The main point of contention, of course, has been the inclusion of Language as a separate strand with grammar, usage, and conventions divorced from writing instruction and vocabulary divorced from reading instruction.

In fact, the writers of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) go out of their away to alleviate the fears of writing-based and literature-based devotees with the following disclaimer: “The inclusion of Language standards in their own strand should not be taken as an indication that skills related to conventions, effective language use, and vocabulary are unimportant to reading, writing, speaking, and listening; indeed, they are inseparable from such contexts (51).” http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf

A second issue has received far less attention than the aforementioned point of contention in curricular mapping committees and ELA forums, but has created more rumblings in the educational publishing world. This second issue will perhaps have a greater impact than the first on classroom instruction.

In the Language Strand, at the end of both the K-5 (p. 30) and 6-12 (p. 56) Language Standards is a document titled “Language Progressive Skills, by Grade” with this subheading: “The following skills, marked with an asterisk (*) in Language standards 1–3, are particularly likely to require continued attention in higher grades as they are applied to increasingly sophisticated writing and speaking.”

CCSS Language Progressive Skills Standards

…..

1. L.3.1f. Ensure subject-verb and pronoun-antecedent agreement.
2. L.3.3a. Choose words and phrases for effect.
3. L.4.1f. Produce complete sentences, recognizing and correcting inappropriate fragments and run-ons.
4. L.4.1g. Correctly use frequently confused words (e.g., to/too/two; there/their).
5. L.3.3a. Choose words and phrases for effect.
6. L.4.3b. Choose punctuation for effect.
7. L.5.1d. Recognize and correct inappropriate shifts in verb tense.
8. L.5.2a. Use punctuation to separate items in a series.†
9. L.6.1c. Recognize and correct inappropriate shifts in pronoun number and person.
10. L.6.1d. Recognize and correct vague pronouns (i.e., ones with unclear or ambiguous antecedents).
11. L.6.1e. Recognize variations from standard English in their own and others’ writing and speaking, and identify and use strategies to improve expression in conventional language.
12. L.6.2a. Use punctuation (commas, parentheses, dashes) to set off nonrestrictive/parenthetical elements.
13. L.6.3a. Vary sentence patterns for meaning, reader/listener interest, and style.‡
14. L.6.3b. Maintain consistency in style and tone.
15. L.7.1c. Place phrases and clauses within a sentence, recognizing and correcting misplaced and dangling modifiers.
16. L.7.3a. Choose language that expresses ideas precisely and concisely, recognizing and eliminating wordiness and redundancy.
17. L.8.1d. Recognize and correct inappropriate shifts in verb voice and mood.
18. L.9–10.1a. Use parallel structure.

Analysis and Implications of the CCSS Language Progressive Skills Standards

…..

No Vocabulary Acquisition and Use (Standards 4, 5, & 6) are included-only Conventions of Standard English (Standards 1 & 2), Knowledge and Use (Standard 3). In other words, grammar, usage, and conventions warrant this second document. Compared to previous state standard documents, the CCSS sees these components as specific building blocks to literacy, and not just incidental outcomes learned by some mysterious form of academic osmosis.

Of the 18 CCSS Language Progressive Skills Standards, 14 are Grade 3-6 Standards. Clearly the writers of the CCSS have chosen to notch up the rigor of previous state standards by devolving most of the heavy instructional lifting of grammar, usage, and conventions skills to elementary teachers.

The CCSS defines grammar, usage, and conventions as “skills.” Skills are to be applied to the writing craft. National Writing Project, Writers Workshop, and Writing Process advocates have been loath to accept this skills/craft instructional distinction.

Tacit acknowledgement is made that these grammar, usage, and conventions skills must be reviewed at each grade level. In other words, the cyclical nature of skills acquisition is affirmed. Unlike many previous state standards documents, the CCSS writers seem to get the fact that “Rome wasn’t built in a day.” The examples in Appendix A of the CCSS document are helpful in this regard.

Although the writers of the CCSS document have been careful to leave methodological autonomy to teachers, the inclusion of a separate language strand, the labeling of grammar, usage, and conventions as “skills,” and the review component of the 18 Langauge Progressive Skills Standards certainly promote some means of both direct and differentiated instruction in the Standards themselves.

The grammar, usage, and conventions skills require deep instruction, not just review practice, as with Daily Oral Language or Daily Language Review methodologies. And that means intensive, direct instruction and guided practice following an instructional sequence that includes the review components as scaffolding to build onto with new skills. Periodic “mini-lessons” are just not going to cut it. Each of the 18 Language Progressive Skills Standards cries out for diagnostic assessments and differentiated instruction for the sake of instructional efficiency and individual mastery.

For upper elementary, middle school, and high school teachers looking at a stand-alone grammar, mechanics, and spelling curriculum that is aligned to the language strand of Common Core State Standards, please check out the author’s Teaching Grammar and Mechanics. Throw away the ineffective D.O.L. or D.L.R. “openers” and get 64 no-prep, interactive Sentence Lifting lessons-each designed with basic and advanced skills. Each of the 64 lessons has Teacher Tips and Hints for the grammatically-challenged, simple sentence diagrams, sentence modeling, grammar cartoons, and dictations. Also get 72 Grammar and Mechanics Worksheets to differentiate instruction, according to the results of the Grammar and Mechanics Diagnostic Assessments.

Although teachers modify the Daily Oral Language (D.O.L.), to suit their tastes, here are the three basic Daily Oral Language (D.O.L.) Procedures:

1. The teacher displays or writes two error-filled sentences on the board. Next, the teacher calls upon students to come up to the board and write corrections and proofreading marks.
2. The teacher displays or writes two error-filled sentences on the board. The teacher passes out a D.O.L. worksheet with the error-filled sentences. Each student writes the corrections and proofreading marks on the worksheet. Next, the teacher calls upon students to come up to the board and write corrections and proofreading marks.
3. The teacher displays or writes two error-filled sentences on the board. Students write out the corrected sentences on binder paper or in a composition notebook. Next, the teacher calls upon students to come up to the board and write corrections and proofreading marks.

