Larson-Freeman raises the issue of "teaching [the] reasons" of grammar, or explaining the logic of grammar. I feel that learning the logic of grammar naturally develops over time as one acquires the language. Teaching the "logic" of grammar sounds good in theory, but it still has to be integrated with traditional grammar instruction. For example, in cases where idiomatic expressions and colloquial phrases do not directly translate from the L1, the only recourse for the NNS is to memorize them. Although logic provides an explanation for the student learning these rule "exceptions", it still takes time for students to acquire this grammatical rationality. I understand the concept of teaching students the rationale used in grammar, but it is important for instructors to understand that students acquire language features at different paces.
To support my position, Collentine also pointed out that researchers found that learners innately acquired grammatical structures only when they were ready- not necessarily at the time when the instructor presented the structure.
In regards to the Collentine article, CALL is an excellent tool to allow students to have an active role in learning, and even acquiring grammar in the target language. Technology enables students to receive comprehensible input and the time to focus on a grammatical feature-- whereas time is limited in the classroom. Having access to CALL also serves as a alternative to the traditional (at times boring) textbook.
I found that Larson-Freeman's challenging misconceptions regarding grammar quite useful. Particularly and continually interesting is the idea of developing the skill of grammar or as Larson-Freeman calls it, grammaring. This is a an excellent perspective for ELLs to adopt rather than thinking of grammar as an overwhelming mountain of knowledge that has to be studied sometimes memorized and ultimately acquired in order to become proficient and accurate speakers of English. A useful strategy employed in Collentine's article was error correction in order to provide students with positive washback and substantial intake of the grammatical form. Setting up grammar exercises using CALL provides opportunity for students to get immediate feedback from correct/incorrect answers. Although, as discussed in Ling 487, the feedback with in CALL exercises (e.g. hotpot exercises) must be detailed and meaningful for the student. Providing such detailed feedback is a time consuming task for the teacher, but if executed with care and precision may result in washback for the student. Another useful suggestion Collentine makes and I have used in my wikispace is the strategy of "colorization". Common sense will tell you that by highlighting, bolding, italicizing, underlining, or colorizing will make whatever point to standout from the rest of its surrounding text. Collentine suggest this used for grammatical emphasis; however, it can work in a variety of contexts (e.g. wikispaces and attention to vocabulary) In the simplest sense, I have to agree with Monica that by using CALL for elements of grammar instruction/exercises, it provides students with an alternative medium for studying grammar skills thus acting as a motivating mechanism.
The question of either teaching or not grammar in the acquisition of a second language confuses me every time more. In other courses, professors mention that grammar is very repetitive, can easily become a boring task, overwhelming, etc. and therefore we should not focus as much on it when students are beginners. They claim that is until they are advanced that we should cover lessons on it. In other words, it would be like Larson-Freeman term of "the reflex fallacy." He explains that this is the "assumption that it is our job to re-create in our classrooms the natural conditions of acquisition present in the external environment." I guess that the question here is whether we should teach a second language just like a first language is taught, meaning and vocabulary first, and much later, grammatical rules. Today, these articles have really influenced my teaching perspective on grammar. I believe that it can, and should be taught in our classrooms. With the help of CALL, like Collentine mentions students can become agents to manipulate the target language. Besides, with the correct usage of internet/technology they will be guiding their learning process. However, I do not believe that we should rest everything on CALL. We still have a physical classroom and we should still try to come up with engaging activities like the ones Larson-Freeman mention on the second page of statement number 11. I should mention that this is a point of view from an undergraduate, who still doesn't have a classroom.
