










































Georgia Journal of Literacy 
2025, Vol. 47(2), pp. 4–21 
https://doi.org/10.56887/galiteracy.202 
ISSN: 2833-7611 

   
Research Article 

   
 

 

CONTACT Dr. Vicki L. Luther, Professor, Tift College of Education, Mercer University, Macon, GA; email 
luther_vl@mercer.edu. Dr. Matthew J. Sroka, Assistant Professor, Tift College of Education, Mercer University, 
Macon, GA; email msroka_mj@mercer.edu. 
 

“Not Just for the Boomers”: The Importance of 
Grammatical Understandings in 21st Century   
P–20 Classrooms 
 
Vicki L. Luther  
Mercer University, Macon, GA  

Matthew J. Sroka  
Mercer University, Macon, GA  

 
ABSTRACT 

The word “grammar” often conjures negative feelings for both students and teachers; 
for students, learning rules of language can be simultaneously daunting and boring, 
and teachers can often view this as a battle that they would prefer not to fight. In an 
age of texting, social media, and generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), the use of 
proper punctuation, capitalization, and other writing mechanics has become less 
regulated, yet due to newly implemented ELA standards within the state of Georgia, 
as well as new legislation efforts designed to improve literacy for all students, there 
is now a deeper emphasis on grammar as a focal point of instruction. This article 
provides a literature review of the importance of teaching and learning grammatical 
concepts in all grade levels in P–12, as well as in educator preparation programs 
(EPPs), preparing the next generation of teachers, and provides context of how 
educators can provide information that best supports P–20 students’ communicative 
skills. 

KEYWORDS 

grammar; writing 
mechanics; P–12 
education, 
educator 
preparation 
programs 
(EPPs); English 
Language Arts 
(ELA) 

 
eaching the mechanics of language is often a polarizing topic; in fact, Myhill (2021) posits 
that with the exception of phonics, there is no element of English language arts more 
divisive. Furthermore, to even define grammar is complex, as there are so many 

descriptions; as well, there are many ways to define what grammar instruction should entail. For 
our purposes, we lean into Alzahrani’s (2024) explanation of grammar as a skill necessary for 
enduring, effective communication and in Jean and Simard’s (2011) recognition that grammar is 
necessary for productive life skills. Additionally, we also include the mechanics of writing and 
speaking in our discussion of grammatical aspects. In this article, we advocate for explicit, student-
centered grammar instruction that promotes a growth mindset. This refers to brief, purposeful, in-
context teaching that makes language features visible, nameable, and discussable in service of 
helping students to improve their writing and communication. It includes modeling, dialoging, and 
targeted practicing that allow students to make applications to their own compositions 
immediately; it does not include decontextualized worksheets or isolated textbook instruction. 
Furthermore, what we consider to be effective and purposeful instruction is not based upon a 
‘gotcha’ approach in which students are afraid to make errors and dread the proverbial red pen 
used to magnify each mistake. Instead, we focus on understanding, intentionality, and utilization.  
 
 

T 

mailto:luther_vl@mercer.edu
mailto:msroka_mj@mercer.edu


Luther & Sroka 5 
 

   
 

A Brief History of Grammar Instruction 
While grammar has been taught in schools for centuries, going back to the 1700s (Tieken-Boon 
van Ostade, 2011), there have been significant shifts in how it is taught and to the extent it is 
taught. Until the 1960s, schools within the United States provided students with lessons that were 
made up of isolated ‘skill and drill’ practice (Vakili & Mohammed, 2020), and grammar was 
exclusively taught through rote memorization instead of practical application (Watson, 2013). 
Educational stakeholders began questioning the validity of learning grammar, and in 1963, the 
National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) issued a report (Research in Written 
Composition) that found the teaching of grammar to be detrimental, even harmful, to students’ 
writing abilities (Braddock et al., 1963). 
 Due to this, from the 1970s to the early 2000s, grammar instruction was essentially taken 
out of many classrooms across the country (Vakili & Mohammed, 2020), and teachers whose 
school systems required the teaching of grammar often resorted to isolated, drill-related worksheet-
type practices to do so (Kiuhara et al., 2009). At this time, reading and writing instruction were 
‘the’ premier literacy skills taught, and while the focus centered on the practices associated with 
reading and writing, in some school systems, instructing students on the fundamentals and usage 
of the English language became deemphasized (Vakili & Mohammed, 2020). Many teachers were 
discouraged from explicitly teaching linguistic structures because, under the arch of whole 
language, such understandings would simply occur naturally, organically, and when the child was 
ready (Derewianka, 2015). Following the report from Braddock et al. (1963), many felt that 
grammar instruction was antiquated and unnecessary, and Elbow (1981) went so far as to suggest 
that “learning to ignore” grammar was the best way to help students with their writing skills (p. 
169). The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2002) further eliminated grammar instruction, as 
teachers began concentrating less on content that would not be assessed on high-stakes testing and 
delineated grammar as non-essential (McCarthey, 2008). 
 With the onset of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS; National Governors 
Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010), grammar 
once again became a topic of conversation. CCSS (2010) confirmed that other communicative 
components of ELA are equally important, demonstrating that receptive (reading and listening) 
and expressive and descriptive (writing and speaking) skills are all critical to students’ success and 
college and career readiness. However, because it had been taken out of so many classrooms for 
years, many teachers were hesitant to teach it and felt unprepared to do so during this time 
(Gartland & Smolkin, 2016). 
 At the turn of the decade, COVID-19 forced schools to shut down for months, and 
educators and students worked and learned in online environments. During the pandemic, teachers 
attempted to create effective online instruction but were often met with a myriad of challenges, 
including students’ lack of technology, absenteeism, and attention issues (Francis & Weller, 2022; 
González et al., 2022). As students were taught outside of their respective classrooms, parents and 
caregivers were given more of a ‘front row seat’ to children’s learning, and while some parents 
and caregivers embraced, and continue to embrace, the notion that they are their child’s first 
teacher of language and literacy, not all recognize how important they are in their child’s 
understanding of the components of ELA, including grammar (MacWhinney, 2023). Additionally, 
many family members felt, and continue to feel, ill-equipped to provide strong foundational 
support for their children (Goudeau et al., 2021), and school closures created significant gaps in 
ELA competencies. 



