The Evolution of Grammar Instruction

By: Anise Veldkamp

Overview

1960’sTransformational

Grammar

1970’sEmphasis on Usage

and overall communication

skills

1980’sGrammar of Talk

Pre-1960’sTraditional and

Structural Grammar

Approaches

1990’sTeaching grammar

in Context

2000’sDaily doses of

grammar in context

1960’s• In his article, “The Promise of Transformational Grammar,” Robert B. Lees (1963) highlights

the issues of currently taught grammar practices and encourages the development of a new type of grammar instruction titled, “transformational grammar.”

• Lees criticizes traditional grammar practices which he says attempt to explain sentence structure by examining the meaning of the sentence’s individual parts. He states that the tools used to evaluate sentence structures, such as word paradigms, are too weak to help students truly learn grammar (1963, p. 328)

• Lees criticizes the use of structural grammar which he says focused on the definition and naming of sentence parts and the placement of those parts into categories (p. 329). He states that this method is incapable of helping students correct poor sentences and overall syntax

• Lees advocates for transformational grammar, which leaves behind the older methods of sentence segmentation and word classification (1963, p. 330).

• Transformational grammar allows students to transform sentences into simpler sentences which can be arrived at by using explicit grammar rules (Lees, 1963, p. 330).

• Lees defines grammar as “a set of ordered rules which characterize the infinite set of grammatical descriptions of sentences” (Lees, 1963, p. 330).

• Lees concludes that the overall teaching of grammar is not useful in teaching students to write or appreciate literature (p. 345)

• Lees is writing at a time with traditional and structural grammar instruction is used. He advocates for transformational grammar which will be picked up by grammarians in the 1970’s

1970’s• In Gary A. Sutton’s 1976 article, “Do We Need To Teach a Grammar Terminology?”,

Sutton echoes the concerns of Lees (1963).• Sutton argues that it is pointless to teach grammar terminology and that most

students dislike it.• Sutton believes that students should focus on their overall communication skills

instead.• Sutton studied whether students need to learn grammar terms in order to pass

standardized tests at the time he was writing and found that on a number of tests, grammar terms were not tested.

• Sutton argues against the current school of thought that believes students must be drilled on grammar terminology and diagramming sentences in order to be effective communicators (Sutton, 1976, p. 40).

• Sutton argues against this school of thought, stating that there’s no evidence that knowing grammar terminology helps one become a better writer, speaker, or reader (Sutton, 1976, p. 40).

• Sutton concludes that grammar is an essential part of the language arts curriculum and that there should be an emphasis on usage rather that on terminology.

1980’s• Robert de Beaugrande wrote contradicting Sutton’s argument in his 1984 article, “Yes, Teaching Grammar

Does Help”. • De Beaugrande argues that grammar must have a definition in order to teach it and that under certain

circumstances, grammar instruction can be helpful (1984, p. 66)• He argues that a learner’s grammar needs to be developed, which reflects what skilled writers do in their

own writing. This grammar should be easy to understand for the average student and should demand minimal time and effort, with only as many terms as are necessary. This grammar should also be given in steps which deliver the desired results and should connect to students’ prior skills and knowledge (de Beaugrande, 1984, p.66).

• De Beaugrande defines grammar as “all the things people do when they put words together” (1984, p. 66). He argues that this means that students already know grammar to an extent based on their acquired speaking and language skills. De Beaugrande argues that teachers should acknowledge this in their instruction

• De Beaugrande believes that we should create a “grammar-of-talk,” which provides the skills and patterns students need for writing. He believes that grammar should be connected to communication and not separated from it.

• De Beaugrande also argues for transformational grammar in which students turn sentences into questions to identify their functions and whether they are well-written or need to be corrected

• De Beaugrande echoes Lev Vygotsky and his ideas of scaffolding and the Zone of Proximal Development. De Beaugrande leads the way for ideas of contextual grammar instruction rather than explicit traditional and structural grammar instruction in which students diagram sentences and learn how to identify sentence components.

1990’s• In 1996, Stephen Tchudi and Lee Thomas wrote their article, “Taking the G-r-r-r Out of Grammar.” They

describe a “back to basics” approach being taken in English education which requires teachers to take a 1960’s-era descriptive grammar course. Tchudi and Thomas state that this is due to the pressures of legislators and the reports of both students and teachers who were never taught formal grammar (Tchudi & Thomas, 1996, p. 46).

• The authors argue that teaching parts of speech and drilling students on grammar is ineffective in teaching students to read, write, listen and speak. They do state however, that teachers should have an appropriate knowledge of syntax (Tchudi & Thomas, 1996, p. 46).

