Week 5 Reflection

Johns (1991)

I wasn’t surprised that the most popular university class in the article was remedial grammar, which is using the language form approach. Most students associate their English problems with not having mastered grammar and usually this is where my very dedicated learners want to focus their learning. The university takes a refreshing approach to their English teaching because most EAP courses (English for Academic Purposes) teach a much broader view of grammar that is used in academic settings. I think the specialization of the course content, by using the placement test, is obviously very helpful to the students (they learn what they specifically need) but also is very helpful to the teacher. The teacher has a much more narrow set of subtopics to cover, rather than a huge, overarching subject. I can feel overwhelmed when teaching a newcomer because I think of all the areas we have to cover. However, once the student has been in school for a while and been exposed to the language, I am able to find the language “gaps” much easier and cover those more thoroughly since I have a smaller choice of topics.

I connected with the teacher who made the statement about a grammar question, “I’m not sure: let’s find out together”. Even as a native English speaking teacher, I sometimes don’t know the answer to an English question asked by a student (even though mine are elementary students!). I enjoy starting the conversation about how all of us are learners.

The last main thought that jumped out from the article was that grammar learning should be based on authentic use. Too many students are learning about grammar rather than learning how to use it. I usually try to get my students to know how to do something first, i.e writing a complete sentence (whole) and then we break it down into its parts, like the various parts of speech.

Richard and Rogers

Richards and Rogers (2001) refer to the lexical approach and how vocabulary is the foundation for second language learning, rather than grammar or other linguistic functions. The lexical approach seems to support the need for more communicative learning. An example from classroom seems to support this as well. Last year, one of my 5^th grade students from Japan was a grammar aficionado. Our curriculum includes a way to teach grammar called the “Shurley Method” and she could dissect each sentence into the correct part of speech in seconds. However, she struggled mightily with her reading and her communication because her vocabulary was poor and she was unable to construct grammatically correct sentences. She only knew how to identify the parts of speech but was often incapable of correctly using them.

The authors reference Krashen and his idea that the massive language input that is needed is only capable through reading. In one of Krashen’s books, The Power of Reading, he discusses how if a teacher can help a student find a “homeroom book” that hooks them on reading, then there will be exponential benefits to all areas of their language learning, especially their vocabulary.

I also found some comfort in the statement that “no linear syllabus can adequately reflect the nonlinear nature of acquisition”. I sometimes feel like my teaching is hopping from one subject to another without a clear, direct path. However, I do try to follow the needs that I see within my students rather than following the textbook’s chapters.

The presentation of the vocabulary lesson was also helpful. Often we think of vocabulary as separate units, but students need to learn how words interact with another, which often changes their meaning. The inclusion of verb phrases is vital to being able to do this, like focusing on “just pass” or “had to retake”.