6 Georgia Journal of Literacy 47(2)  
 

   
 

 Undoubtedly, research shows that the negative implications of COVID-19 on students’ 
academic well-being are far reaching (e.g., Colvin et al., 2022; Kuhfeld et al., 2022; Storey & 
Zhang, 2024). For instance, not only have ELA test results declined over the years since COVID-
19, but results of a study conducted by Pejovic et al. (2024) also show that the language and 
communication development of infants and toddlers during the pandemic was significantly 
diminished. The vast majority of these children are now enrolled in formalized schooling, and 
many entered school with potential significant gaps in communicative skills (Pejovic et al., 2024). 
The global pandemic took a tremendous toll on basic understandings, and students’ current 
“grammar knowledge is at an all-time low” (Erlbacher, 2025, p. 2). 
 Today, as we are now positioned in the post-COVID era, Common Core standards have 
been fully removed from all educational settings in Georgia. Although this phase-out has been 
underway for more than a decade, the adoption of revised ELA standards for the 2025-2026 
academic year, brought forth by the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE), has eliminated 
the last remaining traces of Common Core (GaDOE, n.d.). Current instructional practices within 
the state focus on the science of reading (SoR), thus requiring teachers to be more structured, 
intentional, and explicit (Petscher et al., 2020). As defined by Cabell and Espittia (2025), SoR is 
“a body of knowledge about how people learn to read and how to best teach reading” (p. 19). The 
SoR allows educators to recognize the importance of foundational literacy skills, as these 
foundations provide strong structures for reading in the older grades (Cabell & Espittia, 2025). 
 While the science of reading is now a fundamental part of our ‘literacy landscape,’ we 
cannot forget the science behind writing. Just as explicit and intentional instructional practices are 
critical in reading, Graham believes that the same intentionality should be occurring in the teaching 
of writing skills (2019). Sadly, Graham’s research suggests that writing is not given the same 
instructional time, as there is often less time in the day for explicit instruction and application of 
writing, and without foundational structures, students often continue to struggle in writing as they 
move throughout the grade levels. By recognizing that there is a science to writing, as well as 
reading, educators can empower students with heightened communication skills and an enhanced 
motivation to write (Graham, 2019). 
 
The Importance of Grammar Instruction 
With more than a quarter of the 21st century behind us, grammar instruction has once again shifted, 
as the new aforementioned ELA standards and curricula have enhanced the need to strengthen 
grammatical understandings. Within these revised ELA standards, GaDOE (n.d.) has demonstrated 
its mission of ensuring grammar instruction is a focal point in K–12 classrooms. Today’s 
grammatical standards begin in kindergarten, as students begin to recognize rules of conversations, 
listening and speaking skills, the formation of complete sentences, and basic grammar. As students 
move throughout the grade levels, they are able to learn and apply more advanced components of 
grammar. The K–12 ELA grammar, mechanics, and usage standards showcase what is learned and 
taught throughout the grade levels. While these components are presented and practiced during 
various years, the standards provide a comprehensive outline of grammatical skills that are 
introduced, mastered, and reinforced during elementary, middle, and secondary grade levels. 
Appendix A gives a glimpse into these standards. 
 Grammar taught in schools is typically based upon Standard American English (SAE), also 
known as General American English. Carter (1999) defined such standardization as “a set of forms 
which are used with only minimal variation in written English” (p.163). SAE can also be called 
prescriptive grammar, which is often thought of as the formalized means of speaking and writing 



Luther & Sroka 7 
 

   
 

(Huddleston et al., 2021). Xavier et al. (2020) define prescriptive grammar as the “correct and 
accurate use of grammatical structures,” focused on grammatical rules (p. 200). 
 In contrast, descriptive grammar is described as the way that individuals may actually 
speak and write in daily communication. Xavier et al. (2020) designate descriptive grammar as a 
means for “linguistic choices,” thus allowing individuals to gain more connectivity through 
“meaning-making” (p. 200). Prescriptive grammar is often thought of as more formally academic 
in nature, while descriptive grammar is more personalized in nature. 
 Grammar is an essential component of expressive language, and those with a proficient 
understanding of grammar are able to communicate with meaning and purpose (Larsen-Freeman, 
2015). Contrary to former ideologies from previous decades, Camps and Fonitch (2019) state that 
grammar is “not learned spontaneously or naturally” and must therefore be taught (p. 6). As 
command of grammar and mechanics can typically be seen as a benefit for speaking and writing, 
grammar can also benefit students’ reading comprehension (T. Shanahan, 2020), especially as state 
ELA standards have increased text-level complexity. Grammar can also enhance students’ 
morphology knowledge, thus allowing them to better understand the meanings of words 
(Jackendoff & Audring, 2020).  
 Students’ ability to understand and produce complex sentences is another important aspect 
of writing and reading comprehension. As older students read more complex texts, they need 
stronger understandings of how to write more complex sentences (Balthazar & Scott, 2023). 
Cognitive and psycholinguistic research further shows that comprehension depends heavily on a 
reader’s ability to integrate each word into the unfolding syntactic structure of a sentence, a process 
that underlies how meaning is constructed during reading (Dempsey et al., 2024; Van Dyke & 
Dempsey, 2025). Integrating syntax as part of grammar instruction supports not only writing skills 
but also access to complex texts.  
 Teachers must also recognize that students bring their own cultural linguistics into the 
classroom, and such descriptive grammar and dialect are a part of students’ identities (Gartland & 
Smolkin, 2016). For students learning English as a second (or third) language, grammatical 
constructs in academic language can be perplexing (Uccelli et al., 2015). At the same time, 
multilingual learners bring a variety of linguistic resources that can serve as assets for their 
language development. When teachers encourage curiosity and awareness about patterns and 
connections between languages, students are able to leverage these resources to extend the 
knowledge and skills they bring with them into the classroom (Crosson et al., 2022).  
 Without doubt, classrooms are rich environments for sociolinguistics. Teachers do have a 
responsibility to teach prescriptive grammar, especially in light of enhanced standards, as to not 
do so could negatively impact college and career readiness and academic success. Yet we do not 
want to completely ignore descriptive grammar, as that can lead to enhanced writing motivation, 
feelings of individualism, and pride of culture and community. 
 
Why is Teaching Grammar so Difficult? 
The Student Lens 

Students in all grade levels, especially in middle and secondary grades, spend an inordinate amount 
of time using digital language, which, according to Ovsiienko et al. (2025), is more simplistic and 
concise than the language, writing mechanics, and grammatical structures expected in a classroom 
environment. Digital language is the etymology of social networks, online platforms, gaming 
systems, and messaging services (e.g., texting). Students are entrenched in digital language, which 
reduces syntax and punctuation, increases the use of abbreviations and acronyms, and often, visual 



8 Georgia Journal of Literacy 47(2)  
 

   
 

