Overcoming Red-Pen Syndrome

Though the first three chapters of Constance Weaver's Grammar to Enrich & Enhance Writing were informative and inspiring, I can't help but find myself feeling torn. While I agree with Weaver's "positive, productive, and practical" theory, I can't help but wonder how students can fully realize where improvement is needed without correcting their errors.

It seems possible that I am simply apprehensive to leave the realm of what I know. Weaver suggests that much research is left to be done about a new and effective way of teaching grammar in a way that is applicable to writing. This idea is daunting as I am increasingly aware of my future as a teacher who will have to make decisions about how to teach my students. Despite lack of research, I do not doubt Weaver's accuracy in the concept that grammar should not be taught as an independent subject.

While I am very enthusiastic about my future as a teacher, many of my aspirations in life have centered on writing. I attribute these to my eighth grade English teacher, as his class functioned nearly entirely as a writing workshop. This method built my confidence and probably taught me more about how to write than any other to which I have been subjected. I would like to bring this type of openness to my own teaching while implementing many of Weaver's theories on how to guide young writers without negatively influencing their natural skills. This class also consisted of a large amount of peer review. I would be very interested to learn about Weaver's opinions of this method.

Despite my progression in that eighth grade class, I did not learn technical grammatical terms to match my newly developed writing skills. This lack may have been detrimental to classes that I would later have in which teachers would expect me to know them. Weaver discusses that these types of terms and rules are mostly unnecessary, and I agree. However, it seems that teachers may have to come to a clearer consensus regarding English education and grammar in order to fully benefit students.

I was very interested in reading that children must be allowed to develop their use of language chronologically. This idea is highly logical, and yet it seems that students are pushed through grammar textbooks at rates that don't allow them to fully grasp and build on anything. It seems to me that the absence slow progression could be the reason for which many more mature students continue to lack decent writing skills. I think that Weaver presents a solution in her discussion of authentic reading. Just as toddler's are quickly able to learn crucial aspects of the English language naturally and without formal instruction, individuals at any age can benefit from simply reading for pleasure. Those who take time to read are unknowingly increasing their grammar and vocabulary usage skills. Obviously, avid readers usually make the best writers. Unfortunately, modern technology seems to have made reading a much less desirable pastime.

The presence of students who don't read or really care to improve their writing is something that I often worry about when imagining myself in a position at the head of the classroom. I do not want to crush creativity, however, I do want to provide students with the tools that are necessary for becoming better writers. I will be interested to read more about Weaver's perspective and learn more about her suggestions for guiding writers rather than correcting them.