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.