Dave Kushman
TE 891
Grammar Approaches
Comparing Two Approaches To
Grammar Instruction
Dave Kushman
TE 891
Grammar Approaches
As a relatively new English teacher, I am astonished by the different
recommendations I receive from colleagues in terms of how grammar should be
taught. Some colleagues argue that more traditional approaches work the best
while others affirm that more contemporary approaches yield greater results in
student writing. As I reflect back on my own K-12 education, I too experienced a
range of grammar instructional practices. Therefore, aside from sentence
combining approaches, it does not surprise me that there is little research
supporting one specific form of grammar instruction over another. However, the
common consensus nowadays is that grammar should be taught within context of
student writing, which then raises the question and provides a platform for debating
about what should be considered in context of student writing.
The debate about what should be considered as within context for grammar
instruction led me to the two texts I chose for this assignment: Grammar to Enrich
and Enhance Writing by Constance Weaver and Writer’s Toolbox: A SentenceCombining Workshop by William Strong. These two approaches have unique ways of
complementing each other in terms of instructional approach, yet at the same time
they can be viewed as being quite different. In the scope of this paper I intend to:
discuss my rationale for choosing these two texts, provide a description of each
approach, discuss their similarities and differences, evaluate their effectiveness
from my perspective, and address the implications for other teachers.
Dave Kushman
TE 891
Grammar Approaches
Rationale
As I stated above, I was drawn to these texts due to the hot-topic of what is
considered in context and what is considered out of context. Also, I chose these two
approaches because they seem to match my philosophy towards teaching grammar,
and I feel that the students I work with could benefit from these approaches.
In terms of my grammar instruction philosophy, I side with the less is more
camp. In short, I feel that students should be given what they need to know when
they need to know it. For the past few years, I have allowed my personal K-12 and
undergraduate experiences to be my guiding compass in terms of approaching
grammar with my students. My 11th grade grammar teacher who spit out
grammatical rules and forced me to do drill and practice activities has faded from
my mind rather quickly; however, my 12th grade creative writing teacher and my
overseeing professor from my undergraduate program are vividly remembered.
They approached grammar instruction on a need-to-know basis and helped me link
concepts into my writing through the writing process. Furthermore, they also
focused on a few skills to work on over time, which allowed the skills, rules, and
techniques to become implanted into my brain thanks to repetitious practice. After
viewing some preliminary pieces by both Weaver and Strong in the course work for
TE 891, it became apparent that both Weaver and Strong shared a similar grammar
instruction philosophy with me; therefore, I decided to explore their approaches
further in hopes of building my instructional practices for grammar. Also, I find that
these approaches, which I will discuss thoroughly in the subsequent sections, will
benefit the highly diverse learning needs of my students.
Dave Kushman
TE 891
Grammar Approaches
I work with special education students that have emotional impairments (EI)
and/or learning disabilities (LD); most students are both EI and LD. Therefore, all of
my teaching practices and approaches must be very methodical, repetitious, and
routine-like. What general education students may be able to pick up in a day or
two, may take my students a week or more to learn. Furthermore, writing is an
overly demanding cognitive task that requires complex webs of focus. My students
are typically so thwarted with non-academic issues due to their disabilities and
environment that they often have a difficult time coming up with things to write
about. This is why I chose Writer’s Toolbox: A Sentence-Combining Workshop by
Strong because his approach provides a template for students to work with first,
and then students can use those templates to trigger topics to write about. I feel
that Weaver’s philosophy and methodological practices would greatly benefit my
students as well. In the Grammar Plan Book: A Guide to Smart Teaching Weaver
states, “We should teach fewer things but teach them deeply and well”(2010, p.16).
Overall, I settled with Strong and Weaver for this review because I feel that both
Strong and Weaver closely match my philosophy towards grammar instruction, and
their approaches best match the learning strategies that my students seem to
benefit from the most.
Description of Each Approach
Strong’s approach to grammar focuses heavily upon the sentence level, and
the notion that writing improves through practice and increased opportunities for
practice. According to Strong (1996), “If your goal is to draft sentences easily and
Dave Kushman
TE 891
Grammar Approaches
naturally, you need to understand that physical practice is required-lots of it”(p.52).
