Hello again.
R.A. Close in A Teacher's Grammar (LTP) argues about the effect of over-simplified rules which for him:
"a-usage is often distorted to support them."
"b- hours are wasted not only on lessons teaching half-truths as if they were the whole truth, but also on doing exercises which require the student to choose between two constructions, both of which can be perfectly acceptable, though one of the two is falsely supposed to be 'wrong'."
"c- Over simplified rules will often remain firmily embedded in the learner's mind." (Then he cites the non-native speaker teacher whose mother tongue does not have equivalents to 'a' and 'the' and was taught that 'a(n) when a noun is first introduced' and 'the when the same nous occurs again.'; and could never understand why the line from Richard III goes 'A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse' and not 'a horse, THE horse...')
"d- above all, an inadequate basic rule will sooner or later have to be modified by a series of sub-rules and exceptions which may cause far more trouble in the end than a basic rule that is more accurate though less temptingly teacheable."
Then on page 11 we are invited to consider about students forming their own rule, thus reflecting their knowledge and experience of the language up to that point instead of presenting them the whole thing, but whose they may not understand? For example the classical problem of teaching some and any.
I'd dearly like to hear your account on this.
José
On the effects of over-simplified rules
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
Metamorfose
- Posts: 345
- Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 2:21 pm
- Location: Brazil
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
Lewis, as usual is more commonsensical on this point than his acolytes. What he says is that we should not confuse rules with 'hints'', or what I would call 'rules of thumb'.
As long as the student is clearly told that what he is been given is a simplification and that at a later stage he might be given a more comprehensive rule, I feel the practise is a good one.
As Lewis again says, you might decide not to give any rule at all; teachers do tend to overexplain. This might be true, but if you don't give a rule, you can be sure the students will make their own up from the examples you have given, so you are still giving the rule indirectly through the examples you provide, and yet do not have any quality control over the outcome.
In the mid 1980s it became orthodox on the CELTA courses that you didn't give the rule, you started out the lesson by trying to 'elicit' it. This is at best a colossal waste of time - what normally happens is that somebody who has already been given a rule by somebody elee repeats it (often badly), and you then have to untangle what he has said, whilst the rest look on bemused waiting for the lesson proper to start.
Opinions on this also tend to be geo-centric. Teachers based in the UK, who tend to have a majority of intermediate or even advanced students, complain that the students have been given inadequate rules., whiilst those living in the students' countries feel the former ought to be happy that their students have progressed that far anyway.
Most problems however can be saved by getting the rule right in the first place. With regard to 'some' or 'any' you the concept is that 'some' implies that the thitng exists, whereas 'any' does not. So you would use 'any' in negative sentences and also normally in interrogatives since it doesn't make much sense to query the existence of something that you are affirming already exists, but in sentences such as
'Would you like some coffee?'
it doesn't make much sense to offer something whose existence you are not sure of.
At a later stage you will be teaching the difference
'someone will be able to help you'
and
'anyone will be able to help you'
and the concept of 'some' implying 'part of' whilst 'any' implies 'all of' or 'none of' comes into play. This does not contradict the earlier rule since 'part of' implies the existence of what it is part of. Lewis claims that in fact this second distinction is the 'core' meaning and that the primary distinction is subsumed by it. I see no reason to subscribe to this either theroretically, historically or pedagogically, and no confusion occurs by teaching it second.
It is also to be noted that in EFL teaching there is somewhat of a vicious circle. Examples are chosen (the notorious fridge in Stteamline 1 lesson 6, for example) to fit the rule, and thus a more rigid version of the rule is presented first.
Twelve-thirty at night here so I'm afraid you only get this small package to fill your stocking.
As long as the student is clearly told that what he is been given is a simplification and that at a later stage he might be given a more comprehensive rule, I feel the practise is a good one.
As Lewis again says, you might decide not to give any rule at all; teachers do tend to overexplain. This might be true, but if you don't give a rule, you can be sure the students will make their own up from the examples you have given, so you are still giving the rule indirectly through the examples you provide, and yet do not have any quality control over the outcome.