With each of the three approaches, as the students mark the board, the teacher orally reviews the relevant mechanics, spelling, and grammar rules and verifies the accuracy of the sentence edits. With Procedures #2 and #3, students self-edit their own corrections and proofreading marks during this review.

Problems with the Daily Oral Language (D.O.L.) Instructional Approaches

…..

1. With Procedures #2 and #3, students are required to multitask their own sentence edits while watching the board edits and listening to the teacher review the relevant rules.

Analysis: Doing two things at once is not good instructional pedagogy. My take is that none of us can chew gum and walk at the same time as well as we can do one isolated activity. Listening is a full time job; discussion is as well.

2. Procedures #1, 2, and 3 review the “rules” orally and not in written form.

Analysis: Oral review is just not effective instruction and is a key reason why teachers complain that students do not retain the skills reviewed in Daily Oral Language (D.O.L.). After all, the reason we bother teaching mechanics, spelling, and grammar is to help students improve their writing. It makes sense that students should write down relevant rules and examples and then apply these rules to both to authentic writing, such as mentor texts (What’s right?), as well as to edit error text designed with specific mistakes connected to the rules for the purposes of error analysis (What’s wrong?).

Instead of Daily Oral Language (D.O.L.), I prefer the Sentence Lifting approach in which students write down (or are provided) the mechanics, spelling, and grammar  “rules” and then discuss these in the context of both exemplary mentor text and text that requires error analysis and/or sentence manipulation. As the formative assessment, the teacher dictates sentences which require students to apply each “rule.” Students then correct and self-edit their sentences.

For example, if teaching a lesson on gerunds:

1. Students copy down (or are provided) this “rule”: A gerund is an “____ing verb” that is used as a noun.
2. Teacher reads the “rule” and elicits examples from students: “Running is good exercise. ” “Listening to Mr. Pennington makes me sleepy.” “Smoking cigarettes causes cancer.” Notice the variety of sentence constructions in the examples.
3. Discuss the use of the gerund in this literary model (a quote by Dave Barry displayed or written on the board): “Skiing combines outdoor fun with knocking down trees with your face.” Identify the gerund, discuss the use of the gerund in terms of syntax, meaning, and style. “What makes this so funny?” Elicit and discuss possible revisions.
4. Discuss this sentence (displayed or written on the board): “A necessary skill has become driving.” Identify the gerund, discuss the use/misuse of the gerund in terms of syntax, meaning, and style. Elicit and discuss possible revisions.
5. Dictate this sentence and refer students to look at their “rule” for assistance: “Revise this sentence by placing a gerund at the beginning of the sentence: The product 28 results when you multiply 4 times 7.”
6. Display this answer and require students to correct and self-edit: “Multiplying 4 times 7 results in the product 28.” Discuss any other possible revisions and set expectations for students to use and highlight gerunds in their writing assignment today.

Further Note: I add on a simple sentence diagram, a student model, and a related cartoon to the instructional mix. Teaching (note use of gerund ) one mechanics, one spelling, and one grammar “rule” with this Sentence Lifting approach takes me 15-20 minutes. I teach Sentence Lifting twice per week to my seventh graders. I use an instructional scope and sequence derived from the new Common Core State Standard Language Strand.

For upper elementary, middle school, and high school teachers looking for a comprehensive grammar, mechanics, and spelling curriculum that is aligned to the language strand of Common Core State Standards, please see the author’s Teaching Grammar and Mechanics. This no more than one hour per week program provides 64 no-prep and no-correct, interactive Sentence Lifting lessons-each designed with basic and advanced skills. Each of the 64 lessons has Teacher Tips and Hints for the grammatically-challenged, simple sentence diagrams, sentence modeling, grammar cartoons, and dictations. Also get 72 Grammar and Mechanics Worksheets to differentiate instruction, according to the results of the Grammar and Mechanics Diagnostic Assessments.

The Weekly Vocabulary Word List

In many classrooms the predominant means of vocabulary instruction is weekly vocabulary word list. Pass it out on Monday; have students look up and write down definitions, make flashcards, do a crossword puzzle, do a word sort, write context clue sentences, etc. Then test on Friday. The problem is that this approach does not work. It’s ineffective and inefficient.

It’s ineffective.

Students memorize the list for the Friday test and forget half of them by the next week. “Rote memorization of words and definitions is the least effective instructional method resulting in little long-term effect (Kameenui, Dixon, Carine 1987).”

It’s inefficient.

Even if students were to remember all of the, say 20 words, on the weekly vocabulary word list for the entire school year, they would only have mastered 600 words. But, the American lexicon is over 800,000 words. The SAT® word bank is over 30,000. 600 words won’t make a dent in those numbers.

According to reading research, students need to learn 3,000 new words per year just to make year-to-year grade level progress (Honig 1983). So learning only 600 words is a very small drop in a very big bucket. But it is a bucket we desperately need to fill-especially for educationally disadvantaged students, whose “word poverty” (Louisa C. Moats) dooms them to the “Matthew Effect” (Keith Stanovich) in which the poorer tend to get poorer.

To teach students 3,000 words a year, students would have to learn 17 words each school day (3,000 words over 178 school days). However, classroom intervention studies suggest that only 8 to 10 words can be retained through direct instruction in one week (Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986). That works out to about 300 words per year-hardly enough.

So, if vocabulary word lists are ineffective and inefficient. What does work to teach those 3,000 words per year?