representations (e.g., emojis and gifs) take the place of text entirely (Ovsiienko et al., 2025). 
Simply put, digital language has greatly influenced the grammar that our students use. 
 Due to this, there can be a huge disconnect when we as educators ask for subject/verb 
agreement, proper punctuation, capitalization, and complete sentences, as to many students, these 
are ‘old-fashioned’ methods and often seen as ‘taboo’ on social media platforms. For instance, in 
a recent study, when shown text messages, participants determined that those ending with a period 
were more negative than those with messages with no ending punctuation, regardless of whether 
the message itself was positive in nature (Houghton et al., 2018). This study clearly demonstrates 
that grammar, including punctuation, is valued differently in digital language. 
 It is important to remember that today’s P–12 students are, as Prensky (2001) termed, 
digital natives, as they have never known a world without technology and devices. They are 
developing in a world where digital technology is being disseminated at a rapid rate and where 
new social media apps regularly gain popularity (e.g., TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat). The “Gen 
Z” generation consists of individuals born between the approximate years of 1997–2010/2012. 
“Gen Alpha,” a phrase coined by social researcher Mark McCrindle in 2020, refers to those born 
from approximately 2010 and beyond. Though these generations differ, those born within these 
years represent elementary, middle, secondary, and college-aged students. According to Howarth 
(2023), the number of individuals considered “Gen Alpha” will be approximately 2.2 billion 
worldwide by the end of 2025; this number, along with those born in the late 1990s and early 
2000s, showcases the vast number of digital natives in our respective P–20 (P–12 and higher 
education) classrooms. 
 Those considered to be “Gen Z” or “Gen Alpha” have grown up with smartphones as a 
constant presence in their lives, shaping how they view writing and literacy. These students may 
feel as though writing mechanics is unnecessary in their academic work because of its 
unimportance online, and because of this, there is a fear that digital communication can and will 
negatively impact students’ language skills (Busch, 2018). Asking students to write with 
appropriate punctuation, sentence structure, and spelling can feel rather out of date to them, given 
that such conventions are rarely valued or modeled within digital spaces such as social media 
platforms.  
 Additionally, students in P–20 are increasingly using generative artificial intelligence 
(GenAI) in their writing (Gupta et al., 2024). As those within these generations seek immediate 
gratification and are digital natives, they tend to utilize technology sources that can be used for 
their immediate benefit (McCrindle, 2020). For instance, students frequently use programs such 
as Grammarly to correct writing errors automatically. While these practices can improve surface-
level correctness, they also encourage an uncritical acceptance of changes to their writing. To 
counter this, Levine et al. (2025) suggest educators use ChatGPT as a tool to make writing 
processes visible, allowing students to critically examine their grammatical and stylistic decisions 
rather than outsource them to GenAI. 
 
The Teacher Lens 

Simply put, teaching grammar is not necessarily a favorite of many teachers. Often, teachers find 
the teaching of grammar to be an uphill battle, and because the “Do-we-teach-grammar-or-don’t-
we-teach-grammar?” pendulum has shifted so much throughout the years, teachers can often feel 
unsupported in this area, commonly wondering how to best teach grammar and the rules of 
conventions. Implicit learning suggests that the rules are not explained and are instead implied; 
explicit grammar learning, on the other hand, suggests more detailed orientation and awareness of 



Luther & Sroka 9 
 

   
 

form as the concepts are explicitly taught (Oxford et al., 2007). Numerous studies (e.g., Al-Jarf, 
2022; Alzahrani, 2024) recognize that explicit instruction is often more valuable to students’ 
success, yet many teachers still struggle with the ability to teach grammar in an explicit manner 
while not causing students to become bored and shut down. This is often due to the fact that there 
is a lack of standardization in grammar, and as ‘grammar’ is so ambiguous and broad, it can be 
difficult to recognize what to teach. 
 In addition, due to the aforementioned pendulum of grammar instruction, many teachers 
feel uncomfortable in their own understandings and language usage, as they themselves may not 
have received appropriate grammar instruction in school. This can lead to a sense of insecurity and 
frustration (Gartland & Smolkin, 2016), and teachers who are insecure in their own grammatical 
understandings often resort to rote, implicit methods of practice (Watson, 2014) or default to 
methods of teaching that they were taught as students (Smagorinsky et al., 2011). Compounding 
this issue, research by Myhill et al. (2023) found that many teachers do not view themselves as 
writers, which limits opportunities to engage in and model authentic grammatical awareness in 
practice. 
 
Grammar in Educator Preparation Programs 
Many teachers enter the classroom without sufficient preparation for teaching grammar because 
few educator preparation programs (EPPs) include explicit coursework on writing and language 
instruction. According to Van der Heijden et al. (2015), it is critical that EPPs enhance grammar 
instruction in order to adequately prepare preservice teachers for the field. Yet research shows that 
few EPP programs have specific courses, or even one specific course, aligned to the teaching of 
writing and grammar, leaving many teachers without a strong pedagogical foundation (Morgan & 
Pytash, 2014; Myers et al., 2016). In addition, EPP faculty members are often confused as to what 
to teach preservice teachers concerning grammar and are often even more perplexed as to how 
those preservice teachers can take what they learn and translate that into their own future 
classrooms (Liu & Master, 2003).  
 Moreover, while some preservice teachers might be exposed to grammar instruction in 
their education courses, this often varies based on educational majors and certification tracks; for 
instance, preservice teachers majoring in elementary education might receive a peripheral 
overview of grammar and mechanics in their overarching ELA classes, but those majoring in 
middle and secondary education take courses that are more literature-intensive. While preservice 
English teachers are required to take methods courses and complete year-long English placements 
aligned with GaDOE’s new ELA standards and the Georgia Professional Standards Commission 
(GaPSC) requirements, which include preparation in language and grammar, the nature and depth 
of that preparation can vary considerably across EPP programs. This is especially true as 
certification pathways have become more diverse and alternative certification routes are gaining 
in popularity (Dori et al., 2023; Peterson-Ahmad et al., 2025). As a result, novice English teachers 
may either avoid teaching grammar or rely heavily on textbooks and test-prep materials 
(Smagorinsky et al., 2011), as a lack of preparation often contributes to teachers feeling that they 
do not have the adequate knowledge or understanding of grammar (Chatterjee & Halder, 2023). 
Lee (2019) suggests that preservice teachers need learning experiences that allow them to create 
their own knowledge about grammar, thus bridging the gap between theory and practice. 
Unfortunately, very few EPPs provide preservice teachers with these types of opportunities. 
 A lack of confidence in grammatical concepts also shapes teachers’ identities, as many 
teachers do not see themselves as writers, making it challenging to effectively teach writing 



10 Georgia Journal of Literacy 47(2)  
 

   
 

(Morgan & Pytash, 2014; Myers et al., 2016; Myhill et al., 2023). Cremin and Oliver (2015) note 
that teachers often lack confidence with writing and carry negative past experiences with these 
into their classrooms, thus hindering their ability to create effective, positive writing experiences 
for students. Collectively, these aforementioned studies suggest that EPP programs must do more 
to prepare teachers to be teachers of writing by building a stronger pedagogical foundation, 
reshaping attitudes, and strengthening teachers’ sense of themselves as writers (Cremin & Oliver, 
2015; Morgan & Pytash, 2014; Myers et al., 2016; Smagorinsky et al., 2011). 
 
Student-Centered Grammar Instruction 
In order for students to personally connect to the nuances of grammar, they need time to practice; 
such implementation occurs most effectively when teachers model a curious, reflective, and 
growth-oriented approach to language. This includes demonstrating appropriate written and 
spoken prescriptive grammar when conducting academic instruction and also modeling a positive 
attitude toward grammar and a willingness to learn from mistakes and ask questions. When 
teachers approach grammar in this way, students are able to benefit not only from hearing and 
seeing proper grammar usage within the classroom but also from observing a positive and 
inquisitive view of language. Yet as previously mentioned, teachers often feel underprepared. 
Recognizing the importance of the utilization of written and spoken grammar, changing habits and 
attitudes, practicing appropriate prescriptive grammar in and out of classroom environments, and 
utilizing a growth mindset to continuously improve in grammar skills are some ways that educators 
can be positive models for their students. In this section, we discuss activities that can allow 
students to practice while also providing continuous guidance and support. Figure 1 showcases 
specific key ideas that can be used within K–12 classrooms.  
 