In response to Liliana's comment, I believe that Collentine's perspective on grammar teaching proposes that some type of grammatical instruction should not be divorced from all the other types of language teaching. He states, "effective pedagogy allows exploration and provides perspectives of a targeted phenomenon". I agree with the basic tenets of grammar instruction that he presents: that through the use of CAI (or CALL) technology and an instructor's generation of constructivist conditions will allow for students to "search out nodes that render those perspectives of the targeted phenomenon that relate to their individual knowledge bases". My basic claim is that it is an erroneous to think of grammar as mere rules that need to be transfered to students through drill exercises or through verb-paradigms. Instead I agree with the findings of Larson-Freeman: "a language is to be identified with a living capability by which speakers produce and understand utterances, not with the observed products of the acts of speaking or writing." The above claim actually supports CALL activities such as task-based projects that introduce grammatical structures, along with lexical and communicative activities, and scaffold a hollistic language instruction. My idea for for the practical application of Grammar through CALL technologies includes: *presenting structures through meaningful tasks. *giving some type of direct instruction of the grammatical forms, because we know that there are some learners that will indeed "want" the explicit explanations. *structuring grammatical exercises through the use of HotPot activities: fill-in blanks that target a structure, modifying texts to provide the desired forms, etc. Ultimately, I believe it is safe to conclude that grammar instruction is an inevitable need for language learners. What our readings suggest is that we have to structure our instruction to achieve more than the behaviorist methods. CALL technology then is a very useful tool for providing multisensory and exploratory environments for presenting grammar.
“Grammar is never boring.” Larsen-Freeman asserts that grammar is not inherently tedious and dull but that only many of the conventional ways teachers force students to learn it are not properly engaging students. She suggests we should avoid bombarding students with grammar as “a system of static rules,” and instead, teachers should have students approach grammar as a vacillating phenomenon and try to promote a positive attitude about it. But how can we make GRAMMAR engaging? How can we make prepositions pop, the conditional captivate, and adjectival phrases awe? How can we successfully imbue non-restrictive relative clauses with glitz and glam? I’m exaggerating…but I do have a hard time imagining how to actually make grammar truly exciting. Just because I (as a graduate student of Linguistics) can appreciate learning about the murky depths of grammar (for some odd reason) doesn’t mean most people will find it enjoyable. I’ve been continuously combing the web for a lucrative method or a book/presumptuous overarching philosophy entitled “Grammar Made Exciting” in hopes of finding something substantial. Although I have seen many valiant attempts, I have yet to be genuinely convinced. Maybe it’s a fear to really get to the bottom of what we are saying that makes grammar so unappealing at times. Has anyone found anything promising… besides Grammar Man (http://www.grammarmancomic.com)???
Grammar Man is tremendous and I have not found anything that could rival him up to this point. As for the Collentine article, I think there is a lot that we can take from it. One of the most important lessons that I'm taking away is that the use of new technology in the language classroom isn't inherently a good thing. The students' overuse of the videos in the experiment which did not result in much instructional benefit supports this point. This semester, we've been learning about all kinds of new technology (new to me, at least) that have tremendous potential for benefit in the language classroom. But we need to be really aware of how we are putting these programs to use. We need to constantly ask ourselves what benefit is going to our students and how this result is achieved. Otherwise, Collentine's study reinforced some of what we've talked about this term - students benefiting from multiple forms of one piece of data and consciousness-raising tasks/colorization.
I think Larson Freeman's idea of "grammaring" is an important one to be considered for language teachers and learners. I don't know that it is realistic to suggest that grammar is either not necessary or that it can always be somehow made really fun and interesting to learn. Just as certain aspects of learning the four skills are not always as easy, fun or interesting to learn as other aspects, neither are certain aspects of grammar. However, if grammar learning is treated less like a gigantic bank of rules to memorize and apply, it can be less daunthing to ELLs. I think that because grammar is already so much a part of the four core language learning skills that appraoching it as one of them can be very useful, and help create a better sence of cohesion between skills being learned. I think that what is perhaps most important about what Larson-Freeman discussed was the need to approach grammar in different ways, depending on contexts, and not to think of it,or the teaching of it, as a set of hard-and-fast rules.
I agree with Nathan (and Collentine) that just because the technology is available doesn't mean that it is necessarily beneficial. This is true not only for a class as a whole but also for individual students. Some of the non-native-English-speaking non-traditional college students that I teach are so intimidated by any form of technology that it becomes a barrier to their learning. Instead of focusing on the content of the grammar web exercises or the vocabulary wiki we've been experimenting with this semester, they worry about which button to push next or become frustrated about not knowing how to type well. Granted, this is extreme and many of the other students have embraced the technology, but at times I have had to ask myself if it is more important to get the language lesson across or to teach basic computer literacy, and, depending on the personal and career goals of my students (and the school's goals for the course), that isn't always an easy question to answer.
