New English teachers

[LangstonC.]

Hello all, after teaching English for 20 years I decided to go back to college and complete my doctorate in Curriculum and Instruction. I am studying newly minted English teachers and their skills in teaching grammar. There are those who say grammar study is dead, and others who say that grammar is back so get used to it. Pick a side and let me know about your experience with grammar. I always thought it useful to teach the parts of speech and elements of sentence:idea: structure, but I was still a writing process oriented instructor. So, is teaching grammar a waste of time?

[Scheherazade]

I enjoy studying English grammar and teaching it as well. If done "tackfully", in my experience, most learners enjoy it too. I cannot help shuddering when I remember how I was taught English grammar while I was in my early teens (as an ESOL student)... And am very surprised that I actually learnt anything!

I try to avoid calling it "grammar" while introducing the subject in the class but use other descriptions such as "action words, words that help to describe things" etc. Once the learners feel comfortable with the concept, I mention that they have studied verbs, adjectives and so on.

I think grammar is an essential part of a language and anyone who is doing language related studies should have a fair understanding of it. However, "how" is a very important part of the teaching process.

I have observed classes during which the teacher covers almost all parts of speech in less than half an hour, leaving the heads of students spinning.

[Dark Lady]

Wow. I was talking about this yesterday. I've just started my PGDE (in case you're not in the UK that's Post Graduate Diploma in Education) in secondary English. In a seminar yesterday the tutor said that whilst grammar has been something that has slipped from the curriculum in recent years more emphasis is being put on it again. This raised concerns from many in my class. Although most of us have degrees in English Literature and could talk about Shakespeare or Blake etc for hours we don't feel confident about teaching grammar.

The main reason for this? Because we were barely taught it ourselves! All I remember being taught at school is 'a noun is a naming word, a verb is a doing word, an adjective is a describing word, an adverb describes a verb'. That's the tip of the iceberg as far as grammar goes!

I have mixed feelings about grammar and how much emphasis should be put on it in school. On the one hand I do see the importance. I think it helps when it comes to analysis and when it comes to writing. However, a lot of grammar that can be taught is not as relevant to English as it is to other languages. Is it important to teach pupils about the dative case etc when it is something that is not present in modern English?

I'm sorry if I'm not answering your question and am just asking questions of my own but this is something I'm trying to organise in my own head right now.

[Rachel1965]

Hi Darklady,
My son is doing his PGC at the moment and he had to do a paper on grammer,
the whole class found this test extremely hard as there was stuff on it that they had never heard about before.
Did you have to do a test like that?

He did say that it helped him remember information that he had forgotton.

best wishes for you pgc

Rachel

[gbrekken]

I find that without a foundation in the mathematical science of our language, there can be little understanding or appreciation of the art of figures of speech, herein defined as intentional departures from the "correct/proper" uses/usages of language.

[Paulclem]

Now in my forties, my peers and I weren't taught grammar to any great extent due to the idea that our writing should develop naturally. The West Riding of Yorkshire, as it was then, was quite progressive at that time. This was fine as far as it went, but when it came to learning a foreign language, then the language teachers expected us to know the grammar. I completely lost my way with French - I only learnt what an infinitive was when I became a teacher years later. Worse still, I arrived at University able to write esays etc, but without the tools to properly proofread and correct my work. I passed ok, but the realisation that my knowledge was sadly lacking wasn't comfortable at all.

In fact I only began to learn about grammar, and deveop an interest in it, when I was already a teacher! It was the Government bringing in the literacy hour and the focus upon training in the teaching of grammar that gave me any confidence at all.

Now I teach adults literacy, and grammar is a significant part of the lessons. The biggest problem I have found is translating the rules into an easily undrstandable form that works in the classroom. The grammar books are particularly dense and inaccessble for the novice. For example in a grammar book I read the other day it gave the example of a sentence and said that a comma could be inserted with the conjuction, or not if the writer wanted. Adults don't want uncertainty. They want a yes or a no.

As it turns out, there is no final authority on English grammar, though there is guidance in style guides. Perhaps this is a good thing. Is flexibility better?

