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 word 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 word processor’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 compound 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.