Proposal: Teaching Contextual and Stylistic Grammar 1
RUNNING HEAD: Proposal: Teaching Contextual and Stylistic Grammar
Teaching Contextual and Stylistic Grammar: A Comparative Study
EDUC 607: Educational Research Procedures
Sarah Llewellyn
University of Delaware
July 9, 2009
Proposal: Teaching Contextual and Stylistic Grammar 2
Lit Review
In Grammar Instruction: What Teachers Say, Brenda Petruzzella (1996), a practicing
teacher, found that “researchers and classroom teachers often have different definitions of grammar or
grammar instruction” (p. 69). Researchers define grammar as “isolated memorization of rules and
terminology and pages of skill and drill practice” (p. 69), whereas classroom teachers define grammar as
“what might be more properly labeled mechanics – usage skills… which obviously do affect the
readability of writing” (Petruzzella, 1996, p. 69). This disparity between how to classify grammar not
only affects the research on grammar, but also how to we teach students. Traditional Grammar, as the
researchers define it, has held precedence above all other forms of grammar for hundreds of years;
however, within the last few decades researchers have dedicated their studies towards constructing a
definition of grammar that will not only assist in students’ comprehension and retention of the material,
but that will also improve students’ writing.
In their 2001 study To Grammar or Not to Grammar, Weaver, McNally, and Moerman found that
often “when we examine [researcher’s] arguments, we discover that they, too, do not usually mean that
we should return to teaching traditional grammar from a grammar handbook” (p. 32). Weaver, et. al
continue on to define what researchers typically mean: “we should explore some of the interesting
phenomena about language structure…we should study language more broadly, including dialects,
language history, and the origins and meanings of words and word parts… we should study theories of
how language develops… we should study how people use language to exercise power and control over
others…we should teach grammar in the hope of improving students’ writing” (p. 32). Like most other
research studies on grammar, Weaver, et. al conclude that not even researchers can agree on what
constitutes grammar.
In her study of the history of Traditional Grammar, Susan Nunan (2005) rationalizes that
“…grammar rules are fixed and must be learned because patterns of speech reflect education, class, even
morality” (p. 71). This connection between language and principles was developed by18th century
Proposal: Teaching Contextual and Stylistic Grammar 3
Prescriptivist grammarians who committed their time to establishing what was correct in the English
language and what was not. Due to the time period, these grammarians were severe in their findings,
therefore attributing precision in speech and writing to morality (Nunan, 2005, p. 71). Often this kind of
approach leads students to feel that if they miss a grammatical error then they are failing English, and
consequently they hate all that English encompasses. If students hate English in general, then it is likely
that they will not put forth enough effort to pay attention to grammar rules or to use them in their writing.
Maxine Hairston, a well reputed researcher, completed a 1981 study that suggested people still
follow the Prescriptivist’s rules today. In her study, she selected “sixty-five sentences with various errors
and asked professional people to rate the mistakes based on their perception of the ‘seriousness’ of the
error” (Nunan, 1996, p. 72), finding that the same rigid rules from the eighteenth century still affect the
way we currently see grammar. Most of the mistakes that we presently see as grammatical errors, and not
as stylistic errors, are because of how the error sounds and not if it constitutes an actual error; Nunan
(1996) suggests that this is due to the archaic rules of the Prescriptivists that teachers now have to
overcome to remedy students’ hatred for grammar (p. 72). Additionally, “we frequently expect students to
understand grammatical rules without enlightening them as to their purpose” (Nunan, 1996, p. 72);
however, grammar should be seen as the tool which students use to write not as a set of rules. Harry
Noden, a famous grammar enthusiast, suggests that teaching students the stylistic errors of grammar in
order to encourage creativity might assist with not only improving their attitude towards grammar but also
improving their writing. But one argument maintains that teachers do not think of the bigger picture when
teaching traditional grammar; most teachers think of grammar as a way to reduce errors not as a way to
improve writing (Smith & Wilhelm, 2006, p. 41).