• Tchudi and Thomas (1996) describe a two year class that they developed in order to teach components of grammar. This class covered the definition of grammar, prescriptive and descriptive grammar methods in addition to transformational grammar methods.

• Tchudi and Thomas (1996) teach grammar in context. They use Lewis Carroll’s Jabberwocky poem in addition to other grammar books meant to be entertaining in addition to being informative. They also use videos to discuss communication with their students.

• The authors argue that traditional grammar concepts be taught and reviewed daily for a small portion of the class time in order for them to be used as important tools for students to utilize during their discussion and analysis (Tchudi & Thomas, 1996, p. 52).

• The authors also argue that transformational grammar can be used to explain to students how language works, rather than as a way to teach correctness and style. They don’t believe that the actual process of transforming sentences needs to be taught (Tchudi & Thomas, 1996, p. 52).

• Like de Beaugrande (1984), Tchudi and Thomas echo Lev Vygotsky and the idea that students’ background knowledge needs to be considered when teaching grammar

Early 2000’s• In 2006, Joan Berger wrote her article, “Transforming Writers through Grammar Study”

to describe a two-year program of grammar instruction in an urban Chicago middle school

• Berger (2006) explains that she and her colleagues established monthly grammar goals to introduce students to tools which would create sentence variation including compound sentences, adverbial clauses, adjectival phrases and participial phrases.

• The author advocates for two to three fifteen minute practice sessions each week to review these concepts. These grammar skills were also implemented into student writing assignments and class literature

• In order to help students memorize grammar concepts, the teachers created mnemonic devices and signal words to help students identify certain grammatical constructs. Students then practiced identifying these signal words and adding in commas etc. as required (Berger, 2006, p. 54).

• Berger acknowledges that merely one year of this type of instruction is not enough and that two years seemed sufficient in allowing students to learn everything they need to know about these specific grammar concepts (Berger, 2006, p. 53).

• Once students learned a new skill, they were required to use it in their writing• Berger describes a combination of explicit grammar instruction in which students learn a

new concept and then apply it within the context of student writing. It appears that during the current age of grammar instruction, teachers and scholars are synthesizing various forms of instruction to meet the writing needs of students.

Evaluative StatementThese authors demonstrate how grammar instruction has both evolved and remained

stagnant over the past sixty years. Traditional methods of grammar instruction, while unpopular and proven ineffective, still seem to be used by many teachers today. This is despite the introduction of other grammar instructional approaches, including transformational grammar and teaching grammar in the context of other communication skills such as reading, writing and speaking. Lees (1963) demonstrates the development of “transformational grammar” and the movement to leave traditional grammar practices emphasizing drill and definition techniques behind. Sutton (1976) echoes Lees (1963) and argues that grammar terminology does not need to be taught and that it is unhelpful for students, thought usage should be focused on. De Beaugrande (1984) believes that grammar instruction can be helpful to students, if it is taught in the context of speech and language. He also argues for transformational grammar in order for students to identify grammatical structures as they read and write. Tchudi & Thomas (1996) and Berger (2006) display grammar approaches which are taught in the context of writing and other language skills, while these grammar topics are taught in short daily lessons. These authors display how grammar reform has been a consensual topic for sixty years, with alternative methods being introduced as time progresses.

Overall, I feel that I would need a few more articles to fully grasp how grammar instruction has evolved over the years but this assignment has given me some great ideas for teaching grammar and has convinced me that grammar instruction need not be ignored nor boring. It can have a daily place in the classroom and can be beneficial to students and their overall communication skills. Spending a few minutes a day on grammar skills could have a significant impact on student writing skills over time. There are many ways to make this review engaging through methods such as grammar games and activities rather than explicit instruction and correct-all worksheets. Just like any other subject, grammar can be fun and engaging or dull and agitating. It’s up to the teacher to find creative ways to teach grammar in a way that is beneficial to students.

ReferencesBerger, J. (2006). Transforming writers through grammar study. The English Journal, 95 (5),

53-59. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30046589

De Beaugrande, R. (1984). Yes, teaching grammar does help. The English Journal, 73 (2),

66-69. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/817527

Lees, R. B. (1963). The promise of transformational grammar. The English Journal 52 (5),

327-330, 345. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/810453

Sutton, G. A. (1976). Do we need to teach a grammar terminology?. The English Journal, 65 (9),

37-40. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/815747

Tchudi, S. & Thomas, L. (1996). Taking the g-r-r-r out of grammar. The English Journal, 85 (7),

53-59. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/820506