Are Writing Deficiencies Creating a Lost
Generation of Business Writers?
ZANE K. QUIBLE
FRANCES GRIFFIN
OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY
STILLWATER, OKLAHOMA
ABSTRACT. Business professionals
and instructors often view writing skills as
one of the most important qualifications
that employees should possess. However,
many business employees, including recent
college graduates, have serious writing
deficiencies, especially in their ability to
use standard English. As a result, American
businesses spend billions of dollars annu-
ally to remediate these writing deficiencies
(College Board, the National Commission
on Writing for Americas Families, Schools,
and Colleges, 2004). In this article, the
authors examine possible reasons for these
deficiencies and offer evidence that a modi-
fied context-based approach, the glossing
approach, and consistent error marking can
reduce the number of sentence-level errors
students make.
Keywords: context-based approach, gram-
mar, punctuation, rules-based approach,
writing deficiencies
Copyright 2007 Heldref Publications
32 Journal of Education for Business
T hat many employers in the United
States are dissatisfied with their
employees writing skills is not a surprise
to individuals who frequently peruse the
professional literature in nearly any aca-
demic field or discipline (Gray, Emerson,
& MacKay, 2005; Wise, 2005). Although
the expressions of dismay are frequent
and often strong, educators have done
little to rectify the situation.
Costs of Employees Poor Writing
Skills
Deficiencies in employees writ-
ing skills have tangible and intangible
costs. In 2004, the National Commis-
sion on Writing (NCW) published the
results of a study for which it had
collected cost data from 64 of 120
large American corporations that were
affiliated with the Business Round-
table and that employed nearly 8 mil-
lion people. According to the report,
American firms may spend as much as
$3.1 billion annually to remediate their
employees writing deficiencies (Col-
lege Board, the National Commission
on Writing for Americas Families,
Schools, and Colleges, 2004).
The intangible costs of employees
deficient writing skills are (a) image
degradation for both employees and
employers; (b) negative impact on pro-
ductivity when employees must reread,
perhaps several times, poorly written
material to decipher the intended mean-
ing; and (c) the outcome when an incor-
rect decision is made because of poorly
or ineffectively written material.
Employers in the public sector have
reported similar writing deficiencies
among their employees. A 2005 NCW
publication summarized feedback from
the human resources divisions for 49 of
the 50 states:
Writing is considered an even more impor-
tant job requirement for the states nearly
2.7 million employees than it is for the
private-sector employees studied in the
Commissions previous survey of leading
U.S. businesses. Still, despite the high value
that state employers put on writing skills,
a significant number of their employees
do not meet states expectations. (College
Board, the National Commission on Writ-
ing for Americas Families, Schools, and
Colleges, 2005, p. 3)
Employers have consistently ranked
oral and written communication skills
as among the most important, if not
the most important, qualifications their
employees should possess (Gray et al.,
2005; Kelly & Gaedeke, 1990; McDaniel
& White, 1993). Given the importance
of communication skills to job success
and the communication deficiencies of
employees, the frustration expressed
by American businesses is understand-
able. The following statement from the
2004 NCW report articulates the dis-
satisfaction of American employers:
The skills of new college graduates
are deplorableacross the board: spell-
ing, grammar, sentence structure. . . . I
cant believe people come out of college
now not knowing what a sentence is
(College Board, the National Commis-
sion on Writing for Americas Families,
Schools, and Colleges, 2004, p. 14).
The Role of Grammar Instruction
in Writing Classes
Educators have frequently debated
how grammar is best taught. Accord-
ing to Doniger (2003), whether teach-
ing grammar has a beneficial effect, no
effect, or even a harmful effect on stu-
dents writing has been a controversial
topic for at least 4 decades. Historically,
teachers have taught grammar using a
rules-based approach, also known as
traditional school grammar (Hillocks
& Smith, 2003), two prominent charac-
teristics of which are teaching parts of
speech and sentence diagramming.
Beginning in the 1960s, an abun-
dance of research data showed the inef-
fectiveness of the rules-based approach
(Braddock, Lloyd-Jones, & Schoer,
1963; Elley, Barham, Lamb, & Wyl-
lie, 1975; Harris, 1962; Hillocks, 1986;
Noguchi, 1991). According to Hillocks,
school officials who require that tra-
ditional school grammar be taught are
doing their students a gross disservice
(p. 248). Over the years, Hillocks has
repeated his thoughts and has cited the
works of others whose thinking paral-
lels his: Research over a period of 100
years has consistently shown that the
teaching of traditional school grammar
(TSG) has had little or no effect on
students, particularly on their writing
(Hillocks & Smith, 2003, p. 721).
