Let's Talk about Grammar

"Teaching academic language might mean that you teach some grammar within a history or science lesson."

As the word grammar rolled off my tongue, I swear I heard a few of the student teachers gasp for air. Grammar: how can the turn of one word evoke such visceral responses, anxiety, even trepidation. English teachers, who are supposed to tackle grammar in their classes, often don't like to teach it. Even many ESL teachers avoid grammar--or shun it. That is, until the infamous red pen is unsheathed.

It's here, with the pen, that many teachers end up dealing with grammar. Correcting errors in students' writing. The very practice that likely triggers the nausea associated with grammar is the very practice that gets repeated over and over in classrooms.

Accompanying the stress-provoking red pen, there's a good deal of research to suggest that that error correction has little or no effect on students' writing ability, but this is a contested issue in Second Language Acquisition research (e.g., see John Truscott's research and subsequent rebuttals). But does this mean that teachers should abandon grammar altogther? Despite what Stephen Krashen says, I don't think so.

It's just HOW we approach grammar that matters. I like the way Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman take up the issue, addressing both the form, or structure, of language and its functions. What's key is working grammar into content you are already teaching and learning, including students' own writing. In the coming week, I'll post some examples from a hypothetical history unit. In the meantime, just for fun, do you agree with the tree diagram below? If not, what's wrong? Oh, I'm just kidding...