1 Running Head: Impact of instruction and self-assessment on grammar mistakes

Effects of Systematic Instruction and Self-Assessment on Grammar Mistakes

Tom Meyers

EDU 690

April 22, 2012

University of New England

Abstract In order to increase student implementation of English editing conventions, fifth grade students at Harmony Elementary School were taught a series of mini-lessons highlighting specific grammar skills. One group of students received a checklist of these skills to apply to their subsequent writing pieces. Data was collected from a pre- and post-self assessment survey and writing samples of two groups before and after implementation of the minilessons and checklists.

Table of Contents Abstract Introduction Rationale for the Study 5 Problem Statement Research Questions Goals Hypothesis Review of the Literature Methodology Research Design Sample Selection Data Collection Plan Instruments Results Data Presentation Self-Assessment Survey Results Error Analysis Baseline Data Post-Intervention Data 22-23 5,6 6 6,7 7 7-15 15 15,16 16 17 17 17 18 18-20 20 21 2 5

4 Comparison Discussion of Findings 24,25 Limitations of Study Significance Action Plan Conclusion References Appendices Figure 1-1: Self assessment Survey Figure 1-2: Grammar Checklist 25 26 26-28 28-30 30,31 32-35 32-34 35 24

Rationale The fifth grade of a local elementary school had produced a lot of writing samples with an unacceptable number of grammar mistakes. Instruction had been given on a variety of grammar rules albeit from a somewhat disorganized perspective. Using an older, commercially available text featuring sample sentences with a hodge-podge of grammatical mistakes, the instructor would present the class with a mixture of samples of the incorrect way to edit their work. As a group, the students would fix the mistakes, add rules to a master list, and file them away into the back of a folder, usually never to be seen or referenced again. The subsequent writing pieces validated this observation. In order to remedy this appalling situation, the instructor made several decisions. One was to become more focused and intentional with his instruction. Another was to create a checklist for students to apply to each writing piece before submission. In order to gauge the success of this intervention, this research was undertaken.

Problem Statement This action research project was generated by the ongoing observations of the classroom teacher responsible for literacy instruction in the fifth grade of the Harmony Elementary School. At least thirty minutes a day were focused on the writing process. Care was given to create an atmosphere where writing was a daily component of classroom routine. The students had accepted this practice and participated, to varying degrees, willingly. Failure

6 to submit writing assignments was dealt with by loss of free time until the piece was completed. This resulted in one hundred percent completion results. An element of the process that did not seem to be showing signs of improvement was punctuation. Despite teacher demonstration of simple grammar rules, note taking of such rules, time provided in class to practice and revise (both alone and with peers), and multiple reminders from the instructor, attention to punctuation was not transferring to student work. Instruction had not been focused or organized in a meaningful fashion.

Research Questions The research questions addressed in this study examined the transfer between instruction and practice. Would a more organized, intentional plan of instruction reduce the number of grammar errors in submitted written work? What difference would having the student participate in mandatory self-editing make on the quality of the final product? Would the control group be affected in any way?

Goals The goal of this project was to increase student practice of the following grammar practices. 1. Every sentence will contain both a subject and a predicate. 2. Every sentence will begin with a capital letter and finish with an end mark. 3. Apostrophes will be used to demonstrate possession. 4. Apostrophes will be used to signify contractions. 5. Run-on sentences will be avoided.

7 6. Quotation marks will be used correctly with dialogue. 7. Commas will be employed to set off dates, separate city and state, direct addresses, introduce words and phrases, separate members of a list, in compound sentences and with direct quotes.

There was no significant opposition to this project. The principal of the school was notified and agreed to provide any support necessary. The instructor did not notify any of the students or their families of their inclusion in the process. As all students underwent the same instruction and evaluation, this study merely provided evidence of any change occurring due to a more intentional and concentrated focus on the target skills. By the end of the study, every member of the test group should be demonstrating increased usage of all targeted grammar skills.

Hypothesis The hypothesis to be examined was as follows: When students are exposed to a systematic process of grammar instruction, they will make fewer mechanical mistakes when required to actively self-assess their work.