[gbrekken]

Now in my forties, my peers and I weren't taught grammar to any great extent due to the idea that our writing should develop naturally. The West Riding of Yorkshire, as it was then, was quite progressive at that time. This was fine as far as it went, but when it came to learning a foreign language, then the language teachers expected us to know the grammar. I completely lost my way with French - I only learnt what an infinitive was when I became a teacher years later. Worse still, I arrived at University able to write esays etc, but without the tools to properly proofread and correct my work. I passed ok, but the realisation that my knowledge was sadly lacking wasn't comfortable at all.

In fact I only began to learn about grammar, and deveop an interest in it, when I was already a teacher! It was the Government bringing in the literacy hour and the focus upon training in the teaching of grammar that gave me any confidence at all.

Now I teach adults literacy, and grammar is a significant part of the lessons. The biggest problem I have found is translating the rules into an easily undrstandable form that works in the classroom. The grammar books are particularly dense and inaccessble for the novice. For example in a grammar book I read the other day it gave the example of a sentence and said that a comma could be inserted with the conjuction, or not if the writer wanted. Adults don't want uncertainty. They want a yes or a no.

As it turns out, there is no final authority on English grammar, though there is guidance in style guides. Perhaps this is a good thing. Is flexibility better?

Comma could be inserted with the conjunction: which type of conjunction, where in the sentence, and what purpose does the conjunction or comma have as its intent?

[Scheherazade]

Now in my forties, my peers and I weren't taught grammar to any great extent due to the idea that our writing should develop naturally. Being an ESOL speaker, I was taught grammar repeatedly and persistently (though I still cannot claim to have mastered it) and the fact that there was a whole generation who were not taught any grammar while they were at school is something I cannot get over; so many of my colleagues have experiences that are similar to those of yours, Paul.

I try to avoid using grammar books while teaching in the class because they are too academic in their approach and make thing more complicated than our learners need, in my opinion. Since they are native speakers, I try to provide activities which will help the learners discover things on their own (though this usually requires preparation before the class) and I love hearing the students say that they "get it now".
As it turns out, there is no final authority on English grammar, though there is guidance in style guides. Perhaps this is a good thing. Is flexibility better?I think it is the beauty of the language and grammar; it keeps changing and the rules are mostly flexible. We can turn this into a debate of what grammar is as well: Is it what is written in text books or what is used by people (prescriptive vs descriptive)?

I realise that our learners would like to hear certain "yes" and "no" answers but the fact that the context and the style of the writer play important roles enriches the language, I believe.

[Paulclem]

Comma could be inserted with the conjunction: which type of conjunction, where in the sentence, and what purpose does the conjunction or comma have as its intent?

I can't remember the sentence otherwise I would hav quoted it, but the conjunction was "and". The use of the comma hinged upon the type of phrase used as to whether a comma was appropriate or not. I like Lynne Truss' advice in her book, "Eats, Shoots and Leaves", that a comma with a small conjunction can always be used rather than trying to evaluate the type of clause in the sentence. I'm not sure if the book was sold in the USA. It was quite popular over here for a time.

I think it is the beauty of the language and grammar; it keeps changing and the rules are mostly flexible. We can turn this into a debate of what grammar is as well: Is it what is written in text books or what is used by people (prescriptive vs descriptive)?

I think real texts such as letters are more effective in teaching grammar. I do remember the odd gramar exercise session I did at school which involved correcting random sentences. The problem with these types of exercises is that it is harder to relate them to the types of real texts the learners will want to write.

We somtimes get learners who are used to this type of exercise - often from Eastern Europe, who approach their English grammar through such sentences. I try to encourage them to work with the types of texts they want.
I realise that our learners would like to hear certain "yes" and "no" answers but the fact that the context and the style of the writer play important roles enriches the language, I believe.

Yes I agree, but I would encourage confidence first. I do want them to flourish, but first I try to instil confidence in what they are writing. Confidence is a big problem with English speakers in our classes, particularly with things like commas. My aim is to simplify it enough so that they can confidently write a range of sentences an so focus upon the quality of the writing. I think through their reading experience they can then note the fexibility of the language.

