By Carin White
A week ago, we had an all-day “inquiry celebration” at the writing center to discuss the research we had participated in during the semester. The conversations were interesting, and I walked away with much. However, one theme that sits with me days later is grammar. Either due to my own experience in the writing center or the frequency with which “grammar” was uttered, that particular word hit my ear and has stayed with me. Also, looking at the blog entries — how many are dealing with grammar? A number, and the most controversial entries have been around the difficulty of consulting during a grammar-focused session. It is worth acknowledging that there is a tension around this issue.
I have a hunch about this tension.
First, writing consultants by and large are people invested in writing and ideas. In our center we are writers, artists, teachers from a variety of disciplines, but all have invested in not one but two degrees. If this doesn’t attest to our love affair with ideas, I don’t know what does. We love ’em. There are so many aspects to writing that are idea-based and subjective. What this translates to in a session is that you get to suss out how to attune the writing to some general conventions and a specific context. In other words, you problem solve and engage in discussion. In contrast, grammar is about rules. Who likes to talk about rules and then repeat the application of the rule to every article, preposition, etc.? “You need a semi-colon here to join the two indep . . . ;” “An article is used for countab . . . ;” and on and on. The lackluster aspect of grammar is something that we contend with, at least in part, in the majority of sessions.
I think it is fair to acknowledge that grammar is not exactly wind blowing in your hair “fun.” It isn’t “fun” for the writers that come in to ask for their paper to be proofread. This brings us to the second part of my hunch. The majority of students that I have encountered needing to have work proofread have been nonnative speakers, so I will focus on this concern as it presents the greatest tension. For a nonnative speaker, having your paper cleared of grammatical errors is something that is painstakingly hard and time consuming. When you are still mastering the language and are translating between your native language and another constantly, it is extremely easy to go “grammar blind.” Like any writer that has worked on their paper for a long time, working in a native language or no, they stop “seeing” their work. However, asking someone to proofread your work is asking someone else to be responsible for your paper, at least in that aspect. At the Writing Center, it is an important value to develop writers who have ownership over their own writing. Obviously, proofreading is a contradiction of this value.
So how does a nonnative speaker learn where, how often, and why they are making errors? And what about those really important papers? Students are unlikely to be comforted by phrases like, “Oh that is just where you are in your language acquisition.” As someone who has had to write outside of my native language, I can say I wouldn’t be happy with that answer. I would want to hear a native speaker read my work, have them show me every error, and model how to fix each of them. Communicating your ideas to others is an empowering act, especially in writing, but when you cannot do it clearly due to language difficulties, the experience can feel quite the opposite. As people who value ideas, we can and do empathize with this.
However, the taxing quality of grammar correction and the conflict with Writing Center values clash with the student’s need to have their work proofread.
I recently stumbled on a strategy to reconcile this clash as much as possible. First, I make two photocopies of the assignment. Then the writer and I read the paper together, usually out loud, and highlight sentences, phrases, etc. that we have questions about. I keep my paper close to me so that my highlighting will not cue what the student highlights. I put my papers face down and look at the student’s copy with them. I ask, “Why did you highlight that sentence?” I affirm their hunches about the grammar issue, and we make the correct adjustments to the sentence. After we work through the student’s highlighted areas, I flip over my copy of their paper, and we go through my highlighted areas.
What I like about this strategy is that it does a few things. First, it makes the student an active participant in reviewing their work and helps them practice “seeing” their grammar errors. Second, they have someone with more experience that will help them identify more grammar errors; they are being supported. Third, without “fixing” their paper for them, I am able to give the student a copy of their work that will draw their attention to grammar and syntactical concerns. Also, if we don’t have enough time in the session to address everything, the student has a map of where to turn their attention.
Acquiring language involves learning a rule and having that rule reaffirmed over and over again. This strategy acknowledges that, but it also doesn’t put the responsibility of the student’s paper on me; the student still owns the work.
I should also share that if the student doesn’t highlight anything after reading the paper out loud, I tell them that I’ll give them five minutes or so to highlight anything they want to look at. I leave my paper face down on the desk and get some water so I’m not hovering. I do this because I want the student to have an opportunity to look over their paper, and I want to set up the expectation that they must bring something to the conversation.
This has been the most productive solution to that clash of interests and values. It has been a useful way of dealing with grammar and “proofreading” requests thus far. I’d be curious to know what others’ experiences or thoughts might be on this strategy. If you do use it, or something like it, please let me know how it works or doesn’t work.
Published May 28, 2015