Review of Literature The issue considered for this review involved improving the use of grammar among fifth grade elementary students. A number of peer-reviewed articles from the past ten years were retrieved from the ERIC database to explore some of the current research surrounding this topic. Articles were selected representing not only American, but also some

8 international viewpoints. Findings of the various studies support conclusions that range from strict adherence to traditional methods of teaching to the possibility of not explicitly teaching grammar rules whatsoever. Common threads among the findings included ideas extolling the virtues of collaboration, authentic settings, instructional priorities, and timely, focused feedback from both peers and the instructor. Studies looked at a variety of subjects including pre-service teachers, students, and integration of technology. Suggested interventions included changes of philosophy, practice, and classroom materials. As the integration of technology into the modern classroom continues to be very popular in todays educational landscape, one study suggested that improvement in writing would be achieved if each student were given his or her own personal laptop (Suhr, p.5). One current view is that students transition from an early elementary focus of learning to read to a later grade focus of reading to learn. A result of this transition is a deceleration in reading skill development.(Suhr, p.5). Students with low socio-economic status are especially vulnerable to the fourth-grade slump. This slowdown of development is felt across the curriculum. A previous study had shown that students who edited their writing on computers regularly did better on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System ELA test than students not employing the technology as often (Suhr, p.7). While the authors of this study are firmly behind the increased presence of the laptop in the classroom, the data from their study does not support the cost versus benefits gained argument included in much of the current debate. The study established a set of parameters that followed a group of students over several years with a treatment group receiving laptops and a control sample that does not. The difference in the performance of both groups on standardized tests, measuring standard language conventions among other

9 things, favored the group that had been issued computers, but was not considered to be statistically significant. Several of the studies revisited the role of textbooks to instruct language arts. One examined the Open Court Reading series being employed by one of the largest school districts in the country-Los Angeles Unified School District. Instructors are required to follow precise specifications of what to teach, how to teach it, practice activities, participatory structure, and expected learning outcomes (Ajayi, p.200). Ajayi contends that besides teachers, course-books are the single most powerful and increasingly pervasive tool of language art instructions in schools (p. 200). While the ideology behind such a mandate may be comprehensible- providing the same educational opportunities for all students- practical matters interfere with any such utopian ideal. Using a structured approach of instruction followed by degrees of practice, this method of grammar teaching is similar to the traditional methods used for years. As Edge and Wharton (1998) summarize, textbooks provide a secure departure point for classroom interactions. They guide discussion, facilitate homework, and provide confidence and security for teachers (Ajayi, p.203). Problems arise when any variation to the script surface from individual teachers. Teachers interpret text and instructions differently, make modifications (additions and deletions) based on experience, and bring personal biases and philosophies to all teaching situations. Little space or time exists for individual student needs to be met. A text serves more efficiently as a support and facilitative tool than a prescriptive mandate (Ajayi, p. 210). Gelderen (2006) makes the case that explicit teaching of grammatical rules may not be the most efficient use of class time for students or teachers. He contends that most

10 grammatical learning is implicit and has a greater impact on student writing than explicit knowledge of linguistic structure (Gelderen, p. 44). The gist of his argument is that content and creativity are more valuable than strict adherence to some prescribed set of rules. Consequently, spending valuable time focusing on these rules detracts from more meaningful student achievement. Students will gain the majority of the grammar knowledge they need from language usage. Improper usage of linguistic structural rules will be remedied by logical interactions within social settings. He goes so far as to suggest students have no need to learn meta-linguistic terminology- the ability to talk about the rules with appropriate language (Gelderen, p. 47). He contends rules learned in authentic speaking situations are longer lasting and more complete than those learned in explicit teaching situations out of context (Gelderen, p.48). Rules have meaning because the student is exposed to them often, and has opportunity to use them. Correct forms are signaled by feedback of adults and peers (Gelderen, p. 48). Contrast this with rules taught in the classroom that have little to no application in the real world that students seldom get an opportunity to practice. This position has serious spelling implications, but Gelderen would state these exist with or without explicit teaching. He quotes a study from Hillock (1984), The study of traditional school grammar has no effect on raising the quality of student writing. Every other focus of instruction examined in this review is stronger (Gelderen, p. 54). Gelderen would suggest that instruction time is better spent focusing on idea generation, text organization, selection of content, translation of ideas into language, evaluating, reviewing, rewriting, and editing (p.49).