I think that Larsen-Freeman's overview of many misconceptions of teaching/learning grammar was interesting, and I agree that grammar is less intimidating (and even fun!) when it is treated as a skill to be practiced rather than a body of knowledge to be acquired. Breaking down some of our students' own misconceptions may help them to become more open to the idea of practicing grammar and improving their communication skills.
As I was reading Collentine's article, one point that really stood out was the inherent non-linear nature of the Internet and how it's an ideal world for grammar practice. I realize that when grammar structures are first being introduced in a class, it's important that students & teachers ALL focus on the actual target grammar structures... BUT when a student is performing some task/lesson online and their classroom has been transformed into an environment consisting of 1 student and 1 computer, then instead of being "forced" to focus on a particular grammar structure (when the student may perhaps not need the exposure), the student should have the flexibility to follow their individual grammar needs - where and when THE STUDENT deems necessary. Grammar help (the important relevant areas) should be available as a hot link or as a side callout - basically being present for support if the student needs it. Accuracy is an essential part of mastering language, but practicing it should be done when it's relevant in context and evoked to only those who need the practice/clarification.
One other point, that I would like to mention is from the Larson-Freeman article. They discuss how important it is that teaching grammar is not just about teaching the rules, it's also about teaching the reasons. Throwing a bunch of rules at students is like throwing applesauce at the ceiling... who knows what will stick (by luck).. But, if a teacher were to give the rules and then give the reasons, students would suddenly be able to make sense of it all, and might even enjoy it (as it makes sense and they can master usage). Grammar no longer has to be just rote memorization but instead reasoned logic. Wherever and whenever I could find the full explanation for a particular grammar structure I would implement in my class. I believe that with a little homework on the part of the teacher, there could be huge success for the students.
I think Larsen-Freeman’s concept of grammar as a skill rather than an area of knowledge is very important and should be taken into account by teachers when they are preparing their lessons. As she says, students should be able to develop the ability to do something, not simply store knowledge about language or its use. In other words, she states that knowing a grammar structure means being able to use this structure in an accurate, appropriate and meaningful way. Call activities are good tools to help students develop their grammar skills. I found a very good example of practical application of grammar through CALL in the book “Grammar Dimensions”. As a follow-up activity to practice what they had learned (relative adverbs clauses), students were asked to do some research on the web and find out five things that had taken place during the year when they were born. They were required to write down their findings using relative adverbs clauses. I believe this kind of activity encourage students to transfer what they know to new situations where they can use this knowledge for their own purposes, in very meaningful ways. In addition, doing activities other than (sometimes boring) exercises found in textbooks may be really fun and refreshing for students.
I've used this Larsen-Freeman article as a basis for exploring issues in grammar correction for the writing center tutors. It's helpful for them to learn that 1) they don't need to feel dumb if they don't happen to know a grammar rule and 2) explicit grammar instruction may not be a great benefit for the student anyway -- also, the idea that grammar (esp. academic grammar) is a "skill" rather than "knowledge" is helpful to understand. Skills take time to perfect. One lesson in verb tense or one Hot Potatoes assignment will not lead to language acquisition.
Before I make any judgements on using concordances for grammar instruction, I would actually like to see it be used in a real classroom (not a study). In fact, I have never seen teachers use or mention a concordance in any of the ESL courses that I have observed. Is it that they are a new technology? Or is it that formal/explicit instruction is still too dominant in grammar instruction? Or is it just too much work for teachers?
Either way, I agree with Larson-Freeman that grammar should also focus on teaching meaning and appropriateness of grammar patterns. They are not a mathematical formula that students can plug in. The words we chose and the order in which we say them directly affects meaning. But I also agree with Monica that explicit instruction on form and use is also necessary. Which in essence, isnt that what Larson-Freeman is saying with her "form, meaning and use" theory that she has applied to her grammar books such as Grammar Dimensions.