Opposition to using the repetitive
drills and grammar or punctuation exer-
cises characteristic of the rules-based
approach was so strong that in 1985, the
National Council of Teachers of English
(NCTE) board of directors passed a
position statement that is still posted on
the NCTE Web page and states,
Resolved, that the National Council of
Teachers of English affirm the position
that the use of isolated grammar and
usage exercises [is] not supported by the-
ory and research [and] is a deterrent to the
improvement of students speaking and
writing . . . and that the NCTE urge [sic]
the discontinuance of testing practices
that encourage the teaching of grammar
rather than English language arts instruc-
tion. (NCTE, 1985, p. 1)
The NCTE (2006) affirmed its posi-
tion regarding the use of grammar drills
in a news release stating that most Eng-
lish teachers do not see themselves as
grammar police (p. 1) patrolling for
sentence-level deficiencies in their stu-
dents writing.
As the rules-based approach fell out
of favor, the context-based approach,
strongly advocated by Weaver (1996,
1998), became the preferred means of
teaching grammar and punctuation.
Rather than using the repetitive gram-
mar or punctuation drills characteris-
tic of TSG, the context-based approach
focuses grammar instruction on what
students are reading and writing (i.e.,
formal grammar instruction is cen-
tered on the text created by students).
Although most of the grammar instruc-
tion is likely based on the errors found
in the students writing, some grammar
and punctuation instruction also may
focus on error-free constructions. In
this context-based approach, as Weav-
er (1996) pointed out, the grammar
instruction that the students receive var-
ies from school to school, class to class,
and student to student, and teachers
generally offer such instruction at the
time of need. Thus, subjectverb agree-
ment may not be discussed until one
or more students make a subjectverb
agreement error, and the sentences in
which such errors were made will be
the focus of the instruction. In using the
context-based approach, teachers pres-
ent grammar and punctuation rules, but
the application of the approach is based
on text created or read by studentsnot
on isolated grammar exercises.
Weaver (1996) cited several studies
that show the advantages of the context-
based approach, including studies by
Calkins (1986), DiStefano and Killion
(1984), Harris (1962), Kolln (1981),
McQuade (1980), Noguchi (1991),
and OHare (1973). In each study, the
researchers found that students who
learned language conventions in the
context of their writing generally made
fewer mechanical errors in their writ-
ing than did students who studied the
language conventions in isolationa
characteristic of TSG.
Although the context-based approach
has many proponents, it is not without
opposition. Sams (2003) indicated that
the grammar-in-context approach has an
inherent flaw because
it treats grammar as an isolated set of rules,
thereby considering the written product
under review as the only relevant con-
text for grammar instruction. It completely
ignores the context from which the rules
derive, the language system itself. Quite
simply, students have no background
knowledge about grammar, no vocabulary,
no concepts, no context, no means for
understanding teachers explanations of
rules or their application. Thus, someone
who attempts to teach grammar in context,
is, in effect, attempting to teach grammar
in a vacuum. (p. 63)
Although teaching grammar and
punctuation in the context of writing,
as advocated by Weaver (1996), has
been promoted as an effective alterna-
tive to the rules-based approach, our
observations correlate to those of the
employers interviewed by the NCW:
Students writing skills are no more
and may be lesseffective than they
were 15 to 20 years ago. Johansen and
Shaw (2003) have a possible expla-
nation for this observation: Some
English teachers decided not to teach
grammar at all when research findings
showed the ineffectiveness of the TSG
approach and recommended the use of
the context-based approach.
Perhaps one difficulty in this dis-
cussion is the definition of writing as
Hillocks and the NCTE use the term. In
his published work, rarely does Hillocks
(1996) mention correctness as a char-
acteristic of good writing. The NCTE
(2006) statement also seems to focus
on other aspects of good writing in
its reference to grammar as being an
important writing resource. However,
the comments in the two NCW reports
(College Board, the National Commis-
sion on Writing for Americas Fami-
lies, Schools, and Colleges, 2004, 2005)
place correctness at the sentence level
at the forefront. If educators distinguish
between teaching correct grammar
and mechanics and teaching writing,
perhaps they can start to address the
problem. Ironically, according to Baron
(2003), college professors were recently
reported in a study undertaken by the
publishers of the American College Test
September/October 2007 33
(ACT) as indicating that grammar is
the most important skill for students
entering college, but high school teach-
ers consider it to be the least important
skill. According to the same study, the
discrepancy between college expecta-
tions and high school instruction may
explain why nearly 20% of students
entering college take a remedial writing
course. Although teaching correct gram-
mar and mechanics certainly does not
constitute teaching writing, we argue
that for business writing, correctness is
a critical characteristic of effective writ-
ten communication.
