Title: Does Using an Internet Based Program for Improving Student Performance in Grammar and Punctuation Really Work in a College Composition Course
Abstract: English teachers at both secondary and postsecondary levels have long labored to teach students not only to compose organized, logical, and interesting essays, but also to speak and write in prescribed standard English. For years this latter area, that of basic skills, was taught in a rigorous and mechanical fashion with strict rules being emphasized regarding punctuation and grammar. Under the more traditional way of correcting student mistakes in punctuation and grammar, teachers characteristically marked errors in a complex and often distant manner. The large number of written comments made by teachers, often done in a technical sort of short hand, may have confused students and created a negative feeling about the assignment (Osternolm, 1986; Dvorak; Zamel, 1985; Raimes, 1983). Semke (1984), in her well titled article, Effects of the Red Pen, found that the typical heavy mark ups made by teachers were not effective and, in many cases, had a negative effect. Research by Weaver, 1996, on the topic even suggested the teaching of grammar and punctuation as a formal system, divorced of context, not serve any practical purpose (15). Earlier studies by Hillock and Smith, 1991, and McQuade, 1980, concurred. Barnett, 1989, especially lamented of this problem, observing, Research on first and second language is documenting what we already know as teachers: students are frustrated by seeing compositions marked up, and they rarely incorporate all our suggestions or corrections even when we ask them to rewrite (or is it recopy?) their papers. No matter how we correct student work, succeeding compositions do not seem appreciably better. Meager results after so much time spent correcting frustrates us, too (p. 9). Rosen's ideas (1987) about more effective ways to improve student punctuation and grammar reflected an important shift in teaching basic skills. In this approach the focus was placed on content rather than form. Specifically, five essential assumptions were stressed regarding the nature of the composing process. These assumptions provided the underlying rationale for this shift. 1. Writing is a complex process, recursive rather than linear in nature, involving thinking, planning, discovering what to say, drafting, and re-drafting. 2. Learning to use the correct mechanical and grammatical forms of written language is a developmental process and as such is slow, unique to each student, and does not progress in an even uphill pattern. 3. The mechanical and grammatical skills of are learned when a writer needs to use them for real purposes to produce that communicates a message he or she wants someone else to receive. 4. Responsibility for the correctness of any given piece of should fall mainly on the student, not the teacher. 5. Students learn to write by writing, and they learn to write correctly by writing, revising, and proofreading their own work--with some help or direction from the teacher when necessary (pp. 63-64). The idea of teaching basic skills by emphasizing content was developed even further by Greg Bowe (Twigg, 2006). Bowe, formerly the director of the Florida International University undergraduate program, instituted what he called writing circles in the remedial course, entitled Basic Writing. Under this program, composition classes of 25 students were divided into five groups of five circles. Each group met with the professor one hour per week to discuss the group's writing, getting feedback from others in the group as well as from the instructor. The other two hours of weekly class time students used a computer program which provided prewriting exercises. Both students and teachers believed students' was improved both in content and form with this arrangement. Participants felt that more direct time with the teacher was a help, and teachers felt that they did not have to spend as much time grading the papers once editing within the group was finished. …
Publication Year: 2010
Publication Date: 2010-06-22
Language: en
Type: article
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 3
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot