Reva Potter and Dorothy Fuller

Seventh-grade English My New Teaching teacher Reva Potter and education professor Partner? Using the Dorothy Fuller collaborate on a study that shows that Grammar Checker in using computer grammar checkers may improve Writing Instruction students’ confi dence and their understanding of key grammatical concepts.

omeone else is teaching my (Reva’s) shoulder assistance of the teacher. The processor students grammar terminology, is one of the most common applications used, yet usage, and mechanics. Actually, language arts teachers may not address the issues S something else is teaching my stu- associated with grammar-check software. They may dents grammar, and although I do not always agree also overlook the capability of this omnipresent tool with this teacher, I have decided to embrace it. It is to teach grammar in a relevant and engaging way. tireless, relentless, and follows my students from Research on word processing grammar check- one composition to another on their computers. My ers is limited but provides insights about the capa- new teaching partner is the ’s gram- bilities and concerns related to the use of grammar mar checker. checkers in the classroom. Research suggests three The grammar checker does not intimidate me main ideas: teachers should approach grammar or make me fear for my job as an English teacher; in checkers critically; students have limited compe- fact, it makes me realize that in tency with the grammar tools; and classroom The word processor is today’s electronic writing envi- instruction can incorporate use of the grammar one of the most common ronments, the students need me checker (Jensen; McGee and Ericsson; Vernon). applications used, yet more than ever. For instance, First and foremost, teachers must look at language arts teachers my students need someone to grammar-check programs thoughtfully. As Tim may not address the explain why the powerful gram- McGee and Patricia Ericsson so aptly put it, “Mind- mar checker does not correct lessly accepting a piece of software is irresponsible— issues associated with such sentences as “Little Women even if everyone in the world is using it, even if we grammar-check software. were a great book,” or “The can’t really change it, even if we’re afraid of breaking cows or the pig fi nd the grass.” it” (465). Before teachers ask students to use the I have discovered that my students can learn from the software critically, they must be critical themselves. grammar checker, but not without my guidance. Teachers should carefully consider the use of the grammar checker due to its sophisticated and yet sometimes fl awed recommendations to writers. For Grammar at Our Fingertips instance, in an examination of the performance of Even for those who are not language arts teachers, WordPerfect and Word grammar checkers with 36 grammar instruction is diffi cult to avoid. As uni- common grammatical errors, Alex Vernon found versal as a blinking cursor, it is waiting on our lap- that the WordPerfect checker correctly identifi ed 17 top, home, school, and workplace computers. Young of the errors and the Word checker found 12 (340). and old alike, cautiously or carelessly, we are all Teachers need to be aware of the limited feedback tutored by the word processor’s grammar checker. the grammar checker provides to their students. The grammar checker slipped quietly into our Grammar checkers do not claim to teach classrooms, allowing students to make improve- grammar; they are tools to bring potential prob- ments to their documents without the over-the- lems to the writer’s attention. They also offer only

