Larsen-Freeman claims grammaring is "the fifth skill" (alongside listening, speaking, reading, and writing), the ability to use grammar structures accurately, meaningfully, and appropriately. Grammar lessons are no longer about knowing language systems (declarative knowledge), but about knowing how to use language (procedural knowledge).
http://www.eltnews.com/features/eltbooks/028.shtml
What is "grammaring"?
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
joshua2004
- Posts: 264
- Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2004 7:08 pm
- Location: Torreon, Mexico
I am of the belief that you can learn to use a language effectively with out a lot of direct instruction in grammar. So the point of the book seems to not apply to my teaching. I think direct instruction in grammar is helpful and gives insight into the use of language, but I don't think we need a 5th skill called grammaring. It would be unnecessary and ineffective.
-
Andrew Patterson
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:59 pm
- Location: Poland
- Contact:
The Cambridge FCE, CAE and CPE examinations have a paper called "Use of English", the others being Reading, Writing, Listening and Speaking. The register for one of the schools that I work for divides it up the same way. "Use of English" is broader than grammar and includes things like transformations which I find are a very powerful teaching technique.
Other authorities regard translation as the 5th skill, btw.
Other authorities regard translation as the 5th skill, btw.
I agree with your beliefs, but I think I should give Larsen-Freman a bit more space to express her idea:joshua2004 wrote:I am of the belief that you can learn to use a language effectively with out a lot of direct instruction in grammar. So the point of the book seems to not apply to my teaching. I think direct instruction in grammar is helpful and gives insight into the use of language, but I don't think we need a 5th skill called grammaring. It would be unnecessary and ineffective.
DLF: David Nunan and I gave a talk a few years back called “Grammaring and Gardening.” I coined the term “grammaring” a decade ago to get at the idea that if you knew all the rules in all the grammar books around the world but couldn't use them, you wouldn't have learned what you needed to in order to become a fluent speaker. I called it “grammaring” to get at the process nature of it all, the organic nature. It also is an illustration of my idea that grammar is an incredibly flexible system that allows us to make new meaning. By using the -ing on the end of grammar, I've turned it into a process, and I've used grammar to do that. It challenges what I think is the misconception of grammar, which is that grammar is a unified body of static rules having only to do with form.
http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol39/no4/p2.htm
Her main idea is based in viewing grammar "as something which is organic and evolving", rather than static. Now that can't be such a bad way to see it all.
Ive never found transformation exercises all that real or useful, could you tell us more about why you have?Andrew Patterson wrote:The Cambridge FCE, CAE and CPE examinations have a paper called "Use of English", the others being Reading, Writing, Listening and Speaking. The register for one of the schools that I work for divides it up the same way. "Use of English" is broader than grammar and includes things like transformations which I find are a very powerful teaching technique.
Other authorities regard translation as the 5th skill, btw.
-
Andrew Patterson
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:59 pm
- Location: Poland
- Contact:
Metal wrote:
Word order is very free in Polish but very rigid in English. Subject verb prepositional phrase. Transformations force students to mentally group these different parts in order to carry out the transformation. This is true whether they are explicitly told this or not. Result, after lots of transformations, Polish students leave my classes with fewer mistakes in word order. They also make students change parts of speach, from active to passive and vice versa.
If you teach the Cambridge exams, you have to teach them transformations as they are specifically examined, but transformations are useful as an approach to the use of English even if they aren't examined.
An exercise can only be useful if the student knows what to do and how to do it and this may be why you don't find them that useful in class. I often find that students don't find the task tangible enough. To make the task clearer, I take them through this procedure:
Divide the transformation into:
1. the dead parts - already written down in the answer.
2. the undead parts - the bits that haven't been written down but will remain unchanged in the answer.
3. ghost words - ones that disappear or appear from nowhere in the answer.
4. the live parts - the parts that change.
5. Don't forget to use the given word in the form given.
Cross out the different parts as you've dealt with them. Easy peasy, lemon squeezy!
No doubt this is a partly matter of teaching style, and student L1.Ive never found transformation exercises all that real or useful, could you tell us more about why you have?