In the mid 1980s it became orthodox on the CELTA courses that you didn't give the rule, you started out the lesson by trying to 'elicit' it. This is at best a colossal waste of time - what normally happens is that somebody who has already been given a rule by somebody elee repeats it (often badly), and you then have to untangle what he has said, whilst the rest look on bemused waiting for the lesson proper to start.
Opinions on this also tend to be geo-centric. Teachers based in the UK, who tend to have a majority of intermediate or even advanced students, complain that the students have been given inadequate rules., whiilst those living in the students' countries feel the former ought to be happy that their students have progressed that far anyway.
Most problems however can be saved by getting the rule right in the first place. With regard to 'some' or 'any' you the concept is that 'some' implies that the thitng exists, whereas 'any' does not. So you would use 'any' in negative sentences and also normally in interrogatives since it doesn't make much sense to query the existence of something that you are affirming already exists, but in sentences such as
'Would you like some coffee?'
it doesn't make much sense to offer something whose existence you are not sure of.
At a later stage you will be teaching the difference
'someone will be able to help you'
and
'anyone will be able to help you'
and the concept of 'some' implying 'part of' whilst 'any' implies 'all of' or 'none of' comes into play. This does not contradict the earlier rule since 'part of' implies the existence of what it is part of. Lewis claims that in fact this second distinction is the 'core' meaning and that the primary distinction is subsumed by it. I see no reason to subscribe to this either theroretically, historically or pedagogically, and no confusion occurs by teaching it second.
It is also to be noted that in EFL teaching there is somewhat of a vicious circle. Examples are chosen (the notorious fridge in Stteamline 1 lesson 6, for example) to fit the rule, and thus a more rigid version of the rule is presented first.
Twelve-thirty at night here so I'm afraid you only get this small package to fill your stocking.
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
A nice take on eliciting grammar rules Stephen! Time is the key, as always.
When I brought up this topic before we picked on "some" and "any", and it seems to me that my view of 'any' as 'doesn't matter which' is more accurate than what you have written above.
Simple rules may be only a partial truth, and so may complex ones. All rules and maxims are merely our useless attempts to pin down the wild and unruly language. Chomsky, Lewis, Halliday, Huddlestone and that guy "Prawn" - they all disagree about so much. The world at large does not fully comprehend language, we don't, and our students won't. There is no point trying to give the "full picture".
If I say "plurals are made by adding an S" in the 2nd lesson of a basic course, is it a crime? Will anyone benefit from a lecture about every kind of plural I can think of? Furthermore, things like phonetics are usually a very rough version of the truth - I wonder if all contributors here who are teachers are aware of that? However advanced you get, never have too much respect for the "rules". You will never, ever get the full picture.
When I brought up this topic before we picked on "some" and "any", and it seems to me that my view of 'any' as 'doesn't matter which' is more accurate than what you have written above.
Simple rules may be only a partial truth, and so may complex ones. All rules and maxims are merely our useless attempts to pin down the wild and unruly language. Chomsky, Lewis, Halliday, Huddlestone and that guy "Prawn" - they all disagree about so much. The world at large does not fully comprehend language, we don't, and our students won't. There is no point trying to give the "full picture".
If I say "plurals are made by adding an S" in the 2nd lesson of a basic course, is it a crime? Will anyone benefit from a lecture about every kind of plural I can think of? Furthermore, things like phonetics are usually a very rough version of the truth - I wonder if all contributors here who are teachers are aware of that? However advanced you get, never have too much respect for the "rules". You will never, ever get the full picture.
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Yes, quite right. And this is exactly R. A. Close's point. Getting the rule right may sometimes involve a rule that is slightly more involved (meaning: you have to exercise your brain a little) than might be promulgated, especially in beginning classes.Stephen wrote:Most problems however can be saved by getting the rule right in the first place.
Just as one example, teachers often tell their students that: "A noun is the name of a person, place or thing." Sometimes, "or idea" is added when teachers realize that the first three don't quite cover it. Now maybe that's nice and simple, but for whom? What should students think when they encounter nouns like these:
the destruction of the Sri Lankan coast ...( an action)
the way to San Jose ...(a pathway)
the whitness of your teeth...(a quality)
three miles to the city...(a measure of distance)
three hours until classes are over...(a measure of time)
a meeting to discuss...(an event)
It is clear that there are more kinds of nouns than 'people, places and things.' Students are rightly confused when the data don't fit the rules. And they will surely encounter real data that don't fit.
