F, A
& C advocates an inductive, one-to-one approach to grammar instruction (as
in grammar is presented inductively to students individually in conferences,
rather than deductively to the class as a whole). Error analysis helps determine which patterns
emerge in each student’s writing, and students learn to be editors of their own
work as they begin to recognize these patterns and correct mistakes. In this chapter, Hull strongly discourages
the teaching of any metalinguistic terminology or grammatical rules. The belief is that doing so only bogs down
students, who are more likely to succeed through the process of learning to recognize
and correct their own errors.
 |
| from http://coerll.utexas.edu/methods/modules/grammar/03/ |
I
think that this is a valid approach in many ways. I only question how realistic it might be in
a large class with one teacher (I realize the ideal F, A & C course has two
teachers and the class is small). I’ve
done error analysis on student work; doing so thoroughly and in a way which
reveals actual patterns in student writing is extremely time consuming. I’m not saying it shouldn’t be done – it’s
just that to really do this approach justice, help from a tutor, or another
teacher, or a really small class might be necessary, at least in the beginning
of the term, when teachers are working to determine which error patterns to guide students’
eyes (brains and pens) toward.
I
guess I also question one additional aspect of this. I understand in theory that the explicit
teaching of too many grammar rules might yield really negative
consequences. I wonder though if by
taking this too far, we’re underestimating students, and depriving them the
power of being able to describe the new academic language/discourse they’re acquiring. I say that though from a biased perspective,
as most of my grammar teaching experience has been with EFL and ESL students
who bring with them to classroom plenty of linguistic awareness and
grammatical knowledge.
Regarding
the Discovery of Competence approach, I’m not sure that Kutz et. al. explicitly
deal with grammar at all? Perhaps the
belief is that students will discover grammar through the collaborative process
of ethnographic exploration?
I had that same response. Theirs is a wonderful and thorough approach to grammar, but what about on a larger scale. A double staffed class is unrealistic these budget days. What other options do we have? Is there a way that we could teach our students to be editors of their own papers and the papers of their peers on a larger, more realistic scale. I am interested in how you might teach a class of sixty grammar with one professor and maybe a TA. I liked the maps and visual aids you had in your blog. Nice.
ReplyDelete