
immediate writing concerns, illustrating both the relevance and authenticity of the concept; and
the exercise welcomes grammatical errors as new ‘data’ to be discussed” (124). The idea is that
if students are actively learning, they will have an easier time applying that which they learn and
then retaining it for future use.
Other grammarians take a more inductive approach to teaching grammar. Scholars
Darche and Sobel 6
including Blaauw-Hara, Cook, Frischkorn, and Correli suggest teaching methods that have
students read professional writing, analyze its construction, and then try to mimic it in their own
writing (“Mapping the Frontier” 37). In “But When Do You Teach Grammar,” David Gold
discusses how he and his colleague handled grammar instruction unconventionally, much to the
initial dismay of both administrators and parents. While they noted that all of their students had
plenty of formal grammar instruction (i.e. they could do things such as sing the preposition song
and recite subordinate and coordinate conjunctions), they had difficulty applying the grammar
rules in their writing, which echoes Hartwell’s own concerns. Gold explains,
So, we explained that it was OK to start a sentence with because, as long as on
we remembered to put in a comma and an independent clause after the first
clause. We also told students that sometimes fragments were OK, as long as it
was absolutely clear to the reader that the fragment was intentional. Our goal was
to get students to think deeply about language at the sentence and word level, to
be conscious of the choices writers make, so as to be able to make use of a wide
range of rhetorical strategies and syntactic constructions when they wrote. (44)
By explaining the reasoning behind the rules and looking at how the authors they were reading
invoked grammar, Gold and his colleague saw great student progress and achievement.
Importantly, in employing the rules and having students not only remember them but internalize
them for further use, Gold and his colleague argue that they successfully used formal grammar
instruction.
As students are relying more and more on tools such as “Grammar Check” and “Spell
Check” to do the work for them, grammarians argue that grammar instruction in school is even
more necessary today. Some teachers are finding ways to incorporate the technology into their
Darche and Sobel 7
grammar instruction. For example, in “My New teaching Partner? Using the Grammar Check in
Writing Instruction,” Potter and Fuller say that although the word processor’s grammar checker
is a flawed teacher, they embrace it and help guide their students to learn from it. Pointing out to
their students that the grammar checker is never going to catch all their errors, they show their
students where and how the grammar checker falls short. For example, the grammar checker
will never correct the sentence “Little Women were a great book,” but students need to know
why it does not catch the error. Potter argues,
Helping students made good writing choices while using computer grammar tools
gave my grammar instruction a stronger connection to the daily experience of my
student than I had previously experienced. Students became more skeptical about
the omnipotence of the grammar checker. They were more engaged and more
motivated to apply the learning of the specific grammar units. (36)
Potter and Fuller believe that teachers need to instruct in grammar, considering there is a great
deal of misleading information readily available for students. They bow under the authority of
the computer, most likely never realizing why something is wrong or why something is right.
Perhaps one of the strongest grammarian arguments is that students need to learn
grammar in school to be prepared for life outside the classroom. Mark Blaauw-Hara asserts,
"Our students need to be able to adhere to standard written English to succeed in their other
classes and to get jobs at the end of their schooling, and it's the responsibility of writing teachers
to help them do so" (“Why Our Students” 165). While the anti-grammarian argument remains
that formal grammar instruction is not beneficial, they cannot dispute the fact that the academic
and professional spheres still value grammatical correct writing. Grammarians argue it would be
a disservice not to teach students grammar, when often times their futures depend on it. As
Darche and Sobel 8
Potter and Fuller point out, grammarians feel that students need to understand the actual
grammar rules and the reasoning behind the rules in order to be able to accurately use them in
their own writing. Many argue that the problem lies at the beginning of the writing process;
however, in recent educational systems, proofreading for grammar has been left as the last stop
in the writing process or to the professor who will ultimately grade the rough draft. Harris and
Rowan point out that "…they [students] do need to understand fundamental grammatical
concepts so that they can successfully edit their writing" (258 original emphasis). However, the
problem is also in the fact that grammar is left to the end of the writing process (Blaauw-Hara).
At this point, the student turns in a paper that has had little or no proofreading to sort out last
minute grammatical errors and is left to the instructor to point out and correct. The learning
process is stunted in this cycle because students fail to learn the reasons behind their mistakes
and the subsequent corrections.
While the grammarian – anti-grammarian battle rages on, the grammarians tend to focus
their defense on methods by which to teach school grammar instead of addressing the antigrammarians’ largest claim. Even if their most solid argument is that students need to be
proficient in grammar in order to achieve academically and professionally, grammarians fail to
address the more basic issue of students' failure to get their ideas across clearly because of their
incorrect and oftentimes un-taught grammar. Hartwell’s argument that formal grammar
instruction (grammar four) does not improve the quality of writing should be the grammarian
camp’s foremost concern. His assertion that formal grammar instruction is not only ineffective
but also, “show[s] example after example of errors that occur because of instruction” should be
the grammarian’s issue to contend with (Hartwell 120 original emphasis). Quite frankly, it is our
largest concern, as we believe that formal grammar instruction has a direct impact on the clarity
Darche and Sobel 9
of ideas and the overall quality of writing. How can students get their ideas across in their
writing if they do not have the means by which to do it? The communication of ideas has a
definite effect on the quality of the writing. It would be difficult to argue that a piece of writing
is of high quality if what the writer is trying to say is unclear. We maintain the fewer
grammatical errors there are in a piece of writing, the better the communication of students’
ideas, and by invoking Richard Haswell’s “Minimal Marking” method, this is what we are
anxious to prove.
Methodology
Four sections of College English participated in our study to discover what effect
grammar instruction has on the clarity of ideas and in turn the overall quality of writing. We
each had a control group and an experimental group. In total, there were sixty-five participants;
there were thirty-three participants in the control group (sixteen in one section and seventeen in
the other) and thirty-two participants in the experimental group (sixteen in each section).
Ages of the participants ranged from eighteen to thirty-seven, the ratio of boys to girls was 6:7,
and there was a mixture of public and privately schooled students. Although there were seven
students who speak different languages at home besides English (Greek, Polish, and the
remainder being Spanish), all students were fluent in English.
Considering that none of the articles we read took into account the students' standpoints
on grammar, we thought it would be enlightening to begin our study with the students and see
how they felt about grammar instruction and their own grammar skills. Therefore, we had each
student complete an anonymous survey (see Appendix) and a free response, commenting on the
hypothesis of this study. We reviewed and analyzed the students’ responses to look for patterns.
Darche and Sobel 10
Additionally, we calculated the number of grammatical errors in the free response and then
compared that to the student’s own rating (on a scale of 1-10, one being completely incompetent
with grammar rules and 10 being highly confident with grammatical rules) to understand a
correlation between students’ own comfort levels with grammar and their actual use of the rules.
Then we embarked on the actual study.
Borrowing from Richard Haswell’s “Minimal Marking” system, our intention was to
foster a constructivist influenced, student-focused means of grammar instruction. Whereas
traditional grammar instruction is teacher-driven, this method relies on active student
participation and their own writing as the learning vehicle. Richard Haswell's "Minimal
Marking" offers a solution and an alternative attempt at teaching grammar. In providing students
with the knowledge that there is an error but not stating what that error is it leaves the
responsibility up to the writer to find out the corrections in their own piece (Haswell 166).
For the experimental group’s rough drafts, we commented normally, but instead of
specifically pointing or correcting their grammatical errors, we placed a check mark (√) at the
end of a line of a student’s paper each time there was a grammatical error. For example, if in one
line of the text there were a misplaced comma and incorrect subject verb agreement, the line
would have two checks at the end. In this specific example below, there are two errors in the
three lines.
In this stanza Angelou is trying to point out how people in life may say or write √
things about you that are not true, but you will overcome it and rise. Also how a
lot of black history that was being taught was skewed. √
The first check mark refers to the rule that says there needs to be a comma after an introductory
clause or phrase, and the second check mark refers to the second sentence which is a fragment.
Darche and Sobel 11
After marking all of the errors with check marks and commenting, we scored each paper with
our clarity rubric (see Appendix). To chart progress, we kept track of the number of errors and
the clarity score for each paper.
The control group had the same writing assignments as the experimental. However, we
commented on the drafts in a traditional manner. For example, each grammatical error was both
pointed out and corrected. We also scored each paper in the control group with our clarity rubric.
