Kavoos Kolahdouzan

English 87
Research Project Outline
Purpose: This paper aims to (a) demonstrate that many college students do not possess
proficient stylistic and grammatical skills, (b) explore various stances of the academia on
teaching grammar in college and (c) give a possible solution to improve the writing skills of
college students.
A. Establish the problem: Many college students need help with grammar and general
writing skills:
a. Quible and Griffin (2007) argue that large US corporations spend billions of
dollars on their employees to improve their general writing skills. Most of these
employees are recent college graduates.
b. Ward and Seifert (1990) acknowledge that many of recent college graduates who
are entering the field of journalism are not proficient enough for the mechanical
demands of the job market.
B. Explore the various stances of Academia on teaching grammar in college
a. Process-over-product point of view: Argues that professors must strictly focus on
process of writing rather than focusing on the final products grammatical and
structural proficiency.
i.
Hairston (1982) argues that professors must devote the majority of their
time towards improving the process of writing.
b. Back-to-basics traditionalists: Argue that college professors must directly address
the common mechanical problems in writing.
i.
Kolln (1981) argues that the problems of mechanical writing are simply
too much to ignore; professors and other college instructors must directly
advise their students in order to improve their writing skills.
b. Middle Position between the two above: argues for teaching the process of
writing, as well as fully acknowledging any common problems seen in student
writing through the lense of a student essay, rather than the use out-of-thecontext grammatical drills.
i.
Englands Kingsman report (1988) directly argues that the use of
grammatical drills is unnecessary; instead, instructors must address
problems seen in student writing through specific comments that
ultimately aim to make the student a better writer.
ii.
Meckel (1963) from Gages handbook on research also argues for an
approach that incorporates context-based improvement of grammar,
rather than drills that would try to improve a students writing skills.
B. Possible solutions that incorporate all of the stances stated above.
a. The Writing Center: possibly coordinate workshops, instruct writing fellows to
address a common problem that they see in the students writing, without
focusing too much on the grammar side of the draft presented.
i.
Bibb (2012) argues that writing fellows must flag grammar errors when
they see them. At the same time, they must focus the majority of their
time on development of ideas. Therefore, a writing fellow must point out
any common problems that they see in a students writing and offer tips to
avoid them in future writing.
b. Other solutions (area for further research on my part)

Bibliography:
Popovich, Mark N., and Mark H. Mass. "Individual assessment of media writing student attitudes:
Recasting the mass communication writing apprehension measure." Journalism & Mass Communication
Quarterly 82.2 (2005): 339-355.
Bibb, Bethany. "Bringing Balance To The Table: Comprehensive Writing Instruction In The Tutoring Session." Writing
Center Journal 32.1 (2012): 92-104. ERIC. Web. 4 Nov. 2015.

Kolln, Martha. Closing the Books on Alchemy. College Composition andCommunication 32.2 (1981):
139151. Web
Hairston, Maxine. The Winds of Change: Thomas Kuhn and the Revolution in the Teaching of
Writing. College Composition and Communication 33.1 (1982): 7688. Web...

"Kingman Report 1988 - Full Text." Kingman Report 1988 - Full Text. N.p., 1988. Web. 04
Nov. 2015.
Quible, Zane K., and Frances Griffin. "Are Writing Deficiencies Creating A Lost Generation Of Business
Writers?." Journal Of Education For Business 83.1 (2007): 32-36. ERIC. Web. 4 Nov. 2015.

Gage, N. L. Handbook of Research on Teaching; a Project of the American Educational

Research Association. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963. Print.

(This draft does not include as much resources. I mainly wanted to get my own thoughts
out before going to literature for supporting information)
Kavoos Kolahdouzan
Professor Bromley
English 87
November 19th, 2015
Research paper
The battle between grammar and content has long been over. There is no doubt
that a great piece of writing is marked by valid content, rather than perfect grammar.
However, many instructors at colleges have abandoned the teaching of grammar
altogether, instead focusing their sole attention on the students grasp on the contents of
the class. While instructors are improving the critical thinking of their students, their
content-based pedagogy has created several generations of students who have had no
instruction basic grammatical knowledge (Quible).

This problem is magnified in students post-college careers. Corporations expect

a mastery of basic grammatical knowledge from their employees. However, there is a
clear discrepancy between the level of grammar needed for the workplace and the
grammatical knowledge of recent college graduates, so much so that large-cap U.S.
corporations are spending billions on workshops and classes to boost the grammatical
and stylistic knowledge of their employees.
Therefore, while college graduates are capable of critical thinking, their writing is
lacking the very basic elements of grammar. This research paper aims to address the
implications of this issue, as well as explore various stances of the academia on
teaching grammar in college. Ultimately, this paper will propose a valid solution to
improve students deficiencies in writing.
Paragraph or two devoted to demonstrating that college students are not ready:

Stances of Academia on teaching of grammar in college

Before proposing a potential solution to this problem, it is of paramount
importance to examine the scholarly literature that has been done on the teaching of
grammar in college. Through this examination, we can trace the roots in the deficiencies
of todays college writers, as well as highlight key aspects that each academic stance is

arguing for. The solution will ultimately address the main concerns that each of these
academic stances propose.
In the 1980s, many scholars argued that instructors must value the process over
the product, which is the model that our educational institutions are based upon.
Frustrated by technically perfect essays that had little to no content, scholars such as
Maxine Hairston radically pushed for instructors to stress how one should approach the
writing process.
In this model, the writing process is mainly a talking process, where the writer
discusses ideas with a peer or a professor. The main aim of the class discussions, as
well as peer-led discussions and student-professor conversations, is for the writer to
form new conceptual bridges between core ideas of the course, forming a line of
argument that will be the focal point of the writers essay.
Without a single doubt, this model offers essential benefits to a writer. Scholars
(list literature here) (put a quote) have repeatedly highlighted the importance of talking in
first-order thinking, a term used to describe the creative process that must occur in order
for conceptual connections to form. (look back more on this) (develop more from the
class reading that we did on first-order thinking).
However, the process-over-product model does not address the grammatical
deficiencies of students. In this model, the instructor will simply assess a students

performance by the content of their essay, rather than by its technical soundness. This
means that students would not pay as much attention to their writings mechanics as
they normally would.
A small number of back-to-basic traditionalists started argue that the instructor
must address common grammatical problems during the class session. In their
viewpoint, the process-over-product model neglects the mechanistic aspects that are
key to post-college career success. However, their argument simply did not affect
educational system because they argued that the instructor must sacrifice time that is
devoted to the discussion of content and ideas for the sake of teaching the mechanics.
As a result, it should come as no surprise that professors across the country are
following the process-over-product model; courses are designed to augment the ideas of
the students rather than teaching them mechanics that they should have mastered
before coming to college. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that students have
grammar issues; they receive little to no refresher on the very mechanics of writing
when they are in college simply because technicalities of writing are not nearly as
important as the content.
Solution:

Since instructors will most likely never teach grammar in college again, then who
will own up to task? My proposed solution is to outsource the teaching of grammar to
the Writing Center.
The words grammar and Writing Center typically dont go together. Influential
scholars such as Stephen North have written seminal works that have attempted, and in
some part succeeded, to change the image of the Writing Center from a fix-it shop to a
place where writers come to be patiently heard and advised. Writing Centers provide
students a place for a conversation; the main aim is to leave the student with a clearer
understanding of higher-order concerns, such as structure, progression and focus.
If I were to tell my other fellows that we need to start addressing technicalities as
much as higher-order concerns, they would not take me seriously. However, my solution
does not involve a careful attention to technicalities from the fellows.
Instead, I propose that if a fellow sees a common error throughout the paper, they
flag the error to the student and suggest ways to improve it. During the process, it is of
paramount importance to not do all of the work; the fellow must let the student grapple
with the error. If the student cannot fix the error on their own, the fellow can help them
by fixing the major errors of the sentence. By flagging common errors seen in a paper
and offering ideas for improvement, fellows can help students about their common

pitfalls in grammar. Every students writing background is different; this method is

contextualized to the students specific needs.
I commonly practice this method by spending the last five or so minutes of my
consultation addressing key technicality issues that I see in the students paper.
However, I must say that I only do this when I see fit; sacrificing time away from
addressing higher-order concerns when a student has minor grammar errors is not
feasible. It is only suitable to devote time to lower-order concerns when a fellow is
distracted from the essays main purpose.
(more of the solution could include: writing workshops by fellows, more readilyavailable handouts, since we tend not to give them out as much as we should)