Job Discussion Forums

[Jbhughes]

Often when reading discussions regarding teaching on dave�s, I notice teachers mentioning �grammar explanations� or �explaining grammar to sts� or something similar.

Very early on during my CELTA course, the tutors gave us 3 rather caricatured descriptions of 3 different types of teacher � the Explainer, the Elicitor and the Facilitator (the terms may have escaped me, but it was to that effect), respectively, the Bad, the Ugly and the Good. Il brutto was criticised for having high teacher talking time, being boring and ineffective as well as wasting a lot of good classroom time (when the sts themselves could be talking). Il cattivo wasn�t so much criticised as put in a less favourable light compared to Il buono, whom encouraged sts to discover the meaning, form and pronunciation of grammar in context, before getting them talking. Il buono was at his best when limiting how much he spoke (Blondie wasn�t much of a talker either was he?) and encouraging the sts to do all the talking.

Non-witty references to a damn good film notwithstanding, what I got from my CELTA tutors was that explaining grammar is substandard in favour of a more discovery and student-led approach to grammar.

There have been a good few threads criticising CELTA on dave�s (I note fluffyhamster as a particular non-advocate), so I suggest we steer clear of re-iterating critiques of CELTA techniques and look at the broader question �

When does an ostensibly (seems to be the word at the moment) well-qualified, experienced and student-sensitive teacher explain grammar and how (to adults, please)?


N.B. This is not some kind of academic challenge or guised attack on other�s principles of teaching. I�m not trying to fly the CELTA flag high abreast the great ship discovery-based learning. I�m simply trying to further my understanding of teaching and am interested in what techniques more experienced and better qualified teachers are using.


Perhaps this post should have been posted in the teacher-discussions forum, I�m not sure, only this forum does seem to get more coverage and I note other threads discussing teaching in this forum.

Perhaps teachers use the phrase simply to mean a part of a lesson where sts learn the meaning, form and pronunciation of grammar, this has only just occurred to me � still, I�ll pose the initial question anyway.

[Sashadroogie]

Very often learners will explicitly ask "What means this?" and point to a structure in a text they don't understand. They expect to be told equally directly what the form means. Anything less leaves them unimpressed, both with the teacher's knowledge and with the answer.

I remember on my entry course PPP was the teaching model that was still in fashion. Lots of good old-fashioned grammar explanation then. Now being caricatured by the very people who championed it? Sounds strange - perhaps I have misunderstood something....

[Glenski]

You want answers for adults. Ok, can we assume they've had zero grammar experience before, or is this a review for them? Makes a difference, a big one.

It also matters whether they are being taught ESL vs. EFL, and if it's for a particular vocational purpose or otherwise. Lots of variables here.

You can't elicit what students don't already know. They somehow have to have had something explained to them in order to pull it out of their skulls, unless you are part elicitor and part explainer, perhaps even part facilitator, combined.

Facilitators probably thrive best when students have had some exposure to the grammar already, and when the context of the schooling is crystal clear. Trust me, asking students to "sit down in pairs and discuss X" is hopeless without some background knowledge and motivation and vocabulary.

Explainers can be the students' own L1 teacher (junior high?) or a foreign teacher. Obviously, too much outright explaining detracts from students' talking time. The problem with an explainer who is not the L1 teacher is that they may not realize what they are doing and/or just love the sound of their own voice. Either that, or the lesson structure itself calls for it (basic beginners?).

So, let's define some terms here, and then we can examine the issues more clearly.

Who are your adults?
What is the purpose of their studying?
What is their background in learning English?

[spiral78]

Dear Sasha:

While PPP was also featured on my CELTA-equivalent cert many moons ago (and, I've recently learned, still plays an important role in much teacher training at the university level in North America ), it has indeed generally fallen out of favour on entry level courses.

This is a great step forward in terms of fairness for all trainees, IMO.

Consider: if 'your' practice teaching students like 'you,' they patiently sit through 'your' presentation, earnestly practice 'your' target items, and (the key), produce 'your' target items freely at the end, thus impressing your trainers.

If they happen to not like 'you,' they can easily sabotague the production phase, thus engendering critical feedback from 'your' trainers and jeopardising your pass. Regardless of whether they've 'learned' 'your' target items.

Sounds silly, but I have really seen it happen to less-than-popular teacher trainees

Best,
spiral

More seriously, on the topic of 'explaining' grammar, and speaking in general terms:

I think that teachers can (and should) usefully point out patterns which students might not notice or understand entirely on their own.

I believe the research shows that, once students have an actual 'need for' a grammatical structure, they are usually ready for a rule or pattern to scaffold their understanding of the item and how it works in communication.

This golden moment is obviously difficult (to impossible) to pinpoint on a student-by-student basis, and therefore what we do in practice is to point out/show/demonstrate/provide practice for any given grammatical rule when it comes up in whatever texts we are using. Not necessarily every time 'it' comes up, of course, but when 'it' is important and there are not too many other things competing for the time and energy.

