Job Discussion Forums

[gaijinalways]

It's funny, one time someone posted that he used a grammar-based approach, but when pressed, it turned out to be more like a grammar as needed approach.

How much grammar do you use in your normal courses? Of course, I'm sure it varies depending on the level, but what do you think is an appropriate amount (if any)?

In my case, I teach mostly false beginners, a common group in Japan. These low level university classes have some grammar. I look at some grammar through direct exercises in books, perhaps 10 minutes a week for these once a week 90-minute classes. I also do some exercises examining structural differences between Japanese and English (I have all monolingual students in these low level classes) about twice a semester.

Other regular looks at grammar are written assignments that students do. I correct their mistakes, but since I'm usually teaching courses that have oral skills as a priority, written essays are rare, perhaps 3-4 per semester normally.

Of course, I do correct students during various activities, depending on what the goal is. I may allow some minor errors, to be noted and addressed in the future. With usual classes of 20-24, it's difficult and I feel counter productive to spend loads of time of grammar. The current education system here has students spending now 8 years of study of English prior to university, but I'm afraid it will be a slow process of moving away from grammar-translation exercises and test preparation.

In my higher level classes, because these are specific skill classes, I don't generally look at grammar at all except in text and PowerPoint slide corrections. Not very often, but sometimes a specific grammar issue will come up within context of a discussion when discussing grammatical/structural choices, and it will be addressed at that time.
Of course, I will address major oral errors as needed, but otherwise the primary focus is on keeping discussions going and mastering related skills.

[naturegirl321]

As little as possible. We cover it a couple times a semester, but it's usually very basic, like comparatives and superlatives, and articles.

The assumption is that the students have a good grammar basis and the focus is supposed to be on academic writing and presentation.

though sojmetimes I miss teaching grammar and the four skills.

[fluffyhamster]

There's nothing wrong with grammar, provided of course that one understands it enough to teach it well and make generalizations that will hold across the full range of usage.

The problem is when teachers who don't really understand it try to present it through deliberately limited contexts or exercises (as per their training), and it all starts to blow up in their faces as exceptions begin to arise and get noticed by the students.

That is, there is a bit too much cherry-picking of points and ways of presenting them, whilst a lot is plain avoided and little done to widen the syllabus in potentially more profitable ways (versus repeatedly chewing on the chestnuts of yore). Personally I'm quite a fan of 'lexicogrammar' approaches, as they help to widen the too-theoretical/narrow/empty/handwavy with concrete, eminently learnable and repeatable specifics.

Another thing that has always bothered me is the blurring in Direct Method classes (i.e. in "communicative" classrooms) of explanation and example (i.e. the continuous stream of English), because it makes it much more likely that the example is being made to fit the explanation than the other way around (i.e. that the explanation has come first, for some strange reason - the teacher needing to be seen to "teach", to go through the motions of "teaching", perchance?). The catch-22 however is that pretty informal, formless lessons can make it a bit too easy for the completely uninformed teacher to stage little more than enjoyable "chat" sessions.

[DMcK]

I find that getting students to write their opinions opens the door to formally showing them the little details that would be counter productive to stop a conversation for. Verbal correction actually sucks in my experience. Whether that's me or them I'd probably prefer a neutral judge to decide but it doesn't seem to matter, in a lot of cases, how many times I tell someone the right way; they still say it wrongly anyway.

Writing opinions gives me the chance to pick at every detail and give them mini exercises for each error (rather than simply correcting). The repetitive nature of a lot of those errors and the fact that they are mostly translation issues means that they get to see them over and over which, at least, makes them aware of the problem.

[nickpellatt]

I think grammar is one of my weaker areas as a teacher, and I dont use it as much as I would like to, but I do have quite clear grammar points in about 25% of my lessons I reckon. I should add I dont do very much writing either, so most of the grammar we use in class is used orally.

Its the standard CELTA type approach I guess. The grammar point is normally in context (text or often music). We do a non-grammar related task, then identify the target grammar within that context. Students then may have a controlled grammar task before free talk / practice, in which I encourage them to use that grammar as much as possible.

I have a stock lesson which uses Beyonces 'If I were a boy' as one of my favourite grammar lessons to highlight 2nd conditionals. They probably dont even know its a grammar lesson as they pretty much just think they get to listen to a song and get to chat about what they would do 'if they met Lady GaGa', 'If they were the teacher of the class' etc etc.

[gaijinalways]

fluffy hamster posted

[gaijinalways]

DmCK posted

[gaijinalways]

nickpellet posted