Posts
"Direct instruction in grammar and spelling has had disappointing effects on students' writing. Teachers have not achieved much success with extensive error correction either. The most successful teaching of language conventions has been the presentation of well-written materials. A good reader becomes a good writer as the self editing process develops and good models are available. A teacher is most likely to be successful if he/she keeps a variety of well-written and easily understood examples of both written and spoken English available to the students."
Study guide was prepared by XAMonline.com and has no affiliation with the California Teacher Credentialing Dept. nor the testing companies that California uses. The above quoted passage doesn't seem that far out of line from what I've seen presented in ed school classes.
Monday, April 30, 2012
Direct Instruction in Grammar
From the study guide for the California Teachers of English Learners Teacher Certification Exam:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
What is XAMonline?
Good to know direct instruction in SPELLING doesn't work.
Phyllis Davenport says schools think grammar should be "caught, not taught."
That's what these people are saying.
and.....yikes
What does "English learners" mean?
This isn't ESL, is it?
This may be my favorite part:
A teacher is most likely to be successful if he/she keeps a variety of well-written and easily understood examples of both written and spoken English available to the students."
Available?
is that it?
Does the teacher need to actually have the kids read any of these 'examples.'
And .... how exactly does one keep 'examples' of speech on hand?
oh, man
Catherine,
Yes, it's English Learners. XAMonline is a company that publishes test prep materials for various state exams for teachers.
I did a double take as well with the sentence about having "both written and spoken English available to the students." If it's a class taught in English, wouldn't the availability be there by definition?
I meant to say English as a Second Language; ESL.
Meh. I suppose that's the type of grammar 'instruction' I received. I did a lot of reading, anyway. The result has been that I have always felt very insecure about my writing ability, because I don't know when I've made a mistake, and I don't know much about writing well. I can be fairly coherent, but I can't be all that good.
So I make my kids do grammar every day, with the best curriculum I can find. I have learned so much! I have been amazed to find that grammar and writing does not have to feel like you're trying to pick your way through an uncharted swamp. There are maps!
So my opinion about that theory is that it's hooey. I've lived it and it's no good. I want better for my kids.
Yes, it's English Learners.
WHAT??????
"Phyllis Davenport says schools think grammar should be "caught, not taught.""
Teachers toss books books at kids and tell them to figure it out.
It's interesting how most of these pedagogical ideas put the onus on the student rather than the teacher. Our schools talk about differentiated learning rather than differentiated instruction. They talk about how kids should take control over their own learning to become life-long learners. They talk about how reading solves everything. Apparently, teachers have no knowledge or skills to offer. They talk about how you can lead a horse to water, but you can't force it to drink. As my son said in 5th grade in response to my question asking if all of his teachers sit at their desks while the students are in groups doing work; "That's what teachers do".
AFT really has to change its name to AFF - American Federation of Facilitators. How about American Federation of Guides on the Side? Their pedagogy says that it's wrong to teach.
These people are hiding behind the fact that there are some people who learn to write correctly by reading widely. They just have a good ear for grammar. But most of us need some direct instruction, if not to produce correct writing, then to be able to explain why something is written correctly (or not). And it's true that wide reading helps us produce correct writing on an almost instinctive level rather than having to stop and think. That's what they mean by students "catching" grammar. BUT, omitting grammar instruction makes it much harder for people to get to that level, and it's a real disservice to students who don't read widely or to those who benefit from understanding grammatical paradigms rather than just following them.
"What does "English learners" mean?"
'This isn't ESL, is it?'
Afraid so. Makes you wonder what ESL teachers are needed for, doesn't it?
Remember this is California. We can't call them "ESL," that doesn't suggest enough faith in their abilities, and "second' is perjorative. So now they are "English learners" or "English Language Learners (ELL)" instead.
I wish I was joking.
Sounds like immersion. Sure cuts the teaching workload down.
ChemProf-the materials I have seen involving California and anywhere in West but coming east as well, is to treat the Spanish language as an essential part of the culture. Pushing English fluency is deemed a denial of their heritage.
A bit like UNESCO's literacy work where they don't want to teach reading because it would be a denial of a group's oral heritage.
No one asks the groups' members though. Their professional advocacy groups step in on their behalf.
What an expensive racket ed has become. Not to mention a major weapon of societal destruction.
Student of History
What is the reference for the assertion that ""Direct instruction in grammar and spelling has had disappointing effects on students' writing."? Is there some research that the ed community cites to support this position?
I found this book via Google, but I haven't followed the references.
