# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Center for the Professional Education of Teachers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Envision contextualized, meaningful grammar instruction that links to authentic reading and writing.

When I began my first year of teaching English Language Arts, I was expected to teach my students skills that fell under three large umbrellas: reading, writing, and language. I quickly learned that "language" encompassed the teaching of vocabulary, punctuation & capitalization rules, and, you guessed it, the "teaching of grammar."

In my teacher education program, I took no classes on the teaching of grammar. I felt somewhat confident about teaching reading and writing, but completely lost when it came to the teaching of grammar. I didn't even have my own experiences of learning grammar as a student to fall back on; my only formal grammar instruction was a series of SchoolHouse Rock videos and long-gone worksheets from elementary school.

In an effort to increase my confidence and improve my own practice, I began to read about the history of grammar instruction. I discovered that I was not the only one who felt an overwhelming sense of uncertainty about the teaching of grammar. The question of grammar's importance has vexed people for centuries and continues to vex people today: what to teach, how to teach it, why to teach it. So, where did the practice of teaching grammar co me from? And what could grammar instruction look like in the 21st century classroom?

A very brief history of teaching grammar

In the eighteenth century, the study of grammar was perceived as an exercise in mental discipline, intended to train the mental faculties of memory and reason (Applebee, 1974; Scholes, 1998). Grammar study focused on the learning of rules and their application.

By the early nineteenth century, studies in specifically English grammar became a prerequisite for higher studies, not to be continued in college. Lindley Murray, often referred to as the father of English grammar, published Murray's Grammar in 1795 and established many rules of "proper" use of the English language. Grammarians like Adam Smith, David Hume, Lord Kames, and Hugh Blair advocated for grammar instruction connected with the expressions of rhetoric: diction, style, figurative language, and so on. By the end of the nineteenth century, grammar continued to have a place alongside rhetoric, literary history, oratory, and spelling in schools and in colleges.

In the early twentieth century, many scholars at colleges and universities abandoned grammar instruction because they did not believe in its "scientific value." Simultaneously, grammar underwent a revival in school classrooms because teachers thought it would be a useful technique for studying literature and for acquiring foreign languages.

In the latter part of the twentieth century, grammar instruction transformed. Rather than teach grammar skills in isolation from grammar books, scholars argued that the teaching of grammar does not serve any practical purpose for most students, and that it does not improve reading, speaking, writing, or even editing for the majority of students (Applebee).

The research: spotlight on a grammar case study

In "Examining A Grammar Course: The Rationale and the Result" (1980), Finlay McQuade conducted a qualitative research study of his own course entitled "Editorial Skills." McQuade humbly admitted that he had read research papers that argued against the discrete instruction of grammar skills, but that he continued to teach an elective course for high school juniors wholly devoted to the practice. In the study, McQuade discovered that his students' scores on a grammar post-test were actually lower than their scores on a grammar pre-test for the course. He concluded, after this first-hand experience, that formal, discrete grammar instruction is ineffective and should be abandoned as a classroom practice.

Citing McQuade, Constance Weaver, the author of Teaching Grammar in Context (1996), argued that we should teach aspects of grammar that are most relevant to writing, such as subject-verb agreement, sentence combining, and punctuation. Significantly, Weaver asserted that the most effective grammar instruction must arise organically from students' own writing: "teaching grammar in the context of writing works far better than teaching grammar as a formal system."

The main takeaway from McQuade and Weaver's research is that grammar instruction must be contextualized and meaningful within students' reading and writing. Grammar instruction should not be the discrete learning of grammatical "rules" because these rules do not translate into a superior command of language or communication.

Recommendations for 21st century learning

These recommendations derive originally from Constance Weaver's writings (1996) that were then expanded upon recently by Jeff Anderson, a disciple of Weaver's work (2017; 2021). They strive to make grammar instruction both contextualized and meaningful.

In the early 21st century, the question of how best to teach a standard English grammar shifted away from methods. Instead, scholars began to question whether a notion of "proper grammar" should exist at all. In "Why Revitalize Grammar?" (2003), Patricia Dunn and Kenneth Lindbloom argued that the teaching of a standardized grammar reflects a discriminatory power system that excludes other dialects and cultures. They believe our classrooms should be spaces of multiple literacies, celebrating a diversity of dialects.

With that said, the reality is that many teachers are expected to teach - or want to teach - their students "grammar." Perhaps their rationale for doing so is similar to reasons from the past: it builds "mental discipline" because students have to learn and apply linguistic rules; it shows that one comes from a certain educational background, one that encompassed the learning of Standard English Grammar; it helps students to acquire new languages and to closely study literature.

