The Evolution of Grammar Instruction
By: Anise Veldkamp
Overview
Pre-1960’s
Traditional and
Structural
Grammar
Approaches
1960’s
Transformational
Grammar
1970’s
Emphasis on Usage
and overall
communication
skills
1990’s
Teaching grammar
in Context
1980’s
Grammar of Talk
2000’s
Daily doses of
grammar in
context
1960’s
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
In his article, “The Promise of Transformational Grammar,” Robert B. Lees (1963) highlights
the issues of currently taught grammar practices and encourages the development of a new
type of grammar instruction titled, “transformational grammar.”
Lees criticizes traditional grammar practices which he says attempt to explain sentence
structure by examining the meaning of the sentence’s individual parts. He states that the
tools used to evaluate sentence structures, such as word paradigms, are too weak to help
students truly learn grammar (1963, p. 328)
Lees criticizes the use of structural grammar which he says focused on the definition and
naming of sentence parts and the placement of those parts into categories (p. 329). He states
that this method is incapable of helping students correct poor sentences and overall syntax
Lees advocates for transformational grammar, which leaves behind the older methods of
sentence segmentation and word classification (1963, p. 330).
Transformational grammar allows students to transform sentences into simpler sentences
which can be arrived at by using explicit grammar rules (Lees, 1963, p. 330).
Lees defines grammar as “a set of ordered rules which characterize the infinite set of
grammatical descriptions of sentences” (Lees, 1963, p. 330).
Lees concludes that the overall teaching of grammar is not useful in teaching students to
write or appreciate literature (p. 345)
Lees is writing at a time with traditional and structural grammar instruction is used. He
advocates for transformational grammar which will be picked up by grammarians in the
1970’s
1970’s
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
In Gary A. Sutton’s 1976 article, “Do We Need To Teach a Grammar Terminology?”,
Sutton echoes the concerns of Lees (1963).
Sutton argues that it is pointless to teach grammar terminology and that most
students dislike it.
Sutton believes that students should focus on their overall communication skills
instead.
Sutton studied whether students need to learn grammar terms in order to pass
standardized tests at the time he was writing and found that on a number of tests,
grammar terms were not tested.
Sutton argues against the current school of thought that believes students must be
drilled on grammar terminology and diagramming sentences in order to be
effective communicators (Sutton, 1976, p. 40).
Sutton argues against this school of thought, stating that there’s no evidence that
knowing grammar terminology helps one become a better writer, speaker, or
reader (Sutton, 1976, p. 40).
Sutton concludes that grammar is an essential part of the language arts curriculum
and that there should be an emphasis on usage rather that on terminology.
1980’s
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Robert de Beaugrande wrote contradicting Sutton’s argument in his 1984 article, “Yes, Teaching Grammar
Does Help”.
De Beaugrande argues that grammar must have a definition in order to teach it and that under certain
circumstances, grammar instruction can be helpful (1984, p. 66)
He argues that a learner’s grammar needs to be developed, which reflects what skilled writers do in their
own writing. This grammar should be easy to understand for the average student and should demand
minimal time and effort, with only as many terms as are necessary. This grammar should also be given in
steps which deliver the desired results and should connect to students’ prior skills and knowledge (de
Beaugrande, 1984, p.66).
De Beaugrande defines grammar as “all the things people do when they put words together” (1984, p. 66).
He argues that this means that students already know grammar to an extent based on their acquired
speaking and language skills. De Beaugrande argues that teachers should acknowledge this in their
instruction
De Beaugrande believes that we should create a “grammar-of-talk,” which provides the skills and patterns
students need for writing. He believes that grammar should be connected to communication and not
separated from it.
De Beaugrande also argues for transformational grammar in which students turn sentences into questions
to identify their functions and whether they are well-written or need to be corrected
De Beaugrande echoes Lev Vygotsky and his ideas of scaffolding and the Zone of Proximal Development.
De Beaugrande leads the way for ideas of contextual grammar instruction rather than explicit traditional
and structural grammar instruction in which students diagram sentences and learn how to identify
sentence components.
1990’s
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
In 1996, Stephen Tchudi and Lee Thomas wrote their article, “Taking the G-r-r-r Out of Grammar.” They
describe a “back to basics” approach being taken in English education which requires teachers to take a
1960’s-era descriptive grammar course. Tchudi and Thomas state that this is due to the pressures of
legislators and the reports of both students and teachers who were never taught formal grammar (Tchudi
& Thomas, 1996, p. 46).
The authors argue that teaching parts of speech and drilling students on grammar is ineffective in teaching
students to read, write, listen and speak. They do state however, that teachers should have an appropriate
knowledge of syntax (Tchudi & Thomas, 1996, p. 46).
