Job Discussion Forums

johnslat · Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 12:14 pm Post subject: Grammar rules: Good and bad

"7 grammar rules you really should pay attention to"

http://theweek.com/article/index/241295/7-grammar-rules-you-really-should-pay-attention-to

"7 bogus grammar 'errors' you don't need to worry about"

http://theweek.com/article/index/240882/7-bogus-grammar-errors-you-dont-need-to-worry-about

Regards,
John

Agamemnon · Joined: 24 Jun 2014 Posts: 34

Amazing how many so-called "English language teachers" live and die by grammar rules, yet their learners have no or only very limited communication skills!

johnslat · Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2014 1:53 pm Post subject:

Dear Agamemnon.

And, at least equally amazing, is how many so-called "English language teachers" consider "grammar rules" completely irrelevant to language learning, an attitude that is often reflected in their own speaking and/or writing.

e.g. would have went (on a thread on another forum)

Overemphasizing any aspect of language is a mistake. And so is ignoring any aspect.

Regards,
John

MuscatGary · Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2014 2:00 pm Post subject:

[quote="johnslat"]Overemphasizing any aspect of language is a mistake. And so is ignoring any aspect.

Yes, and so is ignoring the needs and learning style of the student. These can (should?) determine the teaching approach.

johnslat · Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2014 2:40 pm Post subject:

Dear MuscatGary,

Good point - if you're teaching in a language school mill, where the focus is only/mainly on being able to communicate orally, grammar won't be too important.

However, if you're teaching "academic skills'" preparing students to transition to university level, naturally, grammar/writing/reading skills will be much more important.

As for "learning styles," well, I think there have been a number of threads on that topic, and a good deal of research would seem to show that the notion, at best, "iffy."

http://www.researched2013.co.uk/why-are-we-still-talking-about-learning-styles/

http://blog.cathy-moore.com/2010/09/learning-styles-worth-our-time/

Regards,
John

spiral78 · Joined: 05 Apr 2004 Posts: 11534 Location: On a Short Leash

I agree with johnslat on the topic of learning styles. It's functionally impossible to take individual learning styles into account in most classrooms - the best we can do is to design a variety of tasks that will appeal to a range of students.

Very small or individual classes offer more scope for this, but even so it's very time-consuming to design tasks that are tailored for learning styles, and their effectiveness is unclear anyway.

MuscatGary · Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2014 3:07 pm Post subject:

I actually agree with both of you. However I've taught (or maybe coached is a better word) Business English on a one-to-one basis and you can definitely take the student's preferred mode of learning into account then. I've also taught groups of 35 Omanis and it's impossible to do so!

Sashadroogie · Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2014 6:33 pm Post subject:

Jeepers! Not sure how anyone can say that teaching grammar would be unimportant when teaching students oral communication. The two go hand in hand. Might as well say also that teaching lexis is not relevant to 'oral' English classes

fluffyhamster · Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2014 11:41 pm Post subject:

Prescriptive zombie shibboleths aimed at native readers (worried about "style" and "only the best English") may influence non-native EFL teachers, but are easily debunked by good descriptions (that make clear that there can be a range of choices open especially to speakers: "It depends..."). The more helpful article that Johnslat linked to ("Rules you really should pay attention to") meanwhile deals with just a fraction of a percent of the facts that genuine students of English will need to learn.

And facts are just one aspect of grammar. At least one other aspect would be function. To say that grammar isn't needed due to differing learning styles or whatever oversimplifies things (and it doesn't even address whether implicit grammar is OK). Grammar at the very least is a means of behind-the-scenes analysis and organization. We may need to explicitly teach students a bit of metalanguage every now and then (functional or notional labels at least) if only because they can't learn how to say everything at once (or can't always learn all the functions that forms may have all at once) and will therefore need some means of labelling things for future recall and reference, referring back, adding to, expanding upon etc etc.

MuscatGary · Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 4:43 am Post subject:

Who said grammar isn't needed?

Sashadroogie · Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 6:14 am Post subject:

This comment seems to express that notion. Many times I have heard it, and each time been deeply upset! Grrrr. I needs me a stopka of the good stuff to get me past breakfast and over this shock...

'Good point - if you're teaching in a language school mill, where the focus is only/mainly on being able to communicate orally, grammar won't be too important.'

adaruby · Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 6:31 am Post subject:

MuscatGary · Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 6:49 am Post subject:

johnslat · Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 12:35 pm Post subject:

Dear Sasha,

Tsk, tsk - "won't be too important" = isn't needed? Very Happy

Regards,
John

fluffyhamster · Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 12:37 pm Post subject:

Agamemnon for one appeared to be equating grammar with stuffy rules and non-communicativeness (lecturing?), as if grammar itself is an evil that clouds the teacher's mind and must therefore be completely banished. But it's easy to read a lot into single sentences.

Adaruby, have you read Lewis' books relating to grammar? (The English Verb; A Teacher's Grammar [ed]; Grammar & Practice [co-author]; etc)? He can be quite a "grammar bore" himself, and presumably still stands by those earlier publications despite his later focus being lexis (well, collocations, phrases and lexicogrammar).