Again, we kept track of the number of errors and the clarity score for each paper.
Upon the return of their rough drafts, the students in the experimental group had to take
the time to figure out what grammar problem each check mark referred to and then had to meet
with their respective professor to both see if their changes were correct and the check marks were
accurately defined. The goal was to have students begin to recognize their own errors and to
solve the problem without relying on a teacher correcting them. By the final draft, the
assumption is that students will not make the same errors because they will recognize them from
correcting the mistakes themselves. To test this assumption, we again both counted the number
of errors and scored each final paper (in both the control and experimental groups) with our
clarity rubric.
In the last week of the semester, after all of the students had completed their rough and
final drafts, they all completed another hand-written free response in class. We tabulated the
number of errors in the free responses in order to compare to the average number of errors to the
average number of errors in the free responses that were a part of the surveys. Our intention was
to notice if the check mark method had an effect not only on formal academic writing, but also
on in-class free writing.
Darche and Sobel 12
Here’s What the Students Say
While we originally thought we might find that there was a correlation between the type
of schooling, the emphasis on grammar instruction, and confidence in grammar skills, the results
were unfortunately inconclusive. However, the responses to questions number eight and number
nine were rather noteworthy. 94% of the participants responded that their high school teachers
expected them to already know grammar, and only 35% of the participants specifically
remember being taught grammar in high school. This percentage is much lower than the 83%
who said they specifically remember being taught grammar in elementary school and the 89%
who said they specifically remember being taught grammar in middle school. Owing to the fact
that grades K-8 traditionally are associated with grammar education, the 89% to 35% drop (from
middle school to high school) is not unexpected. We do not commonly associate grammar
instruction with high school, and this mentality is undoubtedly supported in the 94% who said
that their high school teachers expected them to be proficient in grammar without any additional
instruction from secondary teachers. However, what is alarming is that the average level of
confidence in grammar skills of these first year college writing students is a six on a scale from
one to ten. This is indicative of a larger issue. The majority of students expressed a concern for
the status of their own knowledge of grammar in the free response section, and yet, the majority
of students were not taught grammar in school past the eighth grade. Therefore, the role of
grammar instructor skips past a ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth grade teacher and falls upon
the first year writing teacher at the university level. The question then becomes, is the problem
that grammar education is not successfully taught in grades K-8, or should grammar instruction
be a part of high school curriculum to the extent that it is in elementary and middle school?
Darche and Sobel 13
Many of the participants actually addressed this question and wrote about their grammar
experience within their educational histories in the free response portion of the survey. 97% of
the participants agreed with the question posed in the survey that required a page response.
Regardless of what the critics are stating, it is refreshing to know that almost all of the
participants believe that grammar is significant and that it has a direct impact on the clarity of
ideas and the quality of writing. For the most part, comments in the response portion of the
survey can be grouped into three categories: comments concerning the audience’s perception of
grammar skills, comments concerning the relationship between grammar instruction and
schooling, and comments concerning grammar’s effect on writing. The following are samples of
the comments as they appeared in the original surveys.
Comments Concerning the Audience’s Perception

“If one does not use proper grammar their work may not be taken seriously.”

“Also, poor grammar is a sign of disinterest and that the writer didn’t take the time to
proofread or edit his or her work.”

“It is also less likely for a reader to trust the author’s point if there are many mistakes.”

“You sound smarter and more educated. This helps when you are looking for a job or
writing a resume.”

“When I read a paper and there are no grammatical errors that I can find then I view
the author as being very smart. Writing is a way of presenting oneself and when there
are errors it presents the author as messy, unintelligent and simply lazy.”
Comments Concerning Schooling
Darche and Sobel 14

“In high school, one is expected to have enough background and experience in
grammar to not need further instruction. It is in my personal opinion that this is why
there are so many students who struggle with writing.”

“If teachers in my public school started grammar at a young age I think myself and
my friends would have been much better off on our SATs. We would also get
stronger grades on our college essays because the professors would be able to
understand our ideas more clearly. I sometimes wish I could go back to a grade
where they taught the basics but to tell you the truth I do not even remember ever
learning it til 11th grade in AP.”

“In high school we were just expected to know what was grammatically correct.”

