Rebecca Eaker

ENGL 579

Dr. Smith/Dr. Southall

Bibliography

1. Horst, Paige (2012). Flipping the Switch: Teaching grammar in context with middle school

students through writer’s workshop. Virginia English Bulletin, 62(1), 26-42. Retrieved

from Education Research Complete.

Annotation:

In this article, the author discusses her approach the grammar and how, as a young

teacher, she took the “kill and drill” approach that many teachers do. However, she soon

realized there was a disconnect between teaching students grammar and having them apply it to

their writing. When she realized this, she decided to approach grammar from a different

standpoint. The author defines grammar and its many definitions in the article; however, in

teaching, she decided to focus on “the use of language with regard to its correctness or social

propriety” (Horst, 2012, p. 27). Ultimately, she decided that it was more important in her

classroom to “discuss that we speak and communicate in different ways with the different groups

of people in our lives” (p. 27). In order to better teach grammar, Horst decided to run her

classroom in a workshop format.

Horst spends some time in the article discussing how she runs her workshops. A vital

part of setting up the workshop is the use of writer’s notebooks. These notebooks are a place for

students to organize their writing and may contain sections like “writing,” “the writer’s eyes,”

“author’s word and phrase palette” and “gems” (consisting of sentences or phrases the author

finds appealing) (p. 29). Then, these notebooks are used as a jumping off point to spur writer’s

workshops. As students use their notebooks for writing, Horst tries to work with students on

grammar instruction, often incorporating mini-lessons.

Horst cites Jeff Anderson’s definition of grammar rules as “writing secrets” (p. 33). She

sometimes uses this definition of grammar with students in order to draw interest in her middle

school classroom. In her workshop, she acts more as a mentor than a teacher. She says, “When

discussions about conventions come up organically as we read mentor texts together and as we

write together, I become much more comfortable with the idea of teaching grammar explicitly to

my class. Explicitly but in context with what we are doing” (p. 33). So, while she has found that

grammar must still be taught, she finds that it is best taught in context and not in isolation.

Overall, I think Horst has some good ideas in this article. I was especially interested in

her take on writer’s workshops and her use of writer’s notebooks. This seems like a very

practical way to teach writing. I also thought it was interesting that she mentions that she teaches

grammar “organically” as questions and issues arise; this is an interesting thought, but I’m not

sure I could make it work for me. I love the idea of a writer’s workshop, a writer’s notebook,

and the use of mentor texts to guide writing discussion. However, I think grammar should be

used in conjunction more with the min-lessons than as an organic, unstructured discussion. My

worry would be that if something comes up out of the blue, without my having time to plan for a

lesson, that I might not be able to give students all the information they need to understand that

particular grammatical concern.

2. Weaver, Constance (1996). Teaching grammar in the context of writing. The English

Journal, 85 (7), 15-24. Retrieved from JStor.

Annotation:

In this article, Weaver (1996), discusses teaching grammar in isolation and why it is

ineffective. She explains this by saying, “Because some of us are convinced that we benefited at

least somewhat from the formal study of grammar, it can be difficult for community members

and English teachers alike to believe what decades of grammar studies tell us: that, in general,

the teaching of grammar does not serve any practical purpose for most students” (Weaver, 1996,

p. 15). She cites a study in which a group of students were given rigorous instruction in

grammar and mechanics. In this study, results showed that instruction had made no impact on

their actual writing. In fact, students scored lower on a post-test than they had on a pre-test.

Weaver also cites several other studies which have proven that grammar instruction in isolation

does not positively impact student’s writing.

However, Weaver does not assert that teaching grammar should be totally disregarded.

Rather, she believes that that grammar should be taught in the context of a student’s writing.

Weaver describes several scenarios in order to give examples of how a teacher can tackle

teaching grammar including, giving mini-lessons about particular grammatical aspects, using

prewriting, encouraging students to focus on details not just grammar, and peer editing.

