Weaver claims that "[t]eaching grammar for its own sake is never the aim" (2). I agree for a couple of reasons. First of all, it has been proven to be ineffective. Weaver cites a variety of studies that show that lessons taught in isolated grammar instruction are usually discarded and forgotten by students as soon as the recall necessary for exams or the essay at hand is completed. The assessment grade is recorded, the lesson checked off, and everyone moves onto the next topic. Instead, Weaver advocates a repetitive study of grammar that comes alive through authentic writing. Instead of spending a week on condensing sentences and then the next week on the proper usages of the colon and semicolon, Weaver argues that students should engage in these techniques as they come across them in their writing.
The learn-by-doing (or hands-on) approach has proven to be very effective in a variety of disciplines. So, why is grammar left out?
We also need to reform grammar instruction by making it mean something to our students. Traditionally, grammar has been taught as a set of rules. I prefer Weaver's idea that grammar is a box of tools that can be used to enrich and enhance writing. This shift in perspective transforms grammar from a looming force that lords over every scratch of the student's pen to a freedom of opportunities that the student controls to express and communicate his or her thoughts and ideas. Grammar becomes positive and - dare I say it?! - even exciting and fun!
Weaver continues this idea by explaining that grammar should be a focus on how words function. In our every day life outside of the English classroom, we do not beat parts of sentences to pieces but instead work to structure words effectively and meaningfully. So what we need to impart to our students is the importance of grammatical structure.
Linda M. Christensen's article "Teaching Standard English: Whose Standard?" explores this topic. (I read Christensen's article last semester, and I encourage you to look it up!) Christensen states:
"Asking my students to memorize the rules without asking who makes the rules, who enforces the rules, who benefits from the rules, who loses from the rules, who uses the rules to keep some in and keep others out legitimates a social system that devalues my students' knowledge and language. Teaching the rules without reflection also under-scores that it's okay for others-"authorities"-to dictate something as fundamental and as personal as the way they speak" (40).
We must overcome the rational that students must learn Standard American English (SAE) because the textbooks or administration or parents say that they must. Instead, we must be able to explain both to ourselves, our students, and the rest of the world why SAE needs to be applied and when it needs to be applied.
Last semester, I was prompted to examine my position on enforcing "proper English" over student vernacular. As Weaver and Christensen demonstrate (and contrary to popular belief), they can coexist! Weaver advocates that there is no "right" grammar, but rather "only appropriate grammar and effective writing, for different audiences and purposes" (44).
This is further reflected in the Mark Larson's suggestion to "help [students] recognize the place standard English, among other language variations, holds in the array of devices we humans find to 'give voice accurately and fully to ourselves and our sense of the world'" (Weaver 41).
This thought is further enhanced by Christensen: "When more attention is paid to the way some-thing is written or said than to what is said, stu-dents' words and thoughts become devalued. Stu-dents learn to be silent, to give as few words as possible for teacher criticism. Students must be taught to hold their own voices sacred, to ignore the teachers who have made them feel that what they've said is wrong or bad or stupid. Students must be taught how to lis-ten to the knowledge they've stored up but which they are seldom asked to relate" (37).
Again, I ask: Why are we teaching what we're teaching? Do we teach grammar so that students can fill out worksheets to be able to involuntarily identify active and passive voices? Or do we teach grammar so that students are able to effectively and meaningfully structure their thoughts into words to foster stronger expression and communication?
An additional metaphor, if you will, on standardizing grammar and, thus, standardizing students:
I love that you brought Christensen into this discussion! Grammar is political, and students should have every opportunity to question any system that advocates for a "standard" English language. Whose standards? Who decides? Who makes the rules?
ReplyDelete