Three Effective and Efficient Methods of Vocabulary Instruction

1. Independent Reading

Let’s use Luis as our example. Reading 30 minutes per day for homework at a rate of 200 words per minute, for a total of 132 days (4 days per week in a typical school year), means that Luis would be exposed to 792,000 words (30 x 200 x 132). If Luis reads text at the recommended 5% unknown words* level of word recognition recommended by reading researchers (Stahl, 1999), this means that he would be exposed to 39,600 unfamiliar words per year (792,000 x .05). Because students learn between 5 and 10 percent of previously unknown words in a single reading (Stahl, 1999), Luis will have learned between 1,980 and 3,960 new words at home! Not to mention reading in class.

*That 5% unknown words level is critically important. If students read texts below their current reading levels, even lots of reading won’t result in measurable vocabulary growth (Carver, 1994).

2. Greek and Latin Word Parts

Reading researchers suggest that learning Greek and Latin word parts is an effective and efficient method for acquiring vocabulary (e.g., Anglin, 1993; Biemiller & Slonim, 2001). Over 50% of all academic vocabulary contains one or more Greek or Latin prefix, root, or suffix. Unlike memorizing vocabulary word lists, memorizing word parts produces enormous pay-offs because one prefix, root, or suffix may be a component of hundreds of words. Learning these word families provides significant utility for the reader, especially those word parts with the highest utility.

Just 9 prefixes constitute 75% of words with prefixes (White, Sowell, & Yanigihara, 1989). Comprehensive frequency studies have not been completed on roots; however, there is general consensus as to utility of a few hundred roots. There is less agreement on the value of teaching suffixes. Suffixes can often have vague meanings such as “the state of”; suffixes are often merely inflectional forms; they also tend to vary spellings. However, some study of suffixes that have specific meanings is certainly warranted. Check out a great list of Greek and Latin word parts for instruction here.

3. Tier One, Two, and Three Words (Beck et al., 2002)

Some words do not need to be taught. Tier One Words are high utility words that will become part of a student’s lexicon incidentally through oral language or reading. Tier Three Words are rare, specific-to-the-subject words that can sometimes be learned through effective application of context clues.

But some words do need to be taught. When reading a literature selection, certain words that are important to building comprehension or understanding of the text are essential to learn, especially if these words are used in a variety of forms, in other contexts or subjects of study, or are precise uses of generally-understood concepts. These are Tier Two Words.

For example, examine this sentence: The happy child was fortunate to have such a sunny disposition.

Tier One Words: happy, child, sunny

Tier Two Word: fortunate

Tier Three Word: disposition

The approach would be to assume that the reader knows the Tier One Words and leave the reader to use context clues to derive a basic understanding of the Tier Three Word. The Tier Two Word would be the word that deserves the instructional attention.

Mark Pennington, MA Reading Specialist, is the author of the comprehensive reading intervention curriculum, Teaching Reading Strategies. Designed to significantly increase the reading abilities of students ages eight through adult within one year, the curriculum is decidedly un-canned, adaptable to various instructional settings, and simple to use—a perfect choice for Response to Intervention tiered instructional levels. Get multiple choice reading assessments, blending and syllabication activities, phonemic awareness and phonics workshops, comprehension worksheets, multi-level fluency passages, 390 flashcards, posters, activities, and games. Everything teachers need to teach a diagnostically-based reading intervention program for struggling readers at all reading levels is found in this comprehensive curriculum. Ideal for ESL and Special Education students, who struggle with language/auditory processing challenges. 364 pages

Here’s my take. We should grade based upon how well students have met our instructional objectives. Because each writer is at a different place, we begin at that place and evaluate the degree to which the student has learned and applied that learning, in terms of effort and achievement. But, our primary task is informed response based upon effective assessment. That’s how to grade writing.

For example, here may be an effective procedure for a writing task as it winds its way through the Writing Process:

Diagnostically Assess Writing

1. Diagnostically assess all students’ writing abilities vis a vis a *writing sample that addresses the Common Core State Standard writing task. An on-demand writing task would suffice.  Grade on an analytical rubric tied to that content standard and the complementary writing process standards. No holistic rubric-teachers need to isolate the diagnostic variables. Share this data with students and parents. Set goals. Record the scores on a class recording matrix.

*Note: One size does not fit all, so each content standard would necessitate a separate diagnostic assessment.

Pre-teach Writing

2. Select a writing task similar to the diagnostic assessment and teach (whole class) the key writing content and skills necessitated by the writing task. Brainstorming, accessing/building prior knowledge such as with some KWL, anticipation guides, class discussion, or video clips, and modeled pre-writing would make sense. Perhaps some pre-teaching with EL, special needs, SES-disadvantaged students would help.

Differentiate Writing Instruction

3. Plan differentiated instruction in terms of the writing task/expectations for each student by analyzing the data on the class recording matrix. For example, modify the writing prompt, require fewer sentences/body paragraphs, require fewer direct quotes, require fewer citations. Obviously, these modifications will vary according to grade level. Implement differentiated instruction in targeted skill groups based upon the data on the class recording matrix.

4. The students complete their rough draft with concurrent student-teacher mini-conferences a la Writer’s Workshop. Re-teaching via mini-lessons.

Writing Response

5. Upon completion, respond to the rough drafts with specific e-comments. Whether the students are composing on the computer or on paper, it makes sense for the teacher to use cut and paste comments to direct student writing revision. On computers, Microsoft Word bubble comments are great. On paper, printing the comments for each student works well. The link below to The Pennington Manual of Style offers a free download of 438 writing comments, appropriate for teachers of fourth graders on up. The comments tell students what and why they need to revise with definitions of terms and examples. Save time and do a better job with writing response by using this tool. Grading writing does not have to be the chore that it once was pre-computer age.

6. The students complete their tasked revisions (per the e-comments) with concurrent student-teacher mini-conferences a la Writer’s Workshop.

7. Either end the writing task after the revision stage or move on to the editing stage to the final draft. Of course, provide culminating publishing opportunities at this unfinished or finished stage. Every writing task does not have to end with a final, polished draft. Teachers do not have to grade each writing component or provide essay response at each stage of the writing process.