[gbrekken]

Conjunctions join units that are grammatically equal. Would you add a comma to Tom and Jerry?

[blazeofglory]

Grammar has always been a very nauseating subject to me. Of course for a non-native writer like me the knowledge of grammar would be of great help. But I hardly learned anything out of grammar, for grammar is not scientifically developed yet. For a non native writer like me for example, use of articles, both definite and indefinite, is hard and we do not appropriate use of them. I know basic English yet when it comes to using proper articles I find it pretty hard and I have not come across a book that teaches me proper use of them.

[Scheherazade]

Paul> Just for clarification, the questions I raised in my previous post were not meant as possiblities to be directed at students while teaching grammar but issues we can discuss in this thread. I agree with you that authentic materials (letters/forms/cereal boxes/leaflets etc) are very useful and effective in Literacy classes.
Conjunctions join units that are grammatically equal. Would you add a comma to Tom and Jerry?Not unless when there are at least three or more items listed (Tom, Jerry, and Spike)...

Though that is a more acceptable in American English, I believe (called a "Harvard comma"). It is not used commonly in British English.

[Paulclem]

Conjunctions join units that are grammatically equal. Would you add a comma to Tom and Jerry?

I was talking about joining sentences.


Paul> Just for clarification, the questions I raised in my previous post were not meant as possiblities to be directed at students while teaching grammar but issues we can discuss in this thread. I agree with you that authentic materials (letters/forms/cereal boxes/leaflets etc) are very useful and effective in Literacy classes. Not unless when there are at least three or more items listed (Tom, Jerry, and Spike)...

Though that is a more acceptable in American English, I believe (called a "Harvard comma"). It is not used commonly in British English.

Sorry I got carried away. I think it's an interesting question you raise Scheherezade. In my former blabbering I was thinking a bit about the grammar real people use and textbook grammar. It has all kinds of implications if you widen out the definition of grammar to what is considered acceptable and not. I have a lot of sympathy with text speak - it does a real job, though I wonder what people on this forum would think. I don't like to use it myself, but it works for the kids.

[papayahed]

Did someone say Conjunction (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TQByv_xkuc)???:D


(Who didn't see that one coming??)

[Paulclem]

Funky. I may use that in one of my lessons. Have you heard the homophone song?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3prL9EHifw0

It raises some inter-species questions.

[gbrekken]

Perhaps teachers are not taught grammar for any number of reasons. Mastering it out of personal motivation is by far the most meaningful of available processes. Translate that to any classroom. You can't force/enforce, or even legislate/prohibit desire. There's an old saying about not being able to force a horse to drink even after leading it to the water hole, but did you ever think of salting their oats? Force feeding filet mignon to a nursing child is not appropriate, neither is expecting all students to be at the same level of readiness and cramming "proper" structures down their throats ala McChokimchild and Gradgrind. Generally speaking, understanding of grammar (be it traditional, prescriptive, transformational, descriptive, tagmemic, or any other), can be a contributing factor both in the formulation of understanding and in the accuracy and understandability of both written and oral communication. Some aphoristic descriptions of the appropriateness of teaching grammar: let their hunger be your guide; when the student is ready, the teacher appears (be ready at least).

We (defenders of the ancient faith?) may not stop people from "aksing" their mother but we may slow the decay of any supposed standards that determine non-standard usage (includes figures of speech). You may take lack of comma as a small error or as my intentional attempt to hurry you on to what I consider the more important part of the two equal grammatical parts. I'll take Dickens, etc. over Snoop Dogg, Larry the Cable Guy etc. anyday. I hope that others in the future will be able to honestly say the same thing someday. Enjoy!

I speak of Tom, and Jerry.

