Post Three: Grammar ... that what it be Dawg!

Even if you do learn to speak correct English, whom are you going to speak it to?
-- Clarence Darrow

First of all, check out this video.... hi-ˈler-ē-əs :)



Grammar... yikes... I remember looking forward to studying this in high school and middle school as much as having root canal work done. It actually pained me to go to English class when we were spending day after day on prepositions, articles, clauses, blah, blah, blah. But, (as opposed to nevertheless, the formal conjunction) I do think there is some benefit to the repetition of learning grammar. Although the text got dry in some parts, I was actually engaged in reading Dornan's perception of teaching grammar. I was particularly fond of her passage: "... studying Standard English usage, and doing workbook exercises is NOT as effective as we'd like to believe. Instead, students need to be immersed in a writing and reading environment in which language study has a direct application to their own composing, where the usage skills they are taught are immediately applied to the papers they are writing, and where the grammatical structures they study help them become responsive readers and flexible writers" (Dornan 82). I think this statement offers much enlightment and application of all the teaching theories we have learned and discussed. First, it offers the students a purpose for learning. If they are using it in their writing, then it has purpose, opposed to filling in worksheets on grammar. Second, the cognitive overload of students in managed. By having the students learn through mini-lesson and during their writing, I think they can better manage the daunting rules and norms of grammar structure. And third, I think having the students learn grammar within the content of their writing keeps the students more engaged and motivated to learn.

Another part of Dornan's Within and Beyond the Writing Process was her metaphor of the pendulum in teaching grammar. I think it's important that we don't overemphasize grammar, however, we should overemphasize plot and storyline either. I think there needs to be a careful balance between the two. Besides, good writing needs both elements!

What I enjoyed the most about Dornan's writing was the applicable methods for teaching grammar. She did a great job offering tools and strategies for teaching, such as what should be taught and why, how to use editing workshops, and different helpful checklists. Even the idea of an "editor's corner" was intriguing and something I'd like to use in my classroom. This idea of offering tools ties in well with the next article I read, The Writer's Toolbox: Five Tools for Active Revision Instruction by Laura Harper.

In Harper's article, she offers a unique and fun way to approach editing. Although the article seemed to be geared for a younger student audience, elementary and middle school, I think the tools could be applicable to high school as well. I really like the idea of leaving visual symbols on the page as opposed to the conventional "red-ink markup". Not that I'm opposed to marking up a paper, or overtly sensitive to using red ink, I do think the symbol idea has some validity. First of all, many times when I have seen a paper marked up students will simply go and fix everything they see in red, many times without re-reading the paper at all. This seems to contradict the whole idea of revision. Yes, you want the students to fix the grammar and punctuation, but you also want them to re-read, edit, and modify the work to be a "better read".

Aside from the symbols used in marking up a paper, I thought Harper's tools of Questions, Snapshots, Thoughtshots, Exploding a Moment, and Making a Scene were very detailed and useful in teaching students. I think students will have a much easier time altering their work when you use a tool like a Snapshot as opposed to simply writing, "I need more detail." I also think students will think more when you ask for revisions in this manner versus a cluttered markup of text.

The last text I read was Toby Fulwiler's article, A Lesson in Revision, which I found somewhat boring and unentertaining to read. I did, however, like the "narrowing of the edits" concept and the focus writing ideas, such as limiting their story to "a single day or less... [and] ... the setting be limited to one specific place" (270). I thought these were valuable tools to be used in the classroom. I guess I just felt the article to be more of a pat on the back to himself than an educational tool for us. Just my opinion. Well, that be bout it... chk ya l8r.