Evaluate the Writing

8. Grade the writing revision or final draft as a formative assessment on the same analytical rubric as that of the diagnostic assessment and enter the data on the class recording matrix.

9. Assign the final writing grade (or points) based upon two measures: first, the degree to which the student revised the rough draft according to your e-comment responses (effort); second, the improvement in scores from the diagnostic to the formative assessment (achievement), as indicated on the class recording matrix. Both are certainly quantifiable, for example 9/10 adequate revisions and a net gain of say 8 points from a 48 diagnostic to a 56 formative assessment score. Or why not just give them all A’s? With this kind of instruction, they should all earn top scores.

For those teachers interested in saving time and doing a more thorough job of essay response and grading, check out The Pennington Manual of Style. This style manual serves as a wonderful writer’s reference guide with all of the writing tips from the author’s three comprehensive writing curricula: Teaching Grammar and Mechanics, Teaching Essay Strategies, and Teaching Spelling and Vocabulary. The style manual also includes a download of the 438 writing, grammar, mechanics, and spelling comments teachers use most often in essay response and grading. Placed in the Autocorrects function of Microsoft Word® 2003, 2007, and 2010 (XP, Vista, and Windows 7), teachers can access each comment with a simple mouse click to insert into online student essays or print/e-mail for paper submissions. And best of all… the 47-page style manual with the essay e-comments bank costs only a nickel. For teachers interested in learning how to grade writing effectively and efficiently, this is the ticket.

Constantly updated, The Pennington Manual of Style has been designed to serve as a complete writer’s reference guide (not merely a guide to citation formatting) for fourth-twelfth grade students and their teachers… with one major improvement over the old Warriner’s English Grammar and Composition and The Elements of Style: This style manual is fully interactive with 438 downloadable essay e-comments to make essay response efficient and comprehensive. Teachers can SAVE TIME GRADING ESSAYS AND GIVE STUDENTS BETTER COMMENTS with this resource. Plus, teachers are licensed to print The Pennington Manual of Style for each of their students and post this helpful resource on their own class websites. 

For students, The Pennington Manual of Style provides all the easy-to-understand writing tips to help developing writers learn what is good writing and why it is good writing. Students also learn what is wrong, why it is wrong, and how to fix errors. This 47-page manual is organized as follows: Essay Organization and Development (Introduction, Body, and Conclusion), Coherence, Word Choice, Sentence Variety, Writing Style, Format and Citations, Parts of Speech, Grammatical Forms, Usage, Sentence Structure, Types of Sentences, Mechanics, and Conventional Spelling Rules.

For teachers, this guide provides a common language of writing instruction and discourse to use when students submit paper or online essays. A download link inserts the entire 438 essay e-comments bank from The Pennington Manual of Style into the Autocorrect function of Microsoft Word® 2003, 2007, and 2010 (Windows XP, Vista, and Win 7 all work fine). Teachers simply select an essay e-comment, type in its short alphanumeric code, then click to insert it into a document for printing, into an e-mail, or into a Microsoft Word® comment bubble for an online essay. These essay e-comments not only identify errors; they explain how to revise the writing with clear definitions, explanations, and examples. It’s easy to add in personalized comments, even audio comments. Teachers will save time, yet do a more thorough job of essay response. Find out much more about e-grading here.

The essay e-comments have been derived from the author’s comprehensive curricula: Teaching Essay Strategies, Teaching Spelling and Vocabulary, Teaching Grammar and Mechanics, and Teaching Reading Strategies. Each curriculum uses the same language of instruction as does The Pennington Manual of Style. Each curriculum provides diagnostic assessments to determine the individual needs of students in writing, spelling, grammar, mechanics, and reading. Each curriculum provides targeted worksheets (all with formative assessments) and activities to enable the teacher to differentiate instruction according to the diagnostic data. Each curriculum has been designed to teach the writing, language, and reading strands of the Common Core State Standards.

Additionally, frustration mounts as the teacher has to write the same comments over and over again throughout a stack of student papers. Only to be exacerbated when, after receiving their graded essays, students simply glance at their final grades before cramming the essay into the bottom of their backpacks. There has got to be a better way…

Why Using Essay e-Comments Makes Sense

1. Having students submit their essays on the computer enhances the interactive writing process and the social context of writing by facilitating reader response and writer revision.

2. Submitting essays electronically is environmentally responsible, saves money, and provides an automatic portfolio of student work. Submission options are numerous: Google Docs®, Turnitin®, Moodle Docs®, Viper®, Screencast®, a school network dropbox, or e-mail.

3. The essay e-comments provide a common language of writing instruction and discourse for teachers and students.

4. Teachers can respond to and/or evaluate essays in much less time than if graded manually. Using essay e-comments cuts grading time in half. If it takes 15 minutes to red-mark, write comments, and grade a five-paragraph essay, it will take only 7-10 minutes to insert comments and grade using essay e-comments. With a batch of 120 essays, this means a times-saving of six hours (120 x 10 minutes = 12 hours compared to 120 x 5 minutes = 6 hours).

5. Get the Essay e-Comments Bank of 438 entries included in The Pennington Manual of Style with comprehensive and prescriptive comments to respond to and/or evaluate student essays. The comments help developing writers learn what is correct and why it is correct. Furthermore, students learn what constitutes good writing and what does not. Unlike other e-grading programs, comments are not inserted automatically. The teacher decides how many and which comments to include in a student’s essay. The Essay e-Comments Quick Reference Guide organizes the comments into easy-to-find categories for quick comment selection.

*The Essay e-Comments loads into the Autocorrect function of Microsoft Word® 2003, 2007, and 2010. The same download works for XP, Vista, and Windows 7.