Tchudi and Thomas (1996) describe a two year class that they developed in order to teach components of
grammar. This class covered the definition of grammar, prescriptive and descriptive grammar methods in
addition to transformational grammar methods.
Tchudi and Thomas (1996) teach grammar in context. They use Lewis Carroll’s Jabberwocky poem in
addition to other grammar books meant to be entertaining in addition to being informative. They also use
videos to discuss communication with their students.
The authors argue that traditional grammar concepts be taught and reviewed daily for a small portion of
the class time in order for them to be used as important tools for students to utilize during their discussion
and analysis (Tchudi & Thomas, 1996, p. 52).
The authors also argue that transformational grammar can be used to explain to students how language
works, rather than as a way to teach correctness and style. They don’t believe that the actual process of
transforming sentences needs to be taught (Tchudi & Thomas, 1996, p. 52).
Like de Beaugrande (1984), Tchudi and Thomas echo Lev Vygotsky and the idea that students’ background
knowledge needs to be considered when teaching grammar
Early 2000’s
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
In 2006, Joan Berger wrote her article, “Transforming Writers through Grammar Study”
to describe a two-year program of grammar instruction in an urban Chicago middle
school
Berger (2006) explains that she and her colleagues established monthly grammar goals
to introduce students to tools which would create sentence variation including
compound sentences, adverbial clauses, adjectival phrases and participial phrases.
The author advocates for two to three fifteen minute practice sessions each week to
review these concepts. These grammar skills were also implemented into student
writing assignments and class literature
In order to help students memorize grammar concepts, the teachers created mnemonic
devices and signal words to help students identify certain grammatical constructs.
Students then practiced identifying these signal words and adding in commas etc. as
required (Berger, 2006, p. 54).
Berger acknowledges that merely one year of this type of instruction is not enough and
that two years seemed sufficient in allowing students to learn everything they need to
know about these specific grammar concepts (Berger, 2006, p. 53).
Once students learned a new skill, they were required to use it in their writing
Berger describes a combination of explicit grammar instruction in which students learn
a new concept and then apply it within the context of student writing. It appears that
during the current age of grammar instruction, teachers and scholars are synthesizing
various forms of instruction to meet the writing needs of students.
Evaluative Statement
These authors demonstrate how grammar instruction has both evolved and remained stagnant
over the past sixty years. Traditional methods of grammar instruction, while unpopular and proven
ineffective, still seem to be used by many teachers today. This is despite the introduction of other
grammar instructional approaches, including transformational grammar and teaching grammar in the
context of other communication skills such as reading, writing and speaking. Lees (1963) demonstrates the
development of “transformational grammar” and the movement to leave traditional grammar practices
emphasizing drill and definition techniques behind. Sutton (1976) echoes Lees (1963) and argues that
grammar terminology does not need to be taught and that it is unhelpful for students, thought usage
should be focused on. De Beaugrande (1984) believes that grammar instruction can be helpful to students,
if it is taught in the context of speech and language. He also argues for transformational grammar in order
for students to identify grammatical structures as they read and write. Tchudi & Thomas (1996) and Berger
(2006) display grammar approaches which are taught in the context of writing and other language skills,
while these grammar topics are taught in short daily lessons. These authors display how grammar reform
has been a consensual topic for sixty years, with alternative methods being introduced as time progresses.
Overall, I feel that I would need a few more articles to fully grasp how grammar instruction has evolved
over the years but this assignment has given me some great ideas for teaching grammar and has
convinced me that grammar instruction need not be ignored nor boring. It can have a daily place in the
classroom and can be beneficial to students and their overall communication skills. Spending a few
minutes a day on grammar skills could have a significant impact on student writing skills over time. There
are many ways to make this review engaging through methods such as grammar games and activities
rather than explicit instruction and correct-all worksheets. Just like any other subject, grammar can be fun
and engaging or dull and agitating. It’s up to the teacher to find creative ways to teach grammar in a way
that is beneficial to students.
References
Berger, J. (2006). Transforming writers through grammar study. The English Journal, 95 (5),
53-59. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30046589
De Beaugrande, R. (1984). Yes, teaching grammar does help. The English Journal, 73 (2),
66-69. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/817527
Lees, R. B. (1963). The promise of transformational grammar. The English Journal 52 (5),
327-330, 345. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/810453
Sutton, G. A. (1976). Do we need to teach a grammar terminology?. The English Journal, 65 (9),
37-40. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/815747
Tchudi, S. & Thomas, L. (1996). Taking the g-r-r-r out of grammar. The English Journal, 85 (7),
53-59. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/820506