Students only need to know what nouns are when they begin to study grammatical structures, and then they ought to be led (actually, I believe they should discover it for themselves...with guided examples--remember, all knowledge is provisional) to a better definition: nouns are any words used as sentence subjects, objects of verbs, or of prepositions, or do other 'nouny' things. This is not going to be learned in a single lesson. Students will not be able to simply commit it to memory and recall it in that nice little word package in the next class, as they might be able to do with "...people, places or things." They're probably going to have to wrestle with it some. But it's going to serve them a lot better in their struggle with English grammar over the months and years.
This is, I believe, what Close is driving at, and I quite agree with him.
Larry Latham
Happy New Year to all.
Last edited by LarryLatham on Mon Dec 27, 2004 3:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Personal motivations....
Hey all!
Taking a break from the quilt I'm finally finishing up (last year's project finished!) and saw this small debate. I'd like to add some thoughts on personal motivations for using one or another general type of rules: that is, the short simple ones or the long involved ones.
In my classroom I am constantly struggling with the complex and convoluted explanations that the students have been barraged with at one or another point in their study. These formulae are useful to some through the semester exam, but they are promptly forgotten over, say, Christmas break. I have been taking these people back to the sparse beginnings, trying to make them aware of some of the most basic structural phenomena y practicing it with them orally so that their mouth takes on some of the responisbility for remembering certain patterns that will help the student have more time to think about what he/she wants to say instead of how to string it all together. I avoid explanations that can not be repeated in less than three minutes. My students spend too much time in language classes where their mouths, the principle physical instrument of language, are either employed in spreading gossip or chewing gum in their native tongue. Or, at best, the mouth is shut while the teacher explains and while the fingers move while students do written practice of the new rule.
I have seen another teacher get tangled up in long rules that can take up half of the class hour. I can only suspect his motivations, but as they remind me of some of my own, I'll include how I felt when I did such in class. I was evidently trying to use up time. Perhaps the student was one of those who wants to hear these long, complete explanations with ample examples, maybe even some drawings. In any case, I had (still have) my pat discourses that I would take out, brush off, and spit out once again, knowing that I would be on automatic, the student would be passive for a while, we were doing an acceptable activity in an ESL class, then we would get back to work on the oral practice.
Between the two practices, I have found the giving of basic rules in answer to any more complex situation is more satisfactory in my style of teaching, mostly because it is easier to remind the student of, it's quick, it's secondary. Doesn't matter that you are using auxiliaries like "should" or "must" with their added difficulty in syntax, just so happens that on a structural level, these words behave in exactly the same manner as the verb "be" or the auxiliary "do" or "have" in the first learned manners of using the verb in English. The difficuty might arise later on when students are improvising, and that gives me the opportunity to be more thorough if I consider the "exception" to be "exceptional".
Well, those were my thoughts on that aspect of the question.
peace,
revel.
Taking a break from the quilt I'm finally finishing up (last year's project finished!) and saw this small debate. I'd like to add some thoughts on personal motivations for using one or another general type of rules: that is, the short simple ones or the long involved ones.
In my classroom I am constantly struggling with the complex and convoluted explanations that the students have been barraged with at one or another point in their study. These formulae are useful to some through the semester exam, but they are promptly forgotten over, say, Christmas break. I have been taking these people back to the sparse beginnings, trying to make them aware of some of the most basic structural phenomena y practicing it with them orally so that their mouth takes on some of the responisbility for remembering certain patterns that will help the student have more time to think about what he/she wants to say instead of how to string it all together. I avoid explanations that can not be repeated in less than three minutes. My students spend too much time in language classes where their mouths, the principle physical instrument of language, are either employed in spreading gossip or chewing gum in their native tongue. Or, at best, the mouth is shut while the teacher explains and while the fingers move while students do written practice of the new rule.
I have seen another teacher get tangled up in long rules that can take up half of the class hour. I can only suspect his motivations, but as they remind me of some of my own, I'll include how I felt when I did such in class. I was evidently trying to use up time. Perhaps the student was one of those who wants to hear these long, complete explanations with ample examples, maybe even some drawings. In any case, I had (still have) my pat discourses that I would take out, brush off, and spit out once again, knowing that I would be on automatic, the student would be passive for a while, we were doing an acceptable activity in an ESL class, then we would get back to work on the oral practice.
