Re: (teach) how helpful is grammar instruction?
- John Pullen's analysis is (as always) quite perceptive. Might I suggest a clarification of terminology?
The term "grammar instruction" brings to mind images of nuns with rulers. It may be what Chinese teachers do but, as John points out, it is not what we foreign teachers do. Perhaps the term "grammar reminders" might be suitable for us -- a sentence or two a week at most, just to jog memories.
---- John Pullen <gaodachang@...> wrote:
> For the vast majority of the foreign teachers in China, teaching oral English will be the primary activity....
>"In general, focused L2 instruction results in large gains over thecourse >of an intervention. Specifically, L2 instruction of particular
language >forms induces substantial target-oriented change."
I know the above was talking about grammar, but the following is about
"Is spelling caught or taught? For the majority of children, reading
extensively is not sufficient to secure accurate spelling; spelling must
be taught explicitly and systematically."
If spelling is not acquired, is there any reason grammar should be
acquired? which leads to a suggestion :-) that grammar should be
taught...at some levels...until theere is a base from which acquisition
" This second part of the sequence provides a range of direct teaching
activities, including teacher modelling and involving the children in the
new learning. For example, after an introductory activity based on the
spelling of plurals, the teacher and children define the categories and
generalise the rules for their formation. In most cases, this part of the
sequence will require two or three sessions."
which of course takes us back to practice, write, practice...
The quotes from the Support for Spelling, National Strategies, pdf from
the British Govt. Primary school kids.