Larson-Freeman raises the issue of "teaching [the] reasons" of grammar, or explaining the logic of grammar. I feel that learning the logic of grammar naturally develops over time as one acquires the language. Teaching the "logic" of grammar sounds good in theory, but it still has to be integrated with traditional grammar instruction. For example, in cases where idiomatic expressions and colloquial phrases do not directly translate from the L1, the only recourse for the NNS is to memorize them. Although logic provides an explanation for the student learning these rule "exceptions", it still takes time for students to acquire this grammatical rationality. I understand the concept of teaching students the rationale used in grammar, but it is important for instructors to understand that students acquire language features at different paces.
ReplyDeleteTo support my position, Collentine also pointed out that researchers found that learners innately acquired grammatical structures only when they were ready- not necessarily at the time when the instructor presented the structure.
In regards to the Collentine article, CALL is an excellent tool to allow students to have an active role in learning, and even acquiring grammar in the target language. Technology enables students to receive comprehensible input and the time to focus on a grammatical feature-- whereas time is limited in the classroom. Having access to CALL also serves as a alternative to the traditional (at times boring) textbook.
I found that Larson-Freeman's challenging misconceptions regarding grammar quite useful. Particularly and continually interesting is the idea of developing the skill of grammar or as Larson-Freeman calls it, grammaring. This is a an excellent perspective for ELLs to adopt rather than thinking of grammar as an overwhelming mountain of knowledge that has to be studied sometimes memorized and ultimately acquired in order to become proficient and accurate speakers of English.
ReplyDeleteA useful strategy employed in Collentine's article was error correction in order to provide students with positive washback and substantial intake of the grammatical form. Setting up grammar exercises using CALL provides opportunity for students to get immediate feedback from correct/incorrect answers. Although, as discussed in Ling 487, the feedback with in CALL exercises (e.g. hotpot exercises)
must be detailed and meaningful for the student. Providing such detailed feedback is a time consuming task for the teacher, but if executed with care and precision may result in washback for the student.
Another useful suggestion Collentine makes and I have used in my wikispace is the strategy of "colorization". Common sense will tell you that by highlighting, bolding, italicizing, underlining, or colorizing will make whatever point to standout from the rest of its surrounding text. Collentine suggest this used for grammatical emphasis; however, it can work in a variety of contexts (e.g. wikispaces and attention to vocabulary)
In the simplest sense, I have to agree with Monica that by using CALL for elements of grammar instruction/exercises, it provides students with an alternative medium for studying grammar skills thus acting as a motivating mechanism.
The question of either teaching or not grammar in the acquisition of a second language confuses me every time more. In other courses, professors mention that grammar is very repetitive, can easily become a boring task, overwhelming, etc. and therefore we should not focus as much on it when students are beginners. They claim that is until they are advanced that we should cover lessons on it. In other words, it would be like Larson-Freeman term of "the reflex fallacy." He explains that this is the "assumption that it is our job to re-create in our classrooms the natural conditions of acquisition present in the external environment." I guess that the question here is whether we should teach a second language just like a first language is taught, meaning and vocabulary first, and much later, grammatical rules.
ReplyDeleteToday, these articles have really influenced my teaching perspective on grammar. I believe that it can, and should be taught in our classrooms. With the help of CALL, like Collentine mentions students can become agents to manipulate the target language. Besides, with the correct usage of internet/technology they will be guiding their learning process.
However, I do not believe that we should rest everything on CALL. We still have a physical classroom and we should still try to come up with engaging activities like the ones Larson-Freeman mention on the second page of statement number 11. I should mention that this is a point of view from an undergraduate, who still doesn't have a classroom.
In response to Liliana's comment, I believe that Collentine's perspective on grammar teaching proposes that some type of grammatical instruction should not be divorced from all the other types of language teaching. He states, "effective pedagogy allows exploration and provides perspectives of a targeted phenomenon". I agree with the basic tenets of grammar instruction that he presents: that through the use of CAI (or CALL) technology and an instructor's generation of constructivist conditions will allow for students to "search out nodes that render those perspectives of the targeted phenomenon that relate to their individual knowledge bases".
