In the Middle (Atwell, Nancy)
Thank you, Adam, for letting me come so early in the school year!
By trial and error and with help from a middle school student, I found Adam Holt’s classroom. A mixture of excitement and curiosity raised and sharpened my attention level. Not having taught middle school students and suffering from amnesia of being a middle school student, I wanted to see how middle school students behave, speak, and learn. Of course, thirty minutes of observation gave me only a sliver of the whole picture.
The students reviewed how to study for an upcoming quiz. Study strategies, such as looking over the rules, watching a School House Rock video, making games, and memorizing, were generated by the students. I’ve noticed, regardless of the grade level, students need concrete examples of study skills and Adam expertly anticipated them. Later, the students paired up to quiz each other on the “super sentences” completed for homework. The Interactive aspect of this exercise allowed the students to give immediate feedback on the benefit of studying with a partner.
Let me digress here. How to teach grammar was a big debate when I first began teaching. I taught third graders, and the consensus was to teach grammar in an authentic format. The instructional leaders, at the time, promoted teaching grammar using the student’s writing; a method to which I still concur. However, as a new teacher, I was confused and overwhelmed, trying to individualize the lessons.
Luckily, the pedagogy of a balanced literacy program came to the rescue. Within the context of a balanced literacy curriculum, a dose of direct grammar instruction and its application in student writing reached a middle ground on teaching grammar. Adam’s students were obviously getting both direct grammar instruction and the opportunity to apply what they learned in their writings. Sometimes being “in the middle” is a good place.
2 comments:
I agree with your thoughts on a balanced approach to teaching grammar. It is, after all, the "middle language" that we can speak with our students when needed. I'd rather say "strengthen your verbs and limit your adverbs" when students can identify the parts of speech in discussion. I'm glad you found the room; hopefully I can find yours soon. You're welcome back whenever you like!
I, too, agree with a balanced approach. However, to flesh this out a bit, I think we need to identify components of the debate a wee more.
It seems to me that the key lines of division within grammar instruction (meaning syntax, word choice, usage, punctuation, and even spelling—a catch-all term that most English language-arts teachers use to describe the “stuff” that we “have to , but don’t want to” teach) have been drawn between those who favor part to whole and whole to part instruction. As a brief aside… isn’t this much akin to the graphophonic (phonics-based) and whole language reading debate? Anyway, here is my take on the assumptions of both positions:
Advocates of part to whole instruction believe that front-loading instruction in the discrete parts of language will best enable students to apply these parts to the whole process of writing. Following are the key components of this inductive approach.
1. Memorization of the key terminology and definitions of grammar to provide a common language of instruction.
2. Identification of grammatical constructions leads to application.
3. Familiarity with the rules of grammar leads to correct application.
4. Teaching the components of sentence construction leads to application.
5. Distrust of one’s own oral language as a grammatical filter .
Advocates of whole to part instruction believe that back-loading instruction in the discrete parts of language, as is determined by needs of the writing task, will best enable students to write fluently and meaningfully. Following are the key components of this deductive approach.
1. Minimal memorization of the key terminology and definitions of grammar and minimal practice in identification of grammatical constructions.
2. Connection to one’s oral language is essential to inform fluent and effective writing.
3. Reading and listening to exemplary literature and poetry provides the models that students need to mimic and revise as they develop their own writing style.
4. Minimal error analysis.
5. Teaching writing as a process with a focus on coherence will best enable students to apply the discreet parts such as subjects, predicates, parts of speech, phrases, clauses, sentences, and transitions to say something meaningful.
Of course, how teachers align themselves within the Great Grammar Debate (See http://penningtonpublishing.com/blog/grammar_mechanics/the-great-grammar-debate/) is not necessarily an "either-or" decision. Most teachers apply bits and pieces of each approach to teaching grammar. I take a stab on how to integrate the inductive and deductive approaches in How to Integrate Grammar and Writing Instruction (See http://penningtonpublishing.com/blog/grammar_mechanics/how-to-integrate-grammar-and-writing-instruction/).
Post a Comment