Hi guys,
I've recently started teaching conversational English to a group of 4-10 adults in Hong Kong, mostly it's current afffairs kind of talk reviewing newspaper articles and the like, I don't get provided with any materials to use for this class. The group have recently started asking me to teach them more grammar; what would my best approach be? Should I include some grammar charts to use along side the articles that we are discussing? Maybe I should make 1 lesson out of every 4 purely about grammar? This option seems a bit boring also as not all students attend all classes all of the time, they would miss out. Maybe I could give them some kind of blank filling exercises, although the class is suposed to be an oral one. I saw an idea for using grammar charts as wallpaper these could become topics of conversation themselves could they not? I know that it is helpful for adults to learn the grammar rules to help retain the new language but I'm unsure of how to incorperate them into this class. Any ideas? Please help!
Thanks.
teaching grammar to adults
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
Do you know where their weak points are? If you ask them, they will probably tell you "everything". Don't know how many classes you have had up to now, but are they enough to gauge their weaknesses? Classes that can actually discuss newpaper articles are pretty high.
They probably wouldn't take too well to grammar REVIEW, but you might want to throw a 15 minute refresher into each discussion.
Higher level students usually need help with more complex issues of prepositions (example, those coupled with certain verbs, such as "interested in" or "looking forward to"), or with getting articles (a, an, the) straight, or with understanding idioms (especially phrasal verbs).
They probably wouldn't take too well to grammar REVIEW, but you might want to throw a 15 minute refresher into each discussion.
Higher level students usually need help with more complex issues of prepositions (example, those coupled with certain verbs, such as "interested in" or "looking forward to"), or with getting articles (a, an, the) straight, or with understanding idioms (especially phrasal verbs).
Writing will expose their weaknesses
Have you tried getting the students to write something for homework; preferably a follow up piece about the same topic you have discussed in class? When you mark their compositions look for patterns of weakness in their grammar. If a pattern emerges then do a short presentation at the start oft he next class on that particular point. I find this technique quite effective because you are teaching the students a structure that they are reaching for themselves and are therefore willing to learn.
-
joshua2004
- Posts: 264
- Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2004 7:08 pm
- Location: Torreon, Mexico
I am not sure how I would approach their request since I market my program as non-grammar-based. But, if I were in your shoes I would give them a little of what they want, grammar work boring as it is, and then try to explain the difficulty in learning a language through its grammar:
Too confusing and not practical: Most rules, especially for English, don't apply to everything, too many exceptions to learn.
The learning doesn't last: We teach something one day and even five minutes later its forgotten. If there is nothing to tie the learning to, such as a context like in REAL conversation, then the learning is lost. This is why grammar-based courses rely on repetition.
The alternative is to do as you are doing, provide real input and conversation. The key, I have found, is to provided vast amounts of interesting material, opportunities for people to express themselves, and a gauge on which to measure achievement. For assessment, I record the students reading something and then compare it to the same reading and record, 2 weeks later. You wouldn't have to do a recording if it is not available to you. Just find some way to show improvement.
Re-reading your post, I see that you do believe grammar is a helpful way to retain a language. My post is not meant to be argumentative. I merely wished to provide my perspective if it is helpful.
Too confusing and not practical: Most rules, especially for English, don't apply to everything, too many exceptions to learn.
The learning doesn't last: We teach something one day and even five minutes later its forgotten. If there is nothing to tie the learning to, such as a context like in REAL conversation, then the learning is lost. This is why grammar-based courses rely on repetition.
The alternative is to do as you are doing, provide real input and conversation. The key, I have found, is to provided vast amounts of interesting material, opportunities for people to express themselves, and a gauge on which to measure achievement. For assessment, I record the students reading something and then compare it to the same reading and record, 2 weeks later. You wouldn't have to do a recording if it is not available to you. Just find some way to show improvement.
Re-reading your post, I see that you do believe grammar is a helpful way to retain a language. My post is not meant to be argumentative. I merely wished to provide my perspective if it is helpful.
I teach grammar in my adult ESL classes. I always have, and I no doubt always will. I teach the way I like to learn, and I prefer having some grammar insight in a new language. (No, that's not all I teach 
.) That said, there are lots of ways to incorporate grammar in meaningful and interesting ways. Have you tried writing down sentences which contain some of the common mistakes they make? You could do it as you walk around listening to what they are saying. You could put those sentences on a piece of paper and have them try to correct them in pairs. Then you could discuss the corrections, and/or make a little exercise if they are having trouble with a particular construction.
.) That said, there are lots of ways to incorporate grammar in meaningful and interesting ways. Have you tried writing down sentences which contain some of the common mistakes they make? You could do it as you walk around listening to what they are saying. You could put those sentences on a piece of paper and have them try to correct them in pairs. Then you could discuss the corrections, and/or make a little exercise if they are having trouble with a particular construction.-
chickenhawkgirl
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 7:54 am
Thanks for all of your replys. I'm trying to pick out specific grammar points (one grammar aspect at a time) from the texts that we are reading and incorperating short review exercises to to be completed. I don't want grammar to take over the lesson but my students seem to enjoy discussing it, I guess this counts as conversation practice but I feel that I'm losing control a little.
-
joshua2004
- Posts: 264
- Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2004 7:08 pm
- Location: Torreon, Mexico
I am all for discussing grammar, I just don't make it the point of the lesson ever. As far as losing control, I suppose it depends what's happening in your students interactions. Is it focused discussion where everyone is involved? This doesn't mean they have to be contributing but they must be actively listening. Or is it really chaotic like a bad reality tv show?
-
Sally Olsen
- Posts: 1322
- Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 2:24 pm
- Location: Canada,France, Brazil, Japan, Mongolia, Greenland, Canada, Mongolia, Ethiopia next
How can you not teach grammar when you are teaching English? Grammar is the basic building blocks of English and you can't learn English without it. But I think that these students are probably asking for something that is more like they had in school with the old drill and kill exercises that they could do well on if they memorized and reguritated. Conversation is extremely hard for students who have had this background because it is not step by step. Perhaps that this what they want more than "grammar" lessons. They want something to hang onto while they speak so they are not surprised and embarrassed or frustrated if they don't understand or can't express themselves. You can make as much of what you do as visual as possible with charts, graphics, pictures, sequence stories, vidoes and so on. If you have things written down so they can read along it helps as well or if you can type what they are saying so they can see it that helps enormously. I think that these types of students don't see their progress because they are used to almost instant feedback from marks or corrections. You need to show them they are progressing by taping their conversation and replaying it for them in three weeks or so, by noting their improvement and telling them about it, by getting the other students to note their improvement and acknowledging it. Review one of the lessons you did near the beginning of the course and let them see how much easier it is to talk about the subject now.
-
joshua2004
- Posts: 264
- Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2004 7:08 pm
- Location: Torreon, Mexico
You can learn a language without studying its grammar. In fact, it is more effective. Here is some research showing this: http://www.sdkrashen.com/articles/eta_p ... _paper.pdf and here is an example of this happening: http://www.sdkrashen.com/articles/what_ ... t_take.pdf
I don't wish to be perceived as if I don't teach grammar. I want to make a distinction between discussing grammar in a lesson and a lesson whose focus is to learn a particular rule or pattern. The latter is what research shows is not as effective as methods which are based on understanding messages, print or verbal. Therefore I am all for discussing grammar, but it is never the point of the activity. The discussion of grammar only goes so far so as not to distract from the point of the lesson. Objectives for my activities include things such as: understanding a commercial, story, news article, weather report, etc.; perform real life tasks such as being able to order food in a restaurant, perform a work interview, leave a message on a answering machine, etc.; be able to write in various types of situations such as with forms and applications, letters and email, etc.
I have found that if you can teach someone how you can learn a language effectively, they are not apt to demand less-effective traditional, grammar-based methods. This is where it is important to show their progress with a recording and the methods Sally Olsen provided above.
I don't wish to be perceived as if I don't teach grammar. I want to make a distinction between discussing grammar in a lesson and a lesson whose focus is to learn a particular rule or pattern. The latter is what research shows is not as effective as methods which are based on understanding messages, print or verbal. Therefore I am all for discussing grammar, but it is never the point of the activity. The discussion of grammar only goes so far so as not to distract from the point of the lesson. Objectives for my activities include things such as: understanding a commercial, story, news article, weather report, etc.; perform real life tasks such as being able to order food in a restaurant, perform a work interview, leave a message on a answering machine, etc.; be able to write in various types of situations such as with forms and applications, letters and email, etc.