Overall, I believe Weaver is exactly right. Teaching grammar for the sake of teaching

grammar does not work. For example, I know that I am a competent writer but I probably

couldn’t tell you the difference between and absolute phrase and a gerund. Being able to call

something what it is doesn’t necessarily make you a better writer—it just makes you

grammatically savvy. Just as Weaver suggests, we need to focus on the grammatical elements

that really matter to our particular groups of students. If we notice that fragments are a problem,

that doesn’t mean we need to then do ten worksheets on independent clauses; it just means we

need to show students how to form complete thoughts in their own writing.

3. House, Jeff (2009). The grammar gallimaufry: teaching students to challenge the grammar

gods. The English Journal, 98 (3), 98-102.

Annotation:

In this article, House asserts that the rule based approach to grammar does nothing to

educate or draw in students. He says, “For teachers, the more rule-based approached can be off-

putting, suggesting to students that writing is less about communicating a thought than

constructing a paper” (p. 98). He also discusses the prescriptivist perspective on grammar which

asserts that that “language instruction is about maintaining order” (p. 98). However, the opposing

viewpoint is that of descriptivists who believe that language continually evolves. Often the

prescriptivist approach is taken in the classroom in the way of drills, memorization, and

corrections of what is viewed as “incorrect” grammar. However, the article suggests that we

need to be more open to accepting the descriptivist view.

In this article, the author’s primary focus is to describe a lesson in which students are

encouraged to play with grammar. For this assignment students study grammar rather than being

forced to do grammar drills and, hopefully, realize that “grammar is about expression, not

memorization” (p. 98). For this assignment, students first identify a rule of grammar that they

have encountered and have a memory about. For example, this might be something an adult

corrected them on or some rule that they struggle with. Then, students do some research on the

rule they have picked. Next, they brainstorm details about their personal experience with this

rule. Lastly, students draw their own conclusion about the appropriateness of this rule and when

it is or is not appropriate to break it. The final product is a paper in which student discuss their

personal experience, the research, and their conclusion.

The author also discusses the results of doing this assignment in his own classroom.

Overall, he found that this activity allowed students to think critically about grammar. Students

were enlightened by their discovery that grammar is not simply a firm set of rules but, rather, a

set of rules that can change under certain circumstances.

Overall, the author provides an interesting approach to grammar in this article. In

teaching grammar, one of the things that I have struggled with is the variations in rules and how

rigid it often seems to be. This assignment that the author suggests encourages students to take

these issues in grammar head-on. In addition, it makes it personal by allowing students to pick a

grammatical issue about which they have a story and/or see as an issue. I could see this project

as part of something larger. Perhaps students could compile a “grammar book” in their class,

working together to create a book of their findings.

While this is one helpful project, and an interesting lesson on grammar, it does not offer

much in terms of scope. This is not a way to teach grammar comprehensively. Rather, it is a

way to give students a unique opportunity to interact with grammar and allow them to better

understand a select few rules.

4. Zuidema, Leah (2012). The grammar workshop: systematic language study in reading and

writing context. The English Journal, 101(5), 63-71. Retrieved from JStor.

Annotation:

In this article, Zuidema (2012) discusses some of the issues hat have arisen from the idea

that grammar should only be taught in context (p. 62). According to Zuidema (2012), “In too

many cases ‘teaching grammar in context’ is either fancy parlance for ‘I don’t teach much

grammar’ or a mantra that forces a false dilemma: ‘My school requires me to teach a stand-alone

grammar course/unit, which means my only option is to use traditional drills, worksheets and

exercises” (p. 62). Many teachers see this idea of teaching grammar in context as an excuse that

justifies the way they do or do not teach grammar. Instead, Zuidema (2012) asserts that “it is

time to reframe our view to include both writing and reading as contexts for grammar learning”

(p. 63).

Zuidema discusses several ways in which reading, writing, and grammar can be linked.