ReplyDeleteMy basic claim is that it is an erroneous to think of grammar as mere rules that need to be transfered to students through drill exercises or through verb-paradigms. Instead I agree with the findings of Larson-Freeman: "a language is to be identified with a living capability by which speakers produce and understand utterances, not with the observed products of the acts of speaking or writing."
The above claim actually supports CALL activities such as task-based projects that introduce grammatical structures, along with lexical and communicative activities, and scaffold a hollistic language instruction.
My idea for for the practical application of Grammar through CALL technologies includes:
*presenting structures through meaningful tasks.
*giving some type of direct instruction of the grammatical forms, because we know that there are some learners that will indeed "want" the explicit explanations.
*structuring grammatical exercises through the use of HotPot activities: fill-in blanks that target a structure, modifying texts to provide the desired forms, etc.
Ultimately, I believe it is safe to conclude that grammar instruction is an inevitable need for language learners. What our readings suggest is that we have to structure our instruction to achieve more than the behaviorist methods. CALL technology then is a very useful tool for providing multisensory and exploratory environments for presenting grammar.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“Grammar is never boring.” Larsen-Freeman asserts that grammar is not inherently tedious and dull but that only many of the conventional ways teachers force students to learn it are not properly engaging students. She suggests we should avoid bombarding students with grammar as “a system of static rules,” and instead, teachers should have students approach grammar as a vacillating phenomenon and try to promote a positive attitude about it. But how can we make GRAMMAR engaging? How can we make prepositions pop, the conditional captivate, and adjectival phrases awe? How can we successfully imbue non-restrictive relative clauses with glitz and glam? I’m exaggerating…but I do have a hard time imagining how to actually make grammar truly exciting. Just because I (as a graduate student of Linguistics) can appreciate learning about the murky depths of grammar (for some odd reason) doesn’t mean most people will find it enjoyable. I’ve been continuously combing the web for a lucrative method or a book/presumptuous overarching philosophy entitled “Grammar Made Exciting” in hopes of finding something substantial. Although I have seen many valiant attempts, I have yet to be genuinely convinced. Maybe it’s a fear to really get to the bottom of what we are saying that makes grammar so unappealing at times. Has anyone found anything promising… besides Grammar Man (http://www.grammarmancomic.com)???
ReplyDeleteGrammar Man is tremendous and I have not found anything that could rival him up to this point. As for the Collentine article, I think there is a lot that we can take from it. One of the most important lessons that I'm taking away is that the use of new technology in the language classroom isn't inherently a good thing. The students' overuse of the videos in the experiment which did not result in much instructional benefit supports this point. This semester, we've been learning about all kinds of new technology (new to me, at least) that have tremendous potential for benefit in the language classroom. But we need to be really aware of how we are putting these programs to use. We need to constantly ask ourselves what benefit is going to our students and how this result is achieved.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise, Collentine's study reinforced some of what we've talked about this term - students benefiting from multiple forms of one piece of data and consciousness-raising tasks/colorization.
I think Larson Freeman's idea of "grammaring" is an important one to be considered for language teachers and learners. I don't know that it is realistic to suggest that grammar is either not necessary or that it can always be somehow made really fun and interesting to learn. Just as certain aspects of learning the four skills are not always as easy, fun or interesting to learn as other aspects, neither are certain aspects of grammar. However, if grammar learning is treated less like a gigantic bank of rules to memorize and apply, it can be less daunthing to ELLs. I think that because grammar is already so much a part of the four core language learning skills that appraoching it as one of them can be very useful, and help create a better sence of cohesion between skills being learned. I think that what is perhaps most important about what Larson-Freeman discussed was the need to approach grammar in different ways, depending on contexts, and not to think of it,or the teaching of it, as a set of hard-and-fast rules.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nathan (and Collentine) that just because the technology is available doesn't mean that it is necessarily beneficial. This is true not only for a class as a whole but also for individual students. Some of the non-native-English-speaking non-traditional college students that I teach are so intimidated by any form of technology that it becomes a barrier to their learning. Instead of focusing on the content of the grammar web exercises or the vocabulary wiki we've been experimenting with this semester, they worry about which button to push next or become frustrated about not knowing how to type well. Granted, this is extreme and many of the other students have embraced the technology, but at times I have had to ask myself if it is more important to get the language lesson across or to teach basic computer literacy, and, depending on the personal and career goals of my students (and the school's goals for the course), that isn't always an easy question to answer.