36 English Journal 98.1(2008): 36–41 Reva Potter and Dorothy Fuller

formal and Standard English preferences, limiting Working with Students to Make Choices the freer expression of some literary forms. Without about Grammar Curriculum guidance, students may misuse the checker, become I introduced my seventh graders to the grammar frustrated, and feel discouraged. Users must be per- checker by having them type their essays with gram- ceptive about accepting and rejecting the recom- mar tools fi rst deactivated. mendations, and students of writing who currently When we reactivated the Teachers should carefully use the grammar checker may not have the critical grammar checker and the consider the use of the knowledge to do this (McGee and Ericsson 461). wavy green lines appeared, Possibilities exist for the use of grammar grammar checker due to students clicked one error at checkers in the writing classroom. Vernon recom- its sophisticated and yet a time to gather the names mends teaching the checker’s limitations and how sometimes fl awed for all of the errors the students might work with these (336), including checker disclosed. Students recommendations activities where learners respond to grammar-check recorded the names of the to writers. recommendations in small groups, make corrections errors in their documents, on highlighted errors without the help of computer exactly as the errors were described. “Comma Use,” suggestions, create sentences to trigger the gram- “Fragment,” and “Passive Sentences” were some mar checker or fool it, and compare rules in the common errors found by the students. grammar checker to rules in the grammar handbook Back in the classroom, students worked in (346). Jensen suggests that by using the grammar small groups to compare their lists of errors and checker’s readability statistics, students could also tally all the types. All class tallies were combined revise their written work, varying their sentence and recorded on the board, and after all three class types and structures, to manipulate the grammar- periods had reported, the fi nal tally was ready for check readability score of their documents (28). the following day’s discussion. The list included 50 different types of errors. Beginning Teacher Research The next day in each class period, we dis- with the Grammar Checker cussed each error type listed. Each class chose the My experiences with the advantages and frustra- errors it found most interesting and wanted to tions of the grammar checker caused me to wonder know what every error meant. If I had had a full if my students would benefi t by using the tool more day to explain them all, I think the students would consciously. Initially, I brought grammar-check have stayed and listened. I pointed out that these activities into my classroom to stimulate my stu- grammar-check terms were the same as those in dents’ curiosity for the tool. I also hoped their new their language arts textbooks; in fact, most were knowledge would allow them to navigate the gram- part of the curriculum we would study. mar checker independently and connect grammar So which error types did they want to study rules and terms to electronic composition. fi rst? Many students suggested we study passive To gather evidence of the potential of the voice because they see it all the time when typing at grammar checker as a learning tool, my mentor a computer but did not know what it meant. I told (and co-author) Dorothy and I designed an action them that choice was interesting because passive research project on the use of the grammar checker voice fi rst appears in our standards in seventh grade, in my classroom. Three main research questions so it would be a great unit to choose. They also pro- guided this exploration: (1) When given direct posed to study comma use because it appeared so instruction with the word-processing grammar often in their documents. I explained that we could checker, will students improve as critical, confi dent focus our comma study on and complex users of this tool? (2) When combining grammar sentence structure, one common area of diffi culty for instruction with grammar-check tools, will stu- both student and adult writers. For the fi nal unit I dents improve their understanding of key grammar persuaded students to study subject-verb agreement concepts? (3) Is the seventh-grade language arts based on how diffi cult these errors can be for the curriculum a highly appropriate place for instruc- grammar checker to detect. It is also one of those tion with the grammar checker? diffi cult areas for both adolescents and adults.

English Journal 37 My New Teaching Partner? Using the Grammar Checker in Writing Instruction

Connecting the Grammar and hypothesized why the computer grammar Checker to Instruction checker may have missed or misdiagnosed an error. I realized this was a favorite activity when a student We designed the four-month action research study said, “That was cool. When do we do it again?” In to include direct instruction of the grammar subsequent units students eagerly typed their checker and regular grammar instruction enhanced assigned “pretest” sentences, typed extra if they had with use of grammar-check tools. Students fi rst time, and began hypothesizing at their individual learned about the checker, its components and pur- computers about the accuracy of the grammar poses, before beginning the agreed-on three gram- checker before the results were reported. mar topics. Once into the Another engaging use of the grammar check At the start of the units, lessons incorporated allowed students to personalize their grammar grammar check in a number study, students using experience by creating original sentence examples of ways. Students composed the computer for to challenge the checker: practicing examples of or typed essays with the gram- composition were likely active or passive voice, creating possible subject- mar-check tools turned off verb agreement problems, and changing simple to ignore a grammar- and on; they wrote sentences sentences to compound or complex. Students check explanation. to “trigger” grammar-check watched the computer screens as the checker error identifi cation; they com- “reacted” to the sentences they created, and they pared terminology and rules of grammar from text compared and discussed the checker’s recommenda- resources with those on the computer checker; and tions with their classmates. they explored the readability statistics, which report sentence length and the grade level of their Critical, Confi dent Users writing. of the Grammar Checker A favorite activity for the seventh graders was typing the textbook “pretest” for the subject- For the full cycle of the three grammar units with verb agreement unit. Students then observed the my writing classes, I not only taught but also grammar-check performance, reported their results, observed and recorded the impact of this grammar- check incorporation. This research underscored the excite- ment I felt as grammar check entered my teaching. Class- room observation records, pre- and post-interviews, surveys, test data, and student essays revealed that my students became more familiar with the grammar checker, more confi - dent in its uses, and more cau- tious about its limitations. This familiarity led to more student use and exploration of the tool, and it brought new decisions for students about how they would personally use the gram- mar checker when writing. Students showed more confi dence for understanding the grammar terminology used in the grammar checker after studying and using these terms

