Site Search:
 
Get TEFL Certified & Start Your Adventure Today!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Death to High School English
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Glenski



Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Posts: 12844
Location: Hokkaido, JAPAN

PostPosted: Sun May 15, 2011 10:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fladude wrote:
I'm not sure if its really important that you be able to identify a present perfect tense. I mean I don't know a lot of grammar terms myself, but I know how to write correctly, and this was knocked into my head with a hammer in law school. We never learned grammar though, but just had a really mean person teaching the class who corrected our writing. In a way, this would require teaching writing as a craft or an art form though, rather than as a science.
I don't find this hard to believe at all. Legal documents need to be written especially carefully.


Quote:
I don't know why modern high school education has to try and turn itself into a science.
Teaching the basic mechanics of most subjects requires good organization (science?) to make it clear and logical.


Quote:
It may sound strange but you can learn to write correctly without knowing the vocabulary behind what you are doing. This was in fact how people learned to write for thousands of years. And for some people the vocabulary just confuses them. I admit that I am one such person.
I agree with this to a point. There are some basic terms one should be able to pick up easily enough. The main point, though, is whether one knows how to use those terms, not the terminology.

Quote:
To me the focus should be on doing a lot of technical writing until kids have mastered it. Focus on keeping the writing short and simple and awarding students who convey their ideas the most succinctly (which is absolutely not done in high school).
This is the crux of the article, though. Just how do you expect to do something such as technical writing over and over without clear, logical training? Start with basics of grammar, then work on the basics of academic writing (topic sentence, support sentences, paragraph transitions, etc.). Yes, begin with short stuff, but what do you mean by "rewarding"?

Quote:
Don't reward the kid who wrote 3 pages of gibberish just because they did a lot of work. Then and only then move on to something else. This would require that they write at least 3 days a week.
Impossible for lots of EFL situations. My uni kids see me only once a week. The later you get the kids, the busier they are with club activities, research, job hunting, etc. I had grad students last year who couldn't piece together a single coherent sentence. They were supposed to summarize short news articles with 75-100 words 3 times a week, and it was brutal to see how badly they wrote. They complained about that homework and their lack of time, and I dropped it because there was too much to correct (in terms of volume and in grammatical problems).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fluffyhamster



Joined: 13 Mar 2005
Posts: 3292
Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again

PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2011 7:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've only skimmed this thread, but I guess it sort of relates to this:
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3144#comment-123333

Also this:
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3142

etc etc etc.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fladude



Joined: 02 Feb 2009
Posts: 432

PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2011 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Glenski wrote:
This is the crux of the article, though. Just how do you expect to do something such as technical writing over and over without clear, logical training? Start with basics of grammar, then work on the basics of academic writing (topic sentence, support sentences, paragraph transitions, etc.). Yes, begin with short stuff, but what do you mean by "rewarding"?


Well everyone is different, but I suspect that the vast majority of people write without ever thinking, or even knowing, what a present perfect tense is, and this includes professionals with MBAs and law degrees. I have no real concept of grammar even though I received an A in legal writing (in a class with a C bell curve). Now that is not to say that there is no structure to legal writing. There is in fact a hard and fast structure which must be followed. In legal writing we use a formula called IRAC (issue, rule, application, conclusion) and that formula works very well. It is also a formula that is applicable to any persuasive writing. You can do the formula though without knowing much about grammar. In fact, I suspect you can write for basically any profession in the world without knowing grammar except for English teacher or ESL teacher.

So I guess the question I have is, are you really teaching kids to write, or to become English teachers? Because in my mind, you need to know the vocabulary of grammar if you want to teach English, but not necessarily for any other profession.

At least that is my somewhat cynical take on it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Glenski



Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Posts: 12844
Location: Hokkaido, JAPAN

PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2011 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fladude wrote:
Glenski wrote:
This is the crux of the article, though. Just how do you expect to do something such as technical writing over and over without clear, logical training? Start with basics of grammar, then work on the basics of academic writing (topic sentence, support sentences, paragraph transitions, etc.). Yes, begin with short stuff, but what do you mean by "rewarding"?


Well everyone is different, but I suspect that the vast majority of people write without ever thinking, or even knowing, what a present perfect tense is, and this includes professionals with MBAs and law degrees.
I agree, and we might be saying the same thing here a little, just with different words. For example, yes, I agree that there are many/most people who might be able to use that tense without knowing its name. However, what I am further driving at is that if one doesn't even have the basic education in learning the tense in the first place, they will likely not know how to use it well without a lot of practice and guidance.

Quote:
I have no real concept of grammar even though I received an A in legal writing (in a class with a C bell curve).
I wouldn't judge any A grades in a class that is marked on a curve. Don't even know what a "C bell curve" means, either. Sorry.

Quote:
Now that is not to say that there is no structure to legal writing. There is in fact a hard and fast structure which must be followed. In legal writing we use a formula called IRAC (issue, rule, application, conclusion) and that formula works very well. It is also a formula that is applicable to any persuasive writing. You can do the formula though without knowing much about grammar.
I respect what you are saying, but this doesn't make sense. If you don't already have a grasp of grammar, you can't write with good grammar, whether it's for legal copy, scientific journals, farm reports, newspaper advertising or whatever. Knowing the style (what you call formula) is one thing, but knowing/understanding enough basic English to have subject-verb agreement (for example) is different.