In my own situation, I try to provide as many different kinds of 'explanation' as possible.

That can be boardwork (I usually ask students to do that bit: my own writing in English being pretty good and theirs needing the practice).

Providing additional examples (usually on paper) and asking students to come up with still more.

Providing texts (can be written or aural) that demonstrate the structure used in different contexts and asking students to discover the patterns.

If you're familiar with the L1 of the students, showing how 'the' English structure may be different from the L1 can be helpful.

So, I may spend a minute or two (literally) explaining a structure: if it needs much more talk than that, they probably aren't ready for it, IMO.
Then, I'll answer any questions they have in the course of any practice I ask them to do. I also try to keep their minds on the structure in the next few lessons, at least, so that whatever they may have 'learned' hopefully remains fresh and active for them until they're used to using the structure accurately.

[Jbhughes]

Many thanks for your replies.

[spiral78]

[Sashadroogie]

[fluffyhamster]

What an awful caricature! But pretty indicative of the decidedly uninformative, patronizing drivel that is spouted on many a CELTA.

Anyway: language has form and meaning (very closely intertwined). What often makes it (the form at least) hard to grasp and use is the complexity of the meaning(s) it can encode, which is where explanation can come in - the theory, if you like. (On the other hand, there are many quite clearly observable facts that can be quite easily brought to the students' attention - spellings, pronunciations, collocates, ratios of usage, etc).

Now, a theory may be inadequate (and few theories about/in language are ever that adequately expressed), but if it motivates certainly the teacher to search for confirmatory and/or better evidence then it is doing a large part of its job. (So theory isn't necessarily always needed, provided teachers are operating as if there were theory driving them organizationally at least some of the time). Another important part of theorizing is that it can help produce terminology that is actually pretty useful - for example, Michael Lewis' championing of (Joos'?) "remoteness". (This gets a look-in at DELTA level it would seem, but there is no reason why it shouldn't be brought "down" to CELTA level - the language that has to be taught is the same regardless! (And it is the CELTA- rather than DELTA-qualified who is probably going to be continuing doing the most classroom teaching)).

Take away the theorizing and/or empiricism completely however (by labelling it not only unnecessary but absolutely bad), whilst extolling/insisting on the adequacy of "approved" materials and methods, and you have a textbook definition of 'dumbing down', or certainly a situation that is making it harder for teachers to excel (due to the lack of tools needed to do the job adequately). I cannot understand why there is no longer much of a premium on knowledge (the focus may have "quite rightly" shifted to application, but what is there then to apply? The balance needs to be looked at and righted, IMHO). And no amount of stressing the I in ITT will ever quite excuse the time wasted and the very low bar set on these cert courses (if only they would jettison a lot of the discovery-based or gently-does-it stuff in the ITT itself and just cut to the chase with e.g. maximally-informative and sophisticated lectures. Of course, it is good to get an idea of how to [not] explain something like one might to a foreign learner, but this necessarily limits what can be conveyed, and is a perverse approach to take when trainer and trainees share the same language).

@Spiral: I think the unfairness usually comes from the TRAINERS/observers, not the TP students. The method used is actually quite incidental to their constant need to reaffirm their position, and the consant criticism (trainee after trainee, course after course after course) would, one would've thought, rather beg questions about the inadequacy of the training and trainers rather than the trainees!

[spiral78]

[fluffyhamster]

I thought TP students were meant to be genuine foreign learners, not fellow trainees. (That is, fellow trainees should at most be quietly observing from the back of the class, not sabotaging from the front row LOL). Either way, the trainers should've been onto this, and insisted that the fellow trainees be very obedient slaves (like in all "good" ELT, esp. for demonstration purposes) and save whatever sass for after the lesson itself, i.e. for the feedback session.

[johnslat]

One thing I've noticed is that methodologies tend to have a "flavor of the year" among "the experts" (and sometimes, flavors go in and out of fashion.)

Another is that many "experts" tend towards "polarization," that is, claiming "this methodology is the ONLY right one."

I think that's ridiculous. I've always used an eclectic approach, one determined by the specifics of the class and the learners in it.

As soon as I hear anyone claim anything like this, "the Explainer, the Elicitor and the Facilitator (the terms may have escaped me, but it was to that effect), respectively, the Bad, the Ugly and the Good."

My BS detector activates.

Regards,
John

[fluffyhamster]

Ooh, I forgot to mention when I explain things. Mostly it's here on Dave's, where some pretty half-baked if not strange questions can get asked; then, a lot of problems seem to have been *induced* by skewy (esp. prescriptively-biased) input, leaving the genuine teacher with a lot of explaining to do regarding any "wrong" but perfectly acceptable usage.

[Isla Guapa]

[spiral78]

[spiral78]

Dear John, and Isla Guapa: