Teaching Grammar

As a language teacher the question of the value of teaching grammar has always been a subject of debate in my professional community. I have worked with teachers across the structure spectrum, from top-down, context-based proponents who ask “Why must we put a name on it?” to bottom-up, sentence diagramming gurus who will hold tight to a rule regardless. I must admit that I fall somewhere in the middle. The structure and syntax of language is, undoubtedly, fundamental in improving both written and spoken communications. As the National Council of Teachers of English suggests, we cannot improve our communications, making them more precise and effective, until we identifying and label the components that comprise our language. However, ultimately, the labels we place on these words and structures are much less important than the meaning the conveyed. It’s for this reason that I feel it is so important to teach not only prescriptive, but also descriptive grammar to language students. Students in today’s classrooms need to learn to communicate in both formal and informal registries and the best way to prepare them to do both is to focus on grammar in context.

This year in particular I have recognized, more than ever, a need to teach grammar in context. My students are often able to formulate a perfectly grammatically correct sentence without a clue as to its meaning. They can conjugate a verb in their sleep, but when asked to comprehend written text or choose appropriate vocabulary they are often stumped. I have tried, very intentionally, to change my instructional focus so that students not only understand the structures and formulas that I teach, but also can use the forms in meaningful contexts. I think that inductive presentational approaches tend to lend themselves more to meaningful grammar learning. When students see the language as part of a whole they are more likely to view it as relevant and useful.

Although I’m not yet an ESL teacher, I have also struggled to determine how important the “standard” structures of Spanish are when students are much more likely to encounter the “non-standard” forms of the language. In my Spanish AP class the native speakers joke that, in class, we use “my” Spanish. Although I always insist that it is not, in fact, “my” Spanish, but, instead, “academic” Spanish, I must admit that these comments force me to examine my perceptions of language standards. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve come across structures that are commonly taught as “standard,” but are rarely used. It begs the question, why teach a rule that is rarely kept in everyday communication? I would imagine that this internal struggle will continue when I begin teaching English to speakers of other languages. How do I best prepare students to communicate with their peers, their teachers and members of their community while simultaneously setting them up for success on college entrance exams and in the academic realm? I am truly hoping that a balanced approach is the best solution.

I also am certain that the context and purpose of the language instruction undertaken will determine the extent to which I incorporate traditional prescriptive grammar rules in my ESL classroom. A “newcomer” to the United States will need to first focus of Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills and, therefore, concentrate on learning survival phrases that may or may not meet the standards of prescriptive grammar. However, as a student moves into a less restrictive environment and begins to explore academic content in English, they will need to use Cognitive Academic Language Skills that fit the norms of prescriptive grammar. I hope that, with time and practice, I will learn assess a student’s background, learning style, preferences and needs and, then, “prescribe” the right techniques to meet those needs.

Multicultural Education

As technology advances, each day we move closer to interdependency and collaboration between the nations and cultures of the world. Students in our age are able to connect with their peers around the globe in ways unthinkable just a few decades ago. The amount of access available to students seeking information about the way others think and live is unprecedented and the need to understand other cultures has never been greater. Teachers, administrators and other stakeholders are challenged to prepare students for future success in our global economy. In addition, the students in today’s classrooms are more diverse than ever in our history. Students may come from different home and language backgrounds with diverse values and perspectives. These two factors influence, to varying degrees, an educator’s definition of multicultural education.

I think that many educators easily misinterpret multicultural education as simply presenting the products and perspectives of an ethnic or cultural group, as illustrated in Paul Gorki’s account of his experiences in elementary school at Taco Night. Education from this standpoint teaches students little about the viewpoints, values or diversity of another culture and, instead, focuses on the salient products and practices of the culture reinforcing stereotypes and ethnocentrism. Failure to recognize the range of thoughts, beliefs and behaviors that exists within a culture and the diversity that exists within our own classrooms only serves to reinforce the supremacy of our dominant culture. As a teacher of foreign language I find it particularly important to displace stereotypes and prejudices in the minds of my predominately white English-speaking students. I am always amazed at how fiercely students will fight to maintain their viewpoints and how uncomfortable they are with facts or opinions that contradict them. Giving students an opportunity to thoughtfully examine their opinions and even adjust them is a vital part of the process of developing a global citizen. This opportunity for “cognitive dissonance,” described by Gorski as a technique in multicultural teaching, provides an avenue for students to shift their paradigms and rethink their opinions. I personally believe that key to multicultural education are the explicit teaching of critical thinking skills and the presentation of curriculum that represents varied cultural perspectives.

A second factor in defining multicultural education is the diversity of our students. It is the responsibility of every teacher to help students learn in the way they do best. Many factors, such as language, values, beliefs or family dynamics can influence a student’s ability to learn in a given class. In addition, learning preferences may be based in cultural perspectives about education, learning and teacher-student relationships. Not acknowledging these differences is undoubtedly detrimental to students from such backgrounds. Every student has a right to equal opportunity for academic success. All students should be prepared through their education to productively participate in a pluralistic society. As a teacher my greatest challenge in regards to multicultural education has been to protect students from oppression and discrimination by those that are part of the dominant culture. In high school their already exist so much pressure to conform. So many of my students are afraid to express dissenting opinion or share their rich heritage for fear of being misunderstood.

Unfortunately, one drawback to multicultural education is that, although well intentioned, it can often serve to only highlight differences and support stereotyping instead of creating the unity it intended. I think it is important to emphasize both similarities and differences when implementing multicultural curriculum. Allowing students equal opportunity to learn using varied resources from multiple cultural perspectives is so important for today’s students. It is a difficult but vital task. I truly hope to improve year after year as I grow and learn to teach from this perspective.