11 Gelderen further suggests that unfamiliar concepts are best taught by examining text containing said concepts, then providing writing assignments designed to provide practice with the concept (p. 51). Actual uses of structures in relevant texts should guide instruction (p. 51). This is not an endorsement of the textbook and worksheet practice. Gelderen also has high praise for the social element of conferencing with both peers and instructor to discuss the best ways to communicate through text by examining individual student writing product. Several of the studies focused on the importance of having teachers adequately prepared to meet whatever needs arise in the course of literacy instructional experience. Many pre- service teachers do not feel ready to address the task of grammar instruction in the classroom setting. They therefore experience apprehension and the quality of their teaching suffers (Hadjioannou , p. 91). Weaver, Bush, Anderson, and Bills (2006) advocate instructional practices that make grammar real by purposefully and organically integrating the study of language in the processes of reading and of composing meaningful, authentic texts (p. 80). Hadjioannous study had teachers prepare by having them intern with adults who needed literacy skill help. By having the pre-service teachers practice with students who would be more demanding of explanations, the teacher trainees were forced to become more familiar with the subject matter. Dialogue and collaboration between the young teachers was an essential part of the study. The trainees kept a learning log of their own, describing what they were focusing on and how it was working out (Hadjioannou , p.96). This was an opportunity to intentionally reflect upon both their own learning and teaching

12 experience. As the study progresses, students began to notice more situations where they could apply the concepts they were trying to teach the ELLs (p.97). They (the student teachers) typically described very traditional background approaches in which grammatical phenomena were treated in a highly de-contextualized manner with an apparent focus on the memorization of trite definitions of grammatical concepts and fill-in-the-blanks worksheets as demonstrations of grammatical knowledge (Hadjioannou, p. 98). This is a blatant rebuke to any continuation of the status quo. Lessons should be addressed through meaningful situations and discussed. Then, students should be allowed to practice in an ongoing or newly assigned writing piece. Several of the studies commented on students spending so much energy getting the spelling correct, in a writing assignment, that they lose the creative thread of the piece being written (Dunn, p. 33). The writing process, while accessible to many, causes a fair amount of stress for some that interferes with their final product. This should remind instructors of the dangers of focusing too greatly on mechanics at the expense of content. One solution was to provide an alternative to the drafting process that involved methods other than text to create a first draft. Storyboards, use of art materials, and dictation were among the methods explored. Another was to create a checklist for the students to assess (self, peer, and teacher) work by. Proponents of continuing explicit grammatical instruction can be found in Singapore. It should be noted that, English instruction has been compulsory in Singapore since 1966. The Singapore Ministry of Education has emphasized explicit grammar teaching with a focus on accuracy rather than mere fluency (Ho, p. 87). Ho deals with a statistical approach that identifies specific errors in students writing work; then ensures the

13 instructor is prepared to address these same errors. Her resolution includes the reason behind the error as well as the mechanical solution to the problem(s) (p. 86). The focus of this study centers on the abilities of student teachers to identify, classify, and explain types of grammar errors in childrens writing (p. 86). Ho adopts the attitude that learning takes place through the examination of errors. She further makes the distinction between error and mistake as erratic inaccuracies versus systematic errors (p.86). Ho emphasizes the value of explaining all the issues of each problem, at least for the teachers- where is it, how can it be classified, and how can it be explained (p.89). More references to the lack of research available to support the explicit instruction of grammar are considered by Dominic Wyse. The term improvements in student writing is mentioned a lot, without definitive explanation of what this means. More evidence is offered to support the importance of learning grammar in context. The old school method was to have students parse individual sentences, underline parts of speech, etc. This was often done in short bursts during the language block of instruction each day. Judgments about writing quality need to include an evaluation of the links between purpose and audience. Other studies have used teachers to evaluate the quality of the writing of the participants (Wyse, p. 33). He quotes Weaver (1996) as saying there is little pragmatic justification for systematically teaching a descriptive or explanatory grammar of the language, whether that grammar be traditional, structural, transformational, or any other kind. Wyse subscribes to the view that childrens misconceptions reveal insights into their word choices. The use of the term error was discussed. While some required more attention to proofreading, others were critical in determining teacher intervention