Doniger (2003) wrote that the oppo-
sition to teaching TSG may be weak-
ening because recently, the armor of
the anti-grammar instruction stance has
shown chinks and dents (p. 101). Hud-
son (2001) concurred:
The pendulum seems to be on the return
swing. It would be naive to think that
the pendulum is driven by academic
researchindeed, there has been very
little research on grammar and writing
since the flurry in the 60s and 70s. . . .
However, the result is that there is now
much more enthusiasm in some educa-
tional circles for the idea that conscious
grammar (resulting from formal teaching)
could have the useful benefit of improv-
ing writing. (p. 1)
Hudson (2001) reported that in the
United Kingdom, the government has
introduced two directives: the Nation-
al Literacy Strategy in 1997 and the
National Curriculum for English in
1999. These directives advocate reintro-
ducing the teaching of grammar into all
primary and secondary state-run schools
in the United Kingdom.
The instructors who teach writing
courses, including written business
communication courses, are chal-
lenged to develop new approaches
to help students remediate their sen-
tence-level errors. These courses are
likely the last writing-oriented courses
that the students take before receiving
their undergraduate degree. Given the
disparity between the ineffective writ-
ing skills of those entering the work-
force and the level of writing skills
American employers require of their
employees, the instructors educat-
ing future business employees cannot
ignore the disconnect. If instructors
continue to ignore it, the consequenc-
34 Journal of Education for Business
es will likely be as frustrating to the
instructors as their products are frus-
trating to those who hire them. If the
status quo is allowed to continue, gov-
ernment intervention becomes a much
stronger likelihood, as has occurred in
the United Kingdom.
Suggestions
Researchers have posed a num-
ber of alternatives to the rules-based
approach. However, unless these alter-
natives help students overcome their
sentence-level deficiencies, the writing
weaknesses of employees as identified
in the two NCW reports will continue
frustrate employers.
Hillocks and Smith (2003), who are
strong opponents of the TSG approach,
recommended the sentence-combining
technique as an alternative to the con-
text approach. When using the sen-
tence-combining technique, instructors
give students a series of short sentences
in a set (from two to as many as eight
or nine) and ask students to use all of
the ideas in these sentences to cre-
ate a new, more structurally complex
sentence. According to Cooper (1975),
no other single teaching approach has
ever consistently been shown to have a
beneficial effect on syntactic maturity
and writing quality (p. 72). However,
when considering the errors in the sen-
tences students create, Jackson (1982)
found that sentence-combining prac-
tice did not reduce errors among basic
writers. Hayes (1984) indicated that
sentence combining has the same level
of effectiveness in reducing mechani-
cal errors as TSG instruction.
We believe that a modified sentence-
combining technique in which sentence-
level errors are identified and the rules
governing the correction of these errors
are explained is a viable option. Illustra-
tion of the modified sentence-combin-
ing strategy is:
Directions: Using the ideas presented in
the following sentences, combine them
into one compound sentence.
John is my brother.
He is the oldest of the three boys in my
family.
He lives in New York City.
He plans to visit me this weekend.
Students sentence: My older brother John
lives in New York City, he is going to visit
me this weekend.
Instructors notations on students paper:
Superlative adjective error (older should
be oldest); comma-splice error (change
comma to semicolon or insert and); and
parallel structure error (he is going to. .
. should be he plans to. . .)
Note: In an actual situation, the codes of
the errors reflecting these three deficien-
cies would be placed at the location of
each error. For example, sup. adj may
be written at the location of the first error,
CS may be written at the location of the
second error, and PS may be written at
the location of the third error.
We believe that students sentence-
level errors should always be marked
as part of grading their work. If English
teachers do not see themselves as gram-
mar police and therefore do not mark
grammar and punctuation errors, students
remain unaware of the magnitude of their
writing insufficiency and have no way of
knowing what types of deficiencies need
to be corrected. The result is that they
continue to make the same sentence-
level errors. The instructors who teach
in other business disciplines also can
assist by marking sentence-level errors
in their students written work. They also
can consider writing quality, including
correctness, as one of the components in
determining grades on students written
work. This can be facilitated when an
academic unit (e.g., department or col-
lege) adopts a uniform error-code list or
writing style handbook that all instruc-
tional personnel use when grading their
students work. Thus, if a students paper
contains a comma splice, the instructor
records the code for the splice on the
students paper at the location of the
error and provides a correction.