6. Teachers can add in their own personalized comments with text or audio files. It’s easy to personalize the e-comment by adding onto the comment bubble. You can also add on a quick audio file to serve as your comment summary. Unlike other e-grading programs, teachers can save their custom comments in the Microsoft Word® Autocorrects, alongside the essay e-comments. How to Add in e-Comments to Microsoft Word Autocorrects

7. Teachers appreciate not having to write the same comments on each essay. For repeated errors, teachers simply highlight the text.

8. Teachers can insert hyperlinks to suggest or require additional content or skill practice.

9. Teachers can require their students to address each comment by using Microsoft Word® “Track Changes.” Students then re-submit revisions and edits for peer and/or teacher review. Just like real professional writers do with their editors!

10. Using essay e-comments prior to the student’s final draft changes teacher response from mere summative assessment to a dynamic and interactive coaching experience. Not every student has the same instructional writing needs. Remedial worksheets, using the same language of instruction as the essay e-comments are included in the Teaching Essay Strategies, Teaching Grammar and Mechanics, Teaching Spelling and Vocabulary, and Teaching Reading Strategies curricula. Each worksheet includes a formative assessment for easy progress monitoring. Answers provided, of course!

Essay e-Comment Samples

Introduction Paragraphs

Thesis statement does not respond to writing prompt. Re-read the writing prompt and dissect according to the WHO (the audience and role of the writer), the WHAT (the context of the writing topic), the HOW (the resource text title and author), and the DO (the key writing direction word).

Body Paragraphs: Argument, Analysis, Types of Evidence

Add support evidence. More evidence is needed to adequately support the major detail. Add evidence in major detail or minor detail sentences such as Fact, Example, Statistic,Comparison, Quote from an Authority, Logic, Experience, or Counter-Argument/Refutation. FE SCALE CR

Red Herring Errors An unconnected reference distracts the reader from the argument. Example: Poverty is the most important problem; however, the world has always had poor people. Explanation: The second clause distracts the reader from the issue of poverty as the most important problem.

Coherence, Word Choice, Sentence Variety, and Writing Style

Revise: Too Many “to-be” Verbs Consider limiting use of is, am, are, was, were, be, being, been to one per paragraph. To replace “to be verbs” 1. Substitute a more active verb 2. Begin the sentence with another word from the sentence 3. Change one of the words in the sentence into a verb form.

Citations

MLA Works Cited (Print Encyclopedia) Pennington, Mark. “Works Cited.” Encyclopedia of Writing. 1st ed. 1. El Dorado Hills, CA: Pennington Publishing, 2010. Print. In-Text Citation: (Pennington 212-213)

Grammatical Forms

Gerund Phrases A gerund phrase is an ____ing verb, connected to related words, and is used as a noun. Examples: Driving a car has become a necessary skill these days.

Sentence Problems

Sentence Fragments A sentence fragment is only part of a complete sentence. To fix a sentence fragment, remove any subordinating conjunctions. Example: Although she found out where the boys were. Revision: She found out where the boys were.

Mechanics

Commas with Introductory Word(s) Use commas after introductory words, phrases, or clauses. Drop the comma if the sentence is very short and there is no necessary pause.Examples: First, listen to me. First of all, listen to me. After you first sit up, listen to me. Then I went home.

Spelling

The i before e Spelling Rule Usually spell i before e (believe), but spell e before i after a c (receive) and when the letters are pronounced as a long /a/ sound (neighbor). Exceptions to the i before e rule include the following: neither, either, weird, forfeit, caffeine, height, to name a few.

Find 42 essay strategy worksheets that use same language of instruction used in the 438 e-comments, 8 on-demand writing fluencies, 8 writing process essays (4 Common Core State Standard informative/explanatory and 4 Common Core State Standard persuasive), 64  sentence revision and 64 rhetorical stance “openers,” remedial writing lessons, writing posters, and editing resources to differentiate essay writing instruction in the comprehensive writing curriculum, Teaching Essay Strategies, at www.penningtonpublishing.com.

Later, our school got networked and our computer teacher taught me how to create a simple dropbox where students could submit their essays. Now, going to the computer lab made sense! I started responding to student papers throughout the writing process via the dropbox. Back and forth with my brief comments such as “spelling error” or “needs support evidence” and their revisions… Good work, but time-consuming and highly inefficient. I found myself making many of the same comments over and over again, so I created a document with the most frequent comments to cut and paste into the bubble comments. I started expanding my response comments beyond what is wrong to why it is wrong (the rules). Students appreciated the longer comments. After all, commenting “spelling error” for recieve doesn’t help the student much, but commenting “spelling error-i before e, except after c, or sounding like /ay/ as in neighbor or weigh” does the trick and gets the receive revision.

At the same time, I picked up a part-time job (what teacher doesn’t have one?) as an editor for a local educational publisher. I learned all about another Microsoft Word® feature called Track Changes. I know; I’m a slow learner. Track Changes allows other writers to edit the author’s text (in different colors for different editors) without deleting the author’s original writing. I shared this discovery with my students. Of course, many of them already knew about Track Changes and had probably intentionally withheld this information from me. Sly devils! Now, I could hold students accountable for addressing the issues raised in my bubble comments and clearly see their revisions and edits in Track Changes. I also began facilitating peer response groups, using Track Changes. Yes, it’s true students will fight over which color text they get to use as peer response partners.

One day I started thinking about how the computer replaces some of my spelling mistakes as I type, but not others. How does that work? I found out about Microsoft Word® Autocorrects. Through trial and error, I learned how to put in my own short-cuts and get the full text of what I wanted to say automatically. Wow! Never to have to type out “Seventh Grade English-language Arts” again! That got me to thinking about all of my cut and paste writing comments.

