Return to Top
My computer advocate children gave me a program called Correct Grammar by Lifetree 3.0 for my birthday two years ago when I was completing Master's degree papers. I found it amazing that a computer program existed that could identify sentence structure, suggest corrections for grammar mistakes, and rate writing level. I used it with vain curiosity and skepticism feeling secure that I produced graduate level writing anyway. Nevertheless, having the machine tell me I rated consistently at the top of the graduate level welded an ego that was continually getting punctured every time a new graduate committee attacked my papers. "Interesting," I thought to myself. "Even though I know my writing is appropriate, I still enjoy a machine telling me so." Was this conceit or insecurity? Either way, it pleased my children to tell them I really enjoyed their gift, and quite honestly, my "Correct Grammar" birthday present and I gradually became good friends. The program occasionally found a "which" where I should have put "that", and sometimes it reminded me, "This sentence seems to exceed recommended length." However, it really did very little to improve my writing, but it was really fun being told I wrote well.
Somehow I never connected that past writing experience, vanity or insecurity, with my present teaching assignment. After all, what could the writing of someone completing multiple graduate degrees possibly have in common with someone just beginning to learn the writing process? Then during the last summer session, one of my basic writing students voiced a very familiar vain curiosity. "I know I write on an appropriate level for English classes. When I'm enrolled in an English class, my teachers or peers help me find the errors and correct them. I am getting pretty good, with their help, at knowing what to do, but sometimes I miss things when I'm left on my own. I wish I had something to check my writing against when I have to do papers by myself for other classes. I wish I could have a mechanical English teacher hooked onto my computer to rate the level as I am actually rewriting my papers."
How much clearer could it be stated? This student wished to have a birthday present like mine. Why hadn't I thought of that before? True, I got a kick from knowing my level because it was high, but I had dismissed the idea that a student would react the same way because basic students are low. I figured that seeing their low score in black and white would have a defeating effect and discourage, not encourage. I never thought of having an "ongoing" rating to show the improvement as it is being made. That was a superb idea. It needed to be explored.
I approached three excellent writers on the English department staff and asked what they knew about computer grammar programs. All three echoed my own experience saying that it did them so little good, it was more of a nuisance--fun, but useless. In these conversations I learned that such programs existed on the 5.1 computers, and that a new program called Grammartek 6.0 could be installed with windows. I felt a little intimidated at this point because I had been delighted to get my first 4.1 computer two years ago. Only this summer did Kendell get a 5.1 into my office-bless him, bless him, bless him. The very week my student made the comment about the mechanical English teacher giving "ongoing" ratings was the same week Kendell upgraded my computer, and I finally had a system and the knowledge to work on my office computer and on my home computer interchangeably.
That week in class as I returned second drafts with highlighted be verbs and instruction to be returned as third drafts with those verbs written out, I invited any student to come into my office and type the second draft paper on one of my virgin Double D disks so that I could run it through "my friend". I promised that I would run the third draft changes through also to show any writing level improvement occurring simply by changing the passive sentences. I had three takers. All three turned out to be rated fifth grade level second draft and sixth grade level third draft. While a surprising number of comments came up about their papers, the most beneficial to them at that time seemed to be "This sentence appears to have a verb in passive voice." These three students were totally captivated by the idea that a machine could spot something that they were just now learning to identify.
As with any good research, results need to be replicated to be valid, so I attempted this same procedure Fall semester making it mandatory for the whole class. I invested in my own boxes of disks which I required students to use, both to control the introduction of viruses to my home computer and because my equipment still only uses Double D compatibly. This time I ran the papers through at second draft stage requiring the same work on passive verbs in the third draft, but added sentence combining requirements completed in a fourth draft. My student range was third grade to ninth grade at second draft stage, but sixth grade to eleventh grade at fourth draft stage. Remember, I have basic writers. I did not have time for a fifth draft on the machine although some of the students did the extra draft with more sentence combining and scrutiny of technical errors. The writing gains were good, but the excitement of the students was tremendous. Those were the best papers and the most motivated students ever produced in any of my basic writing classes.
Naturally, I was enthralled with the success of this endeavor, but a little discouraged from my office becoming a beehive, and my home system draining my time in the evenings. I set my mind to solving these problems Winter semester. I asked more questions of other teachers in the department. With the new Beacon program and the old grammar modules both available, I though perhaps a grammar check could be somewhere, and I just didn't know about it. My search led me to the writing lab where I approached David Ward, the director of the writing center, to see if I could have my grammar check program put on one of his computers so that I could send my students with a password to do this special service for themselves.
I discovered Grammartek 5.1 was already installed on two lab computers, but no classes are currently using them, so the knowledge of their use was limited. Brother Ward was very helpful and enthusiastic about offering these computer services to my students, but found rather quickly that this more advanced program gave more advanced instructions. I ran through a two and one half page paper inserting all instructions to have a sample of what it identifies. The final printout was nine pages long. Obviously, that many suggestions would overwhelm a beginning writer. One of the tutors also discovered the student will believe the machine before the tutor when something idiomatic occurs. Writers can't discern instructions from machines or tutors when they are beginning. Does this mean I go right back to the classroom, so students can trust only the teacher who offers good solid instruction without so many choices, and just forget the technology?
Ironically, I think what this means is just the opposite-more technology. I used to wonder how the drug Ritalyn could have a calming effect when it, in fact, is an upper. Then I realized that if going fast enough the brain forces information to categorize. The drug speeds the entrance of information to the point that it forces categorization. Similarly, a more complicated grammar check program will contain so much information that a key system will have to be programmed so the user can select what checks need to be done. Popular programs are sold on the basis of user friendliness. If a program becomes too complicated, it becomes to unfriendly and the programmer will have to do something about that--program in some help.
Karl Edwards, the learning lab director, has already purchased a program called Right Writer which has three designated levels: beginning, intermediate, and advanced. As yet, these levels are not true writing levels. They really designate a check for punctuation, sentence structure, and style, but the idea of user selection has been born. Right now "my friend", Correct Grammar 3.0, is most user friendly for my basic students, but I feel sure with some fresh classroom teaching this summer, I can help many students learn to help themselves with the benefit of the machine in the lab. Eventually, there may be a program that the teacher can select what checks take place. Think of it--a program that can be programmed for whatever the teacher chooses. With the early drafts devoted to mechanical help for students covering punctuation, sentence structure, and style, the teacher is free to concentrate on additional drafts that move the student into development and expansion of thinking, and detailed expression of ideas. What a joy it will be to get beginners this far in their first class. Who would have ever imagined this vision could have started with a birthday present?
NOTE: This article was written on the level of the students who would use the programs so that a sample rating could be provided. Correct Grammar Readability Ananlysis is as follows:
11 paragraphs, average 6.3 sentences each
70 sentences, average 20.4 words each
1433 words, average 4.7 letters each
156 syllables per 100 words
11 passive sentences--10% of total
7 passive sentences--15%of total
0 misspelled words--100% correct
4 other errors corrected--94% correct
7 sentences hard to read--90% correcxt
Flesh Reading Ease score--54.1
Standard Grade level required--10
U.S. addults who can understand--83%
Flesch-Kincaid grade level--10.7
Gunning Fog Index--9.6
A fun teaching tip for such a rating would be to challenge the student autthor to find their own--
a) long sentences
b) passive sentences
c) "other" errors