Some researchers show that requiring
students to correct certain marked errors
is helpful. Johansen and Shaw (2003)
advocated this with their glossing
approach, which uses the following five
steps: (a) the teacher evaluates students
writing and marks their sentence-level
errors; (b) the teacher highlights the
errors that he or she wants students to
further consider; (c) the teacher returns
the students work, asking them to cor-
rect all errors; (d) each student receives
a summary sheet on which he or she
writes the grammar rules that pertain to
the highlighted errors on his or her piece
of writing; and (e) each student resub-
mits the corrected composition and the
summary sheet.
Feng and Powers (2005) recommend-
ed error-based grammar instruction that
analyzes the grammar errors students
make and creates minilessons that focus
on these errors. During follow-up writ-
ing, the instructors continue to analyze
the nature of students sentence-level
errors and provide additional remedia-
tion where needed.
Sams (2003) suggested the use of
sentence diagramming to teach grammar
fundamentals and presented a question-
ing process to help students differenti-
ate among various words and their use
within sentences. According to Sams,
this system works because in linguistic
structures, each word within a sentence
answers a question about another word,
and using the questioning process helps
students determine the proper relation-
ships between words.
Quible (2004) studied the use of an
error-labeling technique in eliminating
sentence-level errors that students in
business writing courses often make. In
his study, students were asked to iden-
tify and label errors in writing samples.
He found a strong correlation between
error labeling and error correction, sug-
gesting that the error-labeling technique
is an effective approach in helping stu-
dents eradicate sentence-level errors
involving grammar and punctuation.
Quible (2006) also studied the impact
on error eradication of remediation exer-
cises containing grammar and punc-
tuation deficiencies. These remediation
exercises (short narratives), most of
which were 100120 words long, were
created to focus on certain errors often
found in students writing; for example,
an exercise may include several sen-
tences that contain subjectverb and
pronounantecedent disagreement. Stu-
dents were asked to identify the errors
by their label and subsequently correct
them. By the end of the semester, the
students who completed the remedia-
tion exercises made significantly fewer
sentence-level errors than did their
counterparts who did not complete the
remediation exercises.
Quible (2007) reported that the use
of strategies is a useful technique in
helping students master basic grammar
and punctuation concepts. Strategies
avoid the use of parts-of-speech labels
and grammar and punctuation rules. In
their place, students work with easy-to-
learn and easily remembered strategies.
An illustration of rules approach versus
strategies approach is:
Rule: Who is correctly used when it
functions as a subject in the sentence;
whom is correctly used when it func-
tions as an object.
Strategy: On the one hand, when you
can correctly substitute he (or she
or they) in a sentence when deciding
whether to use who or whom, then
who, not whom, is the correct choice.
On the other hand, when you can correct-
ly substitute him (or her or them)
in a sentence when deciding whether to
use who or whom, then whom, not
who, is the correct choice.
Application:
Sentence: The person (who/whom) sells
the most cars will earn a trip to Cancun.
Strategy: Him (or her) sells the most
cars or he (or she) sells the most cars.
Choose who.
Sentence: (Who/whom) did you ask to
give the keynote address?
Strategy: Did you ask he/she/they or
Did you ask him/her/them? Choose
whom.
Conclusion
Focusing instruction on grammar and
punctuation rules is a necessary part of
teaching written communication skills.
Researchers have shown that the ability of
students to eliminate their sentence-level
errors improved when instruction was
combined with other approaches (e.g.,
in-context writing, sentence combining,
glossing, error labeling). Without such
instruction, businesses will continue to
suffer the high costs of a lost generation
of employees whose writing is plagued
with sentence-level deficiencies.
NOTES
Dr. Zane K. Quibles interests are business
writing and business pedagogy.
Dr. Frances Griffins interests are business
writing and cross-cultural business communica-
tion.
Correspondence concerning this article should
be addressed to Dr. Zane K. Quible, Profes-
sor, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK
74078.
E-mail: zquible@okstate.edu
REFERENCES
Baron, D. (2003, May 16). Teaching grammar
doesnt lead to better writing. Chronicle of
Higher Education, p. B20.
Braddock, R., Lloyd-Jones, R., & Schoer, L.
(1963). Research on written communication.
Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of
English.
