1

Facts on the teaching

of grammar

Research over a period of nearly 90 years has consistently shown that the teaching of school grammar has
little or no effect on students.
-George Hillocks & Michael Smith, 1991


Background
The most common reason for teaching grammar as a system for analyzing and labeling
sentences has been to accomplish some practical aim or aims, typically the improvement
of writing. For decades, however, research has demonstrated that the teaching of
grammar rarely accomplishes such practical goals. Relatively few students learn grammar
well, fewer retain it, and still fewer transfer the grammar they have learned to improving
or editing their writing.

2
What doesn't work: The research
"Diagraming sentences . . . teaches nothing beyond the ability to diagram" (1960
Encyclopedia of Educational Research).
"The impressive fact is . . . that in all these studies . . . the results have been
consistently negative so far as the value of grammar in the improvement of
language expression is concerned. Surely there is no justification in the available
evidence for the great expenditure of time and effort still being devoted to formal
grammar in American schools" (DeBoer, 1959).
"None of the studies reviewed for the present report provides any support for
teaching grammar as a means of improving composition skills. If schools insist
upon teaching the identification of parts of speech, the parsing or diagraming of
sentences, or other concepts of traditional grammar (as many still do), they cannot
defend it as a means of improving the quality of writing" (Hillocks, 1986).
For most students, the systematic study of grammar is not even particularly
helpful in avoiding or correcting errors (Elley et al., 1976; McQuade, 1980;
Hillocks, 1986).
"The teaching of formal grammar has a negligible or, because it usually displaces
some instruction and practice in actual composition, even a harmful effect on the
improvement of writing" (Braddock, Lloyd-Jones, and Schoer, 1963).
What works better: The research
Studying formal grammar is less helpful to writers than simply discussing
grammatical constructions and usage in the context of writing (Harris, 1962).
Learning punctuation in the context of writing is much more effective than
studying punctuation marks and rules for punctuation in isolation (Calkins, 1980).
Usage, sentence variety, sentence-level punctuation, and spelling are applied more
effectively in writing itself when studied and discussed in the context of writing,
rather than through isolated skills instruction (DiStefano and Killion, 1984).
Systematic practice in combining and expanding sentences can increase students'
repertoire of syntactic structures and can also improve the quality of their
sentences, when stylistic effects are discussed as well (Hillocks and Smith, 1991).
For learners of English as a second language, research suggests that extensive reading
may promote the acquisition of grammatical structures better than explicitly studying or
practicing such structures (Elley, 1991). Indeed, for both first and second language
learners, extensive reading significantly promotes grammatical fluency and a command
of the syntactic resources of the language (Krashen, 1993).
3
Implications for teaching grammar as an aid to writing
Teach only the grammatical concepts that are critically needed for editing writing,
and teach these concepts and terms mostly through minilessons and conferences,
while helping students edit.
Help students expand their syntactic repertoire and explore style by considering
effective examples, then experimenting and discussing the results. Grammatical
terminology can be used, but need not be taught as an end in itself.
Have students experiment with and discuss various activities in sentence
combining, expanding, and manipulating (Strong, 1986; Killgallon, 1987; Daiker,
Kerek, & Morenberg, 1990).
Give students plenty of opportunities and encouragement to write, write, write:
for a variety of purposes and real audiences. Teacher response should include
assistance with sentence structure and the mechanics of writing, during both
revision and editing (Rosen, 1987).
Give students plenty of opportunities and encouragement to read, read, read.
Read aloud to students, choosing at least some selections that have more
sophisticated sentence structures than the literature that the students would
ordinarily read by themselves.
REFERENCES AND RESOURCES
Braddock, R., Lloyd-Jones, R., & Schoer, L. (1963). Research in written composition. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Calkins, L. M. (1980). When children want to punctuate: Basic skills belong in context. Language Arts, 57,
567-573.
Daiker, D. A., Kerek, A., & Morenberg, M. (1990). The writer's options: Combining to composing (4th
ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
DeBoer, J. J. (1959). Grammar in language teaching. Elementary English, 36, 413-421.
DiStefano, P., & Killion, J. (1984). Assessing writing skills through a process approach. English Education,
16 (4), 203-207.
Elley, W. B. (1991). Acquiring literacy in a second language: The effect of book-based programs.
Language Learning, 41 (3), 375-411.
Elley, W. B., Barham, I. H., Lamb, H., & Wyllie, M. (1976). The role of grammar in a secondary English
curriculum. Research in the Teaching of English, 10, 5-21.
Encyclopedia of educational research (3rd ed.). (1960). New York: Macmillan.
4
Harris, R. J. (1962). An experimental inquiry into the functions and value of formal grammar in the
teaching of written English to children aged twelve to fourteen. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of London.
Hillocks, G., Jr. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Hillocks, G., Jr., & Smith, M. W. (1991). Grammar and usage. In J. Flood, J. M. Jensen, D. Lapp, & J. R.
Squire (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (pp. 591-603). New York:
Macmillan.
Hunter, S., & Wallace, R. (1995). The place of grammar in writing instruction: Past, present, future.
Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Killgallon, D. (1987). Sentence composing: The complete course. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Krashen, S. D. (1993). The power of reading: Insights from the research. Englewood, CO: Libraries
Unlimited.
McQuade, F. (1980, October). Examining a grammar course: The rationale and the result. English Journal,
69, 26-30.
Rosen, L. M. (1987). Developing correctness in student writing: Alternatives to the error-hunt. English
Journal, 64, 62-69.
Strong, W. (1986). Creative approaches to sentence combining. Urbana, IL: ERIC and the National
Council of Teachers of English.
Weaver, C. (1996). Teaching grammar in context. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Prepared for the Michigan English Language Arts Framework project and copyright
1995 by Constance Weaver. In C. Weaver, L. Gillmeister-Krause, & G. Vento-Zogby,
Creating Support for Effective Literacy Education (Heinemann, 1996). May be copied.