Figure 1: Ideas for Student-Centered Grammar Instruction  

 

Student-
Centered 
Grammar 

Instruction 
Ideas 

Accept 
Mistakes as 

a Growth 
Model

Target 
Grammar 

Instruction

Use GenAI 
as a Tool 

Teach 
Grammar in 

Context



Luther & Sroka 11 
 

   
 

Accept Mistakes as a Growth Model 

In an age of GenAI, students who show a willingness to take chances and make errors in their own 
expressive work should be praised for their effort. This is true for all students, and perhaps even 
more so for English learners, for striving readers and writers, and for students with language-based 
disabilities. A growth-oriented stance towards grammar invites students to take an inquiry stance 
towards their own writing and explore how grammar and language work, rather than viewing 
grammar as a restrictive list of dos and don’ts. Eileen Shanahan (2021) frames this as “a shift from 
finding fault to finding the wonder” (p. 18), while Crosson et al. (2022) encourage us to “model 
and cultivate curiosity” around language and to encourage students to be lifelong language learners 
(p. 492). When responding to students’ writing, lead with rich, descriptive feedback on ideas, 
evidence, and organization; address grammar and writing mechanics in targeted follow-ups 
(Walqui-van Lier & Hernandez, 2001). Beck and Jones (2023) suggest conference-based, dialogic 
feedback with student writers, which positions the teacher as an interested reader and keeps 
attention on the writer’s goals and writing processes. This supports student agency and avoids an 
overemphasis on errors in conventions while still creating space for targeted work on grammar 
and mechanics. Over time, attending first to the what (what was written or stated), and then to the 
how (how the content was written or stated) improves writing and convention without dampening 
motivation or voice.  
 While we must allow students to make errors, we must also ensure that they are learning 
and growing from misunderstandings or inaccuracies. One way that this can be done is through 
allowing students to recognize mistakes on their own (Chiou, 2019). Sometimes, students are able 
to find flaws in someone else’s writing faster than they can find errors in their own work. Teachers 
can ‘make mistakes on purpose’ as a means of allowing students to find and fix errors. Such types 
of activities engage students, and, according to Chiou (2019), enhance students’ abilities to find 
their own errors in writing. 
 
Using GenAI as a Tool 

There is a current debate on the use and potential misuse of GenAI in P–20 settings. While we 
strongly believe that students should not rely extensively on GenAI for communication purposes, 
and while students should be given ample opportunity to write organically and to make errors in 
the process, we also believe in the value of GenAI as a teaching and learning tool. For instance, 
emerging research on AI-supported writing aligns with this perspective: Levine et al. (2025) found 
that when students compare their writing to ChatGPT-generated drafts, they often critique the AI’s 
choices, especially when it removes their personality or voice, and use those differences to refine 
their own grammatical and stylistic decisions. Such work reinforces the idea that mistakes, 
revisions, and experiments with language are essential to growth.  
 In addition, teachers can prompt ChatGPT to generate multiple versions of an opening 
statement and then guide students in comparing those versions to identify underlying rhetorical or 
grammatical principles. Similarly, in the revision stage of writing, students can compare 
ChatGPT’s edits to their own drafts and evaluate which revisions strengthen clarity, coherence, or 
syntax and which remove their “personality” or voice. Through this kind of guided comparison 
work, students learn to articulate and justify their grammatical and stylistic decisions while also 
learning to use GenAI in a productive and responsible way. 
 The utilization of such tools can help teachers and students practice Vygotsky’s (1978) 
Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), as the functionality of ChatGPT and other GenAI programs 
can serve to scaffold writing skills until students begin to feel more confident. Bridging the gap 



12 Georgia Journal of Literacy 47(2)  
 

   
 

between what a student cannot yet do, or is unmotivated to do, and what a student can do with help 
and support enhances both skill and motivation (Fulton et al., 2021). Such gradual release of 
responsibility (Vygotsky, 1978) inhabits an “I Do, We Do, You Do” approach to writing 
throughout multiple grade levels. 
 
Teach Grammar in Context 

Teaching grammar in context means providing authentic reading and writing opportunities where 
grammar instruction can be engaging and relevant for students (Chatterjee & Halder, 2023). This 
often begins with helping students see the connections between reading and writing so that what 
is learned in one domain can transfer to the other (Kim & Zagata, 2024). When students become 
more aware of how authors use language to shape meaning in the texts they read, and then apply 
similar strategies in their own writing, they begin to understand grammar not as an isolated set of 
rules, but as a resource for comprehension and expression. Embedding grammar within high-
interest and meaningful academic texts and assignments has been shown to be more effective than 
teaching it as an isolated skill (Andreev, 2025; Balthazar & Scott, 2023; Simmons, 2016). 
Balthazar and Scott (2023) argue that providing authentic texts also allows students to have richer 
semantic and syntactic support than decontextualized examples, so they are better able to 
understand and apply the grammatical concepts they are learning (Balthazar & Scott, 2023). This 
means students not only notice how grammar functions but also internalize these patterns more 
deeply when instruction is grounded in authentic texts. Relatedly, Simmons (2016) used The 
Hunger Game Trilogy as high-interest mentor texts to discuss how authors purposefully use 
grammar and language and then how students can apply these grammatical understandings to their 
own writing. Song lyrics can also be used in the classroom, as the lines contain a wide array of 
grammar structures ready to be dissected and analyzed (Roslim et al., 2011).  
 At the same time, teaching grammar in context involves encouraging students to 
authentically reflect on their own writing and grammatical decisions, while also recognizing and 
drawing upon the linguistic resources and language variations they bring into the classroom 
(Crosson et al., 2022; Godley et al., 2007). Effective grammar instruction should develop students’ 
metalinguistic awareness and support purposeful decision-making in their writing (Lancaster & 
Olinger, 2014; Levine et al., 2025; Myhill & Watson, 2014). For teachers, this means inviting 
students to dialogue about their language use, thus providing space and opportunities to think about 
how language works so they become more aware of their choices as writers. 
 
Target Grammar Instruction 

Given the complexities of grammar, it may be beneficial to limit the scope of the explicit 
grammatical lessons (Schenck, 2017). In identifying what grammar conventions to teach, it is often 
best to begin by examining students’ work and engaging students in conversation around their own 
grammar usage (Bohney, 2019; E. Shanahan, 2021). McCormack-Colbert et al. (2018) believe that 
grammar should be taught in small, explicit mini-lessons, as these shortened, focused lessons 
respond to specific needs in a structured and explicit manner while not taking time away from 
practice and implication. Bohney (2019) suggests focusing on just a few grammatical conventions 
throughout an academic year and providing students ample opportunities to identify, discuss, and 
apply those conventions. 
 One example of targeted instruction is syntax. Studies show that brief, explicit lessons in 
syntactic complexity support improvements in both comprehension and writing (Balthazar & 
Scott, 2023). For example, when students write fragments beginning with ‘because,’ teachers can 



Luther & Sroka 13 
 

   
 

use this as an opportunity to discuss the relationship between dependent and independent clauses 
and model how complex sentences convey clearer meaning. In keeping with our previous advice, 
examples for complex sentences beginning with ‘because’ can be drawn from the class readings. 
Students can then be encouraged to practice incorporating these types of complex sentences 
meaningfully into their writing. This type of targeted syntactic work reinforces the idea that 
grammar instruction is most effective when it helps students make intentional language choices 
rather than simply comply with rules. 
 