Between the two practices, I have found the giving of basic rules in answer to any more complex situation is more satisfactory in my style of teaching, mostly because it is easier to remind the student of, it's quick, it's secondary. Doesn't matter that you are using auxiliaries like "should" or "must" with their added difficulty in syntax, just so happens that on a structural level, these words behave in exactly the same manner as the verb "be" or the auxiliary "do" or "have" in the first learned manners of using the verb in English. The difficuty might arise later on when students are improvising, and that gives me the opportunity to be more thorough if I consider the "exception" to be "exceptional".
Well, those were my thoughts on that aspect of the question.
peace,
revel.
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
Larry, I strongly suspect that the person who first taught you what a noun was said it was a "person, place or thing". You have recovered from the experience, as anyone will who grasps that they are being given "rules of thumb", and we could and should emphasize that. It even gives that simple explanation in the back of the OED I possess, by the way. I'm not sure that anyone can even come to a more sophisticated view without first going through this stage. The more sophisticated view generally seems to involve an analysis of all the grammatical functions that a noun may perform in a sentence, and the noting of how many nounish features a particular item has. Impossible to teach this to a low level class. Cruel to try!
In my book, language teaching is something that anyone can have a go at. I have asked a number of students to teach me their language. However, one of the things which sets the experienced teacher apart from the non-specialist is an ability to provide simple and useful explanations pitched at the right level if the student feels compelled to ask 'why?'. Others are a sense of what amounts to comprehensible input, and an ability to provide a worthwhile structure. It surprises me that so many teachers seem to feel that these things are not important.
In my book, language teaching is something that anyone can have a go at. I have asked a number of students to teach me their language. However, one of the things which sets the experienced teacher apart from the non-specialist is an ability to provide simple and useful explanations pitched at the right level if the student feels compelled to ask 'why?'. Others are a sense of what amounts to comprehensible input, and an ability to provide a worthwhile structure. It surprises me that so many teachers seem to feel that these things are not important.
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
By the way, Metamorfose, of course you are right, if students discover rules for themselves then they will probably be the sort of half-truths that you are not supposed to teach.
R.A Close might reflect that many rules, such as the rule of how to form a plural, are in reality very much simple rules with a list of annoying exceptions. So why not teach them that way?
R.A Close might reflect that many rules, such as the rule of how to form a plural, are in reality very much simple rules with a list of annoying exceptions. So why not teach them that way?
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Notice, please, that I did say, "Students only need to know what nouns are when they begin to study grammatical structures...", although perhaps I didn't make it clear enough that I thought 'low-level students' probably ought not to be studying grammatical structure, at least not systematically.
But that said, I have a question: Why do so many teachers insist that relative beginners could not possibly understand the nuances of English grammar? In learning their first language, 3-year-olds not only can grasp it, they can master it. They will not be mistake free, but all normal children will, by the end of their third year, be able to demonstrate a thorough understanding of how past tenses are formed and when to use them, which words are nouns and which are verbs and which are adjectives, and even which are adverbs, and...most tellingly, what the proper word order is for well formed English phrases and sentences using these parts of speech (although, of course, they will not know what a 'part of speech' is). To be sure, you'll hear some "*Daddy goed to work", and some "*There are too many childs here", but this only makes it certain that the child has formed the proper rules in his head. All he needs now is the list of "exceptions", or odd forms, and to learn that when he uses a rule, he first must check the 'exception list' to see if the form he wants to make appears there. But the larger question is: Why, if 3-year olds learning a first language can get it, can't an older (possibly adult, with adult awareness of language labyrinths) student possibly understand it? Do we assume that English is just too hard? If it's so hard, how come so many persons of modest intellectual gifts can speak it well enough?