He values highly the benefits of writing workshops, building portfolios, and students
working in pairs before attempting strategies or combining sentences
independently. Strong spends part one of Writer’s Toolbox: A Sentence Combining
Approach discussing the importance of the writing process and working in groups
before addressing grammar instruction in part two. Strong (1996) states, “In fact,
teaming up with others teaches you more than you’d ever learn by fishing (or
writing) alone”(p.4). He also states in reference to writing workshops, “It can refer
to collaboration with others-working to improve your writing within a group or as
part of a team. Second, and more generally, the term also refers to an approach that
gives you a choice of topics for writing practice”(p.7). Strong argues that more
interaction will lead to increased thoughts for writing, and that writing stems from
the ability to think about topics and listen to an “inner voice.” Here is an example
from Strong’s text showing how he encourages students to work together, and how
the exercises can serve as a template for further writing:
Directions (1) Work with a partner to combine the following sentences.
The, check your sentences in the Answer Key or against answers provided
by your instructor. (2) Using your own ideas, choose at least three
sentences to imitate; share these with a partner. (3) Try the webbing
strategy to generate ideas for one sentence you have combined or
composed; then write a brief follow-up essay, using ideas from your web.
1.1 Miracles sometimes occur.
1.2 One has to work terribly hard for them.
2.1 Most people like hard work.
2.2 This is particularly when they’re paying for it.
(Strong, 1996, p. 30).
Dave Kushman
TE 891
Grammar Approaches
This example clearly shows that Strong’s focus is not just on sentence combining;
instead, his focus also encourages students to apply strategies further into their own
writing. The main message within part one is that writing does not come naturally
to many people; therefore, working in groups; implementing numerous pre-writing
strategies; and practicing through sentence combining, both written and orally, can
greatly improve a person’s writing fluency and confidence.
Part two of Writer’s Toolbox: A Sentence Combining Workshop focuses on
grammar. Strong has part two broken down into four different categories labeled
as: Basic Grammar, Advanced Grammar, Tools of Usage, and Tools of Punctuation.
The nice thing about each of these sections is that Strong focuses only on six to
seven different areas within each section. Therefore, he has chosen the most
important concepts to address within this text instead of focusing on every minute
detail. For example, in the “Tools of Basic Grammar” section he focuses on the parts
of speech, and in the section titled “Tools of Usage” he focuses on main usage
concepts such as sentence fragments, run-on sentences, and faulty parallelism. For
each section there are mini-lessons providing instruction. These mini-lessons are
not heavily laden with rules and terminology; instead, each section contains both
examples and non-examples of a particular concept. Furthermore, the activities that
accompany the mini-lesson require the concept to be put in to action through
sentence combining. The exercises function in a very similar fashion to the example
that I provided above with one exception: Students are asked to use five of the
sentences they combined by inserting their own content, which helps to create
opportunities for repetition and elicit a connection to a student’s personal work.
Dave Kushman
TE 891
Grammar Approaches
Overall, Strong’s approach uses sentence-combining strategies to help students
notice patterns and practice their skills routinely. This approach also helps writers
assimilate newly developed concepts into their own writing.
Weaver’s approach to grammar instruction in Grammar to Enrich and
Enhance Writing is highly focused on grammar instruction to improve student
writing for stylistic benefits. Weaver (2008) states, “We encourage teachers to focus
on writing and, in the process, guide students in using whatever grammatical
options and features will make their writing more interesting and more appreciated
by their audience”(p.3). Also, I get the sense that Weaver argues that grammar
shouldn’t focus on being correct; instead, grammar instruction should focus on
empowering student writing by giving students knowledge about how grammar can
affect style and voice with their audience. Therefore, Weaver’s approach to
grammar instruction is determined by what the student may need at a certain point
within her writing. Weaver (2008) states, “Our approach involves teaching selected
aspects of grammar, primarily within the context of the writing process, and giving
students explicit guidance to help them make their writing more: complex, detailed,
structured, organized, stylistic, and rhetorical”(p.30). Therefore, the focal point
with this approach is to give students the tools they need to be more effective and
efficient writers. Weaver argues, “Teaching writing and teaching grammar must be
inseparably connected”(p.52). Lastly, Weaver urges that grammar should be taught
through both patterns and examples instead of rules and explanations; furthermore,
individual student development should be taken into consideration when
determining grammar concepts to teach. In short, Weaver’s approach to grammar
Dave Kushman
TE 891
Grammar Approaches
instruction includes the following criteria: student or teacher writing serving as the
template for instruction, only needed grammar skills are taught at an as needed
basis, skills are taught through patterns or examples and applied to student work,
skills must be implemented repetitiously throughout the writing process, and
grammar is used to increase writing efficiency and not to focus on correctness.
