Eduard,

You might be interested in my experience training grammar in the business world.

I offer a 14-hour class that starts with a 100-question pre-test and ends with a
similar post-test.  I am equally fascinated and dismayed by the pre-test scores:
they average in the 50s.  My highest pre-test scores tend to be in the 70s; the
lowest are in the 20s.  By the end of the workshop, scores are typically in the
80s and 90s.  The delight when people see their improvement is rewarding beyond
belief.

Guess who tends to score the highest on the pre-test?  Yes, my participants who
come to class with an ESL background.  Others in the class are always amazed by
that, but I'm not for the very reasons you mentioned, Eduard.

Our language and those who speak it are fascinating indeed.

Linda Comerford
Comerford Consulting

"Eduard C. Hanganu" wrote:

> Richard:
>
> In a TESOL graduate class I said that most "native" English teachers
> cannot teach English to foreigners because they do not know their own
> language. Yvonne Stapp has just published a research article which
> shows that facts support my assertion. She found out that in an ESL
> class most students, with the exception of a foreigner, had very poor
> English language skills, and could be classified as *semi-lingual."
> They we not qualified to teach the foreign students, because their
> English language skills were often behind the English language skills
> of their students.
>
> The truth is that learning English "by ear" is just like learning a
> musical instrument by ear. The obtained knowledge is minimal and does
> not qualify someone to teach. Most English teaching grammars have not
> been written by English "natives," but bu foreigners like Jespersen.
> My best grammar book in my library of about 30 textbooks is still one
> written by a Romanian writer. I go there when I have trouble with
> different grammar issues, because the explanations  are concise and
> clear, free of the confusion one sees in most grammar textbooks on
> the market at this time.
>
> The traditional grammar is still as good as always, and can provide
> students with the knowledge they need to write in Standard English.
> New teaching approaches and methods may need to be adopted to make
> grammar instruction adequate and efficient, while the teachers and
> instructors need to adapt to different classroom environment, but to
> dump the baby with the dirty water is evidence of lack of knowledge
> of grammar and personal failure to teach it to the students.
>
> Eduard
>
> >On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Richard Betting wrote...
> >
> >>A short response to Phil's request for a list of problems with
> >traditional grammar. Here is the list I have been working on for a
> >couple of years. I don't intend to offend anyone. My point is that
> >traditional grammar-the grammar of popular handbooks that I used
> >fifty years ago and that are apparently still used by a majority of
> >schools in the US, not accurate language analysis-is still being
> >taught. Teachers teach what they have been taught and know. And they
> >teach what their texts include, unless they have information with
> >which to supplement, and many do not.
> >>
> >>These are meant to be strident generalizations in order to get
> >teachers to understand that there are problems with the old way.
> >>
> >>After having said all this, I agree with one of the main principles
> >of ATEG: accurate, descriptive grammar (and much language
> >information) must be taught for at least two reasons: to allow a
> >discussion of language itself and to be able to use grammar
> >information to improve student style in writing and speaking.
> >>
> >>It seems to me (and I may be wrong, this may be too strong and it
> >might be counterproductive to begin with a list of negatives) that
> >teachers have to understand the problems first and then almost start
> >over, deciding what to teach and how about language and grammar so
> >that the goals of student learning are met, not the goals of
> covering
> >traditional grammar material.
> >>
> >>In my book I am fleshing out these items one by one, after which I
> >would put what the ATEG comes up in its scope and sequence project.
> >>
> >> Dick Betting
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>FIFTEEN PROBLEMS WITH TRADITIONAL GRAMMAR
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>1. TG, LIKE CATECHISM, TEACHES WELL, LEARNS POORLY
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>2. TG is BASED ON FALSE PROMISE: LEARN GRAMMAR FIRST, IMPROVEMENT
> IN
> >WRITING AND SPEAKING WILL FOLLOW ALMOST AUTOMATICALLY.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>3.  TG is BASED ON a FALSE PREMISE: KNOWING GRAMMAR WILL MAKE
> >STUDENTS  BETTER WRITERS AND SPEAKERS.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>4. TG claims to be everything students need to know about language;
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>5. TG claims there is only one right way, one form of correctness;
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>6. TGs contain mistaken information:
> >>