14 (formative assessment tools). One author suggested that some view writing as learning a second language- there is considerably more involved than there is in speech alone. More opportunities are needed for students to discuss and explain why they are writing what they do. These discussions can occur both with peer and the instructor, individually and in small groups, if possible. Use of examples of writing in progress could be a positive way to demonstrate specific strategies and choices to the class as a group. Wyse reemphasizes the importance of conferencing. It also means teachers thinking about how they can best organize peers to support each other effectively (Wyse, p.44). Finally, effects of NCLB on the actual amounts of time, being dedicated to literacy in the classroom is considered. Since 2002, many schools have increased the amount of time spent on language arts and mathematics instruction by an average of 43% (CEP, p.23). It also noted that the other subjects have consequently seen reductions of classroom focus to account for these increases. Forty-four percent of all districts nationwide have added time for English language arts and/or math (p. 26). As noted by Suhr, many studies to date, including several done in Maine (where every seventh and eighth grade student has been issued a personal laptop), incorporate flawed methodology that adds elements of question to their conclusions. Therefore, the question of individual laptops increasing writing performance remains unanswered. There can be little doubt as to the ease computers add to the editing process. But, is it cost effective in these budget conscious times? The inclusion of international perspective is fascinating. It enables a classroom teacher to focus on elements of instruction as seen through the eyes of teachers all around the world. The United States has committed time and resources to have its young people become as literate as they can. It is up to individual

15 states, districts, and teachers to develop the most effective and efficient ways to achieve these ends. There is considerable disagreement among researchers as to some of these goals. One of these points is the current status of textbook use in grammar instruction. There is agreement among others, fortunately. Most seem to agree that the best learning takes place when previous knowledge, gained from experience from language is employed in the teaching/learning process. Most agree also that tasks need to be authentic, that is to possess some meaning for the student. The best practices involve a component of practice that is then discussed with peers and instructors. The social element of learning must not be overlooked. Finally, several of the studies agree that whether or not students receive metacognitive instruction of specific grammar rules, instructors must be well versed in the subject matter at hand in order to provide the direction and instruction necessary for optimal student development. A service learning component could easily be translated into students teaching other students, peers or otherwise. In any event, resources are only as good as the teacher presenting them (Hadjioannou, p. 102).

Methodology Research Design A student survey to assess perceived personal grammar skill was administered to the students at the onset and conclusion of the project. A checklist was also created that targeted specific grammar skills. This was made available to one group of students for selfassessment of their writing products before turning them into the instructor. A cross sample of seven fifth graders was established as a control group. This group was not expected to apply the checklist to their output. Care was taken by the instructor to include members of

16 varying ability in both groups. The three most current writing pieces were then analyzed to create a baseline for the frequency of errors occurring in the target areas for each skill. Mini-lessons addressing each particular skill, with accompanying practice exercises, were then conducted four times a week over a four-week period. Writing assignments continued at the same time. Random samples from the work were selected for demonstration purposes. This work was projected in front of the class, and group repairs were encouraged. Bar and circle graphs were utilized to demonstrate change, both with respect to individual skills and total number of targeted errors, evidenced on the next three writing assignments.

Sample Selection There were fifteen fifth graders in the class. The classroom setting contained a mix of abilities ranging from recognized gifted and talented to identified special needs students. All received instruction together at the same time. An attempt was made to identify two groups of similar abilities. One was given the checklist to use, the other benefited only from the shared instruction.

Data Collection Plan The initial data collection was the self-assessment survey for students to rate their comfort levels regarding current proficiency with the grammar targets. This same survey

17 would provide the final results after a four-week period of instruction and practice. An error analysis was conducted on groups of three submitted student writing pieces completed both before and after the intervention conducted during the project. This data was then compiled and illustrated with bar and circle graphs.

Instruments Two instruments were used to collect data for this study, not counting the artifacts themselves. One was the self-assessment survey of grammar use. The other was the grammar checklist generated by the instructor.

Results A variety of data was collected beginning and ending with a survey presented to ten of the students. The survey asked them to self-assess on the targeted grammar skills. Students ranked their proficiency for the targeted skill on a scale from one to five. The results are presented in figures 1-3.