Conclusion 
Understanding grammar is an important life skill and a necessity for academic success for college 
and career preparedness. The GaDOE K–12 ELA standards also emphasize the importance of 
helping students to deepen their grammatical knowledge over time. Studies throughout the years 
(e.g., Kagan, 1992) have focused on teacher beliefs, determining that how educators feel and what 
they believe about the content they teach has a tremendous bearing on the quality of instruction 
that is given to students. We posit that teacher beliefs about grammar might actually be even more 
relevant today, especially in light of how views and expectations around grammar instruction have 
changed drastically over the past several decades.  
Educators must be cognizant and reflective of their own grammar instructional practices and their 
own feelings of grammar, as teachers who appreciate the significance of grammar are more likely 
to model it, take an inquiry stance towards language, teach it through targeted daily practices in all 
content areas, and recognize that aspects of grammar and communication skills are taught, learned, 
practiced, and discussed in all grade levels. Grammar is a necessary component of English 
language arts that must be cultivated through organic experiences and is critical for all ages. As 
students utilize technology consistently in their everyday lives, teachers should recognize that 
application through the use of digital tools can be helpful in the practice and analysis of 
grammatical constructs, as this can bring real-world application. However, digital tools should 
never take the place of educators’ explicit instructional practices that embrace a growth mindset.  
 As well, those preparing the next generation of teachers must take logistical steps to discuss 
and practice grammar in education courses designated for all certification tracks. For instance, as 
preservice teachers complete assignments within their respective EPP programs, faculty members 
should give specific feedback on both the content and the writing so that novice teachers, who may 
not have strong foundational skills in grammar and writing conventions, are able to recognize ways 
to improve in their written work. This will allow novice teachers to apply and practice strategies 
and better prepare them for their future classrooms. 
 Above all, P–20 educators must remember the cultural and linguistic differences in 
students. Just as students come into the classrooms with varying background knowledge and 
skillsets in other components of language arts, P–20 students have differing proficiency in spoken 
and written grammar. Being intentional in providing authentic student-centered instruction is 
critical in preparing learners of all ages for academic and career success in the 21st century. 
 
References 
Al-Jarf, R. (2022). Role of instructor qualifications, assessment and pedagogical practices in EFL 

students’ grammar and writing proficiency. Journal of World Englishes and Educational 
Practices, 4(2), 6–17. https://doi.org/10.32996/jweep 

https://doi.org/10.32996/jweep
https://doi.org/10.32996/jweep


14 Georgia Journal of Literacy 47(2)  
 

   
 

Alzahrani, I. H. (2024). Exploring learners’ beliefs on grammar learning: Importance and 
preferred methods. Theory & Practice in Language Studies, 14(5), 1475–1485. 
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1405.20 

Andreev, L. (2025). What we know about language and literacy instruction for newcomers: A 
review of the literature. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 69(3), 1–14. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.70024 

Balthazar, C. H., & Scott, C. M. (2024). Sentences are key: Helping school-age children and 
adolescents build sentence skills needed for real language. American Journal of Speech-
Language Pathology, 33(2), 564–579. http://doi.org/10.1044/2023_AJSLP-23-00038 

Beck, S. W., & Jones, K. (2023). Fostering agency through dialogue in classroom writing 
assessment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 124, Article 104012. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tate.2022.104012 

Bohney, B. (2019). Thinking inductively about conventions: Activities for teaching grammar in 
context. English Journal, 108(5), 63–69. https://doi.org/10.58680/ej201930126 

Braddock, R., Lloyd-Jones, R., & Schoer, L. (1963). Research in written composition (Ser. 
NCTE Stock Number 31405). National Council of Teachers of English. 

Busch, F. (2018). Digital writing practices and media ideologies of German adolescents. The 
Mouth: Critical Studies on Language, Culture and Society, 3, 86–103. https://doi.org/
10.18716/ojs/the_mouth.2783 

Cabell, S., & Espittia, C. J. (2025). The science of reading: What is it and how does it inform 
literacy instruction? Oklahoma Education Journal, 3(5), 19–27. https://oej.scholasticahq
.com/article/137983-the-science-of-reading-what-is-it-and-how-does-it-inform-literacy-
instruction 

Camps, A., & Fonitch, X. (2019). Teachers’ concepts on the teaching of grammar in relation to 
the teaching of writing in Spain: A case study. Studies in Language and Literature, 19, 
1–36. https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2019.19.02.02 

Carter, R. (1999). Standard grammars, spoken grammars: Some educational implications. In T. 
Bex, & R. J. Watts (Eds.), Standard English: The widening debate (pp. 149–166). 
Routledge. 

Chatterjee, A., & Halder, S. (2023). Teaching grammar in the context of writing: A critical  
review. Journal of Education, 203(4), 971–983. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205742210
74308 

Chiou, B. (2019). The application of problem-based learning approach in English grammar 
instruction: A pilot study. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 10(3), 446–453. 
https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1003.06 

Colvin, M. K. (Molly), Reesman, J., & Glen, T. (2021). The impact of COVID-19 related 
educational disruption on children and adolescents: An interim data summary and 
commentary on ten considerations for neuropsychological practice. The Clinical 
Neuropsychologist, 36(1), 45–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2021.1970230 

Cremin, T., & Oliver, L. (2017). Teachers as writers: A systematic review. Research Papers in 
Education, 32(3), 269–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2016.1187664 

https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1405.20
https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.70024
http://doi.org/10.1044/2023_AJSLP-23-00038
https://doi.org/%E2%80%8C10.1016/j.tate.2022.104012
https://doi.org/%E2%80%8C10.1016/j.tate.2022.104012
https://doi.org/10.58680/ej201930126
https://doi.org/%E2%80%8C10.18716/ojs/the_mouth.2783
https://doi.org/%E2%80%8C10.18716/ojs/the_mouth.2783
https://oej.scholasticahq.com/article/137983-the-science-of-reading-what-is-it-and-how-does-it-inform-literacy-instruction
https://oej.scholasticahq.com/article/137983-the-science-of-reading-what-is-it-and-how-does-it-inform-literacy-instruction
https://oej.scholasticahq.com/article/137983-the-science-of-reading-what-is-it-and-how-does-it-inform-literacy-instruction
https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2019.19.02.02
https://doi.org/10.1177/002205742210%E2%80%8C74308
https://doi.org/10.1177/002205742210%E2%80%8C74308
https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1003.06
https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2021.1970230
https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2016.1187664


Luther & Sroka 15 
 

   
 

Crosson, A. C., Tapu, C., & McKeown, M. G. (2022). Think like a linguist: Leveraging 
multilingual students’ expertise about language. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 
65(6), 481–493. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1226 

Derewianka, B. (2015). The contribution of genre theory to literacy education in Australia. In J. 
Turbill, G. Barton, & C. Brock (Eds.), Teaching writing in today’s classrooms: Looking 
back to look forward (pp. 69–86). ALEA. 