I developed a simple alphanumeric code for each of my writing comments and figured out how to add them on to the Autocorrects function. Now I could just type in “e1″ and press ENTER to get the full text to appear in a bubble comment. I organized my growing list of e-comments, found out about the limitations of each comment (255 characters), and found out how to format the Autocorrect text to add boldface, italics, color, and hyperlinks. Now we were getting something very useful. I expanded the e-comments with concise definitions, explanations, and clear examples and wrote a Quick Reference Guide to include the alphanumeric insert codes and the 438 e-comments into these categories: Essay Organization and Development (Introduction, Body, and Conclusion), Coherence, Word Choice, Sentence Variety, Writing Style, Format and Citations, Parts of Speech, Grammatical Forms, Usage, Sentence Structure, Types of Sentences, Mechanics, and Conventional Spelling Rules. I also decided to put all of these e-comments into a style manual to share with my students on my class website. The Pennington Manual of Style allows us to share the same language of instruction and serves as a handy writer’s reference guide.

By then, the online community had caught on to the value of the social context of writing. Sites like Google Docs®, Turnitin®, Moodle Docs®, Viper®, and Screencast® made it easier for students to submit their writing outside of the computer lab, get peer response, and have me respond with my e-comments and grade from anywhere that has the Internet. The only problem was that the Autocorrects comments worked only on the one computer. I used a bunch of computers in the computer lab, at home… and now my colleagues wanted to use my e-comments. Who wouldn’t want them? After all, students loved them and they saved significant time “grading” essays. Plus, teachers could add on their own text to personalize my comments. Even teachers who did not grade on the computer found the value of using my e-comments (they don’t have to be inserted in bubble comments) and typing up their own writing response summaries, then printing and attaching these to paper submissions. Including the rubric on the printed response sheet makes sense, by the way.

But, it took hours to cut and paste the 438 e-comments into each computer. I whined about this once too often until my computer-savvy son found a way to insert the entire 438 e-comment bank into any computer with Microsoft Word® 2003, 2007, or 2010 (Windows XP, Vista, and Win 7 all work fine). He developed a simple download.

I would love to have every teacher get this download and use these 438 Essay e-Comments. I’ve placed the download instructions in my 47-page The Pennington Manual of Style and included the definitions, rules, examples, and writing hints found in my comprehensive curricula: Teaching Grammar and Mechanics, Teaching Essay Strategies, and Teaching Spelling and Vocabulary. Each program is aligned with the new Common Core State Standards writing and language strands.

Here are some examples of the 438 e-comments found in The Pennington Manual of Style

Introductory Paragraphs

Thesis statement does not respond to writing prompt. Re-read the writing prompt and dissect according to the WHO (the audience and role of the writer), the WHAT (the context of the writing topic), the HOW (the resource text title and author), and the DO (the key writing direction word).

Body Paragraphs: Argument, Analysis, Types of Evidence

Add support evidence. More evidence is needed to adequately support the major detail. Add evidence in major detail or minor detail sentences such as Fact, Example, Statistic, Comparison, Quote from an Authority, Logic, Experience, or Counter-Argument/Refutation. FE SCALE CR

Red Herring Errors An unconnected reference distracts the reader from the argument. Example: Poverty is the most important problem; however, the world has always had poor people. Explanation: The second clause distracts the reader from the issue of poverty as the most important problem.

Coherence, Word Choice, Sentence Variety, and Writing Style

Revise: Too Many “to-be” Verbs Consider limiting use of is, am, are, was, were, be, being, been to one per paragraph. To replace “to be verbs” 1. Substitute a more active verb 2. Begin the sentence with another word from the sentence 3. Change one of the words in the sentence into a verb form.

Citations

MLA Works Cited (Print Encyclopedia) Pennington, Mark. “Works Cited.” Encyclopedia of Writing. 1st ed. 1. El Dorado Hills, CA: Pennington Publishing, 2010. Print. In-Text Citation:(Pennington 212-213)

Grammatical Forms

Gerund Phrases A gerund phrase is an ____ing verb, connected to related words, and is used as a noun. Examples: Driving a car has become a necessary skill these days.

Sentence Problems

Sentence Fragments A sentence fragment is only part of a complete sentence. To fix a sentence fragment, remove any subordinating conjunctions. Example: Although she found out where the boys were. Revision: She found out where the boys were.

Mechanics

Commas with Introductory Word(s) Use commas after introductory words, phrases, or clauses. Drop the comma if the sentence is very short and there is no necessary pause. Examples: First, listen to me. First of all, listen to me. After you first sit up, listen to me. Then I went home.

Spelling

The i before e Spelling Rule Usually spell i before e (believe), but spell e before i after a c(receive) and when the letters are pronounced as a long /a/ sound (neighbor). Exceptions to the i before e rule include the following: neither, either, weird, forfeit, caffeine, height, to name a few.

As a reading specialist, I usually stay on the practical “whatever works” side of the ledger. However, with respect to this one issue, I think my speech therapist and ESL friends have won me over.

Without getting over-technical (Please… if I see one more diagram of the vocal cords or hear the word fricative, I will not be held responsible for my actions), here are a few instructional tools that will help us all teach the voiced and unvoiced “th” consonant digraph.

I’ve spent countless training sessions trying to hear and feel the differences in the “th” sounds in beginning, medial, and end positions. I’m not the only one who has problems hearing these sound distinctions, but most of us can hear when a student mispronounces one of them. Here’s the best help I’ve found yet regarding how to differentiate the sounds:

To know if your voice is turned on, try this simple test. Put your hand gently over the front of your throat and breathe. Do you feel anything? No, you shouldn’t. Now, put your hand on your throat and say “ah”. Feel the vibration? That’s because your voice is turned on.

Now, let’s try it with one pair of sounds: S and Z

Put your hand on your throat and say s-s-s-s-s. You shouldn’t feel anything.

Now, put your hand on your throat and say z-z-z-z-z. You should feel the vibration because your voice has to be turned on to make the Z sound.

Your mouth, teeth, and tongue should be in exactly the same position for saying S and Z; you just need to turn your voice off for the S and on for the Z.

