Re: Good Grammar Book Michael Swan Free 56
Thomas
For me, grammar has never been grey, but I have to admit that it can be to someone who is not intrinsically motivated to learn it, so the more color we add to it, the better, according to Walters and Swan.
I can see a few benefits of the use of L1 in the EFL classroom, but I am concerned about its unecessary overuse. I personally try to reduce the amount of metalanguage in my classroom to a minimum, making more use of examples than expanations. This way I also reduce my need for L1 explanations of grammar rules.
The book may have been written for students with different purposes, studying in a different environment, perhaps with different native languages and different problems. It may have been designed for learners with more time to spend on grammar than they do today. The book may simply have been written by a grammar fanatic. It is important to choose grammar points relevant to students' needs, rather than blindly going through the syllabus from left to right.
There are three golden rules for successful grammar teaching. Unfortunately, nobody knows what they are. So instead, let me offer a few personal opinions. I'll try to be brief: I've spent the last three years writing a practical grammar course that's moving towards publication, and I've got so much in my head that it's hard to sum it all up.
Theory
There's a lot of theory around, much of it contradictory. It can be valuable, but I sometimes feel, to quote Mark Twain, that "the researches of many commentators have already thrown much darkness on this subject, and it is probable that, if they continue, we shall soon know nothing at all about it". My rather unhelpful view is that it all depends. Learners vary greatly in their response to grammar teaching: some get a lot out of it, some very little. Learning contexts and purposes also vary greatly. And 'grammar' means so many different things that it's extremely difficult to generalise about how to teach it.
Supplementing the coursebook
The coursebook (if there is one) generally won't provide enough work on key points. More practice will be needed in class, using groupwork and pairwork. Out-of-class work (corrected or self-access) using good grammar practice materials can also help a lot.
Hello Mr Michail! I maintain your method of teaching grammar.I'm a second year language learner and I know very well how much this strategy is useful.My teacher always uses this teaching style and I'm making a great progress in my grammar.
Good! I partly agree to you. I think vital is not so good .Maybe for some students this is a only true way but not for all of them . I am a student and we also had grammar classes. but I want to change style of teaching in our faculty . Because your advices are usefull for students to understand easily. Before i thought that our style is ok.After read this blog i changed my mind. If iwill be a teacher in the future I will choose this one. I liked your blog. Thank you.
I'd like to start with commenting on mechanical exercises. I agree with you you can't doing without such exercises because students have to work with forms and structures and see for themselves how this or that grammar issue is created.
When I was about three weeks into my career as a TEFLER, I asked my Director of Studies (Alf Crosby if anyone remembers him) how to teach grammar. I had been plunged into teaching grammar to an Intermediate class in my first week and struggled through until the third week when I sought help.
His answer was: Put it into situations and demonstrate it with that. I don't remember if he actually gave me any concrete examples of what he meant but I know it didn't really mean much to me. A little later, he and Robert O'Neill (of Kernel Lessons Intermediate and English in Situations fame) started a little project to put onto video (the original Sony reel to reel home video machine) demonstration lessons of *putting it into situations*.
I was the lucky one, after offering to operate the camera, by being able to observe Robert O'Neill in action, with a small group of students demonstrating situational vocabulary and grammar teaching. From then on I became a grammar teacher and I really started to enjoy my job. I got the confidence to tackle any topic at any level, although I was always happy to go back to teaching complete beginners. When stuck I could always revert to the situational technique, although it has since been replaced by divers modern *methods*.
An example of Robert O'Neill's stuff, if you can't get hold of an old copy of English in Situations, follows. This can be adapted to suit a variety of vocabulary or grammar topics.
Level Intermediate
Target language: Phrase *raise money*
Step one: Set the situation.
Teacher says: I have a brother and he is a businessman. He needed to make his business bigger but this needed money. He had to raise money. He asked his father if he had money for him but father couldn't help. Father said: If you need to raise money, go to the bank. Say to the bank: I need to raise money for my business... (Stop there or extend it to taste.)