“English teachers define grammar in different ways” (Nunan, 2005, p. 70) and see writing in
terms of structure, where everyone else, including our students, defines grammar in terms of meaning. In
spite of this, English teachers need to stray from the Traditional Grammar definition and consider the
research on why Contextual Grammar gives students a better chance at understanding why an error exists.
Proposal: Teaching Contextual and Stylistic Grammar 4
For instance, a 1980 study by McQuade showed that after completing a Traditional Grammar program,
students’ grades on the pretest were higher than on the posttest (Nunan, 2005, p. 71), which does not
prove that Contextual Grammar is superior to Traditional, but shows that Traditional should not be used
exclusively in the classroom.
Smith, Cheville, and Hillocks, who completed a study in 2006, agree that traditional grammar
hinders students, but believe that some structure does help students’ writing (Smith & Wilhelm, 2006, p.
41). This conclusion is important to note since a lot of research is quick to condemn Traditional Grammar
altogether. Nevertheless, in Errors and Expectations from 1977, Shaughnessy realized that it is
“impossible to help students overcome [errors] simply by noting their existence” (Smith & Wilhelm,
2006, p. 41). If we just tell students that they used a comma improperly, they may continue to use
commas incorrectly; but if we tell students why a comma should follow an introductory clause, they may
remember to use the comma when they encounter this situation again.
Several studies have transpired about the interpretation of the definitions of Traditional vs.
Contextual; but most of these studies only touch on the real quandary: which technique improves
comprehension and writing skills? In 1986, Hillocks completed a meta-analysis which argued that
grammar does not improve writing and could have a harmful effect on students’ writing. Furthermore,
this study found that “a heavy emphasis on mechanics and usage resulted in significant losses in overall
quality” (Patterson, 2001, p. 52), which again relates back to the original argument of what constitutes
Traditional Grammar (typically mechanics) and what constitutes Contextual Grammar (typically quality).
After reviewing a variety of studies, Weaver maintains that “most students do not transfer “skill
and drill” into vivid, imaginative writing” (Weaver, et. al, 2001, p. 31), again disputing a routine that is
distinctive of Traditional Grammar (“skill and drill”). Another inquiry, by Elley, Barham, Lamb, and
Wyllie in 1975, followed three groups of students in a longitudinal study: one group was taught
Transformational Grammar, rhetoric, and literature and learned to explain the grammar rules as applied to
Proposal: Teaching Contextual and Stylistic Grammar 5
literature; the second was rhetoric and literature and received no instruction in Traditional grammar but
studied the errors as they arose in their studies; and the last was Traditional Grammar and they receive a
heavy dose and worked on exercises from textbooks. Surprisingly, this study was found to not have any
significant impact on students’ understanding (Patterson, 2001, p. 51) even though the first and second
group received justification of why errors existed in the writing. The hindrance to this inquiry is the fact
that students were not asked to discover errors within the context of their own writing.
Many studies advocate for finding errors within the context of students’ own writing, or
Contextual Grammar. A study from 1938 by Walter Gombrowicz stated, in reference to formal grammar,
that there is “no practical context for using this kind of knowledge” (Smith & Wilhelm, 2006, p. 40).
Patterson’s Conceptualizing Grammar from 2001 suggested “the teaching of grammar must happen
within the context of larger lessons” (Smith & Wilhelm, 2006, p. 41). Patterson was an advocate of
teaching grammar as it pertained to writing so students could understand why the error existed and how to
change it in a sentence, paragraph, or paper they might write themselves. Another study from Braddock,
Lloyd-ones, and Schoer in 1963 maintained that the “isolated teaching of school grammar did not result in
the outcomes that teachers expected” (Patterson, 2001, p. 51), which was better writing from their
students. Again, students could not transfer the rigid rules set by the Prescriptivists to their own writing
because they did not understand why the error existed or simply could not retain the rules. Lastly,
Shaughnessy again asserts that “coming up with the right answer isn’t nearly as important as the logic
behind that answer” (Patterson, 2001, p. 52), so that students can apply what they learned to their writing.