Weaver encourages teachers to follow a framework when focusing on a
grammatical concept, and this framework provides the opportunity to address
grammatical concepts repetitiously. Also, Weaver suggests in this text that writing
can become stronger by showing students how to add details to their writing
through grammatical constructs. The suggested framework is provided below:
1. Share a model- from literature; previous or current student; created by
teacher in advanced; composed by teacher on the spot.
2. Create another model together- teacher and students
3. Have students compose in small groups or pairs.
4. Have students compose independently and share their work.
5. Ask students to apply the concept in their own writing.
6. Solicit peer feedback and/or provide feedback. Read papers to see
which revision strategies should be taught.
7. Teach revision strategies (class, group, individual)
8. Provide students checklist for grammatical concepts taught.
9. Suggest specific strategies to be used in final draft.
10. Continue supporting students with concept.
(Weaver, 2008, p. 63).
This framework demonstrates that this approach emphasizes grammatical concepts
to be addressed throughout the entire writing process, especially during the editing
and revising process. An example of intertwining writing and grammar instruction
can be seen through the “I am” poems that Weaver references. These poems help
model what modifiers are without spitting out rules or having students underline
Dave Kushman
TE 891
Grammar Approaches
the modifiers on practice worksheets. Also, students were shown how to create the
poem and how to adequately revise it before being released to create their own
independent poems. The “I am” poems clearly model Weaver’s recommended
framework for addressing grammar, and they also clearly address that writing can
become stronger by adding details in grammatically correct fashions. Weaver
further addresses her point that writing can be greatly improved by adding details
through the following grammatical constructs: out-of-order adjectives, out-of-order
adjectival phrases, absolutes, and appositives. Weaver does argue that sentence
combining can be an effective strategy, especially during revision stages, but she
seems to focus the majority of her effort in this text on getting students to add more
details to their writing. Weaver (2008) states in reference to a piece of writing
developed by a class, “By using grammatical options for adding detail, we have, in
fact, enhanced all six of the commonly accepted traits of good writing”(p.129). In
summary, Weaver encourages that teachers use the framework referenced above to
model the skill and ensure that the skill is used throughout the writing process.
Also, teachers should focus their efforts on grammar instruction in terms of helping
students add detail to their writing.
Similarities and Differences
Similarities between the Strong and Weaver approaches exist, but I would
argue that the differences between these two approaches are more numerous. This
is most likely due to the foundation of each approach: Strong’s approach provides a
structured approach that could be viewed as out of context while Weaver’s
Dave Kushman
TE 891
Grammar Approaches
approach is strongly viewed within the context of student writing and provides
students greater freedom in practicing skills within their writing. I will discuss the
similarities first and the differences last.
The similarities between these two approaches exist through philosophy and
not exactly through their individual methodologies. Both approaches argue that
focusing on a few skills and practicing those skills repetitiously through the writing
process is key to successful grammar instruction, yet the way in which this is done
differs between the two approaches. Also, both approaches suggest the use of
scaffolding first, having students work with partners second, and then finally
attempting the skill independently. Again, the way this is carried out under each
approach varies to a marked degree. In addition, I think that both approaches place
the content and organization of student writing as priority over mechanics and
correctness. As Strong (1996) states, “Expert writers do not revise haphazardly.
First, they focus on large, global issues: content, organization, and development.
Next, they deal with style and grammatical details”(p.92). Both Strong and Weaver
demonstrate through their process of grammar instruction that content and
organization must come before addressing mechanics or adding stylistic changes to
writing. In short, they both agree that using grammatical conventions appropriately
is a process that relies heavily upon the writing process. Lastly, both seem to agree
that correcting student writing should be done with extreme caution, and it should
be done in a fashion that empowers students to make the corrections themselves. In
Coaching Writing: The Power of Guided Practice Strong describes his resistance to
simply correcting student work stating, “I tried to meet this need, but I also knew
Dave Kushman
TE 891
Grammar Approaches
that merely correcting their drafts amounted to a perverse form of academic
welfare, one that would not serve them well in the long run”(2001, p.14). Weaver
suggests that students should have the opportunity to check over their final drafts
with evolving editing check lists prior to submitting work, and that teachers should
mark only one or two patterns of grammar per assignment (Weaver, 2008). These
references demonstrate that both Strong and Weaver share a common philosophy of
student writing should focus mainly on content and organization, and that students
should be empowered to use grammatical conventions to edit their own work.