ReplyDeleteI think that Larsen-Freeman's overview of many misconceptions of teaching/learning grammar was interesting, and I agree that grammar is less intimidating (and even fun!) when it is treated as a skill to be practiced rather than a body of knowledge to be acquired. Breaking down some of our students' own misconceptions may help them to become more open to the idea of practicing grammar and improving their communication skills.
trischa
As I was reading Collentine's article, one point that really stood out was the inherent non-linear nature of the Internet and how it's an ideal world for grammar practice. I realize that when grammar structures are first being introduced in a class, it's important that students & teachers ALL focus on the actual target grammar structures... BUT when a student is performing some task/lesson online and their classroom has been transformed into an environment consisting of 1 student and 1 computer, then instead of being "forced" to focus on a particular grammar structure (when the student may perhaps not need the exposure), the student should have the flexibility to follow their individual grammar needs - where and when THE STUDENT deems necessary. Grammar help (the important relevant areas) should be available as a hot link or as a side callout - basically being present for support if the student needs it. Accuracy is an essential part of mastering language, but practicing it should be done when it's relevant in context and evoked to only those who need the practice/clarification.
ReplyDeleteOne other point, that I would like to mention is from the Larson-Freeman article. They discuss how important it is that teaching grammar is not just about teaching the rules, it's also about teaching the reasons. Throwing a bunch of rules at students is like throwing applesauce at the ceiling... who knows what will stick (by luck).. But, if a teacher were to give the rules and then give the reasons, students would suddenly be able to make sense of it all, and might even enjoy it (as it makes sense and they can master usage). Grammar no longer has to be just rote memorization but instead reasoned logic. Wherever and whenever I could find the full explanation for a particular grammar structure I would implement in my class. I believe that with a little homework on the part of the teacher, there could be huge success for the students.
I think Larsen-Freeman’s concept of grammar as a skill rather than an area of knowledge is very important and should be taken into account by teachers when they are preparing their lessons. As she says, students should be able to develop the ability to do something, not simply store knowledge about language or its use. In other words, she states that knowing a grammar structure means being able to use this structure in an accurate, appropriate and meaningful way.
ReplyDeleteCall activities are good tools to help students develop their grammar skills. I found a very good example of practical application of grammar through CALL in the book “Grammar Dimensions”. As a follow-up activity to practice what they had learned (relative adverbs clauses), students were asked to do some research on the web and find out five things that had taken place during the year when they were born. They were required to write down their findings using relative adverbs clauses.
I believe this kind of activity encourage students to transfer what they know to new situations where they can use this knowledge for their own purposes, in very meaningful ways. In addition, doing activities other than (sometimes boring) exercises found in textbooks may be really fun and refreshing for students.
I've used this Larsen-Freeman article as a basis for exploring issues in grammar correction for the writing center tutors. It's helpful for them to learn that 1) they don't need to feel dumb if they don't happen to know a grammar rule and 2) explicit grammar instruction may not be a great benefit for the student anyway -- also, the idea that grammar (esp. academic grammar) is a "skill" rather than "knowledge" is helpful to understand. Skills take time to perfect. One lesson in verb tense or one Hot Potatoes assignment will not lead to language acquisition.
ReplyDelete-Jonathan Gourlay
Before I make any judgements on using concordances for grammar instruction, I would actually like to see it be used in a real classroom (not a study). In fact, I have never seen teachers use or mention a concordance in any of the ESL courses that I have observed. Is it that they are a new technology? Or is it that formal/explicit instruction is still too dominant in grammar instruction? Or is it just too much work for teachers?
ReplyDeleteEither way, I agree with Larson-Freeman that grammar should also focus on teaching meaning and appropriateness of grammar patterns. They are not a mathematical formula that students can plug in. The words we chose and the order in which we say them directly affects meaning. But I also agree with Monica that explicit instruction on form and use is also necessary. Which in essence, isnt that what Larson-Freeman is saying with her "form, meaning and use" theory that she has applied to her grammar books such as Grammar Dimensions.