In my previous post, I began by retelling a brief story to provide readers with insight to my motivation for studying grammar. I then shared the strategies I used for developing my grammar knowledge so I could better support students learning the discipline. While sharing some strategies, I mentioned a resource, (englishpage.com) that I found useful in building my knowledge. I concluded the post by identifying three insights I gained from the experience that I believe could be useful for other teachers.
In this post, I’ll share an experience that prompted me to reconsider how I teach grammar. I’ll also share insights and considerations for teaching grammar using a culturally relevant pedagogical approach (CRP); with a specific focus on the building students’ cultural competencies tenet found in CRP framework. My goal is to help teachers affirm and integrate the diverse grammar competencies of the students they teach. My hope is that this work helps to aid students in developing their understanding of how to leverage their cultural knowledge combined with their knowledge of grammars to compose diverse texts for diverse audiences.
Last year, I attended a professional learning session on how to teach grammar and syntax to students in intermediate grades. I was there to support a colleague in the central literacy department who facilitated the session. During the session my colleague shared the article, The Histories and Mysteries of Grammar: Supporting Elementary Teachers in the Time of the Common Core by Lauren B. Gartland and Laura B. Smolkin (2016). She then provided time for educators to read the article then engage in discussion. To participate in the activity, I too read the article and engaged in the discussions.
While reading, I learned that Gartland and Smolkin define grammar as a set of rules to explain how a system operates. In a language, this system typically refers to syntax, morphology, and semantics. This definition along with a few additional details helped to consolidate my understanding of grammar as the vocabulary speakers and writers employ to create well-formed sentences to effectively communicate their ideas to intended audiences.
Yet it was their definitions of descriptive and prescriptive grammars that provided the essential insight I needed to rethink teaching grammar from a CRP stance. Gartland and Smolkin define descriptive grammars as presenting language as it is used by speakers in different contexts and settings, while prescriptive grammars describe how people should speak and write. I quote these researchers at length below because it was the following passage that prompted me to shift my thinking. They write,
“Prescriptive grammars privilege standard English (SE) as the correct variety of English, whereas descriptive grammars characterize SE as one variety of English (albeit an important one) without valuing it above others. SE is the type of grammar presented in the Common Core [or the revised Grades 1 – 8 Language curriculum (2023)] because it is the grammar that’s associated with long-term success in public schools, completion of higher education, and employment with opportunities in professional advancement and financial rewards. Adding this type of grammar to children’s repertoires can open the door to educational success and socioeconomic mobility. The word adding is where much of the controversy lies. If we can come to view SE as appropriate to employ in particular settings and situations and other forms as appropriate for other situations, we move away from the idea that there is a single correct way to speak and write. And we move into the realm of descriptive grammars; this recognition of the legitimacy of other dialects will be the key to successful grammar instruction” (Gartland and Smoklin, 2016).
What resonated with me from this passage was the additional clarification of descriptive and prescriptive grammars, along with the reasons that prescriptive grammars are privileged.
I also appreciated the call for teachers to move away from the idea that there is a single correct way to speak and write. Rather appropriate ways depending on the setting, situation, and I’ll add audience. Thinking about the diverse languages, cultures, identities, and values of the students and teachers with whom I work, two questions that immediately emerged for me were: Who decides what is considered an appropriate way to speak and write for the setting, situation, and audience? And how do those individuals and groups decide? I share these questions for additional considerations others like me may want to ponder as they continue the work of applying CRP approaches to their language programs in general and grammar programs specifically.
Additionally, I valued the recognition and legitimization of non-standard English dialects, and I’ll add other languages in school, in addition to offering opportunities for students to utilize them when speaking and writing. Too often in my former role as a special education support teacher, I recall sitting in meetings with some educators including some administrators who relegated the English language skills of immigrant children from Caribbean nations inferior with the English language learner (ELL) label. When I questioned why the ELL label was ascribed to these students when English was the only language they spoke, the response was often something about dialect, accent, and questioning the quality of education prior to entering Ontario’s publicly funded school system. While I understood that standard English is the language of instruction in Ontario’s publicly funded school system, and that the students mentioned above may have benefited from some remediation from entering a different education system, my concern emerged from the label being ascribed to the students without consulting the student or parent(s)/guardian(s) and without a clear explanation to both. I believe that it is in the absence of choice and clear explanations that systems of education exact harm on racialized and vulnerable student populations that leads to a distrust of the system that is meant to serve and protect students.
Finally, I respected the evidence that Gartland and Smolkin shared to refute claims that children need to shed their uses of descriptive grammars in school to experience academic achievement. This evidence also highlighted the value of students maintaining and further developing their descriptive grammars while adding prescriptive grammars to their repertories. Inviting and teaching students to utilize their knowledge of descriptive grammars in school is one way that I believe educators can apply a CRP approach to their instructions.
Beyond understanding the difference between prescriptive and descriptive grammars and the place for both in school, the use of mentor texts is an additional way to support explicit instruction in both grammars. With the use of mentor texts students see how skilled and published writers employ the use of descriptive and prescriptive grammars to convey their ideas to their intended audiences.
Months later, in a series of professional learning sessions I facilitated for teachers working with students in grades 6, 7, 8, I shared and discussed the Gartland and Smolkin article. I then modeled how using excerpts from a book like True True (2023) by Don P. Hooper could support providing students with explicit examples of descriptive and prescriptive grammars in use.
During the session I first shared that Hooper employs the use of Jamaican patois, Hattian Creole, African American English, and standard English to tell the fictional story of Gill. I then provided a brief synopsis of the book where I explained that Gill is 17-year-old high school student from Jamaican descent who lives in Brooklyn, New York with his family. He is a devoted grandson, a loyal friend, and he has a passion for three things: coding, robotics, and karate. The story follows Gill as he transitions to an elite robotics school on the upper east side in Manhattan, the anti-Black racism he experiences while attending the school, and the physical and psychological toll that anti-Black racism takes on him as he seeks more equitable learning conditions.
I then read and analyzed a passage where Hooper utilizes descriptive grammars found in Jamaican patois and standard English to add a layer of depth and meaning to the story. I concluded this portion of the session by inviting teachers to reconsider how they currently teach grammar by thinking about how they could invite students to leverage their cultural competencies found in their knowledge of descriptive grammars along with their knowledge of prescriptive grammars to better communicate their written ideas to diverse audiences.
To read Part 1 and Part 2 click below:
Part 1: Teaching Grammar Part I: Reflecting on My Lack of Experiences Learning Grammar in School
Part 2: Teaching Grammar Part II: Closing Gaps in My Grammar Knowledge