Job Discussion Forums

[Capergirl]

[PanamaTeacher]

Caper I like that

"Hammer the grammar"

i see santa's workshop with little esl elves hammering grammar into little students

[C76]

Off topic a bit...

[lajzar]

[PanamaTeacher]

Lazjar if you want to go to an extreme, fine. When you form a gramatically correct sentence or phrase you are teaching grammar:

You: I eat fish.

4-year-old: I fish eat.

You: no, little dummy, I eat fish.

4-year-old: I eat fish.

I am curious when if ever do you start identifying the parts of speech to kids and getting into light grammar?

[lajzar]

Well yes, Panamateacher, put like that, I do teach grammar. But the words "subect", "verb", and "object" won't even be mentioned in class (at least, not by me) unless the students are at least 12 years old. This currently includes none of my students.

[PanamaTeacher]

great--all my students are over 12

[Sherri]

The way babies and toddlers learn language and grammar cannot be compared to the way older children, teens and adults learn. There is a kind of in-built universal grammar in their heads. I am not an expert on this believe me, but I can tell you (as the mother of a 2-year-old) that it would be unlikely for a child to make the mistake "I fish eat" because universal grammar would ensure almost right away that word order, in the case of English s-v-o is firmly in place. A more likely thing to happen is that a young child might start off saying "I ate fish" as she learns and copies, but then as she applies grammar rules (acquired naturally) later, may change and start saying "I eated fish". That is when the parent corrects. It's very interesting. Also it is interesting seeing kids learning 2 languages with 2 different word orders (English and Japanese) and never making a mistake with word order! Little babies and toddlers are amazing.

[Roger]

Capergirl,
thank you for your vote on grammar! You put it so nicely and succinctly!

Lajzar,
there is NO question as to how to teach a four-year old 'grammar'. I do that too in China! I teach them grammar much the same way they were taught Chinese syntax (hardly any grammar!) by their mothers! I see little problem in doing this, and in fact, compared to my CHinese colleagues, I do have success, whereas they don't. Why?
I do not divorce grammar from language acquisition. It is part and parcel of it just like vocabulary is. Every word comes with a 'manual', precise instructions on how to use it. A child of 4 years cannot read, but he can get used to identifying different usages of the same word. Take 'foot and feet'. Prefix 'foot' with 'one' or 'which', and you always use 'foot'; the kids should not learn these individual words but rather whole segments, phrases, collocations. My four-year olds can competently handle several tenses and the typical SVA of English.
The Chinese teachers separate grammar and vocabulary, teaching one lesson of vocab, another of "grammar rules", and no practice. Compare that to how textbooks in the European Union and in Africa are designed: there any textbooks for foreign languages have conjugation tables for the verbs to be learnt together with the appropriate personal pronoun - learners there do not memorise so much, they practise on new verbs all the time:
"J'allume, tu allumes, il allume, nous allumons, vous allumez, ils allument, elles allument' Next verb: "Je marche, tu marches, il marche, elle marche, nous marchons, vous marchez, ils marchent, elles marchent"
I have never seen this for English in China, and that may be one of the reasons why few Chinese English speakers actually succeed at it!

There is a mistake in the head of many "native English speakers": "Native" means 'born', but it is wrong to assume you are born with this language - you acquired it as much as an L2 learner does, the sole difference being that an L2 learner has less time as he starts a lot later (and thus has to learn to "forget" about his L1 when using his L2).
Grammar too has to be drilled and taught - albeit by giving perfect examples rather than by "teaching". At this stage - preschool - learning happens through emulation.
Of course, four-year olds do not have a very large vocabulary. And that helps us a lot in teaching them good English - use English that they can easily understand (through action rather than translation), use it as often as possible, and do not teach them abstract things proper for a philosopher (as unfortunately so often happens under Chinese English teachers!).

[Capergirl]

[PanamaTeacher]

It sounds as if people who think grammar is important find teaching more challenging than those who ignore grammar. Does anyone think teaching is difficult if grammar is ignored or downplayed?