Calkins, L. M. (1986). The art of teaching writing.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
College Board, the National Commission on Writ-
ing for Americas Families, Schools, and Col-
leges. (2004, September). Writing: A ticket to
work . . . or a ticket out: A survey of business
leaders. New York: Author.
College Board, the National Commission on
Writing for Americas Families, Schools, and
Colleges. (2005, July). Writing: A powerful
message from state government. New York:
Author.
Cooper, C. (1975). Research roundup: Oral and
written composition. English Journal, 64(9),
7274.
DiStefano, P., & Killion, J. (1984). Assessing
writing skills through a process approach. Eng-
lish Education, 11, 98101.
Doniger, P. (2003). Language matters: Grammar
as a tool in the teaching of literature. English
Journal, 92, 101104.
Elley, W., Barham, I., Lamb, H., & Wyllie, M.
(1975). The role of grammar in a secondary
English curriculum. Research in the Teaching
of English, 10, 521.
Feng, S., & Powers, K. (2005). The short- and
long-term effect of explicit grammar instruction
on fifth graders writing. Reading Improvement,
42, 6772.
Gray, F., Emerson, L., & MacKay, B. (2005).
Meeting the demands of the workplace: Science
students and written skills. Journal of Science
Education and Industry, 14, 425435.
Harris, R. (1962). An experimental inquiry into
the functions and values of formal grammar in
the teaching of English, with special reference
to the teaching of correct written English to
children aged twelve to fourteen. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of London.
Hayes, I. (1984). An experimental study of sen-
tence combining as a means of improving syn-
tactic maturing, writing quality and grammati-
cal fluency in the compositions of remedial high
school students. Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion, Columbia University, New York.
Hillocks, G., Jr. (1986). Research on written com-
position: New directions for teaching. Urbana,
IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Hillocks, G., Jr., & Smith, M. W. (2003). Gram-
mars and literacy learning. In J. Flood, D.
Lapp, J. Squire, & J. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook
of research on teaching the English language
arts (2nd ed., pp. 721737). Mahwah, NJ: Erl-
baum.
Hudson, R. (2001). Grammar teaching and writ-
ing skills: The research evidence. Retrieved
March 28, 2006, from http://www.phon.ucl.
ac.uk/home/dick/writing.htm
Jackson, K. D. (1982). The effects of sentence
combining practice on the reduction of syn-
tactic errors in basic writing. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Auburn University,
Auburn, AL.
Johansen, D., & Shaw, L. (2003). The glossing
process as a practical approach to grammar
instruction. English Journal, 92, 97100.
Kelly, C. A., & Gaedeke, R. M. (1990). Stu-
dent and employer evaluation of hiring criteria
September/October 2007 35
 for entry-level marketing positions. Journal of
Marketing Education, 12, 6471.
Kolln, M. (1981). Closing the books on alchemy.
College Composition and Communication, 31,
139151.
McDaniel, S. W., & White, J. C. (1993). The
quality of the academic preparation of under-
graduate marketing majors: An assessment
by company recruiters. Marketing Education
Review, 3, 916.
McQuade, F. (1980). Examining a grammar
course: The rationale and the result. English
Journal, 69, 2630.
National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).
(1985). NCTE position statement: On grammar
exercises to speaking and writing. Urbana, IL:
Author.
36 Journal of Education for Business
National Council of Teachers of English
(NCTE). (2006, October 24). NCTEs position
unchanged: Isolated grammar drills do not
produce good writers. Retrieved November 15,
2006, from http://www.ncte.org/about/press/
rel/125932.htm
Noguchi, R. (1991). Grammar and the teach-
ing of writing: Limits and possibilities.
Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers
of English.
OHare, F. (1973). Sentence combining: Improv-
ing student writing without formal grammar
instruction. Urbana, IL: National Council of
Teachers of English.
Quible, Z. (2004). Error identification, labeling,
and correction. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 46,
155168.
Quible, Z. (2006). Impact of error labeling on
error elimination in business writing. Business
Communication Quarterly, 68, 824.
Quible, Z. (2007). The strategies approach: Effec-
tive for reviewing grammar and punctuation
concepts. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Sams, L. (2003). How to teach grammar, analyti-
cal thinking, and writing: A method that works.
English Journal, 92, 5765.
Weaver, C. (1996). Teaching grammar in the con-
text of writing. English Journal, 85, 1524.
Weaver, C. (1998). Teaching grammar in the con-
text of writing. In C. Weaver (Ed.), Lessons
to share: On teaching grammar in context (pp.
1838). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Wise, K. (2005). The importance of writing skills.
Public Relations Quarterly, 50, 3748.