down whenever they hear the word “grammar”—successes are always
hard-won. And although a lengthy critique of popular culture isn’t appropriate
here, it is clear that our society has lost the interest in language that led to the ex-
ploration of grammar in the first place. The focus today is on entertainment to
such a degree that society expects even learning to be “fun,” an attitude that
trivializes the hard work necessary to master any subject (see Williams, 2002).
Large numbers of students automatically label grammar study as “stupid” or a
“waste of time”—expressions that are commonly applied today to anything
that is difficult. Society does not make our job easier when, in the name of
anti-elitism, we see Standard English ridiculed in the media and nonstandard
English, with its vulgarisms and slang, celebrated.
Learning Outcomes
Any meaningful discussion of teaching grammar must begin by considering
learning outcomes. Learning outcomes specify what students will know or be
able to do after instruction, and they require that wematch instruction to expected
outcomes. Learning outcomes always are linked tooutcomes assessment.
Let’s consider a simple example. When teaching children addition, teachers
commonly use objects such as blocks to introduce the idea of putting items into
groups. The goal is to help students understand how addition is a grouping pro-
cedure, and the learning outcome is that they will be able to add 2 + 2 and get 4.
Instruction might involve asking students to take two red blocks, put them with
two yellow blocks, and then count the total number of blocks. If the instruction
is well grounded and successful, students will, indeed, learn addition, which
we would assess by asking them to add some numbers.
But there are many ways to teach addition, and we can easily imagine some
that are ineffective because they are based on flawed theory or faulty assump-
tions about what contributes to learning how to add. For example, a teacher
might propose that understanding the shapes of numbers is related to addi-
tion. In such a case, we probably would find this hypothetical teacher asking
students to engage in activities related to number shapes, tracing 2s and 4s or
looking at them from different angles. Because outcomes always must be tied
to instruction, we would have to ask in this scenario whether studying the
shapes of numbers leads to student mastery of addition. It should be obvious
that the answer isnofor the simple reason that the shapes of numbers are un-
related to the nature of addition.
We must apply this kind of critical analysis when teaching grammar. We must
decide in advance what we want students to know and be able to do after studying
grammar, and we must plan lessons that enable them to achieve objectives.
TEACHING GRAMMAR 19