Dori, Y. J., Goldman, D., Shwartz, G., Lavie-Alon, N., Sarid, A., & Tal, T. (2023). Assessing 
and comparing alternative certification programs: The teacher-classroom-community 
model. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1006009 

Dempsey, J., Christianson, K., & Van Dyke, J. (2024). Linguistically-driven text formatting 
improves reading comprehension for ELLs and EL1s. Reading and Writing, 38, 1107–
1128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-024-10548-1 

Elbow, P. (1981). Writing with power: Techniques for mastering the writing process. Oxford 
University Press. 

Erlbacher, E. A. (2025). Teaching engaging grammar instruction in the high school English 
classroom. Journal of Curriculum, Teaching, Learning and Leadership in Education, 
10(1), 1–21. https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1122&
context=ctlle 

Francis, D. V., & Weller, C. E. (2021). Economic inequality, the digital divide, and remote 
learning during COVID-19. The Review of Black Political Economy, 49(1), 41–60. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/00346446211017797 

Fulton L., Hoffman D. L., & Paek S. (2021). Language learning in an era of datafication and  
personalized learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69, 315–318. 
http://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09903-0 

Gartland, L. B., & Smolkin, L. B. (2016). The histories and mysteries of grammar instruction:  
Supporting elementary teachers in the time of the Common Core. The Reading Teacher, 
69(4), 391–399. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1408 

Georgia Department of Education. (n.d.). GaDOE SuitCASE. https://case.georgiastandards.org/ 
Godley, A. J., Carpenter, B. D., & Werner, C. A. (2007). “I’ll speak in proper slang”: Language 

ideologies in a daily editing activity. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 100–131. 
https://doi.org/10.1598/rrq.42.1.4 

González, M., Loose, T., Liz, M., Pérez, M., Rodríguez-Vinçon, J.I., Tomás-Llerena, C., & 
Vásquez-Echeverría, A. (2022). School readiness losses during the COVID-19 outbreak: 
A comparison of two cohorts of young children. Child Development, 93(4), 910–924. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13738 

Goudeau, S., Sanrey, C., Stanczke, A., Manstead, A., & Darnon, C. (2021). Why lockdown and 
distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic are likely to increase the social class 
achievement gap. Nature Human Behavior, 5, 1273–1281. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41562-021-01212-7 

Graham, S. (2019). Changing how writing is taught. Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 
277–303. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18821125 

https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1226
https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1006009
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-024-10548-1
https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1122&%E2%80%8Ccontext=ctlle
https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1122&%E2%80%8Ccontext=ctlle
https://doi.org/10.1177/00346446211017797
https://doi.org/10.1177/00346446211017797
https://doi.org/10.1177/00346446211017797
http://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09903-0
https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1408
https://case.georgiastandards.org/
https://doi.org/10.1598/rrq.42.1.4
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13738
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13738
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13738
https://doi.org/10.1038/%E2%80%8Cs41562-021-01212-7%C2%A0
https://doi.org/10.1038/%E2%80%8Cs41562-021-01212-7%C2%A0
https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18821125


16 Georgia Journal of Literacy 47(2)  
 

   
 

Gupta, A., Pranathy, R. S., Binny, M., Chellasamy, A., Nagarathinam, A., Pachiyappan, S., & 
Bhagat, S. (2024). Voices of the future: Generation Z’s views on AI’s ethical and social 
impact. In R. El Khoury (Ed.), Technology-driven business innovation (pp. 367–386). 
Springer. 

Houghton, K. J., Upadhyay, S.S.N., & Klin, C.M. (2018). Punctuation in text messages may 
convey abruptness. Period. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 112–121. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.044 

Howarth, J. (2023, January 13). Generation Alpha: Statistics, data, and trends (2023). Exploding 
Topics. https://explodingtopics.com/blog/generation-alpha-stats  

Huddleston, R., Pullum, G. K., & Reynolds, B. (2021). A student’s introduction to English 
grammar (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. 

Jackendoff, R., & Audring, J. (2020). Relational morphology: A cousin of construction grammar. 
Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02241 

Jean, G., & Simard, D. (2011). Grammar learning in English and French L2: Students’ and 
teachers’ beliefs and perceptions. Foreign Language Annals, 44(4), 465–492. 

Kagan, D.M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 
65–90. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2701_6 

Kim, Y. S. G., & Zagata, E. (2024). Enhancing reading and writing skills through systematically 
integrated instruction. The Reading Teacher, 77(6), 787–799. https://doi.org/10.1002/
trtr.2307 

Kiuhara, S. A., Graham, S., & Hawken, L. S. (2009). Teaching writing to high school students: 
A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 136–160. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013097   

Kuhfeld, M., Soland, J., Lewis, K., Ruzek, E., & Johnson, A. (2022). The COVID-19 school 
year: Learning and recovery across 2020–2021. AERA Open, 8. https://doi.org/10.1177/
23328584221099306 

Lancaster, Z., & Olinger, A. R. (2014). Teaching grammar-in-context in college writing 
instruction: An update on the research literature. WPA-CompPile Research 
Bibliographies, 24, 1–22. https://ir.library.louisville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=
1378&context=faculty  

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2015). Research into practice: Grammar learning and teaching. Language 
Teaching, 48(2), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444814000408 

Levine, S., Beck, S. W., Mah, C., Phalen, L., & Pittman, J. (2025). How do students use ChatGPT 
as a writing support? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 68(5), 445–457. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1373  

Liu, D. & Master, P. (2003). Critical and innovative approaches to grammar teaching: An 
introduction. In D. Liu & P. Master (Eds.), Grammar teaching in teacher education (pp. 
1–7). Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.044
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.044
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.044
https://explodingtopics.com/blog/generation-alpha-stats
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02241
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2701_6
https://doi.org/10.1002/%E2%80%8Ctrtr.2307
https://doi.org/10.1002/%E2%80%8Ctrtr.2307
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013097
https://doi.org/10.1177/%E2%80%8C23328584221099306
https://doi.org/10.1177/%E2%80%8C23328584221099306
https://ir.library.louisville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=%E2%80%8C1378&context=faculty
https://ir.library.louisville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=%E2%80%8C1378&context=faculty
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444814000408
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444814000408
https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1373


Luther & Sroka 17 
 

   
 

MacWhinney, B. (2023). Language acquisition - the basic components of human language, 
methods for studying language acquisition, phases in language development. 
https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2153/Language-Acquisition.html 

McCarthey, S. J. (2008). The impact of No Child Left Behind on teachers’ writing instruction. 
Written Communication, 25(4), 462–505. https://doi.10.1177/0741088308322554 

McCormack‐Colbert, A., Ware, J., & Wyn, S. J. (2018). Developing writing skills of learners 
with persistent literacy difficulties through explicit grammar teaching. Support for 
Learning, 33(2), 165–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12200  

McCrindle, M. (2020). Understanding Generation Alpha. McCrindle Research. 
Morgan, D. N., & Pytash, K. E. (2014). Preparing preservice teachers to become teachers of 

writing: A 20-year review of the research literature. English Education, 47(1), 6–37. 
https://doi.org/10.58680/ee201426122  

Myers, J., Scales, R. Q., Grisham, D. L., Wolsey, T. D., Dismuke, S., Smetana, L., Yoder, K. K., 
Ikpeze, C., Ganske, K., & Martin, S. (2016). What about writing? A national exploratory 
study of writing instruction in teacher preparation programs. Literacy Research and 
Instruction, 55(4), 309–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2016.1198442 

Myhill, D. (2021). Grammar re-imagined: Foregrounding understanding of language choice in 
writing. English in Education, 55(3), 265–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/04250494.2021.
1885975 

Myhill, D., & Watson, A. (2014). The role of grammar in the writing curriculum: A review of 
the literature. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 30(1), 41–62. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0265659013514070   

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School 
Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts & literacy in 
history/social studies, and technical subjects. Authors. 

