Running head: DAILY GRAMMAR PRACTICE AND THE COMMONPLACES

Daily Grammar Practice and The Commonplaces:

An Analysis and Reflection
Beth A. Graham
EDF 662: Foundations of Curriculum Development
University of Northern Colorado

DAILY GRAMMAR PRACTICE AND THE COMMONPLACES

Introduction:
In my third year of teaching, the principal of my school forced the English department to
adopt the use of Daily Grammar Practice by Dawn Burnette (2003) in every single course we
offered; we werent enthused. Three years later, what once was a begrudging use of a curriculum
has turned into a shining spot of my day. I have, however, found myself changing more and more
of the curriculum each year. It is because of this reason that I thought it would be worthy of
analysis through the lens of the commonplaces, introduced by Connelly and Clandinin (1988).
Though elements of the Daily Grammar Practice (DGP) curriculum would need refinement
before being implemented effectively in my classroom, I believe is a generally sound program
which addresses many aspects of the commonplaces.
Application of Connelly and Clandinins Viewpoints:
Burnettes starting viewpoint for the DGP program lies firmly in the commonplace of the
educator. In the very first paragraph she states, This approach will work for you. (p.1) and
then follows the statement with affirmative promises which center on the fact that DGP will
make your (the teachers) life easier. The promises are all based upon teacher concerns, such as
you are busy (p.1), so she promises the curriculum will be easy to implement into your own
classroom. Of these 6 promises, only one is actually about the students: if you use the program
correctly, you will see amazing results. Even that statements connection to the learner is
obscure; it still feels more about the teacher.
The authors ending viewpoint is more learner focused. In the section entitled What
DGP is and why it works, Burnette concludes her explanatory information by stating The
program is designed to teach students new and more advanced material at each grade level while
also reviewing basic concepts to aid in retention(p.6). She also recommends that students

DAILY GRAMMAR PRACTICE AND THE COMMONPLACES

should continue the use of DGP over the course of their education, but does concede that even
students who begin the program in middle or high school...will gain and retain valuable skills
(p.5).
Overall, it appears Burnette is focused on the educator in the materials where she
explains the rationale, sequence, and scope of the curriculum. There are 11 pages of explanatory
information, followed by 35 pages of answer keys and notes for teachers. There is no talk of the
milieu in terms of school or community. Of course, the bulk of the book is based around subject
matter (grammar implementation), but there is very little explanation as to why the curriculum
includes what it does. In the Research-Base (2015) published on the curriculums website, there
is also no discussion of why certain concepts were chosen to be integrated over others. As a very
routine-focused program (Mondays are parts of speech, Tuesdays are phrases and clauses,
etc), there is also a strange lack of explanation of why things happen where they do in the week.
Burnette mentions that the concepts build upon each other so students can see how they
connect (p.4), but that is where the explanation ends. The content and subject matter addressed
is highly detailed and (in my opinion) age-appropriate, but it is suspiciously lacking in detail
about why the specific content matter was chosen for the program. The Research-Base,
however, does include the clearest statement for why this instruction in grammar is so essential.
It explains that Writing lessons are more productive when students have a strong background in
grammar, which I believe is still still teacher (instead of learner) focused.
Similarly, even when the curriculum does talk about student growth, it describes it in
terms of the educator, and not in a way which connects the learners overall education. Burnette
does mention why she decided to create this curriculum:
...we know that students arent understanding grammatical concepts because theyre not
able to apply them. Whose fault is all of this? Middle school teachers blame elementary

DAILY GRAMMAR PRACTICE AND THE COMMONPLACES

school teachers; high school teachers blame middle school teachers. College professors
and business managers blame us all. Well, its time to stop passing the buck and start
fixing the problem (p.3).
Simply put, the feeling I take away from DGPs explanatory materials is that Burnette feels
grammar is a topic that teachers must cover in class. She doesnt spend time explaining in depth
why grammar matters to the students, or even how it will affect them in their lives outside of
school. Grammar instruction is something English teachers must do and students must learn.
Though the Research-Base suggests that the program will yield content matter retention if used
for multiple years, it doesnt explain the context in which that content matter, well, matters.
Is DGP an appropriate curriculum for my students?
DGP is a program I currently use in my overall English curriculum, and I like it overall.
That being said, I have changed the program from her suggestions dramatically, and I still think I
need to do more to make it fit my population of students perfectly.
I, along with Dawn Burnette, know that grammar is an important concept to teach my
students, and I like that DGP is a simple way for me to integrate it into my daily lessons.
Theorist Franklin Bobbitt (1918) described an investigation of Charters in which Charters
delineated the types of errors students make in language, including confusion of adjectives and
adverbs all the way to misplaced modifiers. Bobbitt said that each item on the list is a symptom
of grammatical ignorance (p.15). Bobbitt argues teachers of all subjects have witnessed these
moments of ignorance, and because undirected language experience has not led students to
fixing these errors, grammar instruction must therefore be consciously undertaken by the
schools (Bobbitt p.15).