18

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

1(n ever) 2 3 4 5(always) ru -on sen ces n ten en m d arks ap ostrop e to sh h ow cap letter to ital p ossession start sen ce ten

Figure 1

post survey
10 8 6 4 2 0 run-on sentences marks apostrophecapital letter to start end to show possession sentence 1(never) 2 3 4 5(always)

19

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 C italize p er Use ap ap rop ostro h every s ten pe en ce nus on for co traction h su ject an n s as b d verb com a with m in trod ctory u p rase/wo h rd 1 ever) (n 2 3 4 5 (always)

Figure 2

pos s t urvey
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 C italize p er ap ap rop Use ostrop eevery sen ce com with h ten ma n n ou s for con traction has su ject an in u s b d trod ctory verb p rase/word h

1(n ever) 2 3 4 5(always)

20

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 comma separate comma before word choice members of conjunction in a a list compound sentence

1(never) 2 3 4 5(always)

Figure 3

post survey 1 2 1 0 8 6 4 2 0

1 (never) 2 3 4
com as ra m epa te m bersofalis em t com abefore m conjunctionina com pounds entence wordchoice

5 (alw ays)

Error Analysis A baseline sample consisting of three writing pieces was then evaluated using the checklist that was provided as part of the intervention strategy. The results of this

21 examination may be found in figure A. The graph shows the number of error types compared to one another.
cap letters to start sen ce ital ten en m d ark ru -on n ap ostrop e for p h ossession ap ostrop e for contraction h s su ject/p icate b red cap italize p er n n rop ou s com a with in u m trod ctory p rase h com a sep m aratin m b of list g em ers com a b m efore conju ction in n com ou dsen ce p n ten wordch oice

Figure A

Intervention followed over the course of several weeks and three writing prompts were assessed using the same criteria. A group of five students were selected to self-edit with the aid of a checklist. The other five were encouraged to do the same but were not provided with a hard copy of the checklist. The resulting comparison of errors can be seen in figures B (using checklist), C (no checklist), and D.

22
c pita lettersto s rt a l ta s entenc e end ma rk run-on a trophe for pos es ion pos s s a trophe for c pos ontra tions c s ubjec t/predic te a c pita proper nouns a lize c ommawith introduc tory phra e s c ommas ra epa ting membersof lis t c ommabefore c onjunc tion in c ompound s entenc e word c e hoic S e 12 lic

With checklist

Figure B

W ithout checklist

cap letters to start sen ce ital ten en m d ark ru -on n ap ostrop e for p h ossession ap ostrop e for con h tractions su ject/p icate b red cap italize p er nou s rop n com a with in u m trod ctory p rase h com a sep m aratin m b of list g em ers com a b m efore con n ju ction in com ou d p n sen ce ten word ch oice

Figure C

23

30 25 20 15 10 5 0
capital letters to start sentence end mark run-on apostrophe for possession apostrophe for contractions subject/predicate capitalize proper nouns with introductory separatingcomma before conjunction choice comma comma members word phrase of list in compound sentence

with checklist without checklist

Figure D

24 The most useful way to compare the data may be by contrasting baseline and postintervention results as shown in figure E.

120 100 80 60 40 20 0
capital letters torun-on start sentence apostrophe for capitalize proper comma separating choice word contractions nouns members of list

baseline

post intervention

Figure E

Discussion of Findings There was a decrease in the frequency of targeted grammar errors in several of the categories. After the interventions, there were significant decreases in the number of errors with run-on sentences, apostrophe use with contractions, and comma usage to set off introductory phrases and before a conjunction in a compound sentence. There was an increase in the number of errors connected to word choice. The group that used the