Even more important for teachers is what to do with the research in the classroom. “One of the
major difficulties in teaching writing is that so many students have been taught that there is one set of
grammar rules that apply to all forms of writing” (Dunn & Lindblom, 2003, p. 47). Teachers can get
students involved in the process of discovering the differences in grammar by having them read various
manuals on grammar, especially because so many exist today, and deciding for themselves what
constitutes grammar. In 1985, Patricia Hartwell classified grammar into four subgroups in her book
Proposal: Teaching Contextual and Stylistic Grammar 6
Grammar, Grammars, and Teaching of Grammar which would help teachers decipher all that the term
“grammar” encompasses and differentiate between stylistic grammar, Standard English, formal grammar
rules, etc. for their students (Patterson, 2001, p. 53). If students were to understand that there are
variations of the term, they might better understand how to apply them in their writing. Finally, in 1988
Rei Noguchi’s book Grammar and the Teaching of Writing suggested approaching grammar not from the
standpoint of correctness but from style, and help students “adopt a ‘writer’s grammar’” which uses what
students know about traditional grammar with the most consistent errors that students make (Patterson,
2001, p. 54). In this method, teachers are advised to have students pretest in some way (either through a
test, writing, or both) so that teachers can model their lessons after the mistakes that their particular
students make not what all students typically make.
Most research on how to teach grammar first advises to make an impression on students’ by
changing the currently practiced method. This could be the time of day when grammar is taught in the
classroom or the way in which students participate in the method. Next, the lesson should be fun so that
students are more likely to make a connection. Lastly, teach stylistically, which gives students the
meaning and why behind the error, rather than traditionally, which gives students for the correct form and
no meaning (Nunan, 2005, p. 74). This method is also referred to as rhetorical grammar, which means
students are contributing to the learning (Nunan, 2005, p.73-74). Aside from trying a new method of
teaching grammar, Nunan (2005) states “Expect that as your students take risks and try new techniques,
they will also make mistakes” (p. 74); however, as teachers, it is our responsibility to show our students
that grammar is just another tool in their writing tool belt. Sometimes students will recognize one error to
the expense of another error, but Nunan advises teachers to avoid stressing the little errors (think
apostrophes) on students if they are getting a complex grammatical error correct (think dangling
modifiers). Eventually, the writing will correct itself through practice and several drafts, and students will
better comprehend why the errors exist in the first place.
Research Question
Proposal: Teaching Contextual and Stylistic Grammar 7
Originally, my research question started as “What is the relationship between how students learn
grammar and how successful students are with applying grammar in their writing?”; however, after a lot
of research I revised my first question to “Which approach to the instruction of grammar, traditional
grammar or contextual grammar, improves retention and writing technique in students? The initial
question is very similar to the second question, but through my investigation into the world of grammar, I
realized there was a bigger problem than how students learn and write. I discovered that it would be
almost impossible to explore how students learn grammar if all of the research was puzzled about what
constitutes grammar. So I came to the subsequent question and decided to revisit Roland Harris’s 1962
study and final be able to provide teachers and students with a precise definition of grammar almost fifty
years later.
Sampling Frame
This study will use convenience sampling due to the accessibility to students and their writing,
which is the main component of measurement in this study. The students are in the twelfth grade and of
mixed gender and ability. While the population is primarily Caucasian, there is a small percentage (about
20%) of African American, Hispanic, and Asian American students. A total of 60 students will contribute
to this study; each group will be composed of 30 students each. A systematic sampling would work better
in this design and therefore make this a true experiment; however, research has shown to get a better
response from the students in acts such as writing when they have a trusting, involved relationship with
the observer.
Data Collection Methods
An identical pretest and posttest will be administered to subjects in both the Traditional Group
and Contextual Group. The pretest and posttest will be compiled from The Bedford Handbook by Diana
Hacker, which is well-respected in the English world for its definitions and exercises in Traditional
Grammar. The tests will be piloted among the English Department at Middletown High School (where
Proposal: Teaching Contextual and Stylistic Grammar 8
the study is taking place) on their validity prior to the assessment on the subjects. The tests will judge
students’ comprehension of grammar in a variety of ways (i.e. students may identify simple grammar
terms such as parts-of-speech and more complex grammar terms like dangling modifiers). The students
will then also complete a very basic writing prompt in order to have some evidence of writing ability prior
to the lessons. The students’ lessons will be based on the results of the tests since most research on
grammar suggests modeling lessons around what students need not around what educators think students
need. The Traditional Group will then receive lessons from The Bedford Handbook and the Contextual
Group will receive these lessons once they have identified the errors in pieces of writing. In the end, all
students will complete a piece of writing to assess knowledge and complete the posttest.
