|
ESL Forum:
Techniques and methods
in Language Teaching
Games, activities
and teaching ideas
Grammar and
Linguistics
Teaching material
Concerning
worksheets
Concerning
powerpoints
Concerning online
exercises
Make suggestions,
report errors
Ask for help
Message board
|
ESL forum >
Techniques and methods in Language Teaching > English without grammar
English without grammar
|
mercader11
|
English without grammar
|
Hi everybody.
I�ve recently seen in my area that a couple of institutes of english are offering english courses without grammar.
I wonder if I�m out of date and maybe need to update my teaching techniques.
Do you know or you�ve ever heard of any method that can be used to teach Englsih without grammar or maybe sth very close to this.
Pls let me know.
By the way, these institutes have a standard program of 03 classes a week on a basis of 90 minutes each class during a year to become bilingual.
Pls I will appreciate whatever information and opinions about this matter so as to be able to reply some ss who despise grammar.
Thanks in advance
|
25 Jun 2010
|
|
|
|
alien boy
|
|
a lot depends on what is meant by �teaching without grammar � - to speak, read or write a language you have to be able to use grammar. It �s more a question of whether it �s formal lessons in grammar rather than �without grammar �... |
25 Jun 2010
|
|
|
scubi
|
|
While I have never seen a school that "teaches without grammar", there are many ways to get grammatical "points" across without drills, memorization, and other things like that.
A communicative approach to English doesn �t focus on grammar.
But I agree with alien boy, if you are to learn a new language and be able to use it well, you need to have a basic grasp on the foundation of the language. Grammar. That doesn �t mean that you need to spend hours and hours filling in grammar worksheets. |
25 Jun 2010
|
|
|
GIOVANNI
|
|
As Alienboy said, in order to speak, read or write a language you have to use grammar.
What does this institute mean "classes without grammar"? Is it possible that they mean conversation classes? Even with conversation classes a teacher corrects the grammar and explains why.
I personally don �t think a person can become bilingual with approximately 254 hours of English as this institute claims. Fluent yes, but not bilingual.
To me, bilingual means a person uses or is able to use two languages, with equal fluency. Meaning that when a student finishes this course he or she will be able to speak English with the same ease as their mother tongue.
I would like to know other members opinions on this subject. |
25 Jun 2010
|
|
|
sp.watson
|
|
I agree with the comments made. It sounds very likely that they are offering conversation classes, so that from the students � perspective it will feel like no grammar is being taught. However, in reality they will be learning the grammar less directly. I have recently started teaching pure conversation classes and I �m sure if questioned most of my students would say that they are not being taught grammar either!
The claims for becoming bilingual in one year sound like hype, unless the students are starting from a high level already, and are almost certainly just a marketing ploy.
|
25 Jun 2010
|
|
|
Lindax
|
|
The key issue is to teach
the language `as a way to say` without
using any theory and terms.�
For people who can`t tell a
verb from an adjective in their mother tongue, it`s the only way to teach a
foreign language. If the Ss sing songs, play a variety of games, they assume they aren`t learning any grammar.
|
25 Jun 2010
|
|
|
lyny
|
I think they mean that you don �t have to learn what a past participle verb, a reflexive pronoun, a simple present, frequency word... bla bla bla is to learn a language.
If you realize most people know their native language without any grammar rules.
Check the way children learn, they don �t know any grammar when they begin school but they speak their native language perfectly.
I never ask my ss. anything about grammar, I just try to avoid it most of the time.
I just explain the meaning of the words and they practice.
I never ask them to write a "passive voice, progressive or past perfect sentence" for instance, they have no idea how to write them but they learn the language without learning by heart any grammar.
Some years ago I took a language approaching course with Cambridge (COTE),
I think it helped me to avoid grammar.
I use a lot of games and songs to help my ss. but I don �t focus on grammar
So far it worked for me.
|
25 Jun 2010
|
|
|
ueslteacher
|
|
Hello, everybody! Cool post  Just what we, teachers, like to do share opinions on the different approaches to teaching English. I agree that "without grammar" is a marketing trick, and that it also sounds more like communicative approach. But even when you teach the language communicatively, you teach clusters of grammar structures (not necessarily mentioning that they are grammar). And of course you use different colourful charts. Plus this year when I attended proficiency courses, we were told that we should change our attitude to teaching English and rather teach it as ESL than EFL, focusing rather on the linguist likeness of the languages than on their differences. Well, Lyny, believe it or not your ss also learn by memorising (that doesn �t mean you give them smth to memorize)- they do have good memory, plus you probably motivate them by choosing material that relates to them, otherwise it wouldn �t work. But as the students move to more advanced levels and want to make English part of their future profession, they have to understand how the language works, and why careless, carelessly, less care and care less are different, if they want to pass the final test well (e. g. when they graduate from school) to have a better chance when entering the University. That �s it. sorry it came out so long  Sophia
|
25 Jun 2010
|
|
|
Zora
|
Hi, I was reading everything and like AB and Giovanni and having had the experience of learning two languages at once - "the hard way"... i.e. I was submerged into learning Spanish and Galician (Spanish dialect) at once at the age of 14. I can tell you that you need grammar, your brain looks for the similarities. We aren �t "kids" any more and even a child learns grammar at school! We need to know the difference between the past tense and when to use it for example.
And quite truthfully, I wouldn �t trust a site that says that after so many hours you will be "bilingual". It took me about three years or more, living in Spain and going to school, before my brain stopped translating everything and I was able to switch with some ease between the two languages... (and I am still rocky with the third language, even though it is similar because grammatically, it has it �s differences.) "Bilingualism" comes with time and usage, if you use the language all the time, eat, drink it, you become "bilingual" - otherwise, you are just "Proficient".
|
25 Jun 2010
|
|
|
sulekra
|
I spent the first 23 years of my life living in Australia, but both my parents are Czech so along with English I was also "taught" Czech from the beginning. Unfortunately I was never taught grammar - we just learned phonetically.
So even with 25 years of Czech education, including the last two in the Czech Republic, I would only say I �m proficient and not bilingual, just because of the vast number of mistakes made with grammar, but not so much with vocabulary.
My brain has been programmed to find the similarities to English so I often say things following English grammar even though Czech and other Slavic languages are different and much much much more difficult.
And because I wasn �t taught the grammar while I was young all the bad mistakes are set in stone and almost impossible to change - but at least I can communicate:)
|
25 Jun 2010
|
|
|