“In sixth grade I remember a lot of stress on grammar, but from then on it was not
taught. In high school, grammar was expected to be near perfect, but it was not
taught.”
Comments Concerning Grammar’s Effect on Writing

“Grammatical errors can distract the reader from the authors ideas and the point of the
paper can be lost.”

“Someone could make a strong point in the argument of their writing, and it could be
completely missed by the reader because it was not properly articulated.”

“Essays are much clearer and easy to understand when written correctly so being
instructed properly is very important.”

“I would not say that good grammar makes an individual a great writer, but it does
help the clarity of thoughts and ideas.”
Darche and Sobel 15
The comments concerning the audience’s perception highlight those characteristics
students typically associate with grammar. For instance, they link grammar with intelligence,
education, reliability, and professionalism. This sensitivity to the audience’s awareness confirms
that students are concerned with how they are perceived in their writing. It seems obvious that
they do not want to be considered less intelligent, less educated, lazy, untrustworthy, and
unprofessional because of poor grammatical skills. Additionally, many students viewed
grammar as affecting their ability to get into decent colleges or to be hired at desirable jobs. The
predominant concern students expressed was, “This [grammar] is something that people need to
have a basic understanding of in order to be accepted into jobs or colleges. Employers do not
want a person that cannot correctly form a sentence because it will give a bad name to the
company.” This overarching concern for students that poor grammar will impede their success in
life appears as an outcry to be taught grammar.
However, while the majority seemed unsatisfied with their skills, none of the students
actually took responsibility for their weak grammar in their written responses. Many blamed
their education, and for those who did place the blame on either their specific teachers or schools,
the concentration was on high school. On the whole, students were frustrated that they were
expected to be proficient in grammar by the time they entered ninth grade. They either felt that
elementary and middle school did not do an effective job of teaching them or that they needed to
be continuously refreshed in high school. Many complained that their teachers would take off
points on assignments for poor grammar but would not explain the grammatical concepts
because it was something that they were already supposed to know. The only students who
specifically remember learning grammar in high school were those who had AP, or Advanced
Placement, English. In high school, AP courses are for the “advanced” students because they are
Darche and Sobel 16
college level courses. The implication here is that the only students who are privy to
grammatical education are those in advanced placement, ones trying to obtain college credits.
This contributes to the idea that grammar is solely relegated to the academic paper genre.
Whereas the students who are not deemed “college bound” do not need specific grammar
instruction, those on that college track, who will be writing academic papers in a higher
education facility, do need grammar instruction. While the majority of our students argued that
grammar should be taught in schools, there were several students that sided with Hartwell.
However, the most vehement defender of not teaching grammar in school also had the highest
level of grammatical errors within her free response (eight errors). The student acknowledges
that punctuation can affect the meaning of the piece but also states,
I think that grammar is important but not always completely necessary. Such as
having a Period at the end of a sentence I think should be good enough. Instead
there are many rules and punctuations that are used by many and are used
wrong. … An example of a rule that is not considered when writing a paper would
be does each sentence have a subject and a predicate.
This student openly expresses dissatisfaction with grammar education and deems it unnecessary.
While rating herself at a level six in confidence in grammar skills, the student exhibited one of
the highest levels of grammatical errors in the free response. This inconsistency between the
number of errors and the level of confidence that she rated herself at (after all, six is above
average) perhaps indicates an insecurity with the very skill she deems unnecessary. While this
student agrees with Hartwell’s argument, she lacks grammar skills. Hartwell, on the other hand,
has the grammar skills and yet argues that others should not learn Grammar IV.
Darche and Sobel 17
On the whole, students only saw grammar usage within the context of the academic paper.
Keeping their mind on the genre they were writing in, they began their free responses by
employing the use of grammar within papers they write for school. Throughout the responses,
students agreed grammar would be useful for college or future employment, while their initial
concern was where grammar came into academic papers written for school, outside of a future
context. On the whole, students only saw grammar usage within the context of the academic
paper. Keeping their mind on the genre they were writing in, they began their free responses by
employing the use of grammar within papers they write for school. Throughout the responses,
students agreed grammar would be useful for college or future employment, while their initial
concern was where grammar came into academic papers written for school, outside of a future
context. The concern most commonly voiced by students in their writing was that grammar was
either untaught and therefore hindered their academic success, or that they did not think it was
necessary for their scholastics. However, all students resoundingly agreed that outside of this
academic genre grammar is not only useful but also paramount to success.
