Shifting Perspectives About
Grammar: Changing What and How We Teach
It seems like Deborah Dean kind
of made it up as she went along during her first few years of teaching. I
didn’t expect such a candid admission right off the bat. It was a little relieving
to read, as I feel like I have been winging it for the last year or so as an
English tutor. Dean fumbled through district-approved textbooks while I spent
way too many months griping about SAT workbooks. I can relate to her right or
wrong dilemma, “My practice was the classic example of write and wrong:
language as answers in the textbook, totally removed from what my students
wrote or spoke.” After a few months, I found myself straying more and more from
the required workbooks as I realized my students were not learning anything –
the were memorizing types of answers with types of questions. It’s baffling to
me that with so much research pointing away from textbook guided learning, so
many organizations (like my tutoring center) still rely on workbooks and a
one-size-fits-all style to learning. If this happened at the start of Dean’s
career, and it’s continuing at the start of mine – when can we expect to see
real change in teaching?
On another note, I found Dean’s
comments about intertwining her grammatical lessons with genre. She mentions:
“Contemporary genre theory helps us understand that genres are textual
responses to specific situations, not merely text types (Miller).” Based on my
own experiences, I agree that grammar should be taught in the context of
reading and writing. I’m pretty sure that most of my language skills were developed
through constant reading and writing (independently and academically). I can’t
seem to recall a single grammar lesson in class, though I’m sure there must
have been many.
And as the teacher of teenagers in 2016, I can surely see the
benefit of using genre as a method of teaching kids to code switch (especially
from social media and texting to other forms of communication): “Teaching
language from a genre approach helps students understand how to marshal their
language skills for specific tasks instead of seeing language as a unitary
concept.” But I do question if this only further pushes our students away from
learning to love reading and writing for themselves. Can we get our students to
fall in love with literature if we pick apart Atticus Finch’s dialogue to
discuss the power of using pronouns versus names? Yes, learning how to
manipulate language is incredibly important, but is it more important than
having students really get into a reading flow with such a powerful text? I’m
not sure if there’s a right or wrong answer here (see what I did there?), but I
do agree with Dean’s overarching theme that we need to continuously reexamine
the way that we’re getting our students to connect with grammar and language so
that what we’re doing works in the context of their lives.
Hi Katie, wow, that is some really deep engagement with Dean's text. I'd like to respond to three things you said. First, I actually didn't necessarily read the first part of her article as "winging it," but rather, more so as her initially following more traditional or conventional approaches to teaching grammar. However, if by "winging it," you mean that she had to kind of figured out "on the fly" how to make changes to strategies that weren't working, then yes, I agree. I liked your "one-size-fits-all" doesn't work analogy, very clever; teaching this way is clearly in conflict student differentiation needs. I've been in several different schools during my teaching career, and everyone has a different approach, if not approaches, to grammar instruction and, well, to everything. Working in these places has helped me realize how nice it is to be exposed to different pedagogical approaches and then also to be creative and implement our own original ideas into them as well. Finally, in response to your comment about To Kill A Mockingbird, I agree that it can kind of seem disruptive or out of place to teach pronoun usage through a classic work of literature, but I actually interpreted it, whether correctly or not is a mystery, as Dean kind of saying that close reading in literary analysis sometimes entails interpreting and analyzing grammatical structure usages, such as pronoun usage, and accordingly, background information to facilitate student engagement with this task should be provided just prior to it in order to make the relationship between rhetoric and meaning more salient for them.
ReplyDeleteI also wanted to mention Dean's mixing grammar with genre. She was very honest. I think that made me connect with the piece more. How do we connect the gap between grammar and writing?
ReplyDeleteI agree that we shouldn't kill the joy of reading or writing for students by knocking them over the head with grammar rules. I always tell my students not to get stuck on translating words and stopping before they get through a sentence. I want students to develop fluency when they are reading and writing. They can always go back later and edit. I often give students separate grades for content and form, so they have a chance to get their ideas down without worrying about being penalized for having trouble with their "control" of their writing. Another thing that I think is helpful for kids is multiple exposures to "proper" usage. As a native speaker of English, I think I have often taken for granted how much grammar I was "exposed to " in reading without being explicitly taught. I have to make sure I provide these opportunities for my students- they are very valuable.
ReplyDeleteI love the way that you start your post:
ReplyDelete"It seems like Deborah Dean kind of made it up as she went along during her first few years of teaching. I didn’t expect such a candid admission right off the bat."
I think that all English teachers initially struggle with grammar and hearing someone is detail it is refreshing. I've often found myself trying to look for a creative way to teach subject verb agreement or pronouns, It's still not easy.
I like how you interacted to the text and how you related to it through personal experience. I also liked the thought provoking questions you raised.
ReplyDelete