25 checklist had fewer mistakes than the group that did not in the areas of end mark use, runon sentence creation and using apostrophes for possession. Those without the checklist had fewer mistakes with fragments and using commas to set off an introductory word or phrase. Some areas identified as targets should not have been included. There was already near mastery such as the category of beginning every sentence with a capital letter. Several other areas of concern emerged as ready for instructor intervention, such as subject-verb agreement and correct application of noun markers. Whether or not it is an accurate indicator, the self-assessment surveys reveal an increased perception of more grammar use than existed pre-intervention. Limits of Study Even though an attempt was made to identify two groups of similar abilities, the writing products of members of the two groups were very difficult to compare. The amount of effort from each student varied greatly on different pieces. One piece might have had twenty errors in eight pages while another might have had two errors in three paragraphs. Another problem arose when one member of a group committed a disproportionate number of a particular type of error. Since the number of errors was sorted by group, the mistakes of an individual certainly skewed the data. Finally, each writing piece was on a different subject and may have represented a different style. For example, there were narrative, descriptive, and persuasive pieces among those assigned. Each student performed differently according to the demands of each piece. Another lack of focus involved attention to individual growth. Data was not compared as to incidence of specific mistakes pre- and post-intervention from an individual student perspective.

26 Significance The intention of the project was to get the students to pay more attention to the editing component of the writing process. An unintended result was more attention to the process as a whole. Subsequently, the amount of writing and the attitude connected with it, by the entire class increased. This was not measured and may be an issue for further consideration. Since writing is a major component in many high-stakes tests in the nation, student performance is key to future success for all concerned.

Action Plan The problem addressed at the outset of this project was related to the editing process of written work completed in the fifth grade. It was chosen as a focus due to the low rate of usage of grammar concepts previously introduced by the instructor. The intervention had several steps. First, the instructor created a checklist to identify a number of grammar skills to be targeted. Next, a survey was given to the class requesting the students to self-assess their proficiency with the skills. Then, two groups of students were selected to receive, or not, the checklist. Those chosen to receive the list were given a small group lesson detailing exactly what it was for and how it should be used. Each student selected would be responsible for applying the items on the checklist to their writing piece before submission. The checklist was then to be handed in along with the piece. The entire class was to receive more intentional specific grammar instruction, focusing on the target skills, created from samples of student work handed in from the most recent assignments. A post-project retaking of the survey provides the final data of the study.

27 As a result of this preliminary experience, several changes in the plan are recommended. The most obvious concerns the makeup of the checklist. It quickly became apparent that several of the targeted skills were not major concerns. Similarly, several types of errors emerged that had not been identified. Changing the makeup of the checklist is a simple correction. By adding a brief session to discuss the change of lineup with the students, the process should continue to flow. The checklist should be a dynamic document, growing and shrinking to fit the needs of each class or even each individual student. Another beneficial component would be the inclusion of individual conferencing between instructor and student. There was some peer editing, but the value of that activity was not able to be determined. As the instructor evaluates each writing piece, specific issues arise pertinent to each student. Being able to discuss concerns and appreciation of their work should be a benefit to everyone involved. It would also provide opportunity to reinforce any skill acquisition still necessary. While the concept of such focused analysis seems attractive, the logistics of application will have to be worked out by each instructor in the best manner they deem appropriate. The results of the data were positive enough to suggest implementation of the list to the whole group, not just a sample. The attitude of the students selected to pilot the checklist was unexpected. Not only was there a complete lack of protest, for what could have been interpreted as extra work, but there were also requests for new checklists when the instructor failed to provide them for a new assignment. In addition, the students were enthusiastic to apply the list to a peers work, as well. Obviously, a concrete method to help focus on grammar targets was felt to be beneficial by this group. Yet another instructional

28 strategy that could be employed, would be having the students intentionally generate some writing with a mistake and having a peer review and repair. For example, asking the students to write a run-on sentence, then having them exchange with a neighbor to fix. The whole project is predicated on notions of immediate concern and adaptation. By keeping the demonstration samples current, the most pressing needs may be addressed in a timely fashion. As he analyzes each piece, the instructor is free to choose whatever is deemed to be the skill most in need of repair at the moment. He also gets the opportunity to highlight exemplary work. By using extracts from actual student submissions, the students are able to identify with the lesson more personally than by focusing on unrelated examples from some secondary source. Including an element of discussion with the students will alert them to what skills need to continue to improve and what skills seem to be coming under mastery. It is a simple manner to relate which skills are being focused on to parents in any version of weekly communication or progress report the instructor employs. Having the data in hand also makes it simple for an instructor to keep administrators in the loop with regards to what is currently being instructed in the classroom and why. Any results or concerns could easily be brought to the attention of colleagues during staff or plc meetings. Feedback and subsequent modification, when desired, should be quite attainable in this model. Conclusion The assumption underlying this project was not grounded in rocket science. A more organized, thoughtful approach to grammar instruction should have resulted in better student performance. Any work done out of context was brief and specific. The majority of the effort was focused on the construction of meaning in the most fluent,

