View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Enchilada Potosina

Joined: 03 Aug 2010 Posts: 344 Location: Mexico
|
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 3:46 am Post subject: Coursebooks |
|
|
Anyone know of or use a coursebook that doesn't follow the usual 14 units of grammar in dull contexts with tests, dreary readings and painful listenings? Does such a thing exist? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
gregd75
Joined: 14 Mar 2007 Posts: 360 Location: Tlaquepaque, Jalisco
|
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 3:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Have you checked out the WORLD ENGLISH series by Heinle-Cengage?
They use national geographic materials and are very interesting.
Books written by Paul Seligson tend to follow a grammar deductive approach which can be refreshing. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mejms
Joined: 04 Jan 2010 Posts: 390
|
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 10:01 pm Post subject: Re: Coursebooks |
|
|
Enchilada Potosina wrote: |
Anyone know of or use a coursebook that doesn't follow the usual 14 units of grammar in dull contexts with tests, dreary readings and painful listenings? Does such a thing exist? |
The only book that I've managed okay without compromising my standards too much for relevance would be the Touchstones series. Since I'm American, I like American accents, which this Cambridge series does and many don't. I use it for lower-level students because with higher-level, there's much more flexibility to offer tailored resources. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Isla Guapa
Joined: 19 Apr 2010 Posts: 1520 Location: Mexico City o sea La Gran Manzana Mexicana
|
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
gregd75 wrote: |
Books written by Paul Seligson tend to follow a grammar deductive approach which can be refreshing. |
A grammar deductive approach. I wonder if it has anything to do with the way I learned Spanish many years ago . . . |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mejms
Joined: 04 Jan 2010 Posts: 390
|
Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2010 3:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Isla Guapa wrote: |
gregd75 wrote: |
Books written by Paul Seligson tend to follow a grammar deductive approach which can be refreshing. |
A grammar deductive approach. I wonder if it has anything to do with the way I learned Spanish many years ago . . . |
Greg, could you expound on that? Do you mean a standard presentation of the grammar, exercises, and the like as opposed to a more inductive, less presentational, rule-based explanation? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
gregd75
Joined: 14 Mar 2007 Posts: 360 Location: Tlaquepaque, Jalisco
|
Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2010 4:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Deductive as in, the coursebooks don't have the traditional box with grammar rules being explained, then followed by practice exercises.
Inductive- the grammar is presented and then practice.
Seligson likes to have activities that don't show the grammar structures. the students pretty much figure the stuff out themselves, identify the structure and then goes on to use it.
His books sometimes have the grammar box at the back of the book, so it IS there is needed but its not in your face, as such. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Enchilada Potosina

Joined: 03 Aug 2010 Posts: 344 Location: Mexico
|
Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2010 4:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
gregd75 wrote: |
Have you checked out the WORLD ENGLISH series by Heinle-Cengage?
They use national geographic materials and are very interesting.
Books written by Paul Seligson tend to follow a grammar deductive approach which can be refreshing. |
I think someone showed it to me a while ago. I'll have to check it out again. Thanks for all the suggestions so far. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Isla Guapa
Joined: 19 Apr 2010 Posts: 1520 Location: Mexico City o sea La Gran Manzana Mexicana
|
Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
gregd75 wrote: |
Deductive as in, the coursebooks don't have the traditional box with grammar rules being explained, then followed by practice exercises.
Inductive- the grammar is presented and then practice.
|
I think you've got it backwards, greg. Deductive would mean present the rules first and then apply them. Inductive would be the other way around. As for me, I've found many students understand things better if the rule is presented first, then used. It takes a linguistically-talented language learner to be able to figure out the rules just from examples. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
gregd75
Joined: 14 Mar 2007 Posts: 360 Location: Tlaquepaque, Jalisco
|
Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2010 6:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
you are right! I'm still studying and I think I have a little bit of dyslexia.
Why did they make the word so difficult for people with learning difficulties? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mejms
Joined: 04 Jan 2010 Posts: 390
|
Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2010 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Isla Guapa wrote: |
gregd75 wrote: |
Deductive as in, the coursebooks don't have the traditional box with grammar rules being explained, then followed by practice exercises.
