Advocates of part to whole instruction believe that front-loading instruction in the discrete parts of language will best enable students to apply these parts to the whole process of writing. Following are the key components of this inductive approach.

1. Memorization of the key terminology and definitions of grammar to provide a common language of instruction.
2. Identification of grammatical constructions leads to application.
3. Familiarity with the rules of grammar leads to correct application.
4. Teaching the components of sentence construction leads to application.
5. Distrust of one’s own oral language as a grammatical filter .

Advocates of whole to part instruction believe that back-loading instruction in the discrete parts of language, as is determined by needs of the writing task, will best enable students to write fluently and meaningfully. Following are the key components of this deductive approach.

1. Minimal memorization of the key terminology and definitions of grammar and minimal practice in identification of grammatical constructions.
2. Connection to one’s oral language is essential to inform fluent and effective writing.
3. Reading and listening to exemplary literature and poetry provides the models that students need to mimic and revise as they develop their own writing style.
4. Minimal error analysis.
5. Teaching writing as a process with a focus on coherence will best enable students to apply the discreet parts such as subjects, predicates, parts of speech, phrases, clauses, sentences, and transitions to say something meaningful.

Of course, how teachers align themselves within the Great Grammar Debate (See http://penningtonpublishing.com/blog/grammar_mechanics/the-great-grammar-debate/) is not necessarily an “either-or” decision. Most teachers apply bits and pieces of each approach to teaching grammar. I take a stab on how to integrate the inductive and deductive approaches in How to Integrate Grammar and Writing Instruction (See http://penningtonpublishing.com/blog/grammar_mechanics/how-to-integrate-grammar-and-writing-instruction/).

Of course, there are such a range of texts I can use to teach the skills: from blogs to articles to essays to modern authors, etc. And I did use those. But I also wondered/worried about how much context I was providing (or not providing). In an American Lit course, for example, how do you not teach Hawthorne, Hemingway, Dickinson, Faulkner? Hirsch isn’t without merit, even if there are good arguments against him.

I settled on this approach: sketch the outline/context; teach a few specific works that corresponded to important movements and/or specific skills; supplement the rest with a variety of modern writings/writers that I found engaging and thought appropriate, likely to appeal, and relevant to the moves/skills I’m focusing on. I never stopped worrying about where I might be cheating my students.

There’s no getting around at least a small bit of teaching authors and texts. Even if you choose to place your main focus elsewhere, anytime you use a text in order to teach a skill you’re also teaching that text and that author. And you have to consider the texts you have at your disposal when deciding scope and sequence of a course. I just regularly feel like I’m giving no real instruction on how to read or think better, only chances to practice other ways of doing same. This year, I’m trying to move to more conferences with students as a way to teach skills because that’s where I’ve seen the most growth in the past.