I have found that if you can teach someone how you can learn a language effectively, they are not apt to demand less-effective traditional, grammar-based methods. This is where it is important to show their progress with a recording and the methods Sally Olsen provided above.
Chicken or Egg?
Good morning all.
We may not be able to say if the egg preceded the chicken or if it were the other way around, but I think it is safe to say that "grammar" came after "oral communication" or "language use". It is often useful in observing language, grouping concepts, etc, but we all know that grammar was not an essential first step in learning our own mother tongue. Yet, it is a very helpful aspect of second language learning, as long as it is recognized as a descriptive tool and not as a hard-core prescriptive rule.
Thinking about grammar often gets in the way of spitting out a complete thought in what, written, would be considered a sentence. Trying to make complete sentences while thinking "first I have to put a subject, then I have to choose the correct auxiliary for my time or mood or mode, then I have to put the main verb in the right form, dictated by that auxiliary I've already chosen, then I have to remember that the direct object is before that word or the indirect object is after that word and don't stick the time expression there, and remember that that frequency adverb marks simple present or simple past and that it needs to be before the verb it modifies, though after the verb be...." is really a lot to ask of students. Soooo,
Basic structural patterns can indeed be drilled in small doses until students are comfortable with word order. Substitution in these pattern exercises can help students to realize what building blocks are available for making utterances. Fifteen minutes of transformation or substitution drill before the conversation, focusing perhaps on a structure that might well come up in the later activity, not only warms their mouths up for the physical work of producing sounds that make sense but also serves as a reference point when, during the conversation, the teacher corrects a certain structural faux pas. Naturally, before doing the drill, the basic structure should be outlined a bit so that the students know what they are practicing. Spending an entire hour explaining a grammar point does indeed seem like an uneconomic use of valuable class time. Making students practice a quarter of an hour in a controlled fashion before setting them loose in an improvisational exercise might answer their need for the structure that they might intuitively feel is there but which they don't yet feel strong using.
peace,
revel.
We may not be able to say if the egg preceded the chicken or if it were the other way around, but I think it is safe to say that "grammar" came after "oral communication" or "language use". It is often useful in observing language, grouping concepts, etc, but we all know that grammar was not an essential first step in learning our own mother tongue. Yet, it is a very helpful aspect of second language learning, as long as it is recognized as a descriptive tool and not as a hard-core prescriptive rule.
Thinking about grammar often gets in the way of spitting out a complete thought in what, written, would be considered a sentence. Trying to make complete sentences while thinking "first I have to put a subject, then I have to choose the correct auxiliary for my time or mood or mode, then I have to put the main verb in the right form, dictated by that auxiliary I've already chosen, then I have to remember that the direct object is before that word or the indirect object is after that word and don't stick the time expression there, and remember that that frequency adverb marks simple present or simple past and that it needs to be before the verb it modifies, though after the verb be...." is really a lot to ask of students. Soooo,
Basic structural patterns can indeed be drilled in small doses until students are comfortable with word order. Substitution in these pattern exercises can help students to realize what building blocks are available for making utterances. Fifteen minutes of transformation or substitution drill before the conversation, focusing perhaps on a structure that might well come up in the later activity, not only warms their mouths up for the physical work of producing sounds that make sense but also serves as a reference point when, during the conversation, the teacher corrects a certain structural faux pas. Naturally, before doing the drill, the basic structure should be outlined a bit so that the students know what they are practicing. Spending an entire hour explaining a grammar point does indeed seem like an uneconomic use of valuable class time. Making students practice a quarter of an hour in a controlled fashion before setting them loose in an improvisational exercise might answer their need for the structure that they might intuitively feel is there but which they don't yet feel strong using.
peace,
revel.
Grammar
Several observations about teaching grammar:
I think students often think they SHOULD be doing formal grammar, without necessarily having a clear idea of what that means. This can particularly be the case when they come from language and education backgrounds that have a strong tradition of gramar education. The problem is, as we all know, English grammar is never as clear-cut as, say, Arabic or Italian grammar. Of course, that is not to say you shoudn't give them what they want.
