14.01.2015 Views

Teaching Grammar and Editing in Public Administration ... - Naspaa

Teaching Grammar and Editing in Public Administration ... - Naspaa

Teaching Grammar and Editing in Public Administration ... - Naspaa

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>Teach<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>Grammar</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Edit<strong>in</strong>g</strong><br />

these writ<strong>in</strong>g deficiencies, the course design used a blended pedagogy with multiple<br />

grad<strong>in</strong>g mechanisms (i.e., exams, onl<strong>in</strong>e modules, peer edit<strong>in</strong>g, group work, <strong>and</strong><br />

<strong>in</strong>dividual writ<strong>in</strong>g assignments). The course also <strong>in</strong>corporated professional technical<br />

writers as guest speakers (e.g., the county’s communication director, the city’s public<br />

<strong>in</strong>formation officer, a local government website designer, <strong>and</strong> a federal grant writer/<br />

reviewer) who provided students with writ<strong>in</strong>g examples from their organizations.<br />

Stanford (1992) provides some best writ<strong>in</strong>g practices for MPA programs:<br />

<strong>in</strong>corporat<strong>in</strong>g many short writ<strong>in</strong>g assignments <strong>in</strong>stead of one lengthy research<br />

paper; writ<strong>in</strong>g for multiple audiences; sett<strong>in</strong>g clear writ<strong>in</strong>g goals <strong>and</strong> competencies<br />

for students <strong>in</strong> the course; evaluat<strong>in</strong>g students’ writ<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> provid<strong>in</strong>g feedback;<br />

<strong>and</strong> h<strong>and</strong>l<strong>in</strong>g students’ writ<strong>in</strong>g workload, which can overwhelm writ<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>structors.<br />

The next sections discuss these best practices, as well as some pedagogical theories<br />

for grammar <strong>and</strong> writ<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>in</strong> more detail as they relate to the undergraduate adm<strong>in</strong>istrative<br />

writ<strong>in</strong>g course design.<br />

<strong>Grammar</strong> Review<br />

Although not discussed by Stanford (1992), the course began with a brief<br />

grammar review. H<strong>in</strong>es <strong>and</strong> Basso’s case study stresses the need for grammar review<br />

<strong>in</strong> communication/writ<strong>in</strong>g courses: “At the heart of all written communication<br />

rema<strong>in</strong>s the proper use of the rules of English <strong>Grammar</strong>. … Incoherent sentences<br />

<strong>and</strong> ambiguous thoughts doom writ<strong>in</strong>g to fail at its most fundamental <strong>and</strong> important<br />

level, communicat<strong>in</strong>g ideas” (2008, pp. 294, 297). The grammar review<br />

<strong>in</strong>corporated a mix of the rules-based <strong>and</strong> content-based approaches. The rulesbased<br />

approach to teach<strong>in</strong>g grammar (also known as deductive approach <strong>and</strong><br />

traditional school grammar approach) is a teacher-centered approach focus<strong>in</strong>g on<br />

grammar def<strong>in</strong>itions <strong>and</strong> rules, <strong>and</strong> then requir<strong>in</strong>g students to apply those rules<br />

to specific isolated exercises (Weaver, 1996). Examples of this approach <strong>in</strong>clude<br />

diagramm<strong>in</strong>g sentences <strong>and</strong> memoriz<strong>in</strong>g def<strong>in</strong>itions (e.g., predicates, fragments,<br />

subord<strong>in</strong>ate clauses).<br />

The content-based, or <strong>in</strong>ductive, approach ga<strong>in</strong>ed popularity <strong>in</strong> the 1960s<br />

<strong>and</strong> applies grammar def<strong>in</strong>itions <strong>and</strong> rules to students’ writ<strong>in</strong>g (Quible & Griff<strong>in</strong>,<br />

2007). Through this student-centered approach, students discover grammar rules,<br />

concepts, <strong>and</strong> exceptions while writ<strong>in</strong>g or edit<strong>in</strong>g their assignments. Weaver (1996)<br />

advocated for the content-based approach for teach<strong>in</strong>g grammar <strong>and</strong> citied many<br />

studies (i.e., Calk<strong>in</strong>s, 1980; DiStefano & Killion, 1984; Harris & Rowan, 1989;<br />

Noguchi, 1991) conducted on elementary through college-aged students. Specifically<br />

applicable to the design of the adm<strong>in</strong>istrative writ<strong>in</strong>g course is Harris <strong>and</strong> Rowan’s<br />

(1989) study of undergraduate students’ underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g of grammar concepts.<br />

The authors concluded that students needed the application of grammar concepts<br />

<strong>in</strong> their writ<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>in</strong> addition to know<strong>in</strong>g grammar rules <strong>and</strong> def<strong>in</strong>itions. Specifically,<br />

students <strong>in</strong> the study could def<strong>in</strong>e a sentence, but failed to differentiate between<br />

a fragment or run-on sentence <strong>and</strong> a grammatically correct sentence (Weaver, 1996).<br />

Journal of <strong>Public</strong> Affairs Education 521

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!