Group items tagged

Patrick Hartwell discusses the value of teaching formal grammar by reviewing its history as a fundamental building block to the development of good writing. By determining a set of definitions for grammar Hartwell shows that the process of absorbing correct grammar usage occurs within native speakers naturally by exposure to the language; even young children are able to use complex grammatical structures with skill. Yet when sorted through the scientific lens and broken down into categories and labels the study of grammar cannot explain how learning the component rules of language will prove valuable to overall writing ability. Instead Hartwell suggests and I agree that "one learns to control the language of print by manipulating language in meaningful contexts, not by learning about language in isolation, as by the study of formal grammar" (125). Language, Hartwell says is "verbal clay, to be molded and probed, shaped and reshaped, and, above all, enjoyed" (125). So language is play dough; it is supposed to be fun; it should not be something you do because you have to, but because you want to; you do it because you like to do it; it is about process not product. What can tutors/teachers do that can encourage students to view writing not as a means to an end, but as a valuable tool of expression, a concrete manifestation of focused energy that is representative of an individual's attempt to express? This need to express is at work on us all of the time; our survival depends on it. That is not an exaggeration; a closed mouth does not get fed. By funneling our thoughts into words, even if the result is an approximation of the truth of our energetic pursuits, there is still a result. Words do work on people because people feel. Maybe some of the frustration that freshman feel is a result of the heaviness of the rulebook; certain grammar rules affect student grades, certain constraints are imposed by the teachers rubric and the teacher as well a

The Cognitive Revolution article takes into account the various psychological theories applied in the field towards language. One particular theory called into question by Miller is behaviorism. Having been a Behaviorist himself, Miller examines his previous biases about language in relation to Chomsky's theories of grammar. Miller finds that in adopting Chomsky's view of grammar, we bring the mind and cognitive process back into our understanding of language. In relation to grammar, Miller states "The grammatical rules that govern phrases and sentences are not behavior. They are mentalistic hypotheses about the cognitive processes responsible for the verbal behaviors we observe." This article is really helpful in providing teachers information about where some of our language theories come from and how they have shifted in practice after behaviorism. I think the most important point here is to not make the same mistakes with behaviorism as done in the past. The assumptions of behaviorism applied in the teaching can have some devastating consequences in student writing. Since teachers have the potential to exploit the cognitive processes using stimulus and response, it's possible that teachers may or may not be aware of the consequences if they happen to instill negative writing habits and attitudes in students using the assumptions implied in behaviorist theory. Having the definition of grammar rules Miller states, it provides teachers a working definition and inquiry to better understand how we form grammar rules, and what strategies students are using to apply grammar and form rules of their own.

This article by John Bitchener, Stuart Young, and Denise Cameron of the Auckland University of Technology explores the value of grammar-related feedback in ESL writing. They found a combination of explicit written and oral feedback to be the most effective method to enact change. However, the change in grammar accuracy did't always last. The authors suggest prolonged exposure to this kind of feedback would show a more consistent result. 

This classroom in Japan supplemented their English course with an additional grammar course. I find this interesting because it's another way of looking at what we've been studying, understanding how ESL students and teachers and bridging the grammar gap, either with additional coursework, courses or teaching methods.

Franci Washburn argues the importance of a student using the ellipsis correctly. However, the focus isn't just on this seemingly simple and low-priority aspect of writing, she focuses on the fact that students who use the ellipsis correctly tend to be paying attention to the smaller details in writing and are more apt to be critical thinkers. She uses this example for noting the huge importance of paying attention to small details "Often, it isn't a major, glaring error that loses an investor a million dollars in the stock market but rather the failure to read the fine print on a stock prospectus . . . " She's right! It is incredibly important to pay attention to details or read the fine print; this seems to be a skill that is becoming more and more rare. Even though this is a short article, it had a pretty big impact on me. I've always been baffled when instructors tell their students that grammar doesn't matter (yes, even English professors have said this). I think that paying attention to grammar and punctuation helps a student to learn to look at details. However, having said this, I do believe that when revising a first or second draft of a paper the correction of grammar and punctuation should be held off because the content of the paper and the expression of thoughts and ideas are what should be focused on.

This post discusses how to write in your true voice, but online, not in academic writing. I thought it was interesting though, because it addresses avoiding "corporate speak" and suggests using first person to get a personal message across. In academic writing, I think "corporate speak" could actually be proper grammar and certain styles. Do they take our voice out of writing? It's not always an option to take out a style from writing. And in academic writing, it's rarely an option to use first person.