It can also be worth pointing out that you are teaching them grammar in everything you do; i.e. point out, and encourage them to see for themselves the grammar embedded in everything you do with them.
Finally, I saw some research once that said that the ability to understand and apply grammatical concepts can vary depending on the students' prior educaiton levels. Generally less educated learners will make less use of formal grammar teaching than people with more education.
I think students often think they SHOULD be doing formal grammar, without necessarily having a clear idea of what that means. This can particularly be the case when they come from language and education backgrounds that have a strong tradition of gramar education. The problem is, as we all know, English grammar is never as clear-cut as, say, Arabic or Italian grammar. Of course, that is not to say you shoudn't give them what they want.
It can also be worth pointing out that you are teaching them grammar in everything you do; i.e. point out, and encourage them to see for themselves the grammar embedded in everything you do with them.
Finally, I saw some research once that said that the ability to understand and apply grammatical concepts can vary depending on the students' prior educaiton levels. Generally less educated learners will make less use of formal grammar teaching than people with more education.
Grammar
Last night the comment was made by a student of mine that they didn’t need to learn any grammar, that they only needed to learn vocabulary. When I asked this student how, then, they intended to use the vocabulary, how they intended to put it together and make sense of it all, they answered: If it sounds right, it’s ok. The point that some degree of understanding of grammar is necessary in order to be able to know if something “sounds right”, it would seem, had escaped them.
Whether we choose to teach grammar overtly or covertly depends, to a great degree, on the needs, level, ability, and preferences of our students; as well as on the judgements and feelings that we, as trainers, have about the overall situation that we find ourselves in. This notwithstanding, the fact remains that grammar is, whether we choose to accept or to deny this, an essential part of any language; and we need to deal with it in some manageable way. If me wrong, I'm correct.
Whether we choose to teach grammar overtly or covertly depends, to a great degree, on the needs, level, ability, and preferences of our students; as well as on the judgements and feelings that we, as trainers, have about the overall situation that we find ourselves in. This notwithstanding, the fact remains that grammar is, whether we choose to accept or to deny this, an essential part of any language; and we need to deal with it in some manageable way. If me wrong, I'm correct.
-
fluffyhamster
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
Re: Grammar
Clever, but I don't think things like S versus O pronouns, or basic meat-and potatoes word order (imperatives, VN) are exactly what this student means when they say they don't want to study "grammar"; these things are simply inescapable, un-unnoticeable facts of the language, without which one would be able to express almost nothing (and is 'I' versus 'me' just a matter of grammar, or is it vocabulary? Of course, it's a bit of both, but then you knew that 'cos you're obviously familiar, from your other posts, with Lewis, and lexis, "lexicogrammar" etc).Macavity wrote:If me wrong, I'm correct.
That being said, the ability to pick phrases up effortlessly and then retain them through real appreciation and understanding (let's call this acquisition, which perhaps proceeds best from having a few seeds of learning sprinkled first, to be then watered by the input), recall them at will, and extrapolate to the point of being able to construct similar yet still correct language is, unsurprisingly, not easy at especially the lower learner levels, yet it is often precisely these barely "intermediate" students (knowing something but never a sufficient amount) who are the ones who will be most tempted to believe in an easy option or approach (for a while, anyway).
For example, (off the top of my head) a student might want to at least ponder why 'Me and Tom and *beep* (and Harry) were in Dave's last night when...' makes more "sense" than 'Tom and *beep* and Harry (and I/me)...', and (be told) why '*I and Tom...' is incorrect. This isn't quite grammar (yet, to my mind), but it is at least paying attention to form and pondering what function the one choice realizes over another, and learning a few grammatical labels at the same time might not be such a total waste of time (they could help "fix" things in one's memory; only grammarphobics would fear this kind of thing (not) sticking i.e. getting bunged up with "crap").
No, what this student might talking about are lessons where form is focused on too much, perhaps to the (near total?) exclusion of other things (that would provide some "air (in which) to breath"). BTW, not saying you teach like this, Mac!
