It is hard to take these researchers seriously though when one considers that their methods are questionable. How can there be a controlling factor when every writer is unique? He/she has come from varying socioeconomic backgrounds, from different localities, from different schools of thought. This variable, the writer variable, is never constant; therefore the test results are always inconsistent. In addition, the researchers are biased towards their results. They want to prove that grammar is irrelevant, so it is possible their outcomes are swayed to fit their beliefs.
But putting their gross abuse of the scientific method aside, grammar is at the very core of composition. It is the study of language at its most fundamental level, and since it is a writer’s job to manipulate that language to affect his/her reader in a specific way, it stands to reason that the writer needs to master it in order to be effective. Grammar, the mechanics and usage of language, is the skeleton that holds the body of language up. If a person is dedicated to learning how to write well, he/she needs to learn how to put that skeleton together bone by bone to his/her advantage. Writing is a craft, and it is both sloppy and lazy to refuse to learn every single aspect of the discipline.
I am not suggesting that one master grammar before attempting to write. Hartwell wisely points out that you wouldn’t tell someone to master physics and momentum before letting them try their hand at pool, nor would you tell them to get a degree in automotive engineering before letting them drive a car (571). Certainly, I am no angel when it comes to grammar and am continuously learning new rules myself. But I believe it is a work in progress and it is best done by practice. In “The Language of Exclusion,” Mike Rose states:
“Educational psychologists had demonstrated that simply memorizing rules of grammar and usage had no discernable effect on the quality of student writing. What was needed was application of those rules through practice provided by drills and exercises. The theoretical underpinning was expressed in terms of “habit formation” and “habit strength,” the resilience of an “acquired response” being dependent on the power and number of reinforcements. The logic was neat: specify a desired linguistic behavior as precisely as possible (e.g., the proper use of the pronouns “he” and “him”) and construct opportunities to practice it. The more practice, the more the linguistic habit will take hold.” (589)
The basics must be taught, and they should be taught using the method above. Practice makes perfect. You may not expect one to get an automotive degree to drive a car, but you better teach them where the gas pedal and brakes are before you hand them the keys.
Grammar is definitely important, it actually allows for stylistic choices. Knowing grammar gives a writer power by allowing them to take advantage of structure. We also discussed in class that knowing the rules of grammar provides the opportunity for breaking those rules to reach a desired goal. Many great writers have bent the rules of grammar to draw attention of certain ideas. I think we do need to be careful with grammar instruction. We don't want to discourage students or allow it limit a students ideas.
ReplyDeleteWhenever we begin a discussion of grammar, I always think of our class discussion on the night we turned in the rough drafts of our pedagogy statment. Most of us were trying to be cool,creative teachers by stating that grammar was not important to us. Clearly,we have all proved that this is untrue. Like Katie and Jo, I also believe that grammar is vital to an understanding of how to effectively communicate through writing. Do you think that the focus on grammar (which is largely a revision issue)was displaced during the product/process debate when theorists began focusing on invention? I think that most of us would agree that we do not usually think about grammar during the first stages of the writing process. Grammar is ironed out during the revision process. With a process-based pedagogy, what happens to the important issues that occur in the revision stages?
ReplyDeleteThank you both for commenting. You had excellent points. Jennifer, I do remember our conversation that night. Isn't it funny that I, a self-proclaimed creative writer, am advocating the more traditional approach to writing? Shouldn't I be on the opposing end of the spectrum?
ReplyDeleteI am one of those rare exceptions because I do consider grammar as I write. Like now, for example. I tried to write a grammatically incorrect sentence above and changed it immediately. I do that because I don't want anything to get in the way of effectively communicating with the world, and grammar is one of the easiest things to change.
But Jo, you're right. I don't want it to get in the way of creativity. Still, as I stated above, writers must master the basics before they can deviate. My undergraduate adviser, David Keplinger, constantly drilled into me the importance of NOT shooting from the hip. Straying from the rules is cool when you know what you're doing, like in Shakespeare's case. But when you're doing it simply out of inexperience, it's just sloppy. I want to be a genius on purpose, not on accident.