From George C. Hillocks,

Research on Written
Conversation: New
Directions for Teaching (NCTE 2001)

Focus of Instruction

Like modes of instruction, the foci of instruction
examined have important ramifications for instructional
practice.

5
The study of traditional school grammar (i.e., the
definition of parts of speech, the parsing of sentences,
etc.) has no effect on raising the quality of student
writing. Every other focus of instruction examined in this
review is stronger. Taught in certain ways, grammar and
mechanics instruction has a deleterious effect on
student writing.

In some studies a heavy emphasis on mechanics and
usage (e.g., marking every error) resulted in significant
losses in overall quality. School boards, administrators,
and teachers who impose the systematic study of
traditional school grammar on their students over
lengthy periods of time in the name of teaching writing
do them a gross disservice which should not be tolerated
by anyone concerned with the effective teaching of
good writing. We need to learn how to teach standard
usage and mechanics after careful task analysis and
with minimal grammar.

What I have referred to as teaching from models
undoubtedly has a place in the English program. This
research indicates that emphasis on the presentation of
good pieces of writing as models is significantly more
useful than the study of grammar. At the same time,
treatments which use the study of models almost
exclusively are less effective than other available
techniques.

The focus of free writing asks students to write freely
about whatever interests or concerns them. As a major
instructional technique, free writing is more effective
than teaching grammar in raising the quality of student
writing. However, it is less effective than any other
focus of instruction examined. Even when examined in
conjunction with other features of the "process" model
of teaching writing (writing for peers, feedback from
peers, revision, and so forth), these treatments are only
about two-thirds as effective as the average
experimental treatment.

The practice of building more complex sentences from
simpler ones has been shown to be effective in a large
number of experimental studies. This research shows
sentence combining, on the average, to be more than
twice as effective as free writing as a means of
6
enhancing the quality of student writing.

Scales, criteria, and specific questions which students
apply to their own or others' writing also have a powerful
effect on enhancing quality. Through using the criteria
systematically, students appear to internalize them and
bring them to bear in generating new material even when
they do not have the criteria in front of them. These
treatments are two times more effective than free
writing techniques.

Inquiry focuses the attention of students on strategies
for dealing with sets of data, strategies which will be
used in writing. For example, treatments categorized as
inquiry might involve students in the following: finding
and stating specific details which convey personal
experience vividly, examining sets of data to develop
and support explanatory generalizations, or analyzing
situations which present problems of various kinds and
developing arguments about those situations. On the
average, these treatments are nearly four times more
effective than free writing and over two-and-a-half
times more powerful than the traditional study of model
pieces of writing.

While the results for the various treatments differ
greatly from each other, this does not imply that the
less-effective techniques have no place in the writing
curriculum. Indeed, sentence combining, scales, and
inquiry all make occasional use of models, but they
certainly do not emphasize the study of models
exclusively. And structured free writing, in which writers
jot down all of their ideas on a particular topic, can be
successfully integrated with other techniques