38 September 2008 Reva Potter and Dorothy Fuller

during composition. By May I had clear evidence of Students Make Connections to Key change in student behavior through increased use Grammar Concepts of the grammar-check explanations. At the start of The deliberate use of grammar check allowed for the study, students using the computer for compo- constant feedback about students’ grammar choices sition were likely to ignore a grammar-check expla- via the computer. An essential component of forma- nation. By the end of the study, they more often tive assessment is the students’ assessments of their than not opened and read the explanation. Student strengths and weaknesses and control of their own caution with grammar check increased in the learning (Black and William 7), and with the gram- research post-surveys, to the point that almost 75% mar checker students learned in a naturally inquiry- of the students expressed skepticism about the based and formative learning environment. It was accuracy of the checker. not “the teacher told them” about concerns in their Interviews also revealed that students became writing, but their own active analysis, using ques- more confi dent with the use of grammar-check tools tioning and problem solving. throughout the project. In the preinterview, half The students’ word-processing experiences of the students found grammar terminology or gave them more opportunities to use grammar tech- suggestions confusing, while only three reported nology to express observations about their writing. this confusion in the post-interview. In the post- Explaining her experiences with grammar check interviews, students declared that they could teach during instruction with others how to access and use the grammar checker, compound and complex When my students showing greater confi dence in their understanding sentence structure, one stu- confronted the term of the tool itself. Students also felt they were more dent noted, “The computer passive voice in a likely to recognize instances of faulty recommen- didn’t pick up on the FAN- dations by the checker: only two of the twenty- grammar-check of their BOYS [a mnemonic device two interviewed students reported this before own writing, they were for the list of coordinating the instruction, while nine of the twenty-two able to go beyond the conjunctions] as it should found these types of problems in the checker at have.” During instruction usual textbook study, the end. with subject-verb agree- analyze passive voice as a During the twice-weekly instruction in the ment, one student noted style error, evaluate the computer lab during the units, students exhibited that the checker “struggles high interest in navigating the features of the grammar check with inverted word order checker and were eager to show classmates their suggestions, and and with compound sub- discoveries. They also found ways to manipulate the determine if their use of jects.” For the fi rst time in settings and explored other capabilities such as my experience as a teacher passive voice was readability statistics. To improve their grade level of middle school language appropriate. number, for instance, some students told classmates arts, my students and I had to make sentences longer by putting short sentences a truly investigative discussion of writing style and together. Students experimented with resetting the passive voice. When my students confronted the style tools from “Formal” to “Standard” levels to see term passive voice in a grammar-check of their own how checker recommendations changed. writing, they were able to go beyond the usual text- My students’ year-end written refl ections book study, analyze passive voice as a style error, revealed deeper understanding and a critical per- evaluate the grammar check suggestions, and deter- ception of grammar check. One student wrote, “I mine if their use of passive voice was appropriate. learned that the computer isn’t right for everything. My students’ standardized test scores showed I learned how to use the tools on the computer and strong improvement in grammar from beginning to how to be able to know what is right and what is end of the year, including some remarkable areas. For wrong.” These types of comments, weeks after the instance, when tested on use of semicolons in com- grammar had been studied in class, reassured me pound sentences, half of the grammar-check group that the grammar experience would continue to responded correctly to these items compared to less infl uence student writing with the computer. than one-fi fth of the students from the previous year’s

English Journal 39 My New Teaching Partner? Using the Grammar Checker in Writing Instruction