This article is specifically designated for instructing learners of secondary language acquisition. There are many helpful ideas, recommendations, phonetic charts, and pronunciation exercises. This article is also brief, concise, and coherent; and can be applied to secondary learning acquisitive environments. If the learner is experiencing difficulty in certain places of articulation such as: labial, labial dental, velar, glottal, palatal etc. there are a number of references at the bottom that can assist in strengthening the learners' place and manner of articulation (pronunciation). Since some foreigners have native tongues coming form polysynthetic, formative, and/or analytical languages, learning an agglutinative language (English) can be not difficult, but very different for them. Learning grammar if essential, but unified verbalization is just as crucial. This article is most certainly benefit anyone in the SLC or ESL workshop; and honestly will help the instructor with certain obstructive literary shortcomings and/or frustrations hat students may have. So check it out if you're in a secondary learning acquisition environment!

Yes, but it's not about writing--about pronunciation . . .

Luberda's essay is a preliminary overview of his experiment in applying cognitive science to writing. Luberda suggests that the most applicable elements of cognitive science for teaching writing and composition come from linguistics. He also suggests that in teaching writing and literature, students may be accustomed to learning terms, dates, facts, and test-taking, while others receive a vague understanding of literature. In light of the teaching structures he used, the writing and analytical skills the students acquired were independent of the literature in their course. In using the cognitive approach, Luberda structured writing and literature courses within the context of differentiating relations between language change and writing acquisition. In reading the positive results of Luberda's experiment, I noticed a few implications for teaching writing. One advantage of applying linguisitics and the cognitive approach is that students learn why they write the way they do and raises awareness to the writing structures they use. The other advantage is the ability for students to "say what I mean" and incorporate accuracy in their writing when communicating meaning. This would mean that even when students are intentionally manipulating writing structures within various genres, they are learning to communicate "what I mean" without being submissive to directness. There was one negative result of the experiment where a student stated "I don't believe this course has helped me improve my writing skills. In high school I was taught how to write analyze books and then write papers about them using solid grammar, intense vocab, thesis statement and a well thought out conclusion. I do not believe I learned how to improve my papers. I am still on the same level of writing as I was in high school." I find this to be interesting in relation to teaching writing because it suggests that cognitively, we strive to use writing structures differently or advance our writing by chan

This is quite a small article, but it presents a certain interest as it connects writing with other social practices. I guess this assumption is crucial for teaching because it presupposes writing in the classroom with real-life purposes. The article also mentions interculturality and constant interaction of two languages, which is important when teaching writing to ESL students. The author is concerned about the specifics of effective transfer of literacy skills in bilinguals and heritage speakers. According to Martinez, as a result of traditional teaching, bilingual students tend to write with "conformity to rhetorical traditions in the dominant language" ("backwards literacy"), which creates certain problems with style, thoughts expression, choice of words and sentence patterns (i.e., mechanical transfer of the dominant language features into L2 writing). Therefore, it is necessary to develop "forward literacy", which accepts a non-standard way of writing ("writers carve out their own transcultural paths of expression"). In other words, writing of a bilingual or heritage learner implies constant shifts (transfers) between languages and cultures, and using the multiple resources of both languages in order to create an original pattern. The instructor's task is: (1) to identify multiple literacies (i.e. writing practices) that students possess and / or should possess in their heritage language and their dominant language; (2) to teach the students how to shift without mixing two languages. E.g. in early works of Spanish heritage learners, English norms penetrate Spanish writing: estoy the acuerdo instead of estoy de acuerdo. The shift should concern rhetorical strategies, which reflect cultural and aesthetical values of the two languages worlds, but not grammar or writing vocabulary; (3) teaching writing in the context of multiple social practices and contents While teaching writing, it is important to distinguish between positive transfer of skills already acqu

Wow, i like your article. It state purposely on how to help ESL student to write English better.

This article was really interesting because it targeted exactly what I'm doing at the ESL resource center and gave me a lot of insight into what kinds of questions I should be asking students who come in, how I can better understand their writing and most importantly, how I can better help them with their writing. It discussed how as tutors, we should maximize our resources and skills to better help these students. In the ESL resource center, we have such a good mix of backgrounds, that it really helps accomodate the students as we better understand them. This article emphasized pointing out the differences between HOC (Higher Order Content) vs LOC (Lower Order Content) something I have definitely come across in my internship: students coming in focusing solely on grammar, or pronunciation, or content (a rare one.)

From Tong: This paper is and interview from the teachers who teaches academic writing to post graduate students and EFL students. It provides the teachers methods to bring up an academic piece to the students so that the student will understand the purpose of the paper. Through a series of lectures and example, the teacher works on having the student find evidence and state their point of view. It's mostly on the things that most of us should know, such as a paper should start with an introduction, have body paragraphs and conclusion and don't use the word I think, I believe etc. in an academic paper, but us quotes and supporting evidence.