But What do the Numbers Say?
Breaking down the information from both sets of the experimental and control groups,
the results were not always what we set out to discover. However, from a mere statistical stand
point, regardless of what opinions students voiced in their free responses, or in class discussions,
there is evidence that there may be a connection to school grammar (Hartwell’s Grammar IV)
and use of correct grammar in academic writing. While the actual number of grammatical errors
for each set is not entirely conclusive, i.e. sometimes there are more grammatical errors in the
final draft rather than the first draft due to a student adding a large portion to the paper, there is
Darche and Sobel 18
significance concerning the grammatical errors in connection with clarity. While part of our
argument aims to disprove the idea that “‘the common school grammars’ [are] unconnected with
anything remotely resembling literate adult behavior,” the results suggest an answer to a different
point of contention within the grammar debate, that of quality (Hartwell 102). The results show a
clear, more direct line between grammar and clarity of ideas. Looking at the correlation between
the clarity of ideas and grammar, or grammar instruction for that matter, stems from the assertion
from grammarians that grammar has a place in the classroom because it is improving the clarity
and therefore the quality of the writing.
First, looking at only grammatical errors between the experimental and control groups,
the numbers show a positive indication that grammar instruction is beneficial in removal of
grammatical errors in student writing, but the percentages are not strong enough. The following
statistic’s primary focus is on the factual number of errors within the students’ writing without
looking at either clarity or quality of ideas within the paper. For the non-experimental group,
consisting of thirty-three students, thirteen students went up in errors (39%), compared to the
five (out of thirty-two) students in the experimental group, who went up in errors (16%). The
difference between five students with increased errors to thirteen students with increased errors
is nothing to ignore, as this implies that Haswell’s “Minimal Marking” made some kind of
difference. In having students take accountability for their own grammar issues, there was a
direct improvement on the grammar within their writing. The difference between the percentages,
23%, is substantial and implies that the check mark method was effective. If the only difference
in the instruction between the control and experimental groups was the use of a specific
grammatical tool to help students both understand and rectify their errors, then the assumption
would have to be that this tool was the missing link in the leap from 16% to 39%. Given that
Darche and Sobel 19
when each student met with their respective professor to discuss their various check marks on
their papers, we also went over the rule correlating to the mistake, school grammar was used.
Therefore, formal grammar was the instructive tool in having student’s master these rules.
Although the actual check marks in no way resemble a traditional mode of studying grammar,
the conversations thereafter do parallel formal grammar instruction in that they look at the rules
behind the error. The fact that then 81% of those students who received the “formal grammar
instruction” went down in errors compared to the 57% who did not receive the instruction refutes
the fundamental issue anti-grammarians have today. Hartwell maintains,
Thus, if we think seriously about error and its relationship to the worship of
formal grammar study, we need to attempt some massive dislocation of our
traditional thinking, to shuck off our hyperliterate perception of the value of
formal rules, and to regain the confidence in the tacit power of unconscious
knowledge that our theory of language gives us. (Hartwell 121)
The issue of clarity of ideas through grammar is a separate point of contention within this
seemingly endless grammar debate. Hartwell argues “‘the common school grammar,’ would
have little to do with control over surface correctness nor with the quality of writing” (Hartwell
125). However, according to this particular experiment, grammar is intrinsically tied to the
quality of the writing as per the attached rubric.
The conclusions drawn between the number of grammatical errors and the clarity of ideas
within the paper are not as clear cut as merely the number of errors. Obviously in a completed
paper there are far more factors than grammar contributing to the overall clarity of thought
within the work. However, importantly, the statistics and percentages for the grammatical errors
did show that Haswell’s check mark theory was effective, and that effectiveness should not be
Darche and Sobel 20
discounted in the analysis of the statistical evidence concerning grammatical errors in
conjunction to clarity. For both the control group and the experimental group, the percentages
were incredibly close for merely increasing in clarity, control group at 55% and the experimental
at 59%. However, there was a significant difference between the percentage of students who
went down in errors and up in clarity. While the control group had 27% students go down in
errors and up in clarity, the experimental group had 50% students go down in error and up in
clarity. Placed side by side with the information on students in the experimental group who went
down in errors (81%) this is statistically relevant and interesting. These students made significant
changes and showed marked improvement in both grammatical understanding and clarity of
ideas.