> >>                        a.  English in not derived from Latin
> >>
> >>                        b.  English does not have eight parts of
> >speech
> >>
> >>                        c.  English does not have six verb tenses
> >>
> >>                        d.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>7. TG uses defective methodology: top down, deductive, absolutes
> >taught as
> >>
> >>                        Gospel;
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>8. TG exploits the pedagogy of rote memorization, passive
> >acceptance;
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>9. TG uses confusing definitions for basic concepts: language,
> >grammar, usage, parts of speech;
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>10. TG wastes time and energy, too much time on minutiae
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>11. TG fails to put learned material to use;
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>12. TG fails to notice that language study is philosophy,
> elaborate,
> >abstract, multi-level, open-ended;
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>13. TG reinforces monotheistic social values and standards at the
> >expense of individuals, minorities and differents;
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>14. TG has no skeleton, no structure on which to hang language and
> >grammar
> >>
> >>                        information;
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>15 TG is all fasteners and no projects.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>  ----- Original Message -----
> >>  From: Phil Bralich
> >>  To: [log in to unmask]
> >>  Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 9:45 AM
> >>  Subject: Re: The role of English teachers
> >>
> >>
> >>  The real problem is that there are few if any traditional ideas
> >that need to go.  Someone should actually sit down and make a list
> of
> >ideas that need to be expunged from grammar teaching and you would
> >see there are actually only a few if any.  The real problem is that
> >people want to wallow around in a sea of unaccountability where
> >pontification and pretense take precedence over good sense.
> >>
> >>  We should not be talking in terms of modern versus traditional
> >grammar as there is nearly zero difference.  Instead we should speak
> >merely of teaching grammar and put the whole false problem behind
> >us.
> >>
> >>  If any one disagrees, please draw up a list of tradtional notions
> >that should be abandonded.
> >>
> >>  Phil Bralich
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>    -----Original Message-----
> >>    From: "Paul E. Doniger"
> >>    Sent: Aug 16, 2006 7:22 PM
> >>    To: [log in to unmask]
> >>    Subject: The role of English teachers
> >>
> >>
> >>    Peter Adams raised an interesting issue with: "In fact, I am
> >wondering why the role of English teachers seems to always be to
> slow
> >down this process and defend the traditional conventions." Is this
> >really the role of English teachers? What do others think about this?
> >>
> >>    Personally, I don't see myself as a defender of traditional
> >conventions at all. I suspect that many of my colleagues in the high
> >school English classroom feel the same as I do. I rather see the
> >English teacher in me as a promoter/fascilitator of deep thinking
> >(and critical and creative thinking) through the disciplines of
> >reading, writing, listening, and speaking. Grammar instruction is
> one
> >item in the toolbox, albeit an important one (and a too often
> >neglected one at that). However, it's not for me so much as a
> >teaching of convention as it is a teaching of the way language
> works -
> >- as a means towards better/deeper thinking in these four
> disciplines.
> >>
> >>    I'd add that as a drama teacher, grammar is important in a
> >similar way. When I ask my acting students to point up the nouns
> >or "play to (or 'with' or 'on')" the verbs, I need first to make
> sure
> >they know what these words are. My goal for them, however, is not
> >grammatical, but theatrical -- I want them to make the language
> >meaningful and rich, and to bring the text across clearly to the
> >audience.
> >>
> >>    Paul D.
> >>    To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's
> web
> >interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and
> >select "Join or leave the list"
> >>    Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> >>
> >>  To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> >interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and
> >select "Join or leave the list"
> >>  Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> >>
> >>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> >interface at:
> >>     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> >>and select "Join or leave the list"
> >>
> >>Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> >>
> >
> >To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at:
> >     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> >and select "Join or leave the list"
> >
> >Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/