Research Design
This study is a quasi-experimental design due to the inability of the researcher to randomize the
groups. This design is modeled after a 1962 research study by Roland Harris, which compared two
groups, one group learning traditional grammar and one group learning contextual grammar (Patterson,
2001, p. 50). Harris is ambiguous about his definition of formal grammar, though he refers to teaching his
traditional group through the use of terminology, while the contextual group learned by making the errors
first and then identifying the reasons behind why they constituted errors. My groups will be nearly
identical, but my students will adhere closer to the established definitions. The Traditional Group will
learn Standard English grammar, the structure of words and sentences, through exercises in a textbook.
The Contextual Group will learn how language works through writing and creating his or her own
examples in order to better understand why an error exists, not just that there is an error. Within the quasiexperimental design, the study will follow a non-equivalent, pretest/posttest model, since students are not
randomized and the non-equivalent method works best with classes or schools.
Statistical Analysis
Proposal: Teaching Contextual and Stylistic Grammar 9
This study will possibly utilize a t-test, which is a parametric statistical analysis. If used, the t-test
will be a dependent-samples t-test since the groups are not randomized and the same groups are given
both the pretest and posttest. Since there will be two means (since there are two groups), the t-test will
help test the null hypothesis to determine if the means will come out the same. A multivariate statistical
procedure may also work since there is more than one teaching style being tested in this single procedure.
Threats to Internal Validity
As mentioned in the literature review, there is a stigma attached to English (and grammar). As a
result, the first threat to internal validity is history. Students may have had an unpleasant experience with
grammar and writing in their elementary years which led them to have an extreme dislike for writing and
grammar instruction now. Not wanting to participate in the lessons would hinder students’ learning,
therefore skewing their grades and/or posttest score. Another internal threat would be pretesting. Students
may behave differently if given a special pretest to determine knowledge. This may also lead to an
internal threat to instrumentation. While The Bedford Handbook is a well-known, well-reputed source, the
tests may still be unreliable in determining students’ understanding. Lastly, there may be an internal threat
in diffusion of treatment. Since two different classes will be monitored, students from one class could
pass their knowledge on to the other class, especially if one student from the Traditional Group were to
ask a question of the Contextual Group.
Threats to External Validity
A threat to external validity occurs within the measures used. Grammar and/or writing can be
very subjective when being graded, therefore there could be either multiple answers to the same question
or the results could be skewed on the instructor’s behalf. Furthermore, since traditional grammar tends to
be favored in education due to the fact that is a tradition, even though research supports the use of
contextual grammar, the treatments will vary among the two groups.
Proposal: Teaching Contextual and Stylistic Grammar 10
References
Davidheiser, J.C. (1996). Grammar groups in the student centered classroom. Foreign Language Annals,
29, 271-278.
Dunn, P. A., & Lindblom, K. (2003, Jan.). Why revitalize grammar? The English Journal, 92, 43-50.
Macaro, E. & Masterman, L. (2006). Does intensive explicit grammar instruction make all the
difference? Language Teaching Research, 10, 297.
McNally, C., Moerman, S., & Weaver, C. (2001, March). To Grammar or not to grammar: That is not
the question!. Voices from the Middle, 8, 17-33.
Nunan, S.L. (2005, March). Forgiving ourselves and forging ahead: Teaching grammar in a new
millennium. The English Journal, 94, 70-75.
Patterson, N.G. (2001, March). Just the facts: Research and theory about grammar instruction. Voices
from the Middle, 8, 50-55.
Petruzzella, B. A. (1996, Nov.). The great debate (again): Teaching grammar and usage. The English
Journal, 85, 68-72.
Smith, M. & Wilhelm, J. (2006, May). What research tells us about teaching grammar. Voices from the
Middle, 13, 40-43.