Larry Latham
But that said, I have a question: Why do so many teachers insist that relative beginners could not possibly understand the nuances of English grammar? In learning their first language, 3-year-olds not only can grasp it, they can master it. They will not be mistake free, but all normal children will, by the end of their third year, be able to demonstrate a thorough understanding of how past tenses are formed and when to use them, which words are nouns and which are verbs and which are adjectives, and even which are adverbs, and...most tellingly, what the proper word order is for well formed English phrases and sentences using these parts of speech (although, of course, they will not know what a 'part of speech' is). To be sure, you'll hear some "*Daddy goed to work", and some "*There are too many childs here", but this only makes it certain that the child has formed the proper rules in his head. All he needs now is the list of "exceptions", or odd forms, and to learn that when he uses a rule, he first must check the 'exception list' to see if the form he wants to make appears there. But the larger question is: Why, if 3-year olds learning a first language can get it, can't an older (possibly adult, with adult awareness of language labyrinths) student possibly understand it? Do we assume that English is just too hard? If it's so hard, how come so many persons of modest intellectual gifts can speak it well enough?
Larry Latham
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
Three year olds cannot grasp the most basic of rules if they are taught in the abstract. The theoretical, abstract rules that we use in place of the hours and hours of endless input the native speaker enjoys are hard to swallow. They must be built up slowly. Adult speakers may 'grasp' grammar, but most of them could not describe what they 'know' for the life of them.
Anyway, in my opinion people have not reached a sensible synthesis regarding Chomsky vs Behaviourism - the chunks of language we hear endlessly repeated are important too.
Anyway, in my opinion people have not reached a sensible synthesis regarding Chomsky vs Behaviourism - the chunks of language we hear endlessly repeated are important too.
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
I do totally agree. This is exactly the basis of learning for children trying to make sense of their first language, and without it no amount of "teaching" would do the slightest bit of good....the chunks of language we hear endlessly repeated are important too.
But the point I am trying so unsuccessfully to make is that learners of all ages should be able to grasp much more about the intricacies of English grammar than many teachers can imagine. I am not impressed with declarations that "that is much too difficult for beginners to grapple with." Most of the beginners we teach have already mastered a first language which in many cases is much more complex grammatically than English is.
Yes. And perhaps this includes many of us as teachers, I'm afraid, which may account for at least part of the resistance to teaching it. Close's objection to inadequate rules extends to teachers as well. When teachers have these rules memorized themselves, they are all too aware, as native speakers, that the data do not always fit the rule, and thus are confused too, at some level, if they know no other rule. To be sure, it cannot be easy to teach in any case, and particularly so if teachers believe they have to describe it to students who are having trouble understanding anything said in English. However, that is not the same saying the students are unable to understand the grammar. Perhaps describing it may not be the best way to teach it.Adult speakers may 'grasp' grammar, but most of them could not describe what they 'know' for the life of them.
Larry Latham
I do agree so much....
Hey all!
I do agree so much with Larry's words: "....learners of all ages should be able to grasp much more about the intricacies of English grammar than many teachers can imagine. I am not impressed with declarations that 'that is much too difficult for beginners to grapple with.'"
Grammar only becomes grammar when it is being explained. Until that moment, what ties sound and symbol together is intuitively felt. Without the capacity for producing the sound somewhat accurately, the symbolic meaning is lost among the babblings. For the learner of any new language, a plus-perfect may seem as difficult to pronounce as a simple construction and at that moment both are equally difficult. And, sometimes, the meaning of the more complex form may just be easier to grasp than the simpler form and so many students learn to say "Would you like a cup of tea?" or "Can I go to the toilet, please?" before they are fully aware of the multiple names that such words as "you" and "I" are substituting for.
Rules, simple ones at least, do seem to serve a pedagogic end: they should help teachers to group classwork into bite-sized wafers. When my students are in the "past tense irregular verbs" stage, before grinding through some manipulation drills they naturally hear again the name of the exercises "Irregular Verb Test" and often hear about usage questions, pronunciation similarities, phrasal verbs and idioms. I want them to get the feeling intellectually as well as physically. I want to be able to rapidly correct a potentially bad habit with a quick "that's an irregular verb" to help the students through the thought process and get down to spitting out the sentence. I don't think it is a process that can be accelerated by the use of short rules, but again, the shorter the explanation, the more time the students have to have supervised practice time with a whip cracking pronunciation fanatic.