Overall, the similarities between these two approaches are mainly philosophically
based.
The differences between these two approaches are many, but I will only
focus on a few. Strong’s approach to the writing process seems to be quite narrow
and one-approach oriented in terms of getting students to think about grammatical
and stylistic options. For example, Weaver utilizes “I am” poems and dynamic
revision strategies to demonstrate concepts and provide practice, but Strong’s
approach only utilizes the universal sentence combining strategy to help students
see patterns and discover concepts. Weaver does acknowledge the effectiveness of
sentence combining strategies, especially during the revision process, yet she does
encourage addressing grammar through multiple avenues within the context of
student writing. Another obvious difference is that students are given practice
under Strong’s approach that could be viewed as being out of context. For example,
the activities used to practice certain grammatical skills include writing that is not a
part of current student writing. In Strong’s defense, I argue that as long as the skill
Dave Kushman
TE 891
Grammar Approaches
being addressed is going to be used immediately within student writing, then it still
can be considered in context. Weaver’s approach is very clearly defined as being in
context of student writing. Therefore, there could be some disconnect from student
writing under Strong’s approach, but Weaver’s approach makes grammar
instruction very apparent and direct into student work. Lastly, I was awestruck
when I stumbled upon Strong’s statement in regards to editing, “You’ll rearrange
sentences to emphasize active voice. You’ll write mainly with nouns and verbs, not
with adjectives, adverbs, or long strings of prepositional phrases”(p.125). I
understand that Strong argues that writing should be lean, direct, and to the point;
however, his statement in regards to editing seems to clash with Weaver’s approach
of using grammatical conventions to add detail to writing. In other words, Weaver
encourages that strengthening students writing can be accomplished by using
grammar to add more details, but Strong argues to write as simple as possible.
Overall, these approaches differ mainly in terms of the context in which students are
practicing grammatical skills, and they also differ in terms of purpose for student
writing.
Effectiveness in the Classroom
After thoroughly reviewing these approaches, I feel that both of these
approaches would be effective within my classroom. As I discussed in my rationale
for choosing these two texts, my instructional approach with my students must be
balanced in order to meet their emotional needs, which can fluctuate greatly on an
hourly basis. Also, my students often struggle with writing due to their areas of
Dave Kushman
TE 891
Grammar Approaches
disability, so I often do not have the luxury of having students that are able to
produce sufficient amounts of text to work with at times. For example, there are
days when some of my students are having a rough day to begin with and complex
writing demands send them over the edge to completely shutting down, or there are
days when my students simply want to write but find great difficulty doing so.
Therefore, having clear, concise writing in place to manipulate, such as in Strong’s
approach, can be beneficial at times. On the other hand, there are times in which my
students are in the writing zone and everybody is participating, which would be a
great time to implement Weaver’s approach. Therefore, I feel that the Strong and
Weaver’s approaches both would complement each other nicely in my classroom
because they would provide balance in teaching grammar.
Strong’s approach would benefit my classroom for the following reasons:
new concepts can be quickly addressed, text is provided to manipulate, ample
opportunities for practicing skills, and the activities can be completed in pairs.
When my students are having a rough time, the last thing that they need is too much
information sending them into sensory overload. Strong’s examples and nonexamples of grammatical concepts are crystal clear and fairly easy to process;
furthermore, starting with or reviewing grammatical concepts through Strong’s
approach could accompany some of Weaver’s activities rather nicely. As I
mentioned above, students don’t have to worry about producing text or even
looking back at their old work and feeling as though they messed it all up under
Strong’s approach. My students lack confidence in their writing; therefore, there are
times when manipulating outside examples can be beneficial because they don’t feel
Dave Kushman
TE 891
Grammar Approaches
judged. Strong’s examples and exercises, again, are very straightforward and clear
providing further examples for students to mimic using their own content; my
students thrive on this for aforementioned reasons. Lastly, Strong’s sentence
combining exercises are very welcoming to students working in groups because the
directions are clearly listed and students can practice manipulating the same
prompts. Overall, I like Strong’s approach because it provides crystal clear
examples of concepts, writing templates to work with, and opportunities for
students to work in small groups. Also, Strong’s approach can be used in
conjunction with Weaver’s approach to either review or introduce a new technique.