group. Use of semicolons has been a diffi cult concept gled with the passive voice unit said, “I think that I for my seventh graders, so this was a notable increase. can vaguely recognize it and fi x it. At least if it shows up on the computer, I can say that I learned about it.” Seventh Grade Is an Excellent Time This student, who had only studied this concept for to Employ the Grammar Checker one unit, was already looking to the future, knowing the concept would appear again in his writing. When given a tool to make their lives easier, young people use it automatically. For instance, early in my Conclusion and Implications research observations I noted for Further Study Helping students make that many students chose not to good writing choices capitalize “I” while typing. The In my teaching partnership with the grammar while using computer students were not choosing to checker, a technology tool so common that we for- grammar tools gave my make a spelling error; they were get it exists, I was able to help my students make grammar instruction a actively using the autocorrect more-informed choices about their writing. My feature of the grammar checker students learned grammar as they will confront it stronger connection to the to save themselves time. They throughout their futures: on their computers. daily experiences of my knew that as they typed, the Helping students make good writing choices students than I had checker would automatically while using computer grammar tools gave my gram- previously experienced. correct the capitalization of “i.” mar instruction a stronger connection to the daily I knew then that although my experiences of my students than I had previously students knew little about the capabilities and limi- experienced. Students became more skeptical about tations of the grammar checker, they would absorb the omnipotence of the grammar checker. They were and utilize whatever I could show them. more engaged and more motivated to apply the My seventh graders were eager to discover learning of the specifi c grammar units. I found no more about the grammar checker. These naturally evidence that direct teaching of the grammar checker inquisitive adolescents, critical of authority and sta- was in any way detrimental, and I will continue to tus quo, found the limitations of the grammar incorporate grammar check in my writing and gram- checker intriguing. Academically, the students mar activities. were ready for increased expectations in grammar Exploration of the use of word-processing tools terminology and abstract style choices. Empowered to improve and enhance writing instruction has gen- by experience with and understanding of the gram- erated other questions: How can writing workshop mar checker, students took more control of the best include grammar-check instruction? Does recommendations the computer offered for their emphasizing technology in writing detract from cre- written work. As one student noted, “If something ative performance? What support do teachers of all is correct, but the computer says it’s wrong, you can disciplines need for effective use of word-processing ignore it.” Another student recommended to others tools in their classrooms? Should curriculum stan- “to always read what the computer thinks before dards for language arts include word-processing tech- deciding on what is correct for your own writing.” nology? Will studying grammar in this way improve When the middle school principal visited the quality of students’ writing? my classes as they worked in the computer lab on Students must be able to write effectively and subject-verb agreement, she noted, “As I observed use technology effectively, and their educational students typing incorrect sentences, it was interest- experience should provide instruction to meet both ing to hear their comments as to how the grammar needs. Teaching with the technology tools for edit- check is not always correct. This awareness is very ing can enhance the writing and grammar instruc- valuable because most believe technology is always tion without requiring additional time for units of right. They appeared to understand why it is impor- study. Employing the grammar checker as a part- tant for them to know the rules of grammar.” ner in the classroom may highlight instructional Overall, the use of the grammar checker took gaps that teachers can fi ll while still meeting, and grammar beyond the textbook to the individual stu- perhaps exceeding, the needs of the language arts dent’s writing experience. As one student who strug- curriculum.

40 September 2008 Reva Potter and Dorothy Fuller

Works Cited McGee, Tim, and Patricia Ericsson. “The Politics of the Pro- Black, Paul, and Dylan William. “Inside the Black Box: gram: MS Word as the Invisible Grammarian.” Com- Raising Standards through Classroom Assessments.” puters and Composition 19 (2002): 453–70. Phi Delta Kappan Dec. 1998: 139–44. Vernon, Alex. “Computerized Grammar Checkers 2000: Jensen, Melissa. “Using Word to Assess and Improve Capabilities, Limitations, and Pedagogical Possibili- Editing Skills.” ECOO Output Dec. 2004: 28–31. ties.” Computers and Composition 17 (2000): 329–49.

Reva Potter is a seventh-grade language arts teacher at Belle Fourche Middle School, Belle Fourche, South Dakota. She has earned National Board Certifi cation, English Language Arts–Early Adolescence, and a Master of Science in Curriculum and Instruction with an emphasis in technology integration from Black Hills State University. She may be reached at Reva.Potter@ k12.sd.us. Dorothy Fuller is associate professor in the College of Education at Black Hills State University. Her research involves the effective integration of common computer and telecommunications technology tools for increased student learning. Her email address is [email protected].

READWRITETHINK CONNECTION Lisa Storm Fink, RWT One of the authors uses the grammar checker in her word-processing software after teaching minilessons to her students on topics such as subject-verb agreement, active and passive voice, and comma usage. “Choosing the Best Verb: An Active and Passive Voice Mini-Lesson” can be reviewed before using the computer’s grammar checker. For most students, speech and informal writing fl ow naturally. When it comes to more formal writing, however, stu- dents frequently choose passive voice constructions because to them, the verbs sound more academic or more for- mal. This minilesson explores verb choice in a variety of online resources and then encourages students to draw conclusions about verb use that they can apply to their writing. http://www.readwritethink.org/lessons/lesson_ view.asp?id=280

English Journal 41