Lisa Scott
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/4426340

The exercise works better than the other methods I’ve tried and I love the terminology “your voice has to be turned on.” So much better than “voiced-unvoiced” or “voiced-voiceless” for students (and reading specialists). Now, of course Lisa (and others) has picked the easiest pairing of sounds (/s/ and /z/) to demonstrate and the single consonants seem easier than the consonant digraphs, but starting with what is most clear usually does makes sense.

Now that we understand the difference between sounds with the voice turned on and off, we need to know how to teach them. I’ll provide a few pointers in the context of beginning reading instruction and then follow up with a recommendation for remedial readers and ESL students.

Decoding

Of course, we introduce the voiced and unvoiced consonant digraphs separately. We provide example words and help students blend and segment the sounds. However, we do have a problem. In most phonics (sound-spellings) instructional sequences, we first teach short vowels and single consonants and then turn our attention to the consonant digraphs. And we stick with single syllable words. This certainly has proven the right instructional order over time, but it does limit our example words significantly and, thus, our practice of such in decodable text. Notice, we even have to dip into the King James English to broaden our lists.

Voiced Decodable “th_” Single Syllable Words with Short Vowels and Single Consonants

this                  that                  them                then                 thus                 than

Voiced Decodable “th_” and Single Syllable Words with Long Vowels and Silent Final e

their (long a “ei” spelling)       though (long o “_ough” spelling)

thou                 thee                 thy                   these                those                thine

Voiced Decodable “th_” and “_the” Single Syllable Words with Long Vowels, Silent Final e, and Consonant Blends

clothe              breathe            bathe               teethe

Voiced Non-Decodable Single Syllable “th_” Words

the                   they                 there

Unvoiced Decodable Single Syllable “th” Words with Short Vowels and Single Consonants

thin                  thud                 path                 with

Unvoiced Decodable Single Syllable “th_” and Words with Long Vowels and Silent Final e

thief                 thigh                thieves            theme

Unvoiced Decodable Single Syllable “th” Words with Long Vowels, Silent Final e, and Consonant Blends

thank               thing                think                growth

Strategic Word Analysis

• Guess the voiceless “th” in meaning-based words, such as theme, thaw, and both.
• Guess the voiced “th” in grammatical words, such as that, they, or then.
• When in doubt, guess and use the unvoiced pronunciation. Other than the list above, most all “th” words are “sound off” pronunciations.
• Other than the low utility long vowel, silent e decodable words listed above, guess an unvoiced “_th” at the end of a syllable. Teach students “If a syllable ends in ‘th,’ turn your voice off.” Examples: path, both, with, moth
• Teach students to guess a voiced “th_” at the start of syllable when it is followed by a short vowel sound. Only a few words, such as thin, thick, and thought are exceptions.
• Teach students to guess an unvoiced “th_” at the start of syllable when it is followed by a long vowel sound. Only a few long vowel words, such as the, these, those, their, and though are decodable exceptions. Add on the sight word there and the King James thou, thee, thy, and thine (if you must) and this is a good generalization.

Remedial Readers and ESL Students

For remedial readers and ESL students, the ESL Gold Site does a wonderful job teaching the voiced “th” and the unvoice “th” with the following instructional sequence: 1. pronunciation 2. minimal pairs 3. challenging words 4. phrases 5. dialogue 6. oral reading. Adding a blending step to this sequence and, perhaps a timed word fluency exercise, would be especially helpful.

Mark Pennington, MA Reading Specialist, is the author of the comprehensive reading intervention curriculum, Teaching Reading Strategies. Designed to significantly increase the reading abilities of students ages eight through adult within one year, the curriculum is decidedly un-canned, adaptable to various instructional settings, and simple to use—a perfect choice for Response to Intervention tiered instructional levels. Get multiple choice reading assessments , formative assessments, blending and syllabication activities, phonemic awareness and phonics workshops, comprehension worksheets, multi-level fluency passages, 390 flashcards, posters, activities, and games. Everything teachers need to teach a diagnostically-based reading intervention program for struggling readers at all reading levels is found in this comprehensive curriculum. Ideal for ESL and Special Education students, who struggle with language/auditory processing challenges. Simple directions and well-crafted activities truly make this an almost no-prep curriculum. Works well as a half-year intensive program or full-year program, with or without paraprofessional assistance.

“Essays are considered by many researchers as the most useful tool to assess learning outcomes, implying the ability to recall, organize and integrate ideas, the ability to express oneself in writing and the ability to supply merely than identify interpretation and application of data. It is in the measurement of such outcomes, corresponding to the evaluation and synthesis levels of the Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy that the essay questions serve their most useful purpose.” (Valenti, Nitko and Cucchiarelli 2003)

However, essays are rather subjective vehicles of expression. Even the best attempts to develop objective evaluation criteria with analytical rubrics and check-lists fall short of unbiased objectivity. Yet, this shortcoming has not eliminated the cherished role of the essay in the British and American educational establishments.

There’s just one problem. Essays just take too much time to read, respond to, and evaluate. A conscientious teacher may realistically spend an hour per student essay if that teacher responds to multiple student drafts in the context of the writing process evaluates the final published essay.

Of course, teachers can spend less time, if they use simplistic holistic rubrics or buy-in to the convenient notion that making comments on a student’s essay somehow disenfranchises the autonomy of the writer. However, most teachers recognize that interactive dialogue between student and teacher on the student’s essay is unavoidably essential. And it does take time.

Enter the age of computers. Word processing, spell check, grammar check, word count, reading level, data bases, etc. Is there a savior?

Computer-scoring of student writing is being actively marketed to K-12 schools and universities. Multinational corporations, such as Educational Testing Services (ETS), claim that current technology is able not only to provide objective assessment, but is now also able to give accurate and useful feedback to the student writer. Criterion, a machine-reading service marketed by ETS, has become widely popular in both American K-12 schools and universities. Other similar automatic grading programs are open for business.