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 101, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002). 
Ovsiienko, L., Kulyk, O., Kardash, L., Makarchuk, O., & Boyko, S. (2025). Transformations in 

digital linguistics: How social media shapes vocabulary and grammar. Journal of 
Information Systems Engineering and Management, 10(16s), 887–900. 
https://doi.org/10.52783/jisem.v10i16s.2676 

Oxford, R.L., Lee, K.R., & Park, G. (2007). L2 grammar strategies: The second Cinderella. In 
A. D. Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies: Thirty years of research 
and practice (pp. 117–139). Oxford University Press. 

Pejovic, J., Severino, C., Vigário, M., & Fronta, S. (2024, August). Prolonged COVID-19 related 
effects on early language development: A longitudinal study. Early Human Development, 
195, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2024.106081 

Peterson-Ahmad, M.B., Luther, V.L., & Hill, A. (2025). Inconsistencies and inequities: 
Certification pathways and their impact on teacher preparedness. School-University 
Partnerships, 18(2), 306–326. https://doi.org/10.1108/SUP-07-2024-0013  

https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2153/Language-Acquisition.html
about:blank
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12200
https://doi.org/10.58680/ee201426122
https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2016.1198442
https://doi.org/10.1080/04250494.2021.%E2%80%8C1885975
https://doi.org/10.1080/04250494.2021.%E2%80%8C1885975
https://doi.org/%E2%80%8C10.1177/0265659013514070
https://doi.org/%E2%80%8C10.1177/0265659013514070
https://doi.org/10.52783/jisem.v10i16s.2676
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2024.106081
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2024.106081
https://doi.org/10.1108/SUP-07-2024-0013


18 Georgia Journal of Literacy 47(2)  
 

   
 

Petscher, Y., Cabell, S. Q., Catts, H. W., Compton, D .L., Foorman, B. R., Hart, S. A., Lonigan, 
C. J., Phillips, B. M., Schatschneider, C., Steacy, L. M., Terry, N. P., & Wagner, R. K. 
(2020). How the science of reading informs 21st-century education. Reading Research 
Quarterly, 55(S1), S267–S282. http://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.352 

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. 
https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816  

Roslim, N., Azizul, A.F., & Zain, M.M. (2011). Using songs in enhancing the teaching of 
grammar. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 2(2), 118–244. https://doi.org/
10.7575/aiac.alls.v.2n.2p.118  

Schenck, A. (2017). Learning to improve grammar instruction through comprehensive analysis 
of past research. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 
55(2), 165–195. https://doi:10.1515/iral-2015-0038 

Shanahan, E. (2021). YA Author: From finding error to finding wonder: A shift in grammar 
instruction. Voices from the Middle, 28(3), 14–19. https://doi.org/10.58680/vm20213
1174 

Shanahan, T. (2020, October 3). Why we need to teach sentence comprehension. Shanahan on 
Literacy. https://www.shanahanonliteracy.com/blog/why-we-need-to-teach-sentence-
comprehension  

Simmons, A. M. (2016). Responsible grammar rebels: Using The Hunger Games trilogy to teach 
the intentional sentence fragment. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59(4), 387–
395. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.449 

Smagorinsky, P., Wilson, A. A., & Moore, C. (2011). Teaching grammar and writing: A 
beginning teacher’s dilemma. English Education, 43(3), 262–292. https://doi.org/
10.58680/ee201114002  

Storey, N., & Zhang, Q. (2024). A meta-analysis of the impact of COVID-19 on student 
achievement. Educational Research Review, 44, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.
2024.100624 

Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. (2011). The bishop’s grammar: Robert Lowth and the rise of 
prescriptivism. Oxford University Press. 

Uccelli, P., Galloway, E. P., Barr, C., Meneses, A., & Dobbs, C. (2015). Beyond vocabulary: 
Exploring cross-disciplinary academic language proficiency and its association with 
reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(3), 337–356. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.104  

Vakili, P. & Mohammed, R. (2020). “Grammar scares me”: An exploration of American 
students’ perceptions of grammar learning. International Journal of Linguistics, 
Literature and Translation, 3(12), 124–135. https://doi.org/10.32996/ijllt.2020.12.16 

Van der Heijden, H. R. M. A., Geldens, J. J. M., Beijaard, D., & Popeijus, H. L. (2015). 
Characteristics of teachers as change agents. Teachers and Teaching, 21, 681–699. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1044328 

http://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.352
https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816
https://doi.org/%E2%80%8C10.7575/aiac.alls.v.2n.2p.118
https://doi.org/%E2%80%8C10.7575/aiac.alls.v.2n.2p.118
https://doi:10.1515/iral-2015-0038
https://doi.org/10.58680/vm20213%E2%80%8C1174
https://doi.org/10.58680/vm20213%E2%80%8C1174
https://www.shanahanonliteracy.com/blog/why-we-need-to-teach-sentence-comprehension
https://www.shanahanonliteracy.com/blog/why-we-need-to-teach-sentence-comprehension
https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.449
https://doi.org/%E2%80%8C10.58680/ee201114002
https://doi.org/%E2%80%8C10.58680/ee201114002
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.%E2%80%8C2024.100624
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.%E2%80%8C2024.100624
https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.104
https://doi.org/10.32996/ijllt.2020.12.16
https://doi.org/10.32996/ijllt.2020.12.16
https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1044328


Luther & Sroka 19 
 

   
 

Van Dyke, J. A., & Dempsey, J. (2025). Linguistically-driven text formatting improves reading 
comprehension: Evidence from 4th and 5th graders [Manuscript submitted for 
publication]. Haskins Laboratories, Yale University. 

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. 
Harvard University Press. 

Walqui-van Lier, A., & Hernandez, A. (2001). A scaffold for change: Professional development 
for teachers of English learners. San Diego County Office of Education.  

Watson, A. (2013). Conceptualisations of ‘grammar teaching’: L1 English teachers’ beliefs about 
teaching grammar for writing. Language Awareness, 24(1), 1–14. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2013.828736 

Xavier, C., Hong, H.M., & Renandya, W. (2020). Grammar in writing: Teachers’ reflections. 
PASAA: Journal of Language Teaching and Learning in Thailand, 60(1), 199–221. 
https://doi.org/10.58837/chula.pasaa.60.1.7  

 
Appendix A: K–12 ELA Grammar, Mechanics, and Usage State Standards  

Standard Code and Strand Standard Description 

K–12.L.GC.1.1 (Usage) Use nouns and verbs to share complete thoughts when speaking. 

