0
Usenet Posted 21 years ago
Usage
Traditional grammar teaching is waste of time, say academics
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,172-1446455,00.html
"Traditional grammar teaching is waste of time, say academics By Tony Halpin, Education Editor
"TEACHING formal English grammar to children does not help to improve their writing skills, a government-funded study concluded yesterday. Teachers were wasting their time explaining the meaning of nouns, verbs and pronouns to pupils as part of the national literacy strategy in primary schools, academics at the University of York said.
"They were more likely to improve children?s compositions by abandoning the rules of syntax and encouraging them to try experimental methods of sentence construction.
"The study by the English review group at York was funded by the Department for Education and Skills, which did not distance itself from the conclusions, even though the literacy strategy emphasises ?the centrality of grammar in the teaching of writing?. A DfES spokeswoman said that the national curriculum ?supports a range of approaches to teaching of grammar?.
?I would not like this to be seen as a swing back of the pendulum to 1960s liberalism. I would like to see it as a clearing of the ground to put behind us the notion that teaching formal grammar would help to improve the writing of the nation."
They go on to advocate the American system of sentence combining.
?This research looks like it is advocating a return to the laissez-faire attitudes of the 1960s, when youngsters were not taught grammar because teachers thought it would restrict their creativity. Now we are left with a generation of teachers who don?t know grammar.?
wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall
Hertfordshire
England
"Traditional grammar teaching is waste of time, say academics By Tony Halpin, Education Editor
"TEACHING formal English grammar to children does not help to improve their writing skills, a government-funded study concluded yesterday. Teachers were wasting their time explaining the meaning of nouns, verbs and pronouns to pupils as part of the national literacy strategy in primary schools, academics at the University of York said.
"They were more likely to improve children?s compositions by abandoning the rules of syntax and encouraging them to try experimental methods of sentence construction.
"The study by the English review group at York was funded by the Department for Education and Skills, which did not distance itself from the conclusions, even though the literacy strategy emphasises ?the centrality of grammar in the teaching of writing?. A DfES spokeswoman said that the national curriculum ?supports a range of approaches to teaching of grammar?.
?I would not like this to be seen as a swing back of the pendulum to 1960s liberalism. I would like to see it as a clearing of the ground to put behind us the notion that teaching formal grammar would help to improve the writing of the nation."
They go on to advocate the American system of sentence combining.
?This research looks like it is advocating a return to the laissez-faire attitudes of the 1960s, when youngsters were not taught grammar because teachers thought it would restrict their creativity. Now we are left with a generation of teachers who don?t know grammar.?
wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall
Hertfordshire
England
Top answer
[nq:1]"Traditional grammar teaching is waste of time, say academics[/nq] For certain values of "traditional", "grammar" and "teaching" that were not made clear on the news reports I heard. JGH
- [nq:1]"Traditional grammar teaching is waste of time, say academics[/nq] For certain values of "traditional", "grammar" and "teaching" that were not made clear on the news reports I heard.
- JGH
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
22 Answers
0
[nq:1]"Traditional grammar teaching is waste of time, say academics[/nq]
For certain values of "traditional", "grammar" and "teaching" that were not made clear on the news reports I heard.
JGH
For certain values of "traditional", "grammar" and "teaching" that were not made clear on the news reports I heard.
