Welcome to
ESL Printables,
the website where English Language teachers exchange resources:
worksheets, lesson plans, activities, etc.
Our collection is growing every day with the help of many teachers. If
you want to download you have to send your own contributions.
I have just downloaded the worksheet summarizing Swan �s talk, and I saw several
members have already done it, and I am pretty sure many others will do the same in the coming hours
What Swan spoke about, "grammar teaching", is undoubtedly the concern of every member here... Therefore I suggest that we discuss the issues raised there on
this forum
I would like you to go beyond that stage of praising, complimenting etc. It will be
repetitive and people like Swan don´t need those compliments
Some constructive criticism will be very welcome
I would particularly appreciate if members can say, for example, one thing they
definitely agree with, and more importantly one other thing they don �t necessarily agree
with / or they don �t understand....
In short, such an excellent talk needs to be discussed /treated here, from any angle
I believe that grammar should be taught in context. What �s the point of teaching the past tense if my intention is to ask them what they want to become later in life? I �m sure some of you are going "well, duh", that �s a given but I see colleagues hand out lots of grammar exercises without giving the kids a chance to put those grammar notions in contexts that are as close to real life as possible.
Grammar is unfortunately one of those necessary evils that is an integral part of language teaching. After all, if grammar was easy, then very few of us would have a job.
I would go further than manonski and say that we should not only teach grammar in context, it should only be taught when necessary.
This is a chicken and egg argument, which comes first? My approach to methodology is to build up the pupils understanding by using TPR and developing their listening skills so that they can �understand � what is said, without �knowing � how it is said. Initially this is good for present tense but can very easily be adapted to past tense by putting in the word Yesterday.
I think that many teachers take the opposite approach of teaching How the language is made up first and then practicing it with �meaningful drills � and exercises.
I therefore only teach grammar when it �interferes � with the communication process and depending upon the level of the student I will overlook some errors so as not to stifle their confidence and practice. For example, I would overlook �He go to school � in a beginner, but would correct this in a more able student.
Like I said, grammar seems to be a necessary evil and becomes particularly relevant in formal writing. But, if we first of all get our kids to understand basic language, then we can build on that foundation. An illustration I have on PowerPoint shows a building with the bricks being the vocabulary and the cement the grammar that holds it together. The next slide shows the building shaking because it lacks a foundation, and the foundation is listening and speaking.
Build a firm foundation on communication first and then the rest will have a basis on which it can be built (or taught). Space here does not allow me to go on further, so I open up the debate.
"Grammar should only be taught when necessary". This is very correct and, from my experience with adults (in continuing instruction, companies & evening lessons), who by the way are very demanding, I have often heard some of them, say form the beginning, when setting the objectives "grammar is not my priority... What I need is oral practice". Similarly others would complain "I am fed up with boring grammar lessons.. I �d like a different approach". Others, however, would ask me "My top priority is grammar. I need to review the basics first before doing anything else" I try to adapt, and I do my best to explain to the latter that the four skills + grammar & vocabulary are all linked.... This totally changes when it comes to classical, academic teaching, where "grammar", as SWAN put it, "is there" in the syllabus... Still, in this case, it is our job, as teachers, to teach it in context, and not just teach grammar for grammar
I think Logos captures neatly my approach to teaching esl to adults. I am an enthusiast of the communicative approach to teaching but grammar becomes increasing more important as students progress to higher levels and particularly if they intend to go on for higher studies when they will definitely need grammar competence when writing their assignments and essays.
A well timed grammar lesson can also be used to improve an intermediate students confidence and help him make the jump to advanced. But it is imperative that they learn to trust "the feeling" that something is right.
I find grammar lessons can be dangerous for beginner/advanced beginner students because they start focusing on the rules so much that they forget to stop and think about what they want to say and what they have already learned/internalized. This doesn � t mean they don �t need the grammar lesson, it just means that they need to be able to get back out of the grammar web once they fall into it.
Thanks so much Mar for the notes on Swan �s seminar. They are very interesting and thought provoking.
Dear Douglas, You are totally right I have often experienced what you are speaking about (the difficulty to get them back out of the grammar web) with beginners They become so obssessed with grammar that they ignore the other skills