(The student might just be complaining due to past bad experiences with "lecturer" types, or have read or heard about "Phraseology" or something without reading the disclaimers or fine print e.g. guys like Lewis state quite clearly that grammar IS STILL important, that is, there is a lot in traditional syllabuses that is still worth our attention, scrutiny and study, because it can help, does help and has helped). You must admit, it is easy to get sidetracked into lecture-style or very form-focused lessons even when (and often because! Londo Molari, take note! LOL) the lesson plan has "communicative" written all over it...so it is the teachers job to fully anticipate needs and actually TEACH the students to the point at which they can complete whatever tasks or roles (not necessarily as in "roleplay", but just in a "conversational participant" sense) in ways that more than fulfil those needs (and surveying the grammar will NEED to be a substantial part of such preparation).
Last edited by fluffyhamster on Tue Oct 25, 2005 5:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
fluffyhamster
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
I'll read back through the whole thread in a bit, gotta dash now. 
-
fluffyhamster
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
Hmm, I'm not sure about discussing grammar in class; it would only really be fully defensible (i.e. not appear to be a stalling tactic by a not wholly prepared teacher) if the students were (becoming) ESL/EFL professionals themselves (and up for often inconclusive debates of the kind we sometimes see on Dave's)...and whatever happened to the old dictum 'The students need to be doing more than just talking about the language generally...(but versed in and using it in all its rich and specific (functional and semantic and affective and...detail(s))'?
You don't have to buy a standard textbook and follow it page by page, completing every grammar exercise in it, but I do think you have to be sometimes checking that the students are up to speed in the frequent and therefore useful structural and related notional-functional areas (all a bit more fine-grained linguistically than just e.g. "topics") of standard ELT syllabuses generally (and then some).
If the grammar can seem a bit daunting, not quite what you want, or just plain dry, try taking slightly different tacks to tackling the "lexicogrammar" e.g. look in some of the books available for teaching vocabulary rather than structure (there are several excellent ones in CUP's LT Library: http://www.cambridge.org/aus/browse/bro ... jectid=138 ); then there are plenty of useful idioms and phrasal verbs to be getting on with learning (as other posters have mentioned) - check out the study sections in the more specialized learner dictionaries.
Reading books like the above can obviously give you new perspectives on what might be interesting and/or beneficial to focus on in the texts (newspapers etc) that you and the students are going to be looking at.
Teaching conversation itself isn't easy, but again, books such as Brown and Yule's, or Hatch's (again, see above link), or the CANCODE spinoffs, can provide ideas and inspiration; as Joshua points out, taking a functional approach (and putting a functional spin on the grammar) could be just what you're looking for (I've found functional "flowcharts" to be quite helpful for my students).
Basic grammar/structural resources: http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/teacher/v ... php?t=2873
Perhaps even an approach to grammar such as Systemic-Functional Linguistics (Halliday) would repay the time you'd invest in becoming more familiar with it?
You don't have to buy a standard textbook and follow it page by page, completing every grammar exercise in it, but I do think you have to be sometimes checking that the students are up to speed in the frequent and therefore useful structural and related notional-functional areas (all a bit more fine-grained linguistically than just e.g. "topics") of standard ELT syllabuses generally (and then some).
If the grammar can seem a bit daunting, not quite what you want, or just plain dry, try taking slightly different tacks to tackling the "lexicogrammar" e.g. look in some of the books available for teaching vocabulary rather than structure (there are several excellent ones in CUP's LT Library: http://www.cambridge.org/aus/browse/bro ... jectid=138 ); then there are plenty of useful idioms and phrasal verbs to be getting on with learning (as other posters have mentioned) - check out the study sections in the more specialized learner dictionaries.
Reading books like the above can obviously give you new perspectives on what might be interesting and/or beneficial to focus on in the texts (newspapers etc) that you and the students are going to be looking at.
Teaching conversation itself isn't easy, but again, books such as Brown and Yule's, or Hatch's (again, see above link), or the CANCODE spinoffs, can provide ideas and inspiration; as Joshua points out, taking a functional approach (and putting a functional spin on the grammar) could be just what you're looking for (I've found functional "flowcharts" to be quite helpful for my students).
Basic grammar/structural resources: http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/teacher/v ... php?t=2873
Perhaps even an approach to grammar such as Systemic-Functional Linguistics (Halliday) would repay the time you'd invest in becoming more familiar with it?