29 accurate, efficient, and creative way possible. The means undertaken to achieve this goal were previously untried by the instructor. Having some data support the hypothesis was gratifying. However, not all mistakes were rectified. It is unclear as to whether or not the level of improvement was significant. No hard statistical guideline was established to decide whether gains validated the effort expended. The way the data was collected was inherently flawed. The researcher was unable to devise a system to compare written work evenly. Perhaps, if sample size were altered to represent a certain number of words, as opposed to complete writing pieces, a more accurate way of comparison could be established. However, in the end, what resulted were a more involved examination and focus on the entire writing process. The instructor devoted more attention to individual strengths and weaknesses than ever before. This attention provided material for future mini-lessons to address need as well as opportunity to celebrate individual success. The increased degree of student involvement and interest was more than worth the price of admission. Students who had not turned in a single piece all year were suddenly engaged. The members using the checklist began requesting new copies of it for each new assignment. If all parties concerned spent more of their energy and skill trying to compose meaningful, creative text, then this project was well undertaken. The instructor was also gratified to observe the attention level during times of group discussion of student-generated excerpts of current work. It would make good practice to continue dissection of what did and did not work following each assignment. The students seemed to enjoy the challenge of attempting to repair the mistakes they saw projected on the Smartboard. By saving both the mistakes and the repairs, the instructor

30 may begin to build some teaching material for future classes, as well as allowing students to revisit any of the material should the need arise. It is time consuming and labor intensive. Therefore, it would probably be the best idea to focus on only one or two targets each week. An area yet to be explored, involves the potential of coupling this whole process with composition on a computer. While it certainly should not dominate, the proper use of grammar has a place in writing instruction.

References

Ajayi, L. (2006). Teachers Needs and Predesigned Instructional Practices: An Analysis of a Reading/Language Arts Coursebook for a Second Grade Class. Reading Improvement, 42, 200-210.

Center on Education Policy. (2008). Instructional Time in Elementary Schools: A Closer Look at Changes for Specific Subjects. 109, 23-27.

Dunn, M. & Finley, S. (2010). Childrens Struggles with the Writing Process. Multicultural Education, 18, 33-41.

Gelderen, A. (2006). What we know without knowing it: Sense and nonsense in respect

31 of linguistic reflection for students in elementary and secondary education. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 5, 44-54.

Hadjioannou, X. & Hutchinson, M. (2010). Putting the G back in English: Preparing preservice teachers to teach grammar. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 9, 90-105.

Ho, C. (2008). Towards Exploring Errors in Grammar: A Systematic Approach for Language Teachers. TESL Canada Journal, 25, 85-100.

Suhr, K., Hernandez, D., Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2010). Laptops and FourthGrade Literacy: Assisting the Jump over the Fourth-Grade Slump. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9, 5-39.

Wyse, D. (2006). Pupils word choices and the teaching of grammar. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36, 31-47.

Appendices

32

Student Self Assessment Survey

Please fill out the following as well as you can.

I create run-on sentences.

1 nev

5 always

er

I use punctuation at the end of a sentence.

1 nev

5 always

er

I use apostrophes to show possession.

1 nev

5 always

33

er

I use a capital letter at the start of a sentence.

1 nev

5 always

er

I capitalize proper nouns.

1 nev

5 always

er

I use an apostrophe when I write a contraction.

1 nev

5 always

er

Every sentence has a subject and a verb.

34

1 nev

5 always

er

I use a comma with introductory phrases and words.

1 nev

5 always

er

I use commas to separate the members of a list

1 nev

5 always

er

I use a comma before a conjunction in a compound sentence.

1 nev

5 always

er

35 I check my work to be sure it makes sense (word choice).

1 nev

5 always

er

Figure 1-1 Self-Assessment Survey

36

Figure 1-2

Edit Checklist