Peppercorn

Today we covered sentences with linking verbs. I began class by writing a bunch of sentences on the overhead with linking verbs (without telling them that the were linking verbs). I asked students to identify which sentences’ meanings would be unchanged if the verb was replaced with a form of “to be.” Seeing that they were all confused I suggested some forms of “to be”: “is,” “are,” “was,” and “were.” I performed the task with the first sentence, and then they were able to try it on their own. They came to the conclusion that all of the sentences would mean the same if the verb were replaced with “to be.” I said that these are called linking verbs and that linking verbs function almost like an equals sign, which is different from an action verbs like the verbs we had been using up to that point.

I put the sentence, “The lamb was a baby.” on the board. I said “was” is a linking verb. Baby identifies lamb. I wrote, “The lamb killed the baby.” Mostof the students were able to see the difference now. I pointed out that since we have a new type of verb, we need a new color to represent that verb. That color was beige. I also said that since “the baby” identifies the subject in the linking verb sentence and receives the action in the action verb sentence, we need a new color for the word after a verb that identifies or describes the subject: purple.

Today we explored the OBJECT COMPLEMENT.  This time I wrote sentences and gave each group a random subject, verb, direct object, and object complement pre-written on the magnets.  They read their (odd) sentences aloud to let other groups hear what sentence parts were available.  I went from group to group asking if they wanted to trade sentence parts with other groups.  It worked out well.  After about ten minutes of guided exploration they were able to piece the “puzzle” together as a class, and each group had one of my original sentences.  Something that pleasently caught me off guard was the need for a subject/verb agreement conversation.  One group had “My wife/consider…” and another group had “Chefs prefers…”.  The students knew that something was wrong and I asked them what they needed.  We discussed number in terms of subjects and verbs.  This is promising.  The fact that this activity can open up the conversation in new directions lends itself to the nature of language, which is very expansive.

This is my second entry.  During the last two weeks we have been continuing with Subject(yellow)/Verb(green)/Object(red), and we have added one more color.  Our second structure is Subject(yellow)/Verb(green)/Indirect Object(orange)/Direct Object(red).  I began by holding up a ruler with yellow/green/orange/red.  I asked them to tell me what the different colors were and some were able to recall indirect object.  I stressed that since there is more than one type of object in a sentence that we have to start calling them direct and indirect.  I modeled one for all to see:  “Miss Watson gave Jim freedom.”  Next I handed each student a slip of paper with sentence parts on them.  (Before class I had written seven sentences in the Subj/Verb/I.O./D.O. structure, broken them up and randomized them.)  Once each student had a sentence part, I asked them to move around the room and see if they could form sentences in the Subj/Verb/I.O./D.O. structure by finding three others whose sentence parts would make sense with their own.  This was fun, and they started to see a pattern.  It usually involved a person giving another person some thing.  For example, it might not be physically possible but we saw sentences like My friend’s mother/baked/the exiled diplomat/a fastball.  Is it nonsense? Yes.  Do they demonstrate an understanding of the structure? Yes.  Once all students had a complete sentence in the given structure, I had them write it on the magnets.  Now we had seven (mostly odd) sentences.  As a group I held up one at a time reading them and asked for substitutions for sentence parts, working like this until they could see the original sentences I had written.

Next, I asked each group to take their I.O. and switch it with their D.O.  They said it doesn’t work.  I asked how we could make it work and after a few said “by adding ‘to’ or ‘for’ to the I.O.” we played around with switching back and forth between Subj/Verb/I.O./D.O. and  Subj/Verb/D.O./(‘to’ or ‘for’ +)I.O.

Difficulties begin when I ask students to create their own sentences.  I gave everyone a verb, something like “built” and asked them to create sentences where “someone built someone (else) something.  But I got back sentences like “We(yellow)/built(green)/a house(orange)/on a hill(green).  This is where using sentence parts instead of parts of speech becomes problematic.  I suggested to them that we may need to create a new color for adverb phrases such as (on a hill).  This way, we might have “We(yellow)/built(green)/a house(green)/on a hill(purple or something).  At that point, how many colors can you have?

Another problem starting to form involves the durability of the actual manipulatives. The shiny laminate is starting to peel away from the color card stock.  These are expensive and time-consuming to make.  Somehow, I would need to find easier, cheaper, tougher materials.

