Why Daily Oral Language (D.O.L.) Doesn’t Work
Most teachers are familiar with Daily Oral Language, abbreviated as D.O.L. or under the guise of similar acronyms. Teachers like the canned program because it requires no teacher preparation, it provides “bell ringer” busy work so teachers can take attendance, and it seemingly “covers” the subjects of grammar, punctuation, capitalization, and spelling. D.O.L. is probably the most popular instructional technique used to teach grammar. The second most often used technique would be the “teach no grammar-nor-mechanics technique” as is frequently employed by writing process purists who save this “instruction” until the last step of a process piece, if they ever get to it at all. However, the subject of this blog is the latter technique, and why D.O.L. does not work.
1. D.O.L. is proofreading, not sentence construction. As such, D.O.L. is error-correction, not meaning-making. Jeff Anderson, author of Everyday Editing, calls such activities “error-filled fix-a-thons.”
2. D.O.L. has no scope and sequence. It is random, repetitive, and hodgepodge. Many D.O.L. programs claim to offer grade level editions. Who determined that parentheses are at third grade instructional level and semi-colons are at the fourth grade instructional level?
3. D.O.L. is implicit, part to whole instruction, divorced from any meaningful writing context. Correction is not teaching, and no D.O.L. program that I know of has effective teacher prompts to teach the grammatical concepts.
4. D.O.L. aims to teach writing without writing. Would a seamstress teach sewing by having her students spend all their time analyzing stitching errors? No. To sew, you have to practice sewing. To write, you have to practice writing.
5. D.O.L. involves little critical thinking. Writing involves decision-making about why and how sentences should be constructed for different rhetorical purposes. “Grammar is something to be explored, not just edited (Jeff Anderson).”
6. D.O.L. is not diagnostic. D.O.L. has too much repetition of what students already know, and not enough practice in what students do not know. Teachers need to use diagnostic assessments to determine individual student strengths and weaknesses in grammar and mechanics and then use instructional materials to effectively differentiate instruction.
7. D.O.L. rehearses errors and imprints them in the long term memories of students. The more visual and auditory imprints of errors, the more they will be repeated in future student writing.
8. D.O.L. correction does not transfer to student writing. Students fed a steady diet of D.O.L. throughout elementary, middle, and high school repeat the same old comma errors in the university setting. D.O.L. simply does not teach “deep learning.”
9. D.O.L. is bad test prep. Although teachers often advocate use of D.O.L. for this purpose, the multiple choice format of standardized tests is dissimilar. Tests generally ask “which is right?” not “which is wrong?”
10. D.O.L. uses bad writing models to teach good writing. It teaches what is wrong, not what is right. Although some error analysis can certainly be beneficial, at least as much time should be spent analyzing what makes good writing so good. Good “mentor texts” (Jeff Anderson) from both professional authors and student authors can teach what students should aspire to and emulate.
11. D.O.L. teaches from ignorance. “If they don’t become familiar with the concepts they are asked to edit for BEFORE they are asked to edit, of course they won’t do it well. How could they? How can you tell if something like a mark is missing if you don’t know where it is supposed to be in the first place?” and “But do we start history class with all the wrong dates and names on the board and ask kids to fix them? What about learning the concepts first (Jeff Anderson)?” Students cannot show what they do not know.
12. D.O.L. doesn’t teach the whys and hows of grammar and mechanics. Math teachers do not just teach the process of long division; they also teach the concepts behind the process, using examples, manipulatives, etc. to provide the “deep thinking” that students need. Students need to know why commas set apart appositives, for example. Students need to know how position of word choice affects meaning, for example.
13. D.O.L. isolates writing instruction from student writing. Students are invested in their own writing, not in that of pre-packaged print shown on the overhead, LCD projector, or SMART board®. Relevance and personal connection motivates student buy-in. “If the students care about their writing, are writing for a specific audience, and understand that “the importance of editing (and spelling conventionally) is to make their message clear and easy to read for their audience – or reader, they take this job seriously and work hard at making their writing clear (Regie Routman).”
14. D.O.L. does not provide enough practice. One isolated error correction does not teach to mastery. Good teaching involves instruction and immediate guided practice, followed by independent practice with teacher feedback. D.O.L. is throw-it-all-against-the-wall-and-hope-some-of-it-sticks instruction, not the targeted practice that students need to learn and retain the grammatical and mechanical concepts.
15. D.O.L. is boring. Ask students. They almost universally characterize D.O.L. as “repetitive, irrelevant, unhelpful, and a waste of time.”
16. D.O.L. has little research base to indicate that it works. Why use what does not work, when workable, effective alternatives are available for effective instruction in grammar and mechanics?
Here is the most effective alternative: Looking for an instructional curriculum that incorporates diagnostic assessment, effective direct instruction with balanced mentor text and error analysis, and targeted grammar and mechanics worksheets to differentiate instruction? Check out Teaching Grammar and Mechanics. The teacher resources are easy-to-use, require little teacher prep, and won’t consume your entire instructional day. At last! Explicit grammar instruction that incorporates student writing and allows students to work at their own paces.