JGH
00
[nq:1]?This research looks like it is advocating a return to the laissez-faire attitudes of the 1960s, when youngsters were not taught grammar because teachers thought it would restrict their creativity. Now we are left with a generation of teachers who don?t know grammar.?[/nq]
That last comment is typical end-of-civilisation-as-we-know-it silliness. Many people write excellently without know
That last comment is typical end-of-civilisation-as-we-know-it silliness. Many people write excellently without know
00
Robin Bignall wrote on 19 Jan 2005:
[nq:1]?This research looks like it is advocating a return to the laissez-faire attitudes of the 1960s, when youngsters were not taught grammar because teachers thought it would restrict their creativity. Now we are left with a generation of teachers who don?t know grammar.?[/nq]
Hooray! I love to read stuff like this. I plan to send this to all the teach
[nq:1]?This research looks like it is advocating a return to the laissez-faire attitudes of the 1960s, when youngsters were not taught grammar because teachers thought it would restrict their creativity. Now we are left with a generation of teachers who don?t know grammar.?[/nq]
Hooray! I love to read stuff like this. I plan to send this to all the teach
00
wrote on 19 Jan 2005:
[nq:2]"Traditional grammar teaching is waste of time, say academics[/nq]
[nq:1]For certain values of "traditional", "grammar" and "teaching" that were not made clear on the news reports I heard.[/nq]The idea that "a detailed knowledge of grammar will somehow contribute to an improvement in one's writing" is enough of a value for all three. There's much more than can b
[nq:2]"Traditional grammar teaching is waste of time, say academics[/nq]
[nq:1]For certain values of "traditional", "grammar" and "teaching" that were not made clear on the news reports I heard.[/nq]The idea that "a detailed knowledge of grammar will somehow contribute to an improvement in one's writing" is enough of a value for all three. There's much more than can b
00
Ross Howard wrote on 19 Jan 2005:
[nq:1]On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Robin Bignall wrought:[/nq]
[nq:2]?This research looks like it is advocating a return to ... left with a generation of teachers who don?t know grammar.?[/nq]
[nq:1]That last comment is typical end-of-civilisation-as-we-know-it silliness. Many people write excellently without knowing the difference between copulas and attribut
[nq:1]On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Robin Bignall wrought:[/nq]
[nq:2]?This research looks like it is advocating a return to ... left with a generation of teachers who don?t know grammar.?[/nq]
[nq:1]That last comment is typical end-of-civilisation-as-we-know-it silliness. Many people write excellently without knowing the difference between copulas and attribut
00
[nq:1]Many people write excellently without knowing the difference between copulas and attributives, just as many excellent musicians can't tell a ... need to be a mechanic to be an expert user. All you need is some guidance and lots of practice.[/nq]
Why should anyone accept the foregoing as true?
1. In 50 years of musical performance I have yet tomeet an excellent musician who canno
Why should anyone accept the foregoing as true?
1. In 50 years of musical performance I have yet tomeet an excellent musician who canno
00
[nq:1]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,172-1446455,00.html "Traditional grammar teaching is waste of time, say academics By Tony Halpin, Education Editor[/nq]
(snip)
For something a bit better than newspaper reports, see where you can download the whole thing.
The signi
(snip)
For something a bit better than newspaper reports, see where you can download the whole thing.
The signi
00
[nq:1]?I would not like this to be seen as a swing back of the pendulum to 1960s liberalism. I would ... would help to improve the writing of the nation." They go on to advocate the American system of sentence combining.[/nq]
Don't you need to know what a sentence is first? Perhaps not.
[nq:1]?This research looks like it is advocating a return to the laissez-faire attitudes of the 1960s, w
Don't you need to know what a sentence is first? Perhaps not.
[nq:1]?This research looks like it is advocating a return to the laissez-faire attitudes of the 1960s, w
00
Don Aitken wrote on 20 Jan 2005:
[nq:1]The main agenda seems to be to promote something called "sentence combining", whatever that might be.[/nq]
Combine sentences A and B to make a new sentence, sentence C:
A. I live in a red house.
B. I live in a big house
C. Choose the best answer:
1) I live in a red big house.
2) I live in a big red house.
3) I live in
[nq:1]The main agenda seems to be to promote something called "sentence combining", whatever that might be.[/nq]
Combine sentences A and B to make a new sentence, sentence C:
A. I live in a red house.
B. I live in a big house
C. Choose the best answer:
1) I live in a red big house.
2) I live in a big red house.
3) I live in
00
[nq:1]Don Aitken wrote on 20 Jan 2005: [/nq]
[nq:2]The main agenda seems to be to promote something called "sentence combining", whatever that might be.[/nq]
[nq:1]Combine sentences A and B to make a new sentence, sentence C: A. I live in a red house. B. ... live in a big and red house. 5) What kind of house I live in is none of your business.[/nq]
Hey, you're the one who volunteered t
[nq:2]The main agenda seems to be to promote something called "sentence combining", whatever that might be.[/nq]
[nq:1]Combine sentences A and B to make a new sentence, sentence C: A. I live in a red house. B. ... live in a big and red house. 5) What kind of house I live in is none of your business.[/nq]
Hey, you're the one who volunteered t
0
Related Questions