Basically, show them the pattern, make them practice it orally, explain the pattern again, make them practice it orally, explain situations in which this set of words can be used, make them practice it orally, put them in situations where the pattern will be useful, make them practice it orally, and finally, make them practice it orally. The voice is a powerful instrument and can convince more rapidly than complex grammatical explanations. Long live the short, there are exceptions, rule!
peace,
revel.
I do agree so much with Larry's words: "....learners of all ages should be able to grasp much more about the intricacies of English grammar than many teachers can imagine. I am not impressed with declarations that 'that is much too difficult for beginners to grapple with.'"
Grammar only becomes grammar when it is being explained. Until that moment, what ties sound and symbol together is intuitively felt. Without the capacity for producing the sound somewhat accurately, the symbolic meaning is lost among the babblings. For the learner of any new language, a plus-perfect may seem as difficult to pronounce as a simple construction and at that moment both are equally difficult. And, sometimes, the meaning of the more complex form may just be easier to grasp than the simpler form and so many students learn to say "Would you like a cup of tea?" or "Can I go to the toilet, please?" before they are fully aware of the multiple names that such words as "you" and "I" are substituting for.
Rules, simple ones at least, do seem to serve a pedagogic end: they should help teachers to group classwork into bite-sized wafers. When my students are in the "past tense irregular verbs" stage, before grinding through some manipulation drills they naturally hear again the name of the exercises "Irregular Verb Test" and often hear about usage questions, pronunciation similarities, phrasal verbs and idioms. I want them to get the feeling intellectually as well as physically. I want to be able to rapidly correct a potentially bad habit with a quick "that's an irregular verb" to help the students through the thought process and get down to spitting out the sentence. I don't think it is a process that can be accelerated by the use of short rules, but again, the shorter the explanation, the more time the students have to have supervised practice time with a whip cracking pronunciation fanatic.
Basically, show them the pattern, make them practice it orally, explain the pattern again, make them practice it orally, explain situations in which this set of words can be used, make them practice it orally, put them in situations where the pattern will be useful, make them practice it orally, and finally, make them practice it orally. The voice is a powerful instrument and can convince more rapidly than complex grammatical explanations. Long live the short, there are exceptions, rule!
peace,
revel.
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
I don't think that you and Larry are essentially in agreement here, Revel. Horrible as you may find it, you seem much closer to my point of view, a fan of peddling simple and incomplete rules.
Larry, if you agree with what I said, then the alternative to not teaching the simplistic rules is teaching absolutely without them, not by trying to give a more sophisticated set of rules as in "remoteness" theory etc. Is that really what you advocate? In my view that is OK, and will provide natural sounding results, but it is going to take far longer than taking the artificial path that abstract rules provide, and anyway students will tell themselves dodgy rules even if you don't.
Larry, if you agree with what I said, then the alternative to not teaching the simplistic rules is teaching absolutely without them, not by trying to give a more sophisticated set of rules as in "remoteness" theory etc. Is that really what you advocate? In my view that is OK, and will provide natural sounding results, but it is going to take far longer than taking the artificial path that abstract rules provide, and anyway students will tell themselves dodgy rules even if you don't.
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
See, woodcutter, I guess we're really not so very far apart because neither of us seems comfortable with artificially simplified rules, but we're definitely not together. I am certainly not going to teach "remoteness theory", as you put it. If I can't get other teachers to understand it, how am I going to get students, who are in the midst of struggling with understanding anything in English, to understand the theory of it? But I can hardly advocate teaching simplistic partial rules either. You say students will tell themselves dodgy rules if I don't, but that's a world away from teaching them similarly dodgy rules. Guiding students to discover inadequate rules for themselves by controlled exposure to real language data is quite different from teaching them, because students always realize what we teachers sometimes forget: all learning is provisional. If I, as a student, figure out how I think English works, and later it turns out that I'm not quite right, I won't be surprised by that, nor will I find it hard to adjust my point-of-view with new knowledge. But if my teacher teaches me the rule, then that's the rule. New data that contradicts that rule leaves me with only two possibilities, neither of which is attractive. Either the new data is wrong, which students often claim (since the alternative is harder to contemplate), or my teacher was incompetent, or worse, was lying to me. Far from taking longer to develop grammatical understanding, woodcutter, I think it's the short way.woodcutter wrote:Larry, if you agree with what I said, then the alternative to not teaching the simplistic rules is teaching absolutely without them, not by trying to give a more sophisticated set of rules as in "remoteness" theory etc. Is that really what you advocate? In my view that is OK, and will provide natural sounding results, but it is going to take far longer than taking the artificial path that abstract rules provide, and anyway students will tell themselves dodgy rules even if you don't.