Finally, we looked at some sentences with the Subj/Verb/D.O. pattern and identified some verbs that can have a direct object but cannot have an indirect object: “discovered” for example.

On my quiz Friday I pulled the colors out and had them identify sentence parts.  I generally saw confidence in their answers.

This week I will be adding the object complement.  I foresee difficulty because the four part structure will be similar.  I am hoping that here is where the different colors will really have an impact.

Data Collection Checklist

First of all, upon reaching the deadline for students to return their permission slips, I was thrilled at the number of students who brought them back. Of all the homework assignments, including forms, assignments, etc., this is by far the highest return rate (by the due date) I think I have seen in my short career. I sent forty-five students home with permission letters last week and already got 39 back. I am hoping this is a sign of eagerness on the part of students. I have noticed that when it comes to situations when I show a need for students to rise to rise to the occasion they usually do. When they know I am being observed for evaluation, they are angels.

This week I introduced the “Grammar Magnets” tool to my students. I began by reminding students that we are beginning the action research portion of my own project and that they should begin not only to immerse themselves in the unit but also to start to reflect upon their own reactions and experiences with this project. I told them that their input on the effectiveness of the unit will be an important part of my report.

I began by holding up a three foot metal ruler. I placed a five inch, yellow, magnetic strip on the ruler. To the right of it I placed a green strip and then a red strip. I then asked the students to think of the pattern as a sentence. I asked them what the yellow magnet would be. A resounding, “the subject!” Good. I then asked them what the green magnet would be if it were a sentence. This time, “the verb!” Excellent. Then the red. This time, “…” So I said, pointing at the yellow, “this is the doer of the action,” then pointing at the green, “this is what he does,” then, pointing at the red “this is what he does it to.” A few said it was the object. I gave an example. The tired soldier (in Yellow) built (in green) a shelter (in red). Finally I pointed out subject, verb, object.

Next, the students got into six groups. I asked them to send one student up to retrieve a yellow magnet, a green magnet, a red magnet, a ruler, and a wet-erase marker. I placed a transparency on the overhead. It had a bunch of word groups: noun phrases and verbs. “Each group represents either a subject and its modifiers, a verb and its modifiers, or an object and its modifiers. When I say modifiers I mean anything that helps describe or identify the subject, verb, or object. I want you to think in terms of chunks or sentence parts instead of thinking of what each word is. This word might be an adjective, this one might be a noun this one is a preposition and this one is another noun, but the entire group of words might be the subject of the sentence.” I asked them to make sentences from the chunks or sentence parts. For example, “Each student (yellow) will receive (green) a participation grade (red).  Since the word groups had a wide variety of subject matter, the sentences got pretty interesting.  At first they tried to find the most appropriate combination: “The tired soldier built a small shelter.”  As they continued to make different sentences and share them with the class, the combinations became absurd:  “The tired soldier baked a shelter.”  Once they got comfortable with creating these combinations, I asked the groups to exchange objects.  Even though the sentences were funny and nonsensical, the students were beginning to realize that they were structurally appropriate for Standard English usage, so I started giving them examples that were not structurally appropriate.  I asked them to trade the verbs (all of which were transitive) with sneezed: one example being “The tired soldier sneezed a small shelter.”  This doesn’t work.  They realized that it is a different kind of verb.  I told them it is intransitive, and that we will eventually cover that type of verb later giving it a different color.  This first experience was fun and informative.  It showed me that they were more willing to “play” with sentences rather than study them.

Next time I will put whole sentences on the overhead and ask the students to write the parts in the appropriate color.

Here are the steps adapted from the Action Research book.

1. In order to begin the action research I will collect some writing samples in order to identify a common habit that I would like to change. I plan to use the essays from my midyear exam.
2. Study the samples and record the frequency and intensity of this habit.
3. Plan a unit or series of lessons implementing one of the strategies in question aimed at altering the habit.
4. Figure out how I can collect the data (writing samples).
5. Plan a calender of activities and data collection dates.
6. Make adjustments to the plan and repeat steps 3-6.
7. Finish the unit or series of lessons.
8. Analyze and organize the data.
9. Report the data
10. Make conclusions and recommendations.
11. Create a plan of action.

