Teaching Grammar in Context, by Constance Weaver Chapter 2 response

            Chapter two of Teaching Grammar in Context, by Constance Weaver discusses the reasons for, and arguments against, teaching “traditional” or “formal” grammar. One of the reasons for teaching grammar that Weaver mentioned was that grammar is “intrinsically interesting and worthy of study” (pg. 8). However, as Weaver pointed out, and I completely agree, grammar books and most lesson plans do not make grammar at all interesting. I used to dread grammar lessons in school. I think one of the greatest challenges for a writing teacher, as well as one of the most important, is making grammar interesting for students. If a student dreads grammar, then it will make it difficult for them to truly enjoy writing.

            Weaver then recounts some research in teaching grammar that proved some interesting things. A study done throughout the 1950s and ‘60s proved that teaching formal grammar apparently did not help students “develop mental discipline, master another language,” or significantly enable them to “writer ‘correct’ English, or even recognize it.” (pg. 10). This of course begs the question, then why is it still taught? Another study by Elley done in New Zealand in 1976 looked at the difference between students taught formal grammar and a transformational group, which focused on explaining the rules of grammar that a speaker naturally uses. At the end of three years, both groups were tested. There were no significant differences in their results. The researchers concluded that a transformational grammar study was no more effective than the formal study.

            After describing the research, Weaver describes several reasons why teachers continue to teach grammar. Sometimes the teachers do not know about the research, or believe the research. Others may believe that grammar is interesting and useful in and of itself. They assume that to be a good reader and writer, a student must know grammar rules consciously. However, toddlers pick up most basic grammar rules without ever having to be taught. Some teachers teach grammar solely because it is required by the school system, or because it is just simpler than trying to find another way.

            Weaver points out a very important thing for teachers to realize, and something that has frustrated me for years. “Students can learn and apply many grammatical concepts without learning to analyze and label the parts of speech” (25). This does not solve the problem of teaching grammar, but acknowledging it would definitely cut down and focus a teacher’s task of teaching grammar. Weaver gives a few alternatives to the teaching of formal grammar, which are interesting to consider. A few that I found interesting and possibly helpful are restricting the teaching of grammar to elective classes or units, promote teaching grammar through reading, emphasize producing effective sentences rather than analyzing them, and explaining grammar through normal language and examples rather than a bombardment of grammatical terms. I think all of these would be helpful in teaching grammar today, and should all be considered by those who teach or will teach grammar.