Word order is very free in Polish but very rigid in English. Subject verb prepositional phrase. Transformations force students to mentally group these different parts in order to carry out the transformation. This is true whether they are explicitly told this or not. Result, after lots of transformations, Polish students leave my classes with fewer mistakes in word order. They also make students change parts of speach, from active to passive and vice versa.
If you teach the Cambridge exams, you have to teach them transformations as they are specifically examined, but transformations are useful as an approach to the use of English even if they aren't examined.
An exercise can only be useful if the student knows what to do and how to do it and this may be why you don't find them that useful in class. I often find that students don't find the task tangible enough. To make the task clearer, I take them through this procedure:
Divide the transformation into:
1. the dead parts - already written down in the answer.
2. the undead parts - the bits that haven't been written down but will remain unchanged in the answer.
3. ghost words - ones that disappear or appear from nowhere in the answer.
4. the live parts - the parts that change.
5. Don't forget to use the given word in the form given.
Cross out the different parts as you've dealt with them. Easy peasy, lemon squeezy!
<Transformations force students to mentally group these different parts in order to carry out the transformation. This is true whether they are explicitly told this or not. Result, after lots of transformations, Polish students leave my classes with fewer mistakes in word order. They also make students change parts of speach, from active to passive and vice versa. >
That sounds awfully like direct, mechanical grammar work to me.
<An exercise can only be useful if the student knows what to do and how to do it and this may be why you don't find them that useful in class. I often find that students don't find the task tangible enough. To make the task clearer, I take them through this procedure:
Divide the transformation into:
1. the dead parts - already written down in the answer.
2. the undead parts - the bits that haven't been written down but will remain unchanged in the answer.
3. ghost words - ones that disappear or appear from nowhere in the answer.
4. the live parts - the parts that change.
5. Don't forget to use the given word in the form given. >
Yep, mechanical, direct, explicit grammar work. I thought you said it wasn't that useful?
That sounds awfully like direct, mechanical grammar work to me.
<An exercise can only be useful if the student knows what to do and how to do it and this may be why you don't find them that useful in class. I often find that students don't find the task tangible enough. To make the task clearer, I take them through this procedure:
Divide the transformation into:
1. the dead parts - already written down in the answer.
2. the undead parts - the bits that haven't been written down but will remain unchanged in the answer.
3. ghost words - ones that disappear or appear from nowhere in the answer.
4. the live parts - the parts that change.
5. Don't forget to use the given word in the form given. >
Yep, mechanical, direct, explicit grammar work. I thought you said it wasn't that useful?
-
Andrew Patterson
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:59 pm
- Location: Poland
- Contact:
Metal wrote:
Writing, on the other hand, concentrates on content, organisation and cohesion, target reader and the like - this is where creativity comes in. Surely this is a matter of the nature of the task. Tasks that require a mechanical approach should be done in a mechanical way, tasks that require a creative approach should be done in a creative way.
These are not grammatical categories. They are a (yes, mechanical) approach to problem solving, which has a desired outcome - better use of English.Yep, mechanical, direct, explicit grammar work.
Writing, on the other hand, concentrates on content, organisation and cohesion, target reader and the like - this is where creativity comes in. Surely this is a matter of the nature of the task. Tasks that require a mechanical approach should be done in a mechanical way, tasks that require a creative approach should be done in a creative way.
Please tell me what I said.I thought you said it wasn't that useful?
-
Andrew Patterson
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:59 pm
- Location: Poland
- Contact:
Metal wrote:
I have categorically never said anything like that quotation.
No, I didn't. Joshua2004 said that. Personally, I believe that the focus should be on the four skills and use of English rather than grammar per se, and what grammar is taught in EFL classes should be directed towards using the language properly rather than the accademic stuff that I enjoy discussing here. Use of English also includes vocabulary building, btw.You said this:
...then went on to cite an explicitly direct grammar exercise.I am of the belief that you can learn to use a language effectively with out a lot of direct instruction in grammar.
I have categorically never said anything like that quotation.