Title: Moving from "Teaching Grammar" to Teaching the Process of Editing: Summaries + Queries
Abstract: The professional conversation about errors in student writing circles similar issues, often punctuated by complaining sessions about range and number of those errors. Issues about to grade individual student's performances move into discussions about assessment practices and course curriculum. One refrain is They should already know this stuff, or What are they teaching in high school, anyway? or Shouldn't they learn that in their developmental classes? When conversation shifts to we teach these skills, debate is likewise circular.I prepared following summaries, not in any systematic or comprehensive effort, but to ground discussions in a selection of research with hope of getting to a more pragmatic approach to our teaching. That is purpose of queries that follow summaries. I hope they are a useful starting place for others.PARTI: THESUMMARIESResponses to Error: Sentence Level Error and Teacher of Basic Writing by Dan Folz-Gray from Research & Teaching in Developmental Writing. 28.2 (Spring 2012): 18-29.I know we're not supposed to comment when summarizing, but if you read only one of these articles, make this one. Folz-Gray examines many responses writing teachers have to students' surface-level errors, and uses research (some cited in other articles below as well) to show those responses fall short. He begins with inclination to teach grammar formally, even delaying actually writing for some weeks so that this instruction can take place, then presents remarkable amount of evidence against such an approach. Why do we still take this approach? Folz-Gray posits that sounds logical. Back to basics sounds so comforting, so reasonable (20). And yet, he cites James D. Williams, who estimates that 99% of speech native speakers over age of 6 produce is error free. And Hartwell (see below) asks people to name rule governing order of adjectives but very few can, but when given this list of words (French girls young four), most can order them correctly. He concludes that our students know grammar, without knowing that they know it (20).Folz-Gray takes same approach to teachers' inclination to assign workbook exercises, demonstrating that such drills can actually harm students' writing, and yet, is dominant mode. Even so, he endorses this method, though he clearly hedges it, saying that Selectivity is guiding principle in using workbook exercises (23). Only use them for errors students are actually making and only significant ones; however, syntax errors don't lend themselves to this approach. Sentence combining, in this context, seems a more effective method.The bottom up approach that moves from parts of speech to clauses to sentences, paragraphs, and then to essays comes off even worse. While lends itself to a clear progression and a tidy syllabus, this method undermines student's writing as center and reverses compositional principle, articulated by James Kinneavy, that the aim of a determines everything in process of discourse (24).Finally, Folz-Gray turns to instructors mark errors in student writing. He starts by recalling one sentence of praise he received 40 years ago on a paper, noting that this one sentence was memorable. He complements this anecdote with research, concluding that he sees no support for idea that more marking... is better than though he acknowledges that less marking seems lazy or ignorant. Still, in terms of improving student writing, the amount of feedback on student papers makes no significant difference in writing improvement. Too much marking - even too much praise - can be unfocused, confusing, overwhelming (25). And yet, citing Nancy Sommers' foundational 1982 essay, Folz-Gray says that question isn't whether to mark, but much, and when, and how (25). Correcting students' errors is a waste of teachers' time, he says, but citing Jody Underwood and Alyson Tregidgo's 2006 he admits that there are no easy answers about what works best. …
Publication Year: 2012
Publication Date: 2012-10-01
Language: en
Type: article
Access and Citation
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot