I found this to be an interesting article. I definitely like the idea or incorporating grammar lessons into actual writing lessons. This way, the information has a place and purpose, rather than just being something to memorize. As I was reading the article, it discussed parts of grammar that I seem to have forgotten since high school, making my assumptions correct. I also think the author brings up a good point: look at how the authors of classroom literature use grammar. As students continue reading they can pick up on what they've been learning all along.
Something that sparked my interest though was the fact that if you don't teach students elements of grammar, they'll pick up on it anyway. For example, the teacher who first asked the students to write with adjectives and adverbs then did prewriting activities in order to get them thinking with their senses made me wonder what her goal was. In this case, she was impressed with how much more descriptive her students writings were (which is excellent) but that doesn't necessarily mean that now they are learning how to formulate more complex sentence structures. Neither case is worse than the other, it just depends on the outcome the teaching is hoping to achieve. The article goes on to describe fifth-graders who use participial phrases and absolutes in their poetry without ever learning what they actually are. I think this raises the question of whether students need to know the hard facts of grammar or if just being able to use them is enough.
Also, the teacher who is revising the descriptive paragraph of the boxer. She makes comments on how to "better" the writing, but does not explain how she would go about teaching these things to the student. I had trouble seeing how this was effective. I think the end goal for the writing of the student is the determining factor in these situations.
No comments:
Post a Comment