Likewise, there were students that achieved the opposite of this result. Where there were
students that went down in errors and up in clarity, there were students who also go up in error
and down in clarity. Accounting for this change in a paper could be, as abovementioned,
including more writing into a paper or perhaps re-writing the paper as a whole. However, the
evidence again points in favor of the experimental group. While the control group had 24% of
students increase in grammatical errors but also go down in clarity, the group that did participate
in the experiment had only 6% of students go up in errors and down in clarity. These numbers
point in the direction of success for not only formal grammar instruction but also formal
grammar instruction in connection with clarity of ideas. Since the only difference in the
instruction for each class was that the group that received the instruction improved in their
grammatical errors and then improved in their overall clarity, this suggests a success for formal
grammar instruction. Hartwell’s own analysis of Haswell’s findings (that 61.1% of students
Darche and Sobel 21
correct their errors when it is identified by the Minimal Marking strategy) is pointedly denied by
the findings of this specific research. Hartwell argues that Haswell’s findings
…suggest that we need to redefine error, to see it not as a cognitive or linguistic
problem, a problem of not knowing a ‘rule of grammar’ (whatever that may
mean), but rather, following the insight of Robert J. Bracewell… as a problem of
metacognition and metalinguistic awareness, a matter of accessing knowledges
that, to be of any use, learners must have already internalized by means of
exposure to the code (Hartwell 122).
The findings in this experiment heartily counter that. Using this technique is evidence that
students do internalize the errors, that they do understand the difference, and importantly that this
occurs through formal grammar instruction.
While the rubric helps to elucidate the notion of what constitutes a “clear” paper,
examples from student writing also highlight the difference between an unclear paper and a clear
paper. In looking at the following examples, we have taken two students’ rough drafts, one rated
at a level two in clarity and the second at a level five. The following ESL student included this
passage in his rough draft, and it was rated as a level two in clarity.
Once love has come, becomes a strength that impulses to go out and share that
which has been given to us. And that presence becomes our driving force, the
force that can transport us from the meadows of sadness and loneliness to the
peak of mountains where we become invincible all because of love. And so, we
can name that one person that came and sat awhile with us, and we can express
our feelings to say.
Darche and Sobel 22
This passage embodies shows how the grammatical errors affect the level of clarity. Although
there are several factors at work in this student’s paper, grammar is an integral piece of the lack
of clarity in the writing. This portion serves as our example of a work put in level one of the
rubric, indicating unclear writing. Although here we understand that the overall theme of the
passage is love, the student fails to convey to his reader what happens with love, what the effects
of love are, and leaves the reader confused as to what the meaning is.
Conversely, we have an example of a student whose writing was exceptionally clear,
putting her in the level five of the rubric. The passage here gives the reader an idea and develops
that idea, leaving little room to guess at what she means.
In conclusion, these poets have both created works that reflect polarized
viewpoints on the controversial issue of dying, death, and afterlife. It is evident
that both applied personal meanings from their own lives in writing their poems.
Through their employment of different literary tactics, they both successfully
convey their intended ideas through their works.
This example has no grammatical errors. Whereas the other student struggled to convey a clear
idea and was hindered by grammatical errors, here the stronger grammar skills helps to create a
clear message for the reader. Unencumbered by confusing grammar, the student’s language and
ideas are able to come through, whereas the first student’s ideas became lost in the grammar.
Comparing both the first and second free writes for both the experimental and control
groups, the results of errors were astounding. When looking at the average errors from the first
free write to the second, and then evaluating the difference, it is clear that the experimental group
improved in leaps and bounds. The initial average errors for the experimental group were 3.63
whereas the first free write for the control group was an average of 2.71 errors. Then, the second
Darche and Sobel 23
free write, which took place after the Minimal Marking was completed in the experimental group,
was much different. The experimental group’s average of errors for the second free write was
1.54, and the average of errors for the control group was 2.38. The difference here is remarkable.