One strategy is the “notice, name, apply” strategy. In this, students notice some grammatical

feature used in an author’s work, figure out what it is exactly, and then apply that strategy to

their own writing. She uses this as a basis in her own grammar workshops in her classroom.

She starts her workshops by having students use a “field notebook” which they use to

record their thoughts as “grammar researchers” in order “to start noticing and naming how

grammar works ‘in the wild’ and to apply their findings by experiment with grammar in their

own writing” (Zuidema, 2012, p. 63). Students undertake this project collaboratively and begin

to collect data. They do this by studying several works by one author and analyzing that author’s

particular grammatical choices. The topics of study include: sentence patterns, verbs, fragments,

coordination and subordination, cohesion, sentence rhythm, writer’s voice, adverbials, adjectival,

nominals, stylistic variations, and gendered language. However, in their “field notebook”

students do not have to give their findings these formal names. They are encouraged to come up

with names for their discoveries. Some of the examples the author gives are “close echoes” and

“runaway sentences” (p. 67). In addition, on an individual basis, students present “Show and

Tell” essays throughout the year. In these essays, students experiment with grammar-relate

issues in their own writing.

Overall, I think that Zuidema has some great ideas here for teaching grammar. I like,

first of all, that students are at the center of this lesson. They work together, collaboratively, to

discuss an author of their choosing and find grammatical patterns on their own. Even better,

students can then take what they learned and apply it to their own writing. In addition, all

students learn from each other through their “show and tell” presentations.

My only concern for this approach, however, is that by focusing on one author, they may

become very familiar with only a few different grammatical structures. After all, all authors

have a particular style of writing. I could definitely see myself using this assignment in my

classroom. However, at some point, I would also want my students, in groups, to examine the

works of other authors as well.

5. Lindblom, Kenneth and Dunn, Patricia (2006). Analyzing Grammar Rants: An Alternative to

Traditional Grammar Instruction. The English Journal 95 (5), 71-77. Retrieved from

JStor.

Annotation:

In this article, Lindblom and Dunn (2006) offer a unique lesson for helping students

“develop rhetorical knowledge of audience and context, to become… ‘savvy writers’” (p. 71). In

this lesson, students analyze “grammar rants.” The authors define grammar rants as published

complaints about grammar, spelling, writing or speaking by journalists, politicians, cultural

critics and others. They use as an example, a Bill O’Reilly grammar rant against rapper

Eminmen for his use of language.

In these grammar rants students are asked to consider several questions. These questions

are geared at helping students understand key issues such as: people are often judged by others

based on their grammar, people have racial prejudices against others because of language

perceptions, and what is “right” and “wrong” can be different for different social situations. For

example, in the Bill O’Reilly rant, the authors describe how “On the surface, O’Reilly makes

what is a fairly simply and common point. A closer analysis, of course, reveals cultural

prejudices and rashly constructed connections among morality, education, socioeconomic class,

intelligence, and language use” (Lindblo and Dunn, 2006, p. 73). A lesson such as this is aimed

at help students understand the way we interact and how we make assumptions because of

grammar. Ultimately, it makes grammar relevant for students by showing them its significance

in the real world.

I am particularly drawn to what is at the heart of this essay. Though it does not teach

grammar rules explicitly, it does teach students to think about how much of an impact grammar

has on people’s lives and the way we think about others. I teach in a very culturally diverse

school, so I think a discussion like this would open a lot of doors for understanding.

However, though this article discusses in some detail the “grammar rant” as a genre, I

wish that it had provided more examples of where a teacher can find these rants. The article

discusses only two examples and I suspect that if I wanted to teach this lesson with other articles

than these two, that I would have to do some digging.

6. Schuster, Edgar H (2011). Beyond grammar: The richness of English language, or the zero-

tolerance approach to rigid rules. The English Journal 100(4), 71-76. Retrieved from

www.ncte.org.

