The Dangers of Traditional Grammar Instruction?
During the process of reading Glover and Stay's article "Grammar in the Writing Center," I found myself disagreeing with many things they asserted about the effects of elementary grammatical pedagogy and its harmful and unproductive effects on young writers. I wish that they had explained more clearly the opposing view to their argument so that I was not so confused about their very serious charges against teaching grammar in the traditional style, especially after Glover and Stay assert that grammar 3 instruction "threatens to undermine the writing process by allowing power to remain in the hands of the instructor" (131). This is a serious claim, since the purpose of education is to empower the students by allowing the teacher to share his knowledge with his students and relate to them the lessons he has learned. Glover and Stay claim that, "instead of transferring power from the teacher to the student, grammar instruction often does the opposite" (131). How is this gauged? What exactly is wrong with the way teachers have taught grammar for the past hundred years?
Grover and Stay also claim that in the process of grammar 3 instruction, "the student becomes a pawn in the struggle between correctness and personal and intellectual growth" (132). Why does there have to be a struggle? How exactly do students feel overwhelmed or stifled by grammatical rules and customs? I believe rote memorization of grammar and learning it in a classroom setting at an early age would and has only worked to remedy this "problem." The more familiar the student is with the rules of formal grammar, the easier it will be for him to form coherent and sophisticated language in his academic work. Memorization ensures that a student has all the tools he needs to clearly and effectively communicate without being tripped up by doubts as to whether or not he has used the correct pronoun or punctuation. This is indeed then being used as the "tool for empowerment" (132) which Glover and Stay hope for the future of grammar instruction.
Throughout Glover and Stay's article, the main point the authors seem to be asserting is that grammar ought to be taught mainly for the purpose of clarification. They claim that "the focus of the tutorial [should] shift from 'correctness' to 'implication' (132)" in order to more directly and effectively communicate subtle implications of relationships and worldviews seen in a student's argument. I agree that this is an important tool to bring to the consciousness of a writer, but I also wonder what Glover and Stay choose to do with their opening examples of poor grammar in everyday life. Would they see a need to correct the parent saying, "Let it on the table" (129)? These are obvious linguistic errors which most teachers would correct if they encountered them in student writing, but Glover and Stay never tell us whether or not they believe that this is helpful grammatical instruction. Is it wrong to correct these errors even if we understand the meaning clearly? Wouldn't elementary grammatical instruction have helped the students to avoid these types of errors? I would have liked Glover and Stay to have referred back to their opening anecdote and to have established their position on such blatant grammatical errors.
I do believe, however, that Grover and Stay's theories on the benefits of refining grammar in the specific context of when it is being used is a valuable added dimension for grammatical pedagogy. Students often learn the best by doing, and once they begin writing papers frequently, grammatical helps should be placed into the context of meaning in the paper and how grammar specifics pertain to thought processes. These theories, though, make more sense to me as a second step to the teaching of grammar - not a replacement. Elementary school ought to teach students the formal rules of grammar so they know how to then properly explore their language. As students grow older and begin forming essays of their own, grammar should be tweaked as necessary to help students understand its particular effects on the meaning of a thought. I wish that Glover and Stay had explained to me more clearly and definitively why the traditional methods of teaching grammar should be replaced by what seems to me a dangerously informal and incomplete teaching of grammar.
I rarely tell a student she is in error, but I'm about to do so, even though I will start with your strong argument here, made in the final paragraph.
ReplyDeleteAt the earliest stages, I concede that grammar may best be taught by formal and formulaic methods (but it must remain an engaging activity). Fear and beating did not work for my classmates. So why not teach forms but instead of drill-and-memorize, why not have students write from the very start? Their sentences will be simple, but one could show a writer how these differ:
We like to eat Burger King.
We like to eat at Burger King.
You then have other funny examples children produce to show how powerful "at" and similar can be. Maybe you could teach them the word "preposition," but I'd prefer to use "connecting words" and "describing words" to reach learners where they really are.
We part company completely when you say " I believe rote memorization of grammar and learning it in a classroom setting at an early age would and has only worked to remedy this "problem." " This claim ignores the work of decades that has shown--clearly--that rote memorization fails to teach use of grammar for many learners.
That the dunces in State Houses, including Virginia's, designed the SOLs this way only shows their idiocy. How many have been in a K-12 classroom as a teacher? As a student, recently? They design the tests, with some token input from teachers. And your generation--so lacking in critical thinking when you come to campuses--are the victims.
Yes, I feel strongly about this.
For many learners, memorization only teaches dry forms to be repeated on tests. That is not to say it can't work for some. I learned my multiplication tables by flash cards, repetition, and games.
Except for idioms that must be memorized by speakers of other languages, memorization is not something we do in our program. We have to engage grammar as we do with larger concerns: where it loses or alters meaning. Then we teach the rules and make sure the writers can actually employ them.
This is why Glover and Stay's article is so compelling. If we adopt the idea that writers must practice the language to internalize that sense of secondary knowledge (or book grammar) that does not occur in our speech save in the most formal situations. Grammar as a way of learning, and a learner's grammar that shows progress and a journey to fluency, are harder than forms and memorization. Our elected dunces would hate that, too: they'd have to reduce class sizes to provide more individualized learning.
Sadly, your generation knows no other way. Many public schools have slipped back to a reductionist pedagogy that stresses being taught to the test, not critical thinking. And many private schools reinforce the pedagogy of the 1950s, designed for a very different breed of learner.
Your well stated points had many defenders in the class, but I stand where I stand. Drill-and-kill methods are ancient and unworthy of teaching supple thinking, nuanced arguments, and flexible use of English.