Teaching Less-Structural Grammar, Essay Example

More than just grammar, English syntax differs more in English than in many other languages, especially with the inclusion of metaphors and foreign linguistic features, phrases, or words- otherwise known as lexical borrowing. Both syntax and grammar lessons typically earn a collective groan in any classroom. As such a multicultural epicenter, the US constantly changes its customs and standard vocabulary. Syntax writhes and slips away the more it changes.

Reflection

Freeman and Freeman (2004) begin by pointing out that grammar describes, prescribes, effectively uses, or commands syntactic structure in an appropriate way (p. 216). The relationship between grammar and syntax changes according to the current operating function. After five years of intensive study, only one of 131 students passed (with a score of 50) the five different test sections on grammar and parts of speech (p. 217). This proves that the time spent on grammar is not a simple formula to predict the achievement and comprehension of the students. Drill, drill, drill might not be the most effective way to teach, or these drills might be better structured to encourage student participation and reliably follow instruction with a thorough review. Teachers expressed the belief that knowing how to use grammar would be evidenced in the concepts’ concrete application. In other words, they taught the concepts without much direct application, revision, correction, encouragement, and much-needed feedback. As the authors point out very ironically, “Some teachers can develop creative linguistics lessons” (p. 221).

If explicit instruction in the mechanics of grammar actually takes from the overall fluency and skill of student writing, then the next course of action seems uncertain, and many teachers opt to continue with the traditional instruction in the mechanics of writing rather than heed this research (p. 218). Grammar instruction must be paired with realistic examples both of clear structure and unclear structure and provide relatable reasons for the difference (p. 219). The authors even provide explicit rules to provide the student with regards to such complex concepts as auxiliary verbs (pp. 220-224). Active and passive voice, another commonly neglected grammatical aspect, strengthen the sentence and lessen the need for auxiliary verbs and clarifying phrases (p. 246). The sentences which a teacher selects to illustrate these rules might easily activate student interests. For example, it might tell a joke or reference a class favorite television show or activity. Likewise, after they apply these rules to a sentence, they should be able to deconstruct them and separate them into broad linguistic categories, reinforcing both top-down and bottom-up processing of grammar features.  Although the authors include several grammatical diagrams which will prove useful to teachers, students would likely find this approach more confusing, because, frankly, it took me a few minutes to decipher the point that Freeman and Freeman make (pp. 234-235). An idea which occurred to me personally is to present a Where’s Waldo-type exercise, inspired as I viewed Figure 9-2 on page 226, in which these concepts could be visually represented. Students might find one of each word type in a visual scene.

Conclusion

Teachers often justify their curricular decisions by an offhand “different strokes for different folks” defense. However, students learn to be flexible and should be able to count on the same effort from their teachers. The research shows that non-contextual drilling of grammar does not work- even with years of practice. The emerging research provides many suggestions, which the administrators and teachers must be open to hearing before significant progress can be made. The authors indicate that the establishment of relevance and the innovation in presentation are two of the greatest challenges of instruction in grammar; these are teacher challenges—not student failures. It is important to remember the difference.

References

Freeman, D. E., & Freeman, Y.S. (2004). “A Linguistic Perspectives on Phonics” . Essential linguistics: 216-250. Print.