Annotation:

Schuster (2011) says of grammar “the argument that one must learn the rules before one

can break them has no validity if the rules to be learned are not rules in the first place” (p. 71).

He sees an inherent contradiction in education. While many writers break the formal rules of

grammar, students are typically taught that you should never break these rules. In the article,

Schuster examines a passage from Hunger of Memory, which is very effectively written, in order

to prove that some writers intentionally and successfully ignore certain grammar rules. The rules

he focuses on are: avoiding the passive voice, avoiding forms of be as a main verb, beginning

sentences with conjunctions, and writing sentence fragments.

He discusses each of these four grammar rules in detail, showing how they may not

always be appropriate. For example, he says of fragments that they “may create greater

emphasis than full sentences. They may be more natural and more dramatic. And they are

economical. If a fragment is rhetorically effective, a student should be penalized for using it” (p.

74). There are reasons why a student might use a fragment and they may be able to use it

effectively. After all, professional writers do this all the time. His point here is that we have to

be careful about telling students to never use a fragment (or any of similar rules) because this is

simply not the case.

Schuster raises some valid points in his essay. Too often in the classroom, teachers place

too much emphasis on never breaking a rule that professionals break all the time. Just last

semester, I had a professor who graded a research paper I wrote and was very hung up on the fact

that I used two fragment sentences. However, this was perfectly intentional on my part because I

knew the effect it had on the reader. It was, indeed, for emphasis. But this particular professor

just couldn’t get past the fact that it was a fragment and, of course, fragments are bad.

I think this is definitely an important lesson to teach in the classroom. However, I do

think there are reasons why these rules are enforced. I would be afraid that if I tell a student that

it[s sometimes okay to use a fragment, then all bets are off about use complete sentences

consistently. My thinking for this type of essay would be: proceed with caution. I do think this

concept would work well as mini-lessons. A teacher could show students some examples of

when a fragment, for example, is used consistently, and when it is not.

7. Petraki, Eleni and Hill, Deobrah. Theories of grammar and their influence on teaching

practice: Examining language teacher’s beliefs. University of Sydney Papers, 65-99.

Retrieved from JStor.

Annotation:

This article is a study about teachers’ attitudes regarding grammar. Although the study focus

primarily on grammar in the ESL context, it still yields interesting and relevant results. The

study focuses on four essential questions:

What are language teachers’ beliefs about teaching grammar?

What do teachers know about grammar and how does that affect their teaching?

Is there a relationship between teacher’s background and knowledge of grammar theories

and their grammar teaching as reported by the teachers?

What grammatical theories underpin teacher’s explanations of grammar? (p. 74).

One interesting finding of the study is that 55% of teachers agreed that grammar should be

taught together with other skills while also taught by itself; 37% thought it should be taught only

with other skills; and 8% thought it should be taught entirely separate (p. 76). Also interesting,

the study revealed that 42% of teachers learned much of what they knew of grammar from

teaching it (p. 78). The research concludes that “teachers are in agreement with current research

studies which point to the fact that more than one approach is required in grammar teaching, and

that knowledge of syntax and morphology, semantics, and pragmatics as well as functional

grammar offer different perspectives for the explanation of grammatical phenomena” (p. 89). In

other words, teachers know that grammar is best taught in context and that there are many

different approaches to teaching grammar.

Overall, this article was an interesting read. It was especially interesting to see that 42%

of teachers know what they know about grammar through their teaching. That put things in

perspective for me. If teachers become “grammar experts” by constant exposure to grammar

rules and teaching themselves, we certainly can’t expect students to be grammar experts when

they are studying 4-5 other subjects and they only see us 90 minutes every other day.

However, though an interesting read, this article doesn’t really have much practical

application. Yes, it is reassuring to know that most teachers know how best to teach grammar.

However, it did not offer any insight into how students respond to different approaches of

teaching grammar. It left me with no sense of how I can use this study to make myself a better

teacher.