Grammar, Discourse, and Teaching Writing

Critical Question 1: In K-12 education, English typically includes lessons in grammar, especially in elementary school when kids learn basic writing skills. Personally, I remember drilling grammar "find the errors" exercises in elementary school, which was part of the standard writing/spelling curriculum. Moving into higher education, English becomes redefined as composition, a transition that new college students are unfamiliar with. How can we teach the distinctions between K-12 "English" and college-level English? At what point/age/grade should we transition from teaching English as grammar and spelling to English as rhetorical situations, composition, and discourses? Would high school students benefit from this approach? Would telling our students about this transition help break down English 101 writing misconceptions?

Critical Question 2:  Harwell's article examines the divisive topic of teaching and focusing on grammar in the composition classroom. Hartwell states, "we are dealing with a professional dispute in which one side accuses the other of 'magical thinking,' and in turn, that side responds by charging the other as 'alchemists.'" (208). The pro-grammar side accuses the anti-grammar side of being vague, loosely goosey, and abstract in their focus on rhetorical situations, audience, purpose, etc. The anti-grammar side accuses the pro-grammar side of being ironically vague with their over-emphasis on "style" and grammatical, absolute rules containing infinite exceptions. Are both of these arguments valid? How does an over-emphasis on grammar lead to abstraction, vagueness, and inapplicability? Likewise, what shortfalls and vagaries might the pro-grammar community be accusing the rhetorical situation, anti-grammar calvary of?

Analytical Discussion Post: 

Formalist and prescriptive approaches to teaching writing are falling apart under the research created during the 50's and 60's, but the research doesn't have a significant impact on the teaching of writing. Why do you think it has been so difficult to disassociate good writing with grammatical errors and mystical notions of language purity for the past century? How are these associations tied to race, class, and sex? How has assessment also limited the teaching of writing? Make sure to reference several readings from this week to support your answer.

In the 1930s to 50s, confidence in the current-traditional rhetoric model waned as new research emerged. According to Muderig, “English classrooms during these years were not entirely a wasteland of dreary drill in grammar and mechanics. On the contrary, between 1930 and 1950, we find the gradual erosion of confidence in classroom drills as a useful pedagogical practice” (305). Moving into the 50s and 60s, people studying the composition classroom started viewing composition, the comp classroom and writing in a new light and cultural/theoretical context. For example, Kerby-Miller established the "organic model," which "prevented them from seeing that the composing process is actually idiosyncratic rather than ordered, recursive rather than linear” (Muderig 312). Along with the idea of the non-linear writing process, ideas like discourse communities, rhetorical situations, and writing as a social activity created a new exigence within composition macadamia. Scholars like Kitzhaber noted the problematic nature of the current-traditional pedagogical approach. They proposed a new approach to teaching comp in his syllabus, stating that "The last is the primary objective of Freshman Composition: not the mere avoidance of error (which can be practiced after a fashion in a sort of intellectual vacuum) but the achievement of excellence (which demands of the student some active interest both in the subject he discusses and in the quality of his expression” (12). Whilst Kitzhaber acknowledged the limiting over-focus on grammar and the importance of context, his approach was still limited in requiring certain grammatical rules and error-hunting. According to Hartwell, multiple cases of experimental research revealed a lack of correlation between teaching grammar rules and improving writing skills. 

So, why do we still over-emphasize grammar in our composition classes even though the data shows us that it doesn't achieve our goal of producing better writers? Why does current-traditional rhetoric still linger in our syllabi and rubrics? 

One strong possibility is that writing and English serve as a gate-keeping mechanism institutionally to keep students outside of the middle-upper class, white, English-speaking borders from entering academia as an institution. In his article, Harwell cites Nelson Francis' "The Three Meanings of Grammar," referencing Francis, "third sense in which people use the word ‘grammar’ is ‘linguistic etiquette.”... The word in this sense is often coupled with a derogatory adjective: we say that the expression ‘he ain't here’ is ‘bad grammar’” (210). This strong and offensive reaction to a non-SAE dialect is still prevalent amongst composition professors who are personally offended by grammar "pet-peeves." The concept of "linguistic etiquette" roots back to racist and elitist academic rhetoric prevalent in the current-traditional pedagogical classroom. Its essences still remain today in the grammar section of our rubrics. 

Another resistance might be the academic politics of English 101, specifically the mistreatment and over-burdening of English 101 teachers. According to Mulderig, in the late 1800s and remaining now, there has historically been a tradition of the university taking advantage of comp teachers. He states, “The heavy teaching loads that most instructors of this era confronted made a more comprehensive approach to composition instruction unrealistic anyway” (Mulderig 306). This pattern has carried into the present day, where most ENG101 teachers are underpaid grad students. It is much easier for ENG101 teachers to evaluate based on grammar and check off a rubric compared to giving ample formative, conceptual feedback, especially in an age where grading is often computerized through canvas and scantron. 

Additionally, composition teachers might still feel resistance from fellow educators on the grammar issue. Mulderig writes about Kenneth Oliver's experience after the CC meeting in 1950. Oliver wrote, “the formalists were regarded simply as hangers-on from a teaching tradition which belonged strictly to the past, which was dead and decaying, even if not yet aware of its own unwholesome odor” (3). Although Oliver wrote this in 1950, this tension still exists within the English department. An anti-grammar instructor may feel outcasted by going against their seniors or the department's ideologies. Harwell adds, ”It is not surprising that we call each other names: those of us who question the value of teaching grammar are in fact shaking the whole elaborate edifice of traditional composition instruction” (209). Choosing a side of the fence to teach on might result in conflict within the workplace. 

Finally, there's the measurability reality. It is much easier to quantify the number of grammatical "errors" in a piece of writing than evaluating "effort" or student work. Academia is focused on measurability. In reality, colleges are businesses in our country, and businesses require data to decide where they want to invest their funding. To keep the English department alive, the institution requires the department to report grades and follow academic protocols that limit the breadth of the instructor's agency.