I think it's important to note this tension between research and practice when it comes to the teaching of grammar. Since the 20th century, scholars like McQuade and Weaver have argued against the discrete teaching of grammar rules in the classroom, arguing that they are entirely ineffective and possibly detrimental to students' learning. Yet, in practice, many teachers, including myself, are expected to teach grammatical skills.
​
Without dismissing or diminishing this tension, I hope that these recommendations will aid in-service teachers as they continue to envision what grammar instruction can look like in the 21st century classroom.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teaching Grammar in the 21st Century Classroom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Envision contextualized, meaningful grammar instruction that links to authentic reading and writing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Grammar is one of those subjects that people either love or hate. Like math, it can intimidate parents who doubt their own grasp of the subject, let alone their ability to teach it to their children. We've been drilled on "THE RULES" for years and most of us have very little to show for it. How can we possibly teach our kids?

While not all of us can solve for x, or use the point-slope formula to find the equation for a line (what?), we all know grammar. If you speak a language, you know the grammar of that language, or at least some approximation of grammar. You know at least some of the rules.

Don't believe me? Read these sentences:

* Dad ate pizza.
* Ate pizza Dad.
* Pizza ate Dad.

These three sentences contain the same three words, but they mean very different things. In the first sentence, Dad had a satisfying dinner. Good for Dad! The second is gibberish and doesn't make any sense. And as for the third, even very young children can tell you that the idea of the pizza eating Dad is funny and silly! That's grammar. That's knowing the difference between a subject and a direct object, even if you don't have the words to communicate what you know.

Why is Grammar Important?

Why is grammar important, then? We are a social species. To communicate with other English speakers in an effective way, we must have a sense of "the rules," even if we only use them as guidelines. It's like riding a bicycle. Once we've learned how to ride a bike, we don't continuously think about balance, steering, pedaling and - most importantly - how to brake, but we have a sense of what we need to do to get to our destination, whether around the corner or to the other side of the continent. Like riding a bike, once we have mastered the parts of speech and their jobs, grammar comes naturally.

Did you know that there are only nine parts of speech? What?! But we learned grammar over and over and over for literally years! There must be more! Nope, honest. Only nine. Once you know those nine, you know all of them. These parts of speech, like people, can have different jobs in a sentence, or they may always do the same one. For instance, a noun can be a subject, a direct or indirect object, or the object of a preposition; however, an article only has one job: being an article. Many grammar programs overcomplicate instruction by providing extraneous information that doesn't immediately provide a benefit to the student in their writing and understanding.

Grammar Shouldn't Be Complicated

We believe that grammar shouldn't be complicated. Nine parts of speech that we use regularly in the same patterns and combinations: that's English. The first part of Analytical Grammar identifies these parts of speech and their common roles. The second section gets a little more fancy, explaining phrases and clauses and how they can take your writing up a notch.

Once we have a handle on parts of speech and their jobs, the third and final part of Analytical Grammar layers on some punctuation guidelines. Think of punctuation as road signs to guide your readers along, so they know when to pause, to get excited, or to wonder with you.

Now that you know the parts of speech, their jobs, and how they function in phrases and clauses, punctuation is a piece of cake. Once these three sections are completed, a student will know everything they need to know to effectively use and understand written English. By occasionally reviewing what they have learned with the help of supplementary Reinforcement and Review workbooks, they can retain their skills to become better communicators in their higher education and future careers.

Much like Demme Learning's Math-U-See has empowered parents for almost 30 years to teach math all the way through high school, Analytical Grammar strips down grammar to usable, understandable pieces, then gives instructors and students the language and tools necessary to build a strong foundation for the future.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
You Don’t Need to Be a Grammar Expert to Teach It

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Grammar is one of those subjects that people either love or hate. Like math, it can intimidate parents who doubt their own grasp of the subject, let alone their ability to teach it to their children. We’ve been drilled on “THE RULES” for years and most of us have very little to show for it. How can we possibly teach our kids?

# data[].attributes.headline
Curriculum - short videos and blurbs that are helpful

# data[].attributes.subject
Curriculum - short videos and blurbs that are helpful

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teaching Grammar: A Guide to Successful Grammar Instruction | Sadlier

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Good grammar instruction is systematic and contextualized in reading and writing. Learn best practices and resources for teaching grammar in our guide.

# data[].attributes.headline
Possible Lesson Sequence (adapt to YOUR kids!)

# data[].attributes.subject
Possible Lesson Sequence (adapt to YOUR kids!)

# data[].attributes.body
Free resource from Stenhouse