[lajzar]

Now that that whole language approach has been described to me, I must say it sounds like the most sincere and well-intetntioned piece of crud ever to enter a school environment.

Anyhow, we seem to have differences of opinion regarding what grammar teaching is. Some of us do overtly teach grammar, others, such as myself, covertly teach grammar. I don't think any of us could truthfully claim not to teach grammar at all.

The truth is, grammar is quite an abstract concept, and its actually rather complex compared to most abstract concepts. It wasn't until Roman times that it was discussed at all, and then the idea was all but lost for a thousand years. So historically, knowledge that grammar even exists, let alone an understanding of it, let alone understanding it in a foreign language, is rare.

In addition, children are notorious for finding abstract concepts difficult. Even adults have difficulty with it unless it is in their line of work. It isn't easy to absorb on a conscious level.

That's not to say it isn't easy to absorb at all. Every native speaker of every language speaks grammatically (most of the time). But since every nativce speaker spoke grammatically, even in those areas where formal knowledge of grammar is non-existant, it follows that overt knowledge of grammar is not at all necessary. I suspect such overt grammar is useful for those able to manipulate such abstract concepts.

However, covert teaching of grammar is, imho, essential. That happens in my lessons, and, I hope, everyone's.

[lagger]

I also find teaching challenging. I am gobsmacked when some of my friends go OS to teach (unqualified). What the heck do they do in the classroom? Just chat, I guess.

I think teaching is challenging (but stimulating) when you have a lot of knowledge built up through teaching experience and reading/studying. If you know nothing, then maybe it's easier. I'm not sure.

We have to know how to teach everything from conversation, pronunciation, spelling, grammar, reading, writing, vocabulary to all the genres and exam prep. We have to find suitable material for our students who can be children, beginners, intermediate, business people & uni students.

There is so much to know and to plan and to prepare and we have to know how to explain and present and elicit and assess in an appropriate manner. We have to make the classroom interesting but still an environment where learning takes place.

It is very difficult in the beginning but once you have developed materials and have taught the same kinds of things before and know what you are doing then it becomes enjoyable and quicker to prepare. Teaching gets easier as you go along because you figure out your 'bag of tricks'. You know ways to extend activities and recycle material and games that work and tasks your classes enjoy. I don't think they can teach this kind of thing in teacher training courses, you learn it on the job.

It's an enjoyable job and I never get bored. Most of the time I find it a good outlet for my creativity. Also, it allows me to talk to people I might never have talked to had I not been a teacher and I am constantly learning things from my students.

I guess teaching is as difficult or rewarding as you want it to be.

[lagger]

PS I think you should only make the decision to 'ignore' grammar when you understand it fully. Some people say they don't teach grammar and it's not important and they've read a paper that agrees with them. The thing is, the authors of such papers/journal articles have sound grammatical knowledge and can make that judgement. A lot of teachers who say 'grammar isn't important' and seem to get by without it often don't know a thing about it.

I would not want my teacher to be just 'getting by'. These are the kind of teacher that panic when a student asks a question about grammar. Often your students will expect you to know grammar whether you choose to teach it or not (obviously, I'm not talking about children here). Some people are just afraid of grammar because they didn't do it much at school and they are too lazy to get out a 'grammar for beginners' book and learn.

Often I see new teachers on these forums asking about grammar and people always recommend books that are too difficult. When I was at Uni in Australia, a lot of people didn't even know what a noun/verb/preposition was. I would suggest if you know nothing about grammar then go and get a basic book (even one designed for primary school students) and build your knowledge from there.

Knowing grammar makes your job easier even though it might be difficult to learn at first. It allows you to teach at a deeper level. I can't imagine explaining some things without grammar. What do teachers say when a students asks when to use 'too' and when to use 'either'? "Well that's just the way we native speakers say it, so learn it!"

Also grammar is really interesting so you are doing yourself (and your students) a disservice if you don't know anything about it.

Finally, this post isn't directed to any of the posters above. A few comments got me thinking, that's all.

[PanamaTeacher]

Lagger you sound as if you've really got it together as a teacher, congrats.