Quote:
So I guess the question I have is, are you really teaching kids to write, or to become English teachers? Because in my mind, you need to know the vocabulary of grammar if you want to teach English, but not necessarily for any other profession.
Teaching someone to become an English teacher involves far more than teaching them to write coherent sentences and smoothly joined paragraphs and well-structured essays/documents. Teaching students to write is a separate entity entirely, IMO. The question we should take from the article (as stated in the article itself) is just how are students being taught to write anything at all? It seem there are 2 major camps on that, and the existing one is producing poor writers. Who is to say that those poor writers are teacher, lawyers, engineers, Mcdonalds staff, or President of the U.S.?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johnslat



Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 13859
Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2011 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey, I don't care about the "grammar vocabulary" (except that it is a good "shorthand" way to use when your teaching it) for STUDENTS. It doesn't mater to me if they call it the Simple Present Perfect tense or Havana Banana. All I care about is that they know how to make (i.e. write, say) it and when to use it.

But I do think it's "odd" (to say the least) that an ESL TEACHER would be unfamiliar with the meaning of the term.

Regards,
John
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fluffyhamster



Joined: 13 Mar 2005
Posts: 3292
Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again

PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2011 12:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I thought the issue was mainly about whether and how grammar should be taught to native English-speaking schoolkids. (I'm not sure though that many supposed English teachers are up to the task - they can have some very wooly and/or prescriptive, indeed incorrect, notions about grammar). Obviously EFL teachers need to know a fair bit more about grammar, or at least have to more carefully organize a lot more language in fine-grained and accurate descriptive detail, than the average Mrs Knucklerapper does in grade school.

Last edited by fluffyhamster on Tue May 17, 2011 4:36 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
spiral78



Joined: 05 Apr 2004
Posts: 11534
Location: On a Short Leash

PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2011 12:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have long known and used the havana banana tense correctly, thanks to the teachers who have instructed me in teaching both the technical and the meaning/communication-based aspects of writing.

I haven't read the thread, but in what context can a language teacher entirely omit discussion of grammar? Substantial literature on the subject clearly shows that learners need to understand the patterns involved in communication.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fluffyhamster



Joined: 13 Mar 2005
Posts: 3292
Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again

PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2011 12:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Native speakers don't really need to understand the 'patterns involved in communication' in order to understand and communicate - I'd've thought textual exemplars and plenty of writing practice were the easiest/best way to go. (But obviously some form of Discourse Analysis say can be of use and interest at e.g. A level in the UK). So I'd prefer that "English" teachers in native public schools considered themselves more Literature or Writing/Composition teachers than language teachers (surely the foreign language sense is the only true sense, and is where grammar like I say has much more of a role to play, in at least an organizing function).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Glenski



Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Posts: 12844
Location: Hokkaido, JAPAN

PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2011 9:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

fluffyhamster wrote:
I thought the issue was mainly about whether and how grammar should be taught to native English-speaking schoolkids.
The article is about native kids, yes, but it is largely about teaching writing, with a bit of grammar thrown in on the side.

spiral78 wrote:
I haven't read the thread, but in what context can a language teacher entirely omit discussion of grammar?
I agree with you. Give it a read, though, and be prepared to roll your eyes.

spiral78 wrote:
Substantial literature on the subject clearly shows that learners need to understand the patterns involved in communication.
Common sense says the same thing, but I guess American HS writing teachers nowadays neither do research nor have CS.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MarkM



Joined: 28 Apr 2011
Posts: 55
Location: Lianyungang, China

PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2011 9:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Glenski wrote:
.... what I am further driving at is that if one doesn't even have the basic education in learning the tense in the first place, they will likely not know how to use it well without a lot of practice and guidance. ....

If you don't already have a grasp of grammar, you can't write with good grammar, whether it's for legal copy, scientific journals, farm reports, newspaper advertising or whatever.....

I can't agree with this. The notion that language is acquired by learning a set of rules just doesn't stack up. Learning language is an experiential process. Everyone is at a point on the learning curve. Those who do not write well haven't had the correct method modeled often enough (they don't do enough reading) and/or they haven't had enough practice. Learning grammar rules make little if any difference, IMO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
spiral78



Joined: 05 Apr 2004
Posts: 11534
Location: On a Short Leash

PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2011 10:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The notion that language is acquired by learning a set of rules just doesn't stack up. Learning language is an experiential process. Everyone is at a point on the learning curve. Those who do not write well haven't had the correct method modeled often enough (they don't do enough reading) and/or they haven't had enough practice. Learning grammar rules make little if any difference, IMO



An important distinction that is not addressed here is that first language and second language learning processes are (presuming the second language learner is starting after childhood) very different.