DAILY GRAMMAR PRACTICE AND THE COMMONPLACES

I also love the simplicity of DGP. As Burnette states on page 3 of the 9th grade teacher
materials, Daily Grammar Practice is an entirely different approach. Its not fluffy, and its
not a quick fix. It is a simple, logical process that actually forces grammar concepts to move to
long-term memory (p.3). This is very true; my students always know what to expect with this
program, and it makes for an effective use of classroom time. The fact that the curriculum is
cyclical also makes for fantastic routine in the classroom. I, like most teachers and students,
appreciate consistency, and DGP delivers. As Eisner says,...life in classrooms like that outside
them, is seldom neat or linear (p.115). Ill take neat and linear anywhere I can find it.
The problem then, is not in the intentions of the curriculum or in the subject matter
contained within it, and the way the subject matter relates to the milieu and the learner. Not
surprisingly, that was the area I found lacking while looking at the curriculum through the lens of
Connelly and Clandinins (1988) commonplaces.
One issue is that the sentences arent connected with anything else we are doing in the
class. This makes DGP appear tacked on, though we do refer to the grammar concepts
themselves when addressing writing. Though the sequence of skills taught by DGP are age
appropriate and address objectives I need to meet, it has downfalls Kliebard (1975) sees in all
objective-based curriculum. This very scientific approach to teaching grammar, as Kliebard
explains, is appealing because of its promise of precision and objectivity (p.69). However,
curricula like this fails to recognize the complexity of the phenomena with which we deal
(Kliebard p.77). In an ideal world, the sentences analyzed in DGP would relate to the rest of the
lesson, thus making it a better part of the class overall.
A secondary problem needing to be addressed by this curriculum is the assumption that
students will already understand the terminology addressed in the program. In my experience,

DAILY GRAMMAR PRACTICE AND THE COMMONPLACES

students are not ready for this program instantly, and it takes significant coaching at the
beginning of the year, with more targeted lessons throughout the semester as new concepts are
(seemingly randomly) dropped into the provided sentences. Also, I see my students 3- not 5days a week so it makes scheduling DGP somewhat awkward.
The biggest concern, however, is that DGPs clinical nature leads to boredom. As
Dewey(1929) explains, Education...must begin with a psychological insight into the childs
capacities, interests, and habits. (p.34). DGP certainly considers the capacities and the habits of
a child and a classroom, but it does not address their interests at all. And though the repetition
does cement the skills, Im unconvinced of what it prepares them for. Yes, in-class editing is
more efficient, but it doesnt appear to make them more accomplished writers. DGP develops
isolated skills and not the spirit of a writer. To address these concerns in my room, I could have
students write sentences of their own inspired by more famous or stylized sentences.
Conclusion:
I will continue to utilize DGP, but I will also continue to modify it. I havent found
anything better than this program currently, though it does have its pitfalls.

DAILY GRAMMAR PRACTICE AND THE COMMONPLACES

References
Bobbitt, F. (1918). Scientific method in curriculum making. In D. Flinders & S. Thornton (Eds.),
The Curriculum Studies Reader (4th ed., pp.11-18). New York, NY: Routledge.
Burnette, Dawn. (2003). Daily grammar practice: Teacher guide and answer Keys, grade 9.
Peachtree City, GA: DGP Pub.
Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1988). Teachers as curriculum planners: Narratives of
experience. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, Teachers College. Columbia
University.
Daily Grammar Practice Research Base. Retrieved March 7, 2015, from
https://www.dgppublishing.com/resources/pdf/Research_base.pdf
Dewey, J. (1929). My pedagogic creed. In D. Flinders & S. Thornton (Eds.), The Curriculum
Studies Reader (4th ed., pp. 33-40). New York, NY: Routledge.
Eisner, E. (1979). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school
programs.(p.115). New York: Macmillan
Kliebard, H. (1975). The rise of scientific curriculum-making and its aftermath . In D. Flinders &
S. Thornton (Eds.), The Curriculum Studies Reader (4th ed., pp. 69- 78). New York, NY:
Routledge.