Weaver’s approach would most likely be applied to my classroom in to our
larger assignments because these assignments are heavily modeled and scaffolded
for students. For example, I could apply this approach when we study the short
story genre and students write their own short stories, or when students are writing
literary analysis paragraphs. A major set back in my student’s writing is that it often
lacks details; furthermore, their writing is often very straightforward flowing in a
predictable fashion. Therefore, I can really see Weaver’s approach, especially
adding details and switching up grammatical constructs for style, coming alive in my
classroom during these larger writing assignments because we often create multiple
class models together and manipulate them as we go along. Then, students attempt
the task through both independent and guided practice. On a personal note, I need
to take Weaver’s advice and incorporate grammar concept checklists into my
rubrics, for I have usually addressed grammar on my rubrics as simply grammar
and usage. Even though Weaver seems to disagree with rubrics, I still think it would
Dave Kushman
TE 891
Grammar Approaches
be a good idea to revise my rubrics because it will help me stay focused on specific
concepts while grading. Of course, students should also get a grammar concept
checklist when revising their work. In short, I feel that Weaver’s approach would
best work in my classroom during larger writing assignments.
In summary, Strong and Weaver’s approaches seem to balance each other out
when I think of using them in my classroom. Strong’s approach can be used when
students are having a tough time coming up with writing thoughts or when a new
concept is presented. Weaver’s approach can incorporate and weave the lessons
learned through Strong’s approach into larger writing assignments. In short, both of
these approaches would balance each other out and adequately address the
dynamic needs within my classroom.
Implications for Teachers and Conclusion
The similarities and differences between these approaches demonstrate that
debate still exists about the degree of in-context to student writing and what in
context should look like. This continuous debate and minimal research supporting
few grammar instruction approaches should convince teachers that no single
grammar instruction approach will be beneficial to students at all times; instead,
grammar approaches should be a collaborative effort-as I indicated in the above
section- working together to improve student writing. Strong’s approach is overly
heavy in sentence combining; whereas, Weaver’s approaches discussed in Grammar
to Enrich and Enhance Writing models my point here about teachers pulling from a
plethora of resources for addressing grammar in context of student writing. As
Dave Kushman
TE 891
Grammar Approaches
discussed above, Strong’s approach can be appear to be narrow in terms of teaching
strategy, and it could be argued by some to be technically out of context due to the
practice exercises. However, I would not entirely dismiss the effectiveness of
Strong’s approach because his approach complements other strategies rather well,
especially during revision and editing stages of the writing process. Weaver even
acknowledges the effectiveness of sentence combining, but she urges teachers to
have this strategy as one feather of many in their grammar teaching caps. Weaver
(2008) states, “While sentence-combining may be initially taught through preset,
published activities, it’s use during revision leads us to consider this technique as,
potentially, an aspect of teaching grammar in the context of writing”(p.34). A
grammar strategies degree of within the context of student writing should not limit
a teacher’s choice for selecting instructional approaches for addressing student
needs. In short, teachers should implement grammar strategies that address
student needs throughout the entire writing process, and this can be difficult to do
with just one approach. Therefore, teachers should use blended approaches for
addressing grammar needs within the classroom, and I feel that Weaver and Strong
can be an effective blend.
In conclusion, I have discussed my rationale for choosing these two
approaches, provided a detailed description of each approach, addressed the
similarities and differences between the approaches, assessed the approaches in
reference to my students and my classroom, and closed providing implications for
other teachers. After looking thoroughly at both of these approaches, I feel that the
biggest message in terms of teaching grammar is that grammar instruction must
Dave Kushman
TE 891
Grammar Approaches
relate to student writing in some immediate fashion. Also, grammar instruction
should be diverse and consist of a blend of modern approaches, for one size does not
fit all in terms of grammar instruction techniques. Overall, grammar instruction
should be taught in a need-to-know fashion; connected meaningfully to student
writing; and applied in repetitious, meaningful fashions to student writing.
Dave Kushman
TE 891
Grammar Approaches
References
Strong, W. (2001). Coaching Writing: The Power of Guided Practice. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Strong, W. (1996). Writer’s Toolbox: A Sentence- Combining Workshop. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Weaver, C. (2008). Grammar to Enrich and Enhance Writing. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Weaver, C. (2010). The Grammar Plan Book: A Guide to Smart Teaching.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.