Also, check out the companion curriculum, Teaching Essay Strategies. This book moves students from three-sentence-paragraphs to coherent multi-paragraph essays (and you can choose the writing prompts) within one year. Using essay strategy worksheets, students learn and practice the eight varieties of paragraph structure, the eight types of support evidence, the eight introduction strategies, and the eight conclusion strategies through self-paced instruction, practice, and student-teacher mini-conferences. The direct-instruction 64 Sentence Revision openers help students learn and practice all of the grammatical sentence patterns in simple quick-write form. The eight on-demand essays with reading passages and graphic organizers will help your students develop the writing fluency so necessary to “ace” high stakes writing tests. Absolutely no teacher prep is required.
Together, Teaching Grammar and Mechanics and Teaching Essay Strategies provide a comprehensive, integrated writing program that will “free up” good teachers to differentiate instruction and still have time to teach literature.
Both Teaching Grammar and Mechanics and Teaching Essay Strategies make sense out of integrating grammatical instruction and writing. Easy to teach, too. My kids have definitely improved their writing and test scores as a result of using these curricula.
Daily Language Review is meant to supplement grammar and mechanics lessons that are in textbooks. The textbook lessons include teacher guidance, lessons that lay foundations for students, and activities that provide application opportunities. DLR or DOL is meant to provide purposeful practice and get students thinking about what they’ve already learned.
Lisa,
Absolutely true; however, most upper elementary, middle, and high school teachers use DOL as their only means of grammar and mechanics instruction. Additionally, DOL is divorced from the context of authentic writing and has no meaningful instructional scope and sequence. Everyone assumes that someone else has taught a given subject, and only review is needed. Diagnostic assessments, such as the one on my http://www.penningtonpublishing.com site would prove otherwise. I think teachers can do better.
I disagree with this assessment. I’ve used D.O.Ls extensively in my classes and found success with them. Requires no teacher prep? Really? I expect that may be true for those teachers that just put these sentences up there, go over the corrections, and call it a day. However, I review each concept and model the ones students have most trouble with. I understand that the current educational climate is peppered with the idea that we have to make every lesson into a game, but practice and repetition are not “evil,” nor should they be excluded from the classroom. Yes, it is editing, but the booklet isn’t the teacher…it’s a tool. As such, it can be adapted…SHOULD be adapted. Anyone who relies solely on a text to provide all the questions, all the activities, all the answers, all the modifications…that person is not doing their job. They’re merely an automaton.
I totally disagree with this commentary. I have used D.O.L.s in my classroom for many year, and contrary to what the author wrote, I do NOT use it as busy work! I teach grammar, writing, and mechanics as well, but I supplement the teaching with the D.O.L.s. It helps to teach my students editing skills, as well as how to recognize what is wrong and how to correct it, and it also allows me the opportunity to review the vocabulary and spelling words I’m teaching that week. I alternate between these and journal writing, and my students leave with a clear understanding of how grammar works and how to incorporate those into their writing components.
Hello? Did you miss the ORAL in D-O-L? The correct way to use the technique is for the teacher to be actively involved and DISCUSS the errors. Does it involve higher level thinking skills? You bet it does if the teacher knows how to use them. For example: What are the grammar errors? What are the spelling errors? What are the punctuation errors? What are the capitalization errors? What type of error is this? Why is this wrong? Is there another way to correct it? The teacher makes the corrections as students contribute the right answers. An equally effective method is to let a student come to the board and make the corrections and then discuss them with the whole class.
When used as an ORAL activity (as intended)student participation is enthusiastic and the activity is fun. As a result, students experience success and achievement is raised—significantly.
As a current high school educator, and a recipient of the 1980s Daily Oral Language Curriculum, I have to stay I totally disagree with your argument presented here. You sir may be a M.A Reading Specialist, but as an M.A in Education with experience in an urban classroom, I can tell you children need to learn editing skills. Learning how to edit and correct sentence structure, spelling, and grammar are the very basis of becoming a fully literate adult. I benefited greatly, as did my peers, by the emphasis of my school on identifying and correcting writing errors. I have always been keen on checking my writing for errors ever since my elementary school teachers placed such a high regard for being aware of proper English mechanics and grammar. I doubt that I have achieved such academic success without Daily Oral Language from 1st grade throughout elementary school.
In addition, I’d like to support the above commentator. My experience as a child was with teachers who lead a whole class discussion in order to correct the sentence on the board. There were always plenty of volunteers to go up and fix an error on the board and explain to the class why. The “Oral” part of “DOL” is very constructivist, student centered, and effective. Children must learn to edit and correct grammar and mechanics.
I certainly agree with you that we need to teach grammar, mechanics, and spelling. My take is that D.O.L. and D.L.R. are not the best instructional methodologies. The proof is in the pudding. After years of such instruction in elementary, middle school, and high school, one would think that remedial writing courses in our community colleges and universities would be non-existent. Not so.
Now to be fair, the other popular means of language instruction, Writers Workshop mini lessons taught in the context of the Writing Process, has produced similar results.
My point is that perhaps it’s time for a language curriculum that emphasizes both direct and differentiated instruction, aligned to the Common Core State Standards Language Strand. Students simply need more in-depth instruction and practice in the writing context to ensure mastery and transfer than the above approaches offer. Additionally, rather than “reviewing” the same grammar, mechanics, and spelling skills year after year (whether students know them or not), it makes sense to differentiate instruction according to diagnostic assessments.
According to teacher reviews and testimonials, my Teaching Grammar and Mechanics curriculum seems to accomplish these ends.