The group that continued to have their papers graded in the traditional way, without the check
mark method went down in errors by an average of .33. However, the group that participated in
the experiment decreased in errors by an average of 2.09. The only difference in the instruction
of the control group versus the experimental group, as abovementioned, was the use of Haswell’s
Minimal Marking. With that being said, there is little that could account for such a drastic change
in these numbers, except for the grammar instruction. Although we certainly cannot account for
every variable that impacts student writing, and as Hartwell himself admits, there can be no
perfect grammar experiment, this number is significant enough to cause pause for consideration
(Hartwell 107).
Conclusion
We have spent this experiment trying to successfully counter Patrick Hartwell’s assertion
that formal grammar instruction does not impact the overall quality of the writing. While we
have by no means unequivocally disproved him, we do believe that we have made a case for
formal grammar instruction. Our argument is substantial. We have attempted to illustrate that
grammar instruction is not just a formality or something needed to succeed in the academic and
professional spheres, but it directly effects the communication of ideas in writing. There is in
fact a functional purpose to the instruction and knowledge of formal grammar outside of the
academic paper and the school genre.
While Whyllie and Lamb’s experiment found that formal grammar instruction left
students with “less positive attitudes… …toward their English studies,” we do not believe that
Darche and Sobel 24
this is a reason to disregard instruction (qtd. in Hartwell 107). In the surveys, students responded
with comments such as, “Grammatical correctness is a key part of writing an exceptional paper.”
Students may not realize how grammar can affect their lives outside of school, but they do
recognize that they need to succeed. This inability to transfer knowledge from the classroom to
“real life” presents a pressing concern. The idea that grammar only has a place within the
classroom may be directly linked to the traditional ways of teaching grammar. As grammarians
clamor to develop more innovative ways of teaching grammar, they are trying to reach it outside
of the classroom. Relegating grammar to the academic paper runs the risk of allowing grammar
outside of this particular genre to degenerate and engage even further in a linguistic world bereft
of grammatical rules. No one is worried about widespread chaos, but our own concern is
grammatical anarchy. Generally speaking, students primarily see the purpose of grammar related
to getting good grade in school, getting into college, and getting jobs, and this is most likely
because the teachers themselves share this mentality. Therefore, teachers need to realize the
greater, far-reaching purpose of grammar – to clearly communicate idea. As students
unanimously put pen to paper and agree that the clarity of ideas deteriorates due to poor grammar
(many providing specific instances and examples) the quality of clarity outside of the academic
genre is at a severe and very real disadvantage. Although the data and studies we have
completed through this experiment with sixty-five undergraduate students are not entirely
conclusive, it has established an element of doubt within the hearty conversation the antigrammarians have dominated for some time.
Looking at the countless articles and methods grammarians have invented in an effort to
resurrect grammar from its formal and seemingly outdated ways, we find that Hartwell’s
understanding of how Grammar Four is taught in schools is incorrect. While he discounts the use
Darche and Sobel 25
of workbooks, chanting of grammar rules, and mindless instruction, and therefore looks to
eliminate it from schools, the grammarians have already shown that those techniques are not a
part of school grammar today. Various grammar exercises have been developed in an effort to
take formal grammar and put it in a context both familiar and appealing to students, so therefore
school grammar is not being taught in isolation the way Hartwell argues.
The results of this study answer several questions while seeming to not answer anything.
While we can look at the numbers of errors that have gone up or down from rough draft to final
draft, the inconsistencies between all of the variables cannot be quelled. As Hartwell fears, there
may be no adequate control group for establishing the answer to the grammar controversy; there
may be no experiment free of error. That being said, these numbers suggest that formal
grammatical instruction does have an impact on students’ writing. Cloaked under the heading of
unconventional grammar study, Haswell’s Minimal Marking employs the basic tenants of
formal grammar. This component of formal instruction, the one very different technique used
with the experimental group versus the control group indicates that the difference is effectual.
Instead of eliminating school grammar from the curriculum, educators should be emphasizing
the significance that school grammar has on writing across the board.
Darche and Sobel 26
APPENDIX
Grammar Survey
1. Did you attend a public or Catholic/private elementary school?
2. Do you remember specifically being taught grammar in elementary school?
3. On a scale from 1 – 10 (with 10 being the strongest), how strongly was grammar stressed
in elementary school?