[Scheherazade]

Papaya and Paul> Love those videos! :)

GBR> How do you know whether a 10 year-old will be a teacher when he grows up? There was a generation in the UK that they were not taught *any* grammar at school and, I believe, this to be a great gap in their education. Children do not need to study grammar in detail until they decide to specialise in language related fields but they should, at least, be offered some basic knowledge so that they are not altogether oblivious.

I agree with you that it is a teacher's personal responsibility to make sure that they are well-informed in the field they are teaching; however, when we know that there are too many members of the profession who are rather lacking, it is a good idea to re-trained them so that they are equipped enough to deliver their subjects.

And that is exactly what is happening in the UK at the moment for which I am grateful even though it means extra work.

[Paulclem]

Perhaps teachers are not taught grammar for any number of reasons. Mastering it out of personal motivation is by far the most meaningful of available processes. Translate that to any classroom. You can't force/enforce, or even legislate/prohibit desire. There's an old saying about not being able to force a horse to drink even after leading it to the water hole, but did you ever think of salting their oats? Force feeding filet mignon to a nursing child is not appropriate, neither is expecting all students to be at the same level of readiness and cramming "proper" structures down their throats ala McChokimchild and Gradgrind. Generally speaking, understanding of grammar (be it traditional, prescriptive, transformational, descriptive, tagmemic, or any other), can be a contributing factor both in the formulation of understanding and in the accuracy and understandability of both written and oral communication. Some aphoristic descriptions of the appropriateness of teaching grammar: let their hunger be your guide; when the student is ready, the teacher appears (be ready at least).

We (defenders of the ancient faith?) may not stop people from "aksing" their mother but we may slow the decay of any supposed standards that determine non-standard usage (includes figures of speech). You may take lack of comma as a small error or as my intentional attempt to hurry you on to what I consider the more important part of the two equal grammatical parts. I'll take Dickens, etc. over Snoop Dogg, Larry the Cable Guy etc. anyday. I hope that others in the future will be able to honestly say the same thing someday. Enjoy!

I speak of Tom, and Jerry.

I was referring specifically to adults who, if they ever had any grammar teaching, have forgotten it. The other point about the adults - not of the student ilk, but those who most likely dropped out of school or learning early - is that they come not knowing how to progress in their learning. One of the tasks we have is to teach them how to learn in a more positive way than they did in school.

As for the comma being the least important aspect of the writing, I agree, but we are overcoming years of no confidence and low self esteem in the student. They want to feel that what they are writing is correct.

[Dark Lady]

Hi Darklady,
My son is doing his PGC at the moment and he had to do a paper on grammer,
the whole class found this test extremely hard as there was stuff on it that they had never heard about before.
Did you have to do a test like that?

He did say that it helped him remember information that he had forgotton.

best wishes for you pgc

Rachel

Thanks Rachel!

No, we didn't have to do anything like that at all. It might be because PGDEs and PGCE are slightly different or just a difference between what various universities decide to include. I do think that's a good idea, though.



In fact I only began to learn about grammar, and deveop an interest in it, when I was already a teacher!

That makes me feel a bit better, at least!



Did someone say Conjunction (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TQByv_xkuc)???:D


(Who didn't see that one coming??)


Funky. I may use that in one of my lessons. Have you heard the homophone song?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3prL9EHifw0

It raises some inter-species questions.

I love those videos! They're brilliant. :lol:


A general question to everyone: what elements of grammar do you think are essential to know about? I'm just wondering how much work I have to do to get up to a standard that will at least allow the kids I teach to have a good general base when it comes to grammar.

[Paulclem]

Firstly - what a sentence is, subject and verb - sense - full stops and capital letters.

A lot of the people I have taught write in sentences, but don't demarcate them with full stops. They coma splice - pop lots of commas in where they should put full stops. (Kids used to be told to put in a comma when you take a breath -which isn't helpful.)

I teach 3 rules for commas - lists, with a small conjunction to join sentences and to demarcate a subordinate clause. There are lots of permutations for the subordinate clauses, but basic knowledge will help.

If the kids are doing essays, then colons and semi-colons are really useful.

