After reading the information presented, I have the following opinions. I want to prelude your reading with the following statement: The below piece of writing is based on my humble opinion. Opinions are transformed through our daily experiences. Please broaden my understanding with your own personal experiences. I am open to both criticism and praise. Feel free to comment on anything in the below blog.
Standard English
I feel that all languages evolve. Languages are molded by speakers. However, I do not agree with Richard Nordquist. Nordquist (2009) has created a host of things that Standard English is not. He goes so far to say that Standard English is not “...a form of English, devised by reference to standards of moral value, or literary merit, or supposed linguistic purity, or any other metaphysical yardstick…” I feel that Standard English is based on standards. The standards might not be based on moral value; however, the standards of English are based on academic purity.
My opinion is based on the grounds that without standards, there is chaos. The standards of Standard English dictate what is acceptable in written and spoken communication. The question is – acceptable by whom? I feel that there must be a standard version of English. There are standards in mathematics. One apple plus one apple equals two apples. That simple mathematics problem should not be manipulated by media and users of mathematics standards. With that example in mind, why do we allow media and users to manipulate our acceptance of a standard version of English?
Descriptive and Prescriptive Grammar
Descriptive and prescriptive grammar is important in the holistic view of a language experience. However, something that really stood out in the reading was an explanation by Nordquist (2009). He said, “The intent of descriptive grammar is to posit explanations for the facts of language use, and there is no assumption of correctness or appropriateness. Prescriptive grammars, on the other hand, are the stuff of high school English teachers. They 'prescribe,' like medicine for what ails you, how you 'ought' to speak.” I like the observation of prescriptive grammar being the “stuff of high school English teachers.” I feel that Nordquist made this statement in a contemptuous way. However, I feel that (in a classroom) it is not a bad thing to prescribe the students variations to the inappropriate grammar examples that they hear every day on television or in social circles.How I Teach Grammar
The description of inductive and deductive teaching methods by Kenneth Beare was very interesting. I feel that I teach grammar in a deductive – “top down approach.” I teach that way because it is how I like to learn. I like to know the big picture before analyzing the small parts. After I know how everything works together, I can more easily understand the small situations. However, it is because I have that way of thinking that causes me to become frustrated when dealing with a person that prefers to educate with an inductive approach. I am cognitive about these learning preferences when I teach students.
It is my first year teaching, and I have a perfect, personal situation that is exemplary of why showing the big picture is not always appropriate. Earlier this year, I started a unit on parts of speech. I decided it would be appropriate to teach an overview of all eight parts of speech before exploring each part of speech with intensity. I got through nouns, verbs, adverbs, and adjectives when I noticed all of the blank stares in the classroom. I had lost the students completely. I stopped the lesson and assigned free-reading for the remainder of the period. I told my mentoring teacher about the lesson at lunch. She could not stop laughing. Now, when I interject my opinion into a conversation, she jovially says, “This is coming from a new teacher that tried to teach the eight parts of speech one morning after breakfast.”
I try various methods to teach grammar. One method is my use of wordwalls as much more than the average sight-word list. My wordwalls serve as examples to grammar and reading concepts. For instance, I currently have a wordwall that has examples of writing prompts and thesis statements. It shows the students how to change a writing prompt into a thesis statement.
Another method I use to teach grammar is repetitious intentional exposure to a grammar concept. Students are repeatedly exposed to grammar concepts daily. I use these unique teaching moments to reinforce previous knowledge. For example, if I use a semicolon in a sentence during a literature-focused lesson, I will ask the students why I used a semicolon in that context. I am bringing the students’ attentions to something that may be overlooked. By doing that, I am showing the students that grammar is something that is used – not something found only in grammar class.
References
Beare, K. (2009). Teaching Grammar in an ESL/EFL Setting. Retrieved from https://elearn.mtsu.edu/d2l/lms/content/viewer/main_frame.d2l?ou=1154729&tId=11711430
Nordquist, R. (2009). What is Grammar?. Retrieved from https://elearn.mtsu.edu/d2l/lms/content/viewer/main_frame.d2l?ou=1154729&tId=11707334
Nordquist, R. (2009). What is Standard English?. Retrieved from https://elearn.mtsu.edu/d2l/lms/content/viewer/main_frame.d2l?ou=1154729&tId=11707333
Additional & Possibly Helpful Information
Because this is a place to share information, I wanted to share a website in which I was recently introduced. The topic of this blog is how to teach grammar. I found a website this week that seems to be an EXCELLENT resource for how to teach grammar (and much more). It even has a subgroup focused on ESL instruction. The website is BrainPop. This website offers videos as a supplement to direct instruction. I want to warn you; this website is not free. I have not paid for it, but one of the members of my team uses it. I am considering purchasing it for my classroom.
3 comments:
I use brainpopjr.com for my kindergarten students. They love it!
Very interesting and informative entry. You addressed all the criteria points including those articles. Thanks for including the links, references, and the BrainPop site!
I, too, use the terminology of "deductive" and "inductive" to describe approaches to grammatical instruction.
It seems to me that the key lines of division within grammar instruction (meaning syntax, word choice, usage, punctuation, and even spelling—a catch-all term that most English language-arts teachers use to describe the “stuff” that we “have to , but don’t want to” teach) have been drawn between those who favor part to whole and whole to part instruction. As a brief aside… isn’t this much akin to the graphophonic (phonics-based) and whole language reading debate? Anyway, here is my take on the assumptions of both positions:
Advocates of part to whole instruction believe that front-loading instruction in the discrete parts of language will best enable students to apply these parts to the whole process of writing. Following are the key components of this inductive approach.
1. Memorization of the key terminology and definitions of grammar to provide a common language of instruction.
2. Identification of grammatical constructions leads to application.
3. Familiarity with the rules of grammar leads to correct application.
4. Teaching the components of sentence construction leads to application.
5. Distrust of one’s own oral language as a grammatical filter .
Advocates of whole to part instruction believe that back-loading instruction in the discrete parts of language, as is determined by needs of the writing task, will best enable students to write fluently and meaningfully. Following are the key components of this deductive approach.
1. Minimal memorization of the key terminology and definitions of grammar and minimal practice in identification of grammatical constructions.
2. Connection to one’s oral language is essential to inform fluent and effective writing.
3. Reading and listening to exemplary literature and poetry provides the models that students need to mimic and revise as they develop their own writing style.
4. Minimal error analysis.
5. Teaching writing as a process with a focus on coherence will best enable students to apply the discreet parts such as subjects, predicates, parts of speech, phrases, clauses, sentences, and transitions to say something meaningful.
Of course, how teachers align themselves within the Great Grammar Debate (See http://penningtonpublishing.com/blog/grammar_mechanics/the-great-grammar-debate/) is not necessarily an "either-or" decision. Most teachers apply bits and pieces of each approach to teaching grammar. I take a stab on how to integrate the inductive and deductive approaches in How to Integrate Grammar and Writing Instruction (See http://penningtonpublishing.com/blog/grammar_mechanics/how-to-integrate-grammar-and-writing-instruction/).
Post a Comment