4. Did you attend a public or Catholic/private middle school?
5. Do you remember specifically being taught grammar in middle school?
6. On a scale from 1 – 10 (with 10 being the strongest), how strongly was grammar stressed
in middle school?
7. Did you attend a public or Catholic/private high school?
8. Did your high school teachers expect you to already know grammar?
9. Do you specifically remember being taught grammar in high school?
10. On a scale from 1 – 10 (with 10 being the strongest), how strongly was grammar stressed
in high school?
11. On a scale from 1 – 10 (with 10 being the highest) how confident are you in your
grammar skills?
12. On a scale from 1-10 (with 10 being the highest), how often when you use grammatical
rules (i.e. using commas, subject/verb agreement, use of a semicolon) do you recognize
the name of and logic behind the rule?
*On a separate sheet of paper, respond to this statement: The fewer grammatical errors there
are in a piece of writing, the better the communication of ideas. Grammatical instruction
DOES improve the clarity of ideas. Therefore, grammar instruction improves the overall
quality of the writing. This response should be about 1 page in length.
Darche and Sobel 27
Clarity Rubric
Ideas are confusing
and unintelligible.
The ideas are not
clearly conveyed
and the meaning of
each sentence is
difficult if not
impossible to
understand.
There are sections of
clarity within the
writing. Overall the
student is confusing
or unclear but there
are moments where
are the ideas are
comprehendible.
The ideas are
generally concise
and easily
understood.
Although they may
sometimes be
confusing to the
reader, there is an
overarching
understanding of the
student’s meaning.
The student’s ideas
are generally clear.
Despite sometimes
creating confusing
sentences with
unclear meanings,
the overall meaning
of the ideas are
easily conveyed.
There is undeniable
understandability in
the paper. All of the
ideas are well
thought out and
developed. Each
idea has follow
through and explains
itself to the reader.
1
2
3
4
5
Darche and Sobel 28
Works Cited
Blaauw-Hara, Mark. "Mapping the Frontier: A Survey of Twenty Years of Grammar Articles in
TETYC. " Teaching English in the Two Year College 35.1 (2007): 30-40. ProQuest
Education Journals, ProQuest. Web. 5 May. 2010.
Blaauw-Hara, Mark. “Why Our Students Need Instruction in Grammar, and How We Should
God about It.” Teaching English in the Two Year College (TETYC) (2006): 34.2. 165178. Print.
Gold, David. ""But When Do You Teach Grammar?" Allaying Community Concerns about
Pedagogy. " English Journal 95.6 (2006): 42-47. Research Library, ProQuest. Web. 30
April. 2010.
Gribbin, Bill. "Our Ambivalence toward Teaching Grammar. " English
Journal 94.3 (2005): 17-19. Research Library, ProQuest. Web. 1 May. 2010.
Harris, Muriel and Katherine E. Rowan. “Explaining Grammatical Concepts.” The Allyn and
Bacon Sourcebook for College Writing Teachers. Ed. James McDonald. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon. 1996. 258-277. Print.
Hartwell, Patrick. "Grammar, Grammars, and the Teaching of Grammar." College English 47.2
(1985): 105-27.
Krauthamer, Helene. “Concrete Grammar: Nontraditional Methods of Teaching Traditional
Grammar.” Journal of Teaching Writing (1990): 17.1-2. 118-142. Print.
Livingston-Webber, Joan. "Contemporary Grammar Pedagogies: A Brief Review. " English
Leadership Quarterly 1 Aug. 2004: ProQuest Education Journals, ProQuest. Web. 5
May. 2010.
Micciche, Laura. "Making a Case for Rhetorical Grammar. " College Composition and
Communication 55.4 (2004): 716-737. ProQuest Education Journals, ProQuest. Web. 5
May. 2010.
Potter, R., and D. Fuller. "My New Teaching Partner? Using the Grammar Checker in Writing
Instruction. " English Journal 98.1 (2008): 36-41. ProQuest Education
Journals, ProQuest. Web. 1 May. 2010.
Schleppegrell, Mary. "The Meaning in Grammar. " Research in the Teaching of
English 42.1 (2007): 121-128. ProQuest Education Journals, ProQuest. Web. 1 May.
2010.