[gbrekken]

Not quite sure where/when general language knowledge becomes grammar. Is it once we start applying certain terms? Sentence is essential. However, I've had students in the past with whom I started with: "there are things, and there are things we say about things." to introduce the concepts of nouns and verbs. Hope all your students are more advanced when the cross the threshold of your classroom.

[Paulclem]

Unfortunately not. Often we have second language speakers who do well in the end, but struggle- particularly with articles.

Also, we often start learners off with recording their spoken words, but then reinforce that spoken is different to written. Then the opportunity to start with rules comes in.

[gbrekken]

Unfortunately not. Often we have second language speakers who do well in the end, but struggle- particularly with articles.

Also, we often start learners off with recording their spoken words, but then reinforce that spoken is different to written. Then the opportunity to start with rules comes in.

most of my ESLers were of Hispanic descent, and articles were not a problem even worh addressing. I needed to learn that, for them, the past tense/permissive statements were not lies, but merely the custom of their language. They didn't "do" something (for whch they could lay claim/fault), but some things just happened.

never had the opportunity to audio record their usage. too many years with over 200 per day. it's haitus time for me. stay well committed.

[Paulclem]

most of my ESLers were of Hispanic descent, and articles were not a problem even worh addressing. I needed to learn that, for them, the past tense/permissive statements were not lies, but merely the custom of their language. They didn't "do" something (for whch they could lay claim/fault), but some things just happened.

never had the opportunity to audio record their usage. too many years with over 200 per day. it's haitus time for me. stay well committed.

Yes, I know what you mean about the articles. There are more important parts to the language, but we are preparing the learners for jobs or course applications, work in schools or to have an input into their kid's schooling. It then becomes about getting what they know correct so that the can move on.

We were discusing this the other week and it was sugested that as there are more English speakers on the Indian Subcontinent than in he UK, that in time we might lose articles.

[Dark Lady]

I have a question and since it sort of fits into this thread I thought I'd ask here instead of starting another thread.

I'm marking a classes work right now and there are marking guides up on the wall to help. For instance, if the pupil has made a spelling mistake then 'SP' is used; for a punctuation mistake 'P' is used and so on. I've got quite a few pupils who keep forgetting about capital letters at the beginning of sentences and I'm not sure what to mark this under. I thought probably 'punctuation' but there is a seperate one for grammar (not surprisingly its code is 'G'!). What does everyone think? Is this punctuaution or grammar or even spelling??

[Scheherazade]

Why not make a new code? "C" for capital letter misuse?

[Paulclem]

I have a question and since it sort of fits into this thread I thought I'd ask here instead of starting another thread.

I'm marking a classes work right now and there are marking guides up on the wall to help. For instance, if the pupil has made a spelling mistake then 'SP' is used; for a punctuation mistake 'P' is used and so on. I've got quite a few pupils who keep forgetting about capital letters at the beginning of sentences and I'm not sure what to mark this under. I thought probably 'punctuation' but there is a seperate one for grammar (not surprisingly its code is 'G'!). What does everyone think? Is this punctuaution or grammar or even spelling??

I think it comes under the definition of a sentence - beginning capital letter/ end full stop/ sense etc. So I'd call it grammar, but, as Scher has said, a specific code for a common mistake might be better.

[Dark Lady]

Why not make a new code? "C" for capital letter misuse?


I think it comes under the definition of a sentence - beginning capital letter/ end full stop/ sense etc. So I'd call it grammar, but, as Scher has said, a specific code for a common mistake might be better.

Thanks a lot. I hadn't even thought of making a new code! I think I'll leave it for now because I've only got another week and a half here and I don't want to try to impliment something like that just as I leave. It's definitely something to consider for my next placement, though. For now I'm classing it as punctuation just for the fact that I don't think they'd know what I meant if I said grammar.

[gbrekken]

don't know the volume or age you're dealing with; i simply circled both types of mistakes, and upon returning student work made mention to all of such circles, referencing need for capitalization and better guesswork on spelling. love abusing capitalization here. Check out Bear, Invernezzi, and Templeton (Words their way). it won't cure the spelling mistakes, but may reduce their volume.

[giventofly]

I didn't read any of the other posts, but whether you like it or not, GRAMMAR MUST BE TAUGHT. It can't be skipped just because it's borring. The key, as most contemporary pedagogy suggests, is to teach it in context. The classical methods of sentence diagraming etc. DOES NOT WORK for most students. It must taught in the context of the students' own work... their own writing. This ties neatly into the process theory as an essential part of editing and revision. But it cannot be effectively taught as an independent skill like it was for so many years. And, ideally it should be taught as an element of style, not as hard & fast rules... Remeber, grammar rules are broken all the time in authentic literature. It's teaching students how to use grammar as style and looking at why writers make certain grammatical choices and how it affects the text and the audiences reading of the text.

[Gladys]

For me grammar is crucial in understanding the literal meaning of text, a fundamental skill, and particularly so for reading literature. Perhaps grammar should be taught with literature - with, say, Shakespeare or Henry James.

[Dark Lady]

For me grammar is crucial in understanding the literal meaning of text, a fundamental skill, and particularly so for reading literature. Perhaps grammar should be taught with literature - with, say, Shakespeare or Henry James.

Don't you think that's a bit late? I don't know about most schools but if I hadn't taken Advanced Higher drama I wouldn't have studied Shakespeare until university. I read Shakespeare of my own accord but didn't ever have to study any of his plays or poetry for English at school. And I didn't touch Henry James until university either.

I think grammar should be taught in an ongoing way throughout school.

[Gladys]

Don't you think that's a bit late?

Even middle high school is late, but teaching grammar much earlier may lack relevance for most students. I suspect the best way to learn grammar is through a foreign language, taught late in primary school.

Literature, at least, does provide a good reason to master grammar. I remember doing 'Julius Caesar' in Year 8.

[Shannanigan]

I definitely don't feel that grammar is a waste of time, or "dead," at all. I will say, though, as a newly minted English teacher of 12th grade literature:

-I have very, very little formal training in grammar, mechanics, etc. and the terminology that goes with it (guess my teachers thought it was "dead")

-I wish that I had more knowledge about these things so that when my 12th graders make mistakes in essays, I can write more than just "this sounds funny/awkward" in the margin.

I'm working on it; reading grammar books isn't as fun as it sounded :(

[Paulclem]

I definitely don't feel that grammar is a waste of time, or "dead," at all. I will say, though, as a newly minted English teacher of 12th grade literature:

-I have very, very little formal training in grammar, mechanics, etc. and the terminology that goes with it (guess my teachers thought it was "dead")

-I wish that I had more knowledge about these things so that when my 12th graders make mistakes in essays, I can write more than just "this sounds funny/awkward" in the margin.

I'm working on it; reading grammar books isn't as fun as it sounded :(

I know how you feel. I was in that situation when I began teaching. I had worked in schol as a Teaching Assistant. I had a degree already and went on to do a one year teaching certificate, which provided no formal grammar training at all.

I actually learnt on the job, and was able to follow it up with the odd training session. Like yourself, I found grammar books and still do - oddly esoteric. It's a whole new lingo, which you need to know before you can begin to understand even the basics.

Happily, I've found that simplicity is the key. Go for the simplest grammar book you can find. In fact if i were back in my old situation, I'd read a few children's exercises. There was an initiative in the UK - the literacy hour, which included basic grammar for up to 12 year olds. This was where I learnt a lot of my basic grammar. (I was a week ahead of the kids!)

I've also found this site very useful for definitions, and good explanations of grammar.

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/

Good luck

Do what I did, learn what you need to as and when. You'll find that your knowledge will increase steadily without it being an extra burden upon your busy job.

[Shannanigan]

Thank you for the site!

I try not to overwhelm myself; I'm glad every day that I teach literature and that I wasn't placed in a middle school where more of the lessons actually are focused on grammar and the terminology, because if I had been, I'd be learning stuff as I taught it.

Come to think of it, that isn't much different than what they do when they drop us in classes we weren't trained to teach, anyway! :p