Both of the new assessment consortia that have been delegated the tasks of developing national assessments for the Common Core State Standards (now adopted by 43 states) have indicated that they are actively considering machine-scored essay software. “Automated assessment systems would provide consistency in essay scoring, while enormous cost and time savings could occur if the AES system is shown to grade essays within the range of those awarded by human assessors,” suggest the aforementioned researchers.

But, what to teachers say about computer-scored essays?

The National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) summarizes its position on machine-scored writing:

We oppose the use of machine-scored writing in the assessment of writing.  Automated assessment programs do not respond as human readers.  While they may promise consistency, they distort the very nature of writing as a complex and context-rich interaction between people.  They simplify writing in ways that can mislead writers to focus more on structure and grammar than on what they are saying by using a given structure and style.

“Writing Assessment: A Position Statement.” NCTE.org. Nov 2006

The Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) summarizes its position on machine-scored writing:

“We oppose the use of machine-scored writing in the assessment of writing.” Automated assessment programs do not respond as human readers. While they may promise consistency, they distort the very nature of writing as a complex and context-rich interaction between people. They simplify writing in ways that can mislead writers to focus more on structure and grammar than on what they are saying by using a given structure and style… We believe ourselves that machine-scoring fundamentally alters the social and rhetorical nature of writing—that writing to a machine is not writing at all.”

The CCCC Position Statement on Teaching, Learning, and Assessing Writing in Digital Environments

But, is there a middle ground? Can teachers use technology to save time and doing a more thorough job of responding to student essays? Can teachers maintain autonomy in the evaluation process and exercise their own judgment about which comments need to be made, which grammatical errors need to be marked, and which grade needs to be assigned?

Perhaps so. There can be a balance between technological efficiency and teacher judgment. Using the computer to grade paper and online essays can achieve both purposes. For those teachers interested in saving time and doing a more thorough job of essay response and grading, check out The Pennington Manual of Style. This style manual serves as a wonderful writer’s reference guide with all of the writing tips from the author’s three comprehensive writing curricula: Teaching Grammar and Mechanics, Teaching Essay Strategies, and Teaching Spelling and Vocabulary. The style manual also includes a download of the 438 writing, grammar, mechanics, and spelling comments teachers use most often in essay response and grading. Placed in the Autocorrects function of Microsoft Word® 2003, 2007, and 2010 (XP, Vista, and Windows 7), teachers can access each comment with a simple mouse click to insert into online student essays or print/e-mail for paper submissions. And best of all… the 47-page style manual with the essay e-comments bank costs only a nickel.

Some educators in California and Massachusetts feared that the end product of the Common Core State Standards would water down the high expectations of their state standards, especially in the math strands. Scores of articles urged their respective state departments of education to head off the gutting of their standards at the pass. State Department of Education officials promised to red ink plenty of revisions to maintain the rigor of their standards. However, the final product (actually the revised draft) of the Common Core State Standards that was inadvertently leaked out to the press actually maintained most of the rigor of these two sets of state standards.

Teachers in California and Massachusetts are asking plenty of questions. For example, how do the Common Core State Standards differ from those of their states. How much red ink was used before the state legislatures of California and Massachusetts adopted the Common Core State Standards in the rush to qualify for the federal Race to the Top funds? In this article, I answer that question specifically with respect to the language strand of the California ELA/reading standards. To be short and to the point—not much.

In fact, only six additions (and no deletions) were made to the language strand of the English-language Arts/Reading Common Core State Standards. Each addition is relatively of minor concern and three reflect California’s unwavering support of penmanship.

Here are the differences:

1^st Grade L.1.d. The addition clarifies pronouns as including “subject, object” in “Use personal (subject, object), possessive, and indefinite pronouns.”

2^nd Grade L.1.a. The addition inserts “Create readable documents with legible print.”

3^rd Grade L.1.a. The addition inserts “Write legibly in cursive or joined italics, allowing margins and correct spacing between letters in a word and words in a sentence.”

3^rd Grade L.1.c. The addition inserts “Use reciprocal pronouns correctly.” Author’s Note: I am the author of a comprehensive grammar and mechanics program and I had to look these up to find that there are but two: each other and one another. Whew! Now I can teach third grade.

4^th Grade L.1.a. The addition inserts “Write fluidly and legibly in cursive or joined italics.”

4^th Grade L.1.b. The addition inserts “interrogative pronouns” next to the existing “relative pronouns.” Author’s Note: Interrogative pronouns stand without antecedents; relative pronouns have antecedents. Examples: What did you say? I said our car, which is old, still runs.

6^th Grade L.1.b. The addition inserts “all pronouns” and “correctly” in “Use all pronouns, including intensive pronouns (e.g., myself, ourselves), correctly.”

For upper elementary, middle school, and high school teachers looking at a stand-alone grammar, mechanics, and spelling curriculum that is aligned to the language strand of Common Core State Standards, please check out the author’s Teaching Grammar and Mechanics. Throw away the ineffective D.O.L. or D.L.R. “openers” and get 64 no-prep, interactive Sentence Lifting lessons-each designed with basic and advanced skills. Each of the 64 lessons has Teacher Tips and Hints for the grammatically-challenged, simple sentence diagrams, sentence modeling, grammar cartoons, and dictations. Also get 72 Grammar and Mechanics Worksheets to differentiate instruction, according to the results of the Grammar and Mechanics Diagnostic Assessments.

Also, check out the The Pennington Manual of Style, which includes a download of the 438 writing, grammar, mechanics, and spelling comments teachers use most often. Placed in the Autocorrects function of Microsoft Word® 2003, 2007, and 2010 (XP, Vista, and Windows 7), teachers can access each comment with a simple mouse click to insert into online student essays or print/e-mail for paper submissions. And best of all… the 47-page style manual and e-comments bank costs only a nickel.