Larry Latham
Au contraire...
Good morning all!
Well, I don't know where I am on the Larry--Woodcutter scale of saying rules. I don't see it so much as a horrible fact that woody considers him/herself a fan of peddling rules, but I do think I am closer to Larry when he says "Perhaps describing it [grammar] may not be the best way to teach it. "
In the first place, (that sounds argumentative, doesn't it?) I defend simplicity in my earlier post on terms of economy in the classroom, not in terms of simplicity of form or ease of teaching.
I follow that with the belief that no rule is complete unless there are simply no exceptions to it. In simplifying rules I am making them managable for my students in the type of class I tend to conduct. I am also keeping the basic route clear of obsticals, there are already a good number of mile-stones to be met without making the road all uphill and curvy or bumpy.
Finally I stress real use of language over descriptions of such. Descriptions are interesting, they help give "structure" to a class, they oftentimes help to illuminate that little bulb over the students' heads; however, I have yet to see the explanation, the thorough and complete explanation of a grammar rule contribute directly to the subsequent easy use of that same rule. Even in controled exercises with written scripts, students continue to wade through the new point as if it were heavy, wet sand.
I know the grammar rules, and when asked, offer the clearest explanation possible to my students. I let them know if such will be useful to them and how, and when. If the structure is part of our current class plan, we will practice it. If it is not, I will decide on the spot if it is of enough importance to pull out a special exercise and practice it or simply note it down for future practice time that might abound at the end of the course. In either case, I don't mind giving the explanation (never passing three or five minutes in doing so), they will need to hear it as often as possible in order to get it straight in their minds.
Ooops, was going to say "finally" but see that I've already spent that word, which must mean that I've said all I wanted to for now.
peace,
revel.
Well, I don't know where I am on the Larry--Woodcutter scale of saying rules. I don't see it so much as a horrible fact that woody considers him/herself a fan of peddling rules, but I do think I am closer to Larry when he says "Perhaps describing it [grammar] may not be the best way to teach it. "
In the first place, (that sounds argumentative, doesn't it?) I defend simplicity in my earlier post on terms of economy in the classroom, not in terms of simplicity of form or ease of teaching.
I follow that with the belief that no rule is complete unless there are simply no exceptions to it. In simplifying rules I am making them managable for my students in the type of class I tend to conduct. I am also keeping the basic route clear of obsticals, there are already a good number of mile-stones to be met without making the road all uphill and curvy or bumpy.
Finally I stress real use of language over descriptions of such. Descriptions are interesting, they help give "structure" to a class, they oftentimes help to illuminate that little bulb over the students' heads; however, I have yet to see the explanation, the thorough and complete explanation of a grammar rule contribute directly to the subsequent easy use of that same rule. Even in controled exercises with written scripts, students continue to wade through the new point as if it were heavy, wet sand.
I know the grammar rules, and when asked, offer the clearest explanation possible to my students. I let them know if such will be useful to them and how, and when. If the structure is part of our current class plan, we will practice it. If it is not, I will decide on the spot if it is of enough importance to pull out a special exercise and practice it or simply note it down for future practice time that might abound at the end of the course. In either case, I don't mind giving the explanation (never passing three or five minutes in doing so), they will need to hear it as often as possible in order to get it straight in their minds.
Ooops, was going to say "finally" but see that I've already spent that word, which must mean that I've said all I wanted to for now.
peace,
revel.
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
Lewis clearly states in "The English Verb" that the students will not be introduced to remoteness theory until they are fairly advanced; from which we can imply that they will first be "taught" the use of the Past Simple for Past Time, and it will only be at some time during the acquisition of the non-temporal uses of the Past Simple that they will be introduced to the concept of remoteness. I may add that at that stage it seems an exceptionally useful concept.
Perhaps you could give us an example of one of these mythical rules. I doubt if many exist.I follow that with the belief that no rule is complete unless there are simply no exceptions to it.