It's interesting how most of these pedagogical ideas put the onus on the student rather than the teacher.
right
that is one of the core themes -- that and 'wholeism'
I've come to believe, tentatively, that you can learn written grammar by reading without direct or explicit instruction. (I'm not sure about that... I'll get some posts up on this -- )
I do know that I learned the grammar of writing from reading. Going into my English 109 course, I knew very, very little formal grammar - and some of what I knew was wrong - although, interestingly, not very much, which is why I know it's possible to learn grammar without being taught. That's the way I learned.
HOWEVER, to learn grammar by reading, YOU HAVE TO READ A LOT.
I was an obsessive reader from the moment I taught myself to read at age 5 (I think I was - right before 1st grade, I believe. This was back when reading instruction began in 1st grade. I started reading on my own the summer before, I think.)
The grammar of writing is quite different from the grammar of speaking, and if you're going to pick it up by reading, you need to a) read a lot and b) understand what you're reading.
What I see, in my students, is that they frequently don't understand what they're reading -- especially when what they're written is highly academic. They don't get it **at all.** And it's not the ideas they don't get; once I explain the idea in simple Subject-Verb-Object/Complement clauses, they have no problem. They don't understand the vocabulary and the grammar.
They don't know what parts of the sentence go with other parts, what parts modify other parts.
btw, my question about whether it's possible to pick up the grammar of writing via reading is whether the critical period for language learning also applies to written-language learning.
(I'm assuming there **is** a critical period for first-language learning, obviously.)
If the window for acquiring fluency in a language without explicit instruction closes sometime in early adolescence, and if you have to learn the grammar of written language after that (which you do with academic language), then....do most people need explicit instruction in order to write academic prose?
I have no idea, and I don't even know whether the question makes sense.
(There is no critical period for any form of language learning, just a gradual decline in plasticity in the various neural systems involved in language, each with its own time course.)
To learn to write well, you have to read a lot of material containing patterns you want to mimic in your own writing, perceive the patterns, mimic them and, when possible, get feedback on the accuracy of your mimicry.
You can give kids material that is slightly more challenging than they're used to and, if they're interested in it, they'll be forced to pay attention to the wording to extract the meaning. Keep ratcheting up the difficulty, and they'll adapt as they go.
For adults, this is harder, because adults have more mental resources at their disposal with which to extract the meaning without paying close attention to the wording. This is one cause of second-language fossilization. They may need to be explicitly taught a lot of these patterns so they'll notice them instead of just skimming the meaning.
In either case, kids or adults, language patterns can be perceived but still not learned if they violate the reader's self-image. I say this based on research from toddlers to adults showing how they unconsciously mimic some people and not others.
A high school girl who sees herself as an intellectual will probably improve her writing a lot by reading what she thinks of as intellectual media. A macho middle school (or college) guy might not improve at all by reading the teacher's favorite chick lit, no matter how "beautifully written."
And for both adults and kids, these patterns won't stick unless they are output to good effect. Just reading them won't help much. Writing them 100 times at home won't help much, either. They have to write them TO someone and judge it a success for their brains to say, "Ah, that's a keeper."
Using what I've said above, I would prefer teachers stop giving high-quantity/low-quality writing assignments ("ten pages of uninformed strong opinions--your chance to be an activist!") Instead, have students find professional writing they like and write short (maybe paragraph-length) knock-offs of it, trying to emulate the style so exactly that the teacher (or fellow students) can't tell which is the original. Then the teacher analyzes the writing with the class: what are the features of the original writing that make it sound the way it does? Then expand to longer assignments, multiple authors, have them write a longer one of their own, cherry picking favorite patterns from multiple writers, etc.
Direct instruction in grammar and spelling has had disappointing effects on students' writing.
The independent schools my children attend teach grammar and spelling. When we were looking at schools, every school we visited stressed grammar in their 9th grade English curriculum.
Latin also stresses grammar. I think it's interesting to look at the highest scorers on SAT Critical Reading--Independent and Parochial schools, and students who've had Latin. Now, there could be a selection effect--if students aren't doing well in a private school, parents may opt to save tuition. Likewise, students switch out of languages they don't like, so the students who stick with Latin may be good readers.
http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/cbs2011_total_group_report.pdf
the materials I have seen involving California and anywhere in West but coming east as well, is to treat the Spanish language as an essential part of the culture. Pushing English fluency is deemed a denial of their heritage.
Students are still required to meet the English Language Arts (ELA) standards in California. What materials are you talking about, or is that a deep dark secret until your book is published?
Post a Comment