Spring Break, Allergies, and Grammar Instruction

It is finally spring break and I am down for the count with allergies. I had a lovely day off Friday and went down to the beach for the day. It was ideal, but this 90 degree weather and coats upon coats of pollen is not ideal. Not at all.

So I am sitting here, eyes puffy, tissue stuffed up one nostril, spending time with Constance Weaver's Grammar to Enrich and Enhance Writing. I have spent a lot of reflective time with my writing instructional practices this year. I am trying to use only best practices (although I'll admit to not using vocabulary best practices--it's hard to be on ALL the time). In order to improve writing, we are not doing "daily oral language." I am adamantly against it, always have been. First of all, it isn't oral. Secondly, I've never seen the benefits of copying down incorrect sentences. Don't you remember more what you copy down? Then wouldn't it make sense that students are learning incorrect writing skills?

Constance Weaver is only supporting my beliefs that teaching grammar in isolation is not beneficial to student learning. Weaver's research shows that grammar study in the Middle Ages was a study of what not to do, instead of what to do. Think of your own grammar lessons in schools. There was a lot of labeling parts of speech and rectifying errors. What not to do. Towards the end of the 19th century, the teaching of grammar was designed to move lower class citizens up the class system. The teaching of grammar was also used as ammunition for the middle and upper classes to use against those who did not change their use of language. This hasn't changed in over a hundred years. We still expect students to memorize grammatical rules in order to be successful in the workplace. Instead of teaching code-switching, we expect students to leave their inherited linguistic practices behind. We teach grammatical rules in order to help students move up in the world. Nothing else that we teach is the same--why do we believe that grammar is different?

I remember grammar being taught to me in a separate class. It worked for me...I guess. I'm obviously a verbal/linguistic-minded person. I feel like it probably worked for most English teachers. And since it worked for them, they perpetuate the ineffectiveness on their students now. Weaver points out, however, that studies show that grammar in isolation has a NEGATIVE effect on student achievement. A negative effect. Read that again. Grammar in isolation has a negative effect on student achievement. Yet, here we are in 2010, using daily oral language in English classes. In 2010, we are still teaching students to label the parts of speech. Just as they did in the Middle Ages.

In this age of instant gratification, YouTube, Facebook, and, obviously, blogs, do we really need to teach something the same way we did in the Middle Ages? I'm not comfortable with that. If I want to do the best job that I possibly can, then I don't want to teach things the same way we did hundreds of years ago.

I think I'll go back to spring break. I'll keep reading Weaver's book and contemplating the best way to teach effective writing skills. I'll also be contemplating how to tactfully share my findings with my colleagues. It is a lot to think about. Right now, I'm just hoping a little rain will fall and I'll finally be able to take this tissue out of my nostril.