K–12.L.GC.1.2 (Usage) Form and use singular and plural nouns when speaking 

K–12.L.GC.1.3 (Usage) Use interrogatives to ask questions when speaking. 

K–12.L.GC.1.4 (Mechanics) Capitalize the first word of a sentence and the pronoun I. 

K–12.L.GC.1.5 (Grammar) Form regular plural nouns by adding -s or -es. 

K–12.L.GC.1.6 (Grammar) Form and use verbs by adding -ing, -ed, or -s. 

K–12.L.GC.1.7 (Grammar) Use action verbs. 

K–12.L.GC.1.8 (Grammar) Use adjectives and adverbs. 

K–12.L.GC.1.9 (Grammar) Use common and proper nouns. 

K–12.L.GC.1.10 (Grammar) Form and use the simple verb tenses. 

K–12.L.GC.1.11 (Usage) Use determiners (articles, possessive determiners, demonstrative 
adjectives). 

K–12.L.GC.1.12 (Mechanics) Capitalize proper nouns. 

K–12.L.GC.1.13 (Mechanics) Use periods, exclamation marks, and question marks at the end of 
sentences. 

K–12.L.GC.1.14 (Grammar) Form plural nouns by changing -y to -ies. 

K–12.L.GC.1.15 (Grammar) Use personal pronouns (subject, object, and possessive). 

K–12.L.GC.1.16 (Grammar) Use frequently occurring prepositions. 

K–12.L.GC.1.17 (Mechanics) Use commas to separate items in a series and to format dates, addresses, 
salutations, and closings. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2013.828736
https://doi.org/10.58837/chula.pasaa.60.1.7


20 Georgia Journal of Literacy 47(2)  
 

   
 

K–12.L.GC.1.1  (Mechanics) Use apostrophes to form contractions and singular possessive nouns. 

K–12.L.GC.1.19 (Grammar) Form and use irregular plural nouns. 

K–12.L.GC.1.20 (Grammar) Form and use the past tense of irregular verbs. 

K–12.L.GC.1.2 (Grammar) Use coordinating conjunctions to join words, phrases, or clauses. 

K–12.L.GC.1.22 (Grammar) Form and use verbs by adding -d or -es. 

K–12.L.GC.1.23 (Grammar) Use collective and abstract nouns. 

K–12.L.GC.1.24 (Grammar) Use reflexive pronouns. 

K–12.L.GC.1.25 (Mechanics) Use commas with coordinating conjunctions to join independent clauses. 

K–12.L.GC.1.26 (Mechanics) Use hyphens to divide words at line breaks. 

K–12.L.GC.1.27 (Grammar) Form and use prepositional phrases. 

K–12.L.GC.1.28 (Grammar) Form and use comparative and superlative adjectives and adverbs. 

K–12.L.GC.1.29 (Usage) Ensure pronoun-antecedent agreement. 

K–12.L.GC.1.30 (Mechanics) Recognize and use conventional capitalization, quotation marks, and 
commas to indicate exact words and dialogue. 

K–12.L.GC.1.31 (Grammar) Use relative pronouns and relative adverbs. 

K–12.L.GC.1.32 (Grammar) Use interjections. 

K–12.L.GC.1.33 (Grammar) Use helping and linking verbs. 

K–12.L.GC.1.34 (Usage) Correctly use frequently confused words (e.g., to/too/two; there/their/they’re; 
advice/advise). 

K–12.L.GC.1.35 (Mechanics) Recognize and use conventional capitalization in abbreviations, proper 
adjectives, and formal titles. 

K–12.L.GC.1.36 (Mechanics) Use commas to indicate direct address and to set off the words yes and no. 

K–12.L.GC.1.37 (Mechanics) Use apostrophes to form plural possessive nouns. 

K–12.L.GC.1.38 (Grammar) Use indefinite pronouns, ensuring correct agreement. 

K–12.L.GC.1.39 (Grammar) Use subordinating conjunctions to join clauses. 

K–12.L.GC.1.40 (Mechanics) Use commas after introductory phrases or clauses. 

K–12.L.GC.1.41 (Mechanics) Use conventional capitalization and underlining, quotation marks, or italics to 
indicate titles of works. 

K–12.L.GC.1.42 (Grammar) Use intensive pronouns. 

K–12.L.GC.1.43 (Grammar) Form and use the progressive, perfect, and perfect progressive verb aspects. 

K–12.L.GC.1.44 (Grammar) Form and use participles. 

K–12.L.GC.1.45 (Usage) Recognize and correct vague pronoun references. 

K–12.L.GC.1.46 (Grammar) Use correlative conjunctions to join words, phrases, or clauses. 



Luther & Sroka 21 
 

   
 

K–12.L.GC.1.47 (Mechanics) Use conventional capitalization, quotation marks, commas, end punctuation, 
and attributions to indicate exact words and lines of dialogue. 

K–12.L.GC.1.48 (Mechanics) Use semicolons to separate items in a series or list when at least one of the 
items already contains commas. 

K–12.L.GC.1.49 (Mechanics) Use commas, parentheses, and dashes to set off nonessential words, 
phrases, or clauses. 

K–12.L.GC.1.50 (Mechanics) Use ellipses appropriately. 

K–12.L.GC.1.51 (Mechanics) Use hyphens with appropriate affixes and compound words. 

K–12.L.GC.1.52 (Mechanics) Use semicolons, with or without a conjunctive adverb, to form compound and 
compound-complex sentences. 

K–12.L.GC.1.53 (Grammar & 
Mechanics) 

Use parts of speech and their associated phrases or clauses to perform 
indicated sentence functions (e.g., subject, direct object, predicate 

  K–12.L.GC.1.54 (Mechanics) Use conventional capitalization, quotation marks, commas, end punctuation, 
and parentheses (citations) when incorporating textual evidence. 

K–12.L.GC.1.55 (Grammar) Use demonstrative pronouns. 

K–12.L.GC.1.56 (Mechanics) Use colons to introduce lists, examples, and explanations. 

K–12.L.GC.1.57 (Usage) Form and use verbals and verbal phrases (participles/participials, gerunds, 
and infinitives) based on function. 

K–12.L.GC.1.5  (Usage) Use tenses and aspects to indicate the mood of a verb. 

K–12.L.GC.1.59 (Mechanics) Use colons to introduce quotations. 

K–12.L.GC.1.60 (Mechanics) Use dashes appropriately. 

K–12.L.GC.1.61 (Grammar, 
Usage, & Mechanics) 

Use an appropriate style guide to address complex issues of grammar, 
usage, or mechanics. 

Note: https://case.georgiastandards.org/ 
 
  
Received: October 24, 2025 | Accepted: November 24, 2025 | Published: December 12, 2025 

https://case.georgiastandards.org/

	A Brief History of Grammar Instruction
	The Importance of Grammar Instruction
	Why is Teaching Grammar so Difficult?
	The Student Lens
	The Teacher Lens

	Grammar in Educator Preparation Programs
	Student-Centered Grammar Instruction
	Accept Mistakes as a Growth Model
	Using GenAI as a Tool
	Teach Grammar in Context
	Target Grammar Instruction

	Conclusion
	References