Inductive- the grammar is presented and then practice.
|
I think you've got it backwards, greg. Deductive would mean present the rules first and then apply them. Inductive would be the other way around. As for me, I've found many students understand things better if the rule is presented first, then used. It takes a linguistically-talented language learner to be able to figure out the rules just from examples. |
That threw me for a loop too.
I find that presenting grammar rules often causes one to fall in the trap of teaching about grammar, rather than teaching the grammar as actually applied in language. I show examples, but avoid showing too many rules. I'm most certainly an advocate for a more inductive approach. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Isla Guapa
Joined: 19 Apr 2010 Posts: 1520 Location: Mexico City o sea La Gran Manzana Mexicana
|
Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think a mixture of the two ways is useful. It depends on what kind of students you have. The older they are, the more useful introductory grammar explanations can be to help them get started. Children, of course, can usually jump right in and start using the language without a lot of grammar falderol! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mejms
Joined: 04 Jan 2010 Posts: 390
|
Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2010 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Isla Guapa wrote: |
I think a mixture of the two ways is useful. It depends on what kind of students you have. The older they are, the more useful introductory grammar explanations can be to help them get started. Children, of course, can usually jump right in and start using the language without a lot of grammar falderol! |
But don't you think that we fall victim to teaching grammar terminology rather than the meat of the language? Honestly, I often try to keep my students from knowing that terms for the present simple, present continuous, past simple, etc. I find that it fills them with clutter. What speaker of a language needs to identify the terms? I'm a bit more analytical so it helped me to know that the subjunctive form is called just that. But also being an English teacher means that I'm more of a language learner too.
In any case, I'm very weary of grammar explanations with students in general. Without rambling on too much, make any sense? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Isla Guapa
Joined: 19 Apr 2010 Posts: 1520 Location: Mexico City o sea La Gran Manzana Mexicana
|
Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2010 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I understand being weary of presenting grammar in depth to your classes, but I still think it's useful for students to understand the structure underlying the English they're attempting to use. I tend to use examples more than technical descriptions when explaining a new point of grammar, which is why I (and my students) like the Murphy books. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mejms
Joined: 04 Jan 2010 Posts: 390
|
Posted: Sun Dec 26, 2010 3:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Isla Guapa wrote: |
I understand being weary of presenting grammar in depth to your classes, but I still think it's useful for students to understand the structure underlying the English they're attempting to use. I tend to use examples more than technical descriptions when explaining a new point of grammar, which is why I (and my students) like the Murphy books. |
Agreed, but it's all in the art of the presentation. Many people, Mexican or otherwise, know very little about the grammar of their native language. So is the idea here that they'll possibly know more about the grammar of their second language than that of their native?
I've always despised the exams that ask you to identify the correct sentence for the unreal conditional or giving a sentence using the present perfect. The other day I saw an infomercial for Ingles Sin Barreras, where in order to randomly check some guy's knowledge of English he was asked to conjugate the verb "think" in past simple and past participle and then use it in a past perfect context, blah, blah, blah. Could that be any further from what it means to speak a language? In a few more years, maybe he could be a successfully monolingual linguist! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Isla Guapa
Joined: 19 Apr 2010 Posts: 1520 Location: Mexico City o sea La Gran Manzana Mexicana
|
Posted: Sun Dec 26, 2010 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm old enough to have been in school in the US when we were still taught the grammar of our own language. I remember diagramming sentences in English class, which was challenging fun for me! This helped me a lot when I started studying Spanish in high school because I already knew all about parts of speech and how sentences were constructed in English. Of course, I learned even more about English grammar while learning Spanish. When I taught Spanish as a TA in graduate school, several of my better students complained that they had never been taught English grammar in high school and were very happy to learn it while studying Spanish! Of course, apart from intellectual curiosity, the point of learning grammar of any language is being able to use it to communicate with it. The Ingl�s sin Barreras test you mention sounds utterly useless to me, but it reflects the way Mexicans have traditionally been taught foreign languages.  |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|