The comfort, confidence, competence model introduced in Chapter 1 of Learning to
Write is completely new to me and I really like it. It makes perfect sense that all three, though
individual parts, are necessary for effective writing, or any skill for that matter. However, though
the first four chapters were extremely helpful and made a lot of sense to me, even inspired me, I
disagree with a major point in chapter five, The Conventions of Writing (Bratcher 1997).
Multiple times, the chapter sites the need for only teaching editing , how educated people speak,
and supports not teaching grammar, the structure of language (58). Though I think it is crucial to
teach editing, a skill that is needed throughout life, I argue that the “linguistic grammar” (58) is
equally important. Teaching grammar as an editing tool is a limitation; a necessary one, but a
limitation nonetheless. When students edit they must correct or revise their work. Again, this is
necessary, but it can also intimidate children (or adults for that matter) and scare them away from
trying new things either because they don’t want to be wrong or they don’t want to risk having to
revise it later. I think that when the linguistic approach to grammar is embraced and taught with
writing it can really empower young writers. For instance, teaching not just mechanics, but the
way sentences can be put together using various forms, structures, and components such as
asides and lists can foster better, more varied writing than simply asking for it. Editing is
certainly important to “help the reader,” (58) but varied sentences, interesting structure,
appropriate choice of passive or active voice and other “linguistic” grammatical components also
help the reader; the piece becomes more interesting, less stagnant and easier to read. Many
current books on teaching grammar such as Engaging Grammar: Practical Advice for Real
Classrooms (Benjamin 2007) and Grammar to Enrich and Enhance Writing (Weaver 2008)
advocate incorporation of all grammar, not just editing, into the writing process. To summarize,
though editing is crucial, it should be taught as a specific component of the writing process,
incorporated throughout but especial in revising, whereas grammar, particularly “linguistic
grammar” should not be ignored or an afterthought, but incorporated from the beginning.
Writing and grammar are so completely and irrevocably intertwined it only makes sense that
they should be taught together in their entirety.
Later on, Learning to Write teaches that only a few components of editing (and in my
opinion all grammar) should be taught at a time (59). I completely agree with this; one of my
biggest fears going into teaching is that I may be plagued with “red pen syndrome” and feel
compelled to correct all mistakes at once. Of course, that is much more harmful than helpful, and
tips on avoiding it are always a welcome sight. Teaching various levels of demand for standard
mechanics is another idea I like. If I were to have my students do daily journals, it would be
somewhat silly for me to constantly correct their spelling or mechanics when the entire point is
to get an idea flow or practice. However, on pieces to be published, mechanics and editing are
more important. Explaining and playing with the differences in audience, purpose and necessity
for complete correctness sounds like it could be both fun and informational for students.