Step Two: Basic comprehension questions:
Is my brother a banker? Is he a businessman? Does he need money? etc
Step Three: Wh- questions:
Who is a businessman? What does he need ? Why does he need money? Who did he ask? etc
Step Four: Questions and answers that lead to the use of *raise money*.
Did my brother have a business? Was it big enough? Did he want to make it bigger? Did he have enough money? What did he need to do?
Step Five and on: Students ask questions:
Ask me about my brother: Is he...? What is he...? Does he....? How much money...?
Thank you for your article on How to Teach Grammar. I found it enlightening. I guess grammar is "my thing" too. I have also enjoyed your presentations in the past (TESOL-France). Please let us know when your practical grammar course book appears as I want to hear more!
It may help him to pass an examination or write better but never help him speak fluently.I think grammar canot be taught for the sake of grammar.it should be internalised through real life situations.
Just to add more darkness, I find it useful to "conceptualise" grammar. This is where the Ss often go "Ah! Now I understand". An example would be to place various "expressions of politeness" or "modals of obligation, probability, or ability" on a scale entitled "degrees of ...." Or tenses on an XY diagram etc. etc.
it is true that grammar seems sometimes to be very boring during classes. But if we choose to cover it in real-life situations then our students certainly can cope with it easily. Your article is very useful for all the teachers and types of grammar lessons, but at a certain point we have to become aware of the class' particularities in order to get our grammar structers learnt.
Michael Swan.. such a great grammarian and linguist. I can't wait for your newly heralded masterpiece. Honestly, when anything goes wrong, I turn to Practical English Usage for comfort and good read. One thing though still remains there unresolved to me: there has always been denying of the influence of the 'verb phrase structure', or sometimes you just call things in the (present perfect simple) - well, Mr Swan, when it is perfect, it cannot stay simple any further, innit?
The moment I saw the title of your blog I had to read all of it. I don't think it's all that lengthy, but honestly and I am sorry to say this but I don't think there was much to chew on. With due respect, it's not your fault, but it is just the subject of 'grammar'.
I believe that grammar rules are not to be taught. If one wishes to know the rule, sure go ahead and read about it, but for sure it is not going to help you to understand how to write or speak better. Yes, you will know the rule and you will be able to regurgitate the rule.
Many a time after completing a grammar lesson, how often do you ask yourself, "How much of what I have taught will be rememberd by the students and how much will be reflected upon for actual use when speaking or writing?"
Good grammar comes with exposure (reading, reading and reading) and using the language regularly. Grammar should be taught with exposure to different usage and meaning of phrases, sturctuires and word patterns. That has been my experience
I'm confused when I come to teach a " Tense " . Because some grammar books tell me to start with the structure then the use then some time expressions relating to the tense. Then I end with some examples and exercises. Some other books advise me to start with examples and try with my students to get the rule and use and together we generate examples and exercises.
Seriously though, I find that the majority of students actually like learning grammar; grammar provides them with a sort of comfort zone: they need to know why something is this way and not another. The problem is that a lot of teachers, especially native, aren't very comfortable with teaching grammar because they don't know the rules! This is why your book, Michael, remains a bible to many of us. It's true; I find that, generally, non-native teachers have a better grasp of grammar.
Thank you for this great sharing. ''They get their tenses all right in the grammar exercises on Tuesday morning, and all wrong in the discussion on Friday afternoon....... '' I try to revise it in the class but class time is generally limited to revise all of the things we covered in class. I have fast learners and slow learners in the same class. If ı deal with slow learners the other students get bored. Any suggestions? My students are teenagers and they generally don't want to do their homeworks. I don't want to threaten them with low quiz marks.
Have to admit that I don't like teaching grammar per se. Currently, I live and teach in Mexico and I have found that by the time most students get to my class, they have been grammar-translationed to death. They can barely speak nor can they write correctly, often after years of study, which is a sad commentary on English teaching where I live.
aa06259810