Sentence diagramming, creating sentences using visuals, can be taken a step further with the use of manipulatives.  Linda Hecker uses Cuisinaire Rods (traditionally used for math) to give students tools for creating models of sentences, tapping into the students’ multiple intelligences.  Here are her steps as laid out in “Walking, Tinkertoys, and Legos: Using Movement and Manipulatives to help students write”:

1. Teach the basic sentence as a simple formula: Sentence=Subject+Verb+(Complement or Object)
2. Suggest that each part of speech be represented by a different colored object.
3. Students discover that they must have a common representation for each part of speech in order to communicate about the activity: necessity for grammatical terminology.
4.  Students create sentences using the model system and look for their own examples.
5. Progress into more difficult concepts by adding colors and assigning meaning: two separate colors for coordinating conjunctions and subordinating conjunctions in order to make compound and complex sentences.  In a compound sentence, have both clauses be spacially level.  In a complex sentence have the subordinate clause lower than the independent clause.
6. Later students can check sentences they have created for completeness: missing the color that represents subject? incomplete sentence.
7. Further they can check for style:to many repeated patterns? repetitive.

Hecker claims that manipulatives are more effective than diagramming because the experience of moving things around in space taps into the memory receptors of the spacial learners.

How much time do you spend teaching grammar each week?

Describe your department’s policies and requirements for teaching grammar.

Describe one approach you believe to be ineffective when teaching grammar.

Describe one approach you believe to be effective when teaching grammar.

Do you address multiple intelligences when teaching grammar and writing? If so how?

Rate your familiarity with the following concepts:

1. Prescriptive vs. descriptive grammar
2. Linguistic approach to grammar
3. Contrastive analysis
4. Code-switching
5. Grammar in context
6. Rhetorical grammar

Have any of the above concepts had an influence on your teaching? If so, how?

Brock Houssamen describes contrastive analysis as a way to introduce code-switching to students. The given example, possessive word order against ‘s, is for elementary students. What you do is identify a “home language” rule then identify its corresponding “school language rule.” At home students say “My friend house is down the street.” At school we say “My friend’s house is down the street.” Analysis shows that to form possessive using the home language we use word order: indicating the owner followed by that which is owned. To form the possessive using the school language we use both word order and ‘s. Next, teachers work with students to understand these contrasts and switch proficiently between the two. Exercises such as these build student awareness of the legitimacy of “unofficial” or “nonstandard” language varieties. Students can see that, while some language varieties (Standard English) are more privileged, all varieties are effective in their respective environments. In fact, Standard English would be as inappropriate at home as home English would be in the classroom. Raising student awareness of the legitimacy of casual language and their expertise in that legitimate language will lead to confidence and eagerness to work with language as a subject. Or will it? Will students see code-switching as a gimmick to try to get them interested in language analysis? Will they have trouble understanding the value of learning Standard English? Should there be some deeper discussion of the power system that privileges Standard English? This brings me to the possibility of revisiting a lesson I designed called “Deciphering a Difficult Text” in which students are given lines of Homer, Shakespeare, Hawthorne, etc. and are asked to rewrite the text into everyday language. While this is a reading exercise, used to enhance comprehension, it involves substantial grammar analysis. It involves finding the core of the sentence, the subject-verb, and analyzing the value of the surrounding constructions. This isn’t a one-for-one code-switching exercise: they are not translating specific rules between the two dialects like in the above example. They are trying to understand what someone with a complexly differing dialect is saying. But one thing it doesn’t do, something code-switching does, is separate the grammar study from the rest of the class instruction. It integrates the language study into the literature study. And if I add a writing component to the exercise, a reflective piece on the differences between say Shakespeare’s usage and their own, it would incorporate both components of the ELA. When I designed this exercise, the outcome I was aiming for was strictly comprehension and analysis of literature; but what I realized was that the students were elbow deep in language analysis, which, in an ideal world wouldn’t separated from the reading and writing content.

Building off of the questions in the previous post:

1. A study of the most current research on the linguistic approach to grammar instruction.

2. Action research applying some of the questionable approaches in the classroom to gauge their effectiveness on student writing. Some focus should be on their effects on standardized testing.

3. A survey of teachers in two different school districts to find out how well the reality fits in with the research.

4. Results and recommendations.