Yes, one's first language is normally taught through models and practice, clearly. However, even in this case, high-level language is usually best supported by some technical instruction. The appropriate integration of the work of others into one's own writing, for example, is a skill that substantial literature indicates requires instruction (paraphrasing and citatation).
Further, there are many native speakers who have not grown up in a region or socio-economic situation that models accurate speech, and inaccurate speech patterns are often translated into writing. A few hours reading through this board will yield many examples of this!
Check the peeves board: some are cited there
'...I wish I would of.....'
'ensure' vs 'insure'
There are many!

Focusing on the second language learner, who began the process in the teen or adult years, a knowledge of the basic rules provides the pattern knowledge needed to HELP the learner learn to use the language correctly and clearly. It is clearly not sufficient in itself to lead a learner to proficiency with the language, but appropriate grammatical analysis at the right times in the learner's development can definitely scaffold clear usage.
Consider this common Dutch/German error:
'I am walking to work.' Problem: we are sitting in his/her office, and he/she means 'every day.' Meaning unclear thanks to grammatical confusion.
Grammatical discussion certainly needed.

If I had time, I could cite a hundred more examples.

Without teachers who have the skill to explain and demonstrate and help a student to practice grammatical structures, the student will always struggle with unclear meanings and flawed communication.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Glenski



Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Posts: 12844
Location: Hokkaido, JAPAN

PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2011 12:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Learning language is an experiential process.
Yes, and if the experience does not include (grammar or spelling) rules, the experience shows how badly one learns, as spiral has pointed out.

MarkM wrote:
The notion that language is acquired by learning a set of rules just doesn't stack up...
Those who do not write well haven't had the correct method modeled often enough (they don't do enough reading) and/or they haven't had enough practice. Learning grammar rules make little if any difference, IMO.
Well, I disagree with that.

Modeling sometimes equates to teaching. As kids, we speak improperly despite years of "experience" listening to Mom and Dad. It is only after they enter school and are shown how to spell and use the grammar properly that they actually learn it.

Which pretty much leads back to the article in question. If it isn't taught well, look at the poor results.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Teacher in Rome



Joined: 09 Jul 2003
Posts: 1286

PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2011 12:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
As kids, we speak improperly despite years of "experience" listening to Mom and Dad. It is only after they enter school and are shown how to spell and use the grammar properly that they actually learn it.


Actually Glenski, Chomsky would say it's the opposite.

We "know" what the rules are DESPITE hearing inaccuracies from our parents! All native speakers make mistakes - whether slips of the tongue or non-standard, or otherwise. But we know when they are mistakes. This was one of his supporting principles for "Universal Grammar" if memory serves correctly.

The other thing you allude to (inaccuracies despite correction / correct modelling) are evidence of the order in which children learn language. So you can model "he goeS" as many times as you like, but a child (or ESL student) won't pick it up until he's good and ready to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
the_otter



Joined: 02 Aug 2010
Posts: 134

PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2011 1:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

By the end of my first year in China, I'll have taught three writing courses to English majors. One of the hardest things about it is the apparently limitless variety of errors and stylistic problems. I can empathise with the teacher when she looks at her pile of essays and wonders where to start. (I'm sure everyone here can...) Every paragraph offers a bottomless pit of mistakes, but one also has to be able to forget about them and look for things to make good comments about; compliments often seem to have more staying power than corrections.

I once marked one hundred and eighty essays in one week. I never want to do that again. During that time, I formed the opinion that though technical proficiency is important, it is only a small part of what makes for good writing. If a student has an unquestioning or bored mind, and they are happy to recycle the same platitudes, the same expressions, the same few adjectives over and over again, then they will never be a good writer. The successful students are the ones who want to try new things and do more than parrot model phrases and sentences. For me, the sinking feeling in the pit of the stomach doesn't come at the eighth billion comma splice, it comes when you read an essay and it's exactly like the one before it and the one before that, and you just know the next essay will be the same, albeit with more spelling mistakes. Equally, there are few things more pleasing than when it seems the brain of the author was actually engaged in the subject they were writing about.

ETA: However, I do realize that the responsibility lies with me. It's my job to awaken my students' interest, even if a few of them do sometimes appear to have "the intellect of a moderate-sized rabbit", in the words of Thomas Carlyle. This post was a bit ranty; I don't mean to suggest that teaching writing is futile. What I think is that it's much easier to solve technical problems than it is to solve the content issue i.e. when someone's writing is so empty and spiritless that you want to throw yourself out of a window rather than read another sentence.

So, yeah, tl;dr and off topic too. Embarassed I go a little bonkers now when anyone mentions writing around me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johnslat



Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 13859
Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2011 1:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In my opinion, two things make a good writer in any language: 1. knowing many of the different ways that ideas can be expressed; 2. being able to choose which one of those ways best fits the context.

And I think part of what we need to do as writing teachers is try to expand our students' range of choices.

I always value content above mere mechanics; however, grammar, syntax, spelling, and punctuation ARE important since, if a student has many mistakes in those areas, even the best content can be obscured or not communicated at all.

Regards,
John
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Teaching Jobs in China
Teaching Jobs in China