New English teachers

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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".

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gbrekken

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.

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

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gbrekken

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gbrekken

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

---

I was talking about joining sentences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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. 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.

Did someone say Conjunction???: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.