Introducing Grammar: Are teachers doing it the wrong way?

Introducing Grammar:  Are teachers doing it the wrong way?

I once taught at a language school specializing in English for Academic Purposes.  It prepared students for college by letting them pass all of our 12 levels in lieu of taking the TOEFL test.  This was an alternate route that many students preferred, as it was faster in most cases.  Students could improve their communicative ability while simultaneously preparing for college, without the monotony and rote memorization that often accompanies TOEFL preparation.

So basically, this place was trying to prepare students from the beginning proficiency (Level 1) to college-ready proficiency (Level 12) in just a year.  Seem crazy?  Maybe it was.

Introducing gerunds and infinitives: How did the textbook want to do it?

An absurd list of weird verbs most intermediate
students have never seen before

Here's where the grammar part comes in.  I taught an intermediate class several times, in which gerunds and infinitives were introduced.  Our (proprietary) textbook's way of doing so was to give examples of these two concepts in context (a conversation...yay!), then to have the teacher explain them and drill them through games and activities.  Sounds fantastic, right?  Here's the problem:  an enormous list of 50 or so strange verbs that were used with either gerund or infinitive was presented.  About 60% of this list was new to students, including verbs like advise and hesitate, and it was the teacher's job to get students to know:

1. the meanings and pragmatic usage of each verb, and
2. whether the verb was followed by a gerund or infinitive.

The thing was, these verbs were presented in a cold, sterile chart (see the picture above), and no context was provided.  Not to mention most of the verbs were quite advances for the intermediate level, and students were not yet in any position to be using some of these verbs.  The verbs didn't belong to any particular theme (jobs, environment, business, etc.).  Were teachers thus assumed to be responsible for making themes and contexts and interesting lessons involving these verbs so as to solidify them in students' minds?  Or could a giant stack of flashcards for each student, followed by a test (and encouraging rote memorization) work instead?  Neither is a good option.

The problem with the presentation

A poor student trying to memorize these lists,
as well as the definitions of all the new verbs

First of all, let's define at the problem.  Was the problem, "How can I get students to know the meaning and use for all of these verbs, never mind whether they go with gerunds or infinitives!"  No, in defense of teachers, that wasn't the problem at all.  The problem was how the concept of gerunds and infinitives were presented.  The concept itself is pretty simple, right?  We have these two kinds of verbs, and some go into one group, while other go into another group.  Just associate the right verb with the right group, and bingo!  This concept is in fact easy for students to understand, and is no different from teaching irregular versus regular verbs, prepositions, or any other grammar concept that involves placing items into groups.  The problem was that the book presented these verbs as giant lists to memorize, along with the meaning and use of each verb.  There's in fact no better way to  frighten to students.  Why should intermediate students, who have never encountered most of these verbs to begin with, now start memorizing whether they're followed by gerunds or infinitives?

Just one more variable in your vocab notebook

I argue that gerunds and infinitive (and other grammar concepts) should be presented first as a concept.  Students should understand that some verbs take gerunds and others infinitives.  They don't need to know any more verbs than they already do.  Use verbs students already know to highlight the gerund-infinitive distinction.  Do a few practice exercises with other verbs they know, perhaps including a few they don't know, and voila!  The lesson on this bogus grammatical concept is finished.  Time to move on.

"But wait!" teachers might say.  What about all the other verbs the students don't know?  How can they possibly be ready to move on when there are so many more verbs that need to be sorted into these gerund/infinitive categories?  The fact is, there are hundreds more.  But should you introduce these all in your world-famous gerund-infinitive unit?  Of course not.  The truth is, after the concept is introduced, students now have it in their heads that when they encounter a new verb, there's one more variable they must remember about it: whether it goes with a gerund, infinitive, both, or none at all.  Students already do this when they encounter a new word.  Remember the old saying?  "You need to know many things about a word, not just its definition, etc."  Students who make good vocabulary notebooks (and teachers who introduce new vocabulary well) include with every new word the part of speech, collocations, pronunciation, stress, transitivity and irregularity (for verbs), and count/noncount status (for nouns).  The gerund/infinitive variable is just one more to enter into their vocabulary notebooks, and one more variable that all teachers who are teaching "gerund/infinitive-aware" students should account for.

Essentially, the gerund-infinitive dichotomy should be taught as a concept, not as a list of words.  Then, as new verbs are encountered naturally in other lessons, students be taught whether they go with gerunds or infinitives, and encouraged to note this.

This concept is nothing new.  When we teach simple past, do we make students memorize giant lists of regular versus irregular verbs?  Well, maybe.  But the point is, students will never know which verbs are regular or irregular for all verbs.  They learn them as they come up throughout the course of their English studies, and throughout the course of their life, once they're done with English classes.

I recommend applying this method of "teach the concept first, let the students sort out the words later" to the following grammar points:

• gerunds / infinitives
• regular / irregular verbs
• count / noncount nouns
• transitive / intransitive verbs
• stative / nonstative verbs

Do you agree with my theory?  If so, do you know of any other grammatical dichotomies this can be applied to, other than those I've listed above?  If so, please post!

SUMMARY:

Textbooks often present gerund and infinitive units by teaching the concept, then forcing students to memorize lists of verbs that go with each of these constructions.  I argue that this method is ineffective and the gerund infinitive concept should be taught briefly, then students encouraged to remember it throughout their studies, noting whether new verbs go with gerunds, infinitives, both, or none whenever they encounter a new word.  This gerund/infinitive variable is simply one more piece of information students must memorize when they encounter a new word, much like pronunciation, stress, or common collocations.

Less is More!

For a while, when I first started out teaching, one thing that kept my interest up when teaching the same class every day was the creativity a teacher can employ in making activities.  I used to think, "If an activity isn't super clever and creative, and doesn't involve tons of cut up paper and moving around the room, then it's not worth doing!"  I thought that if new grammar wasn't introduced in a zany, quirky way, the students wouldn't learn it as well.  Thus, I planned complicated routines for introducing every grammar point.  I did word-reordering activities, complete-the-chart activities, notice-the-grammar-in-a-song, exaggerated acting sequences, and so many others I can't remember them.  However, I found that sometimes, less is more and simple is best.

Why can't we just introduce time signal words, for example, by saying, "Look, when you talk about stuff that happens at different times, we use these words."  Then write them on the board.  That's it.  Maybe they read a paragraph and notice the words.  Forget all the "rearrange the sentences in the right order," "walk around the room according to the time words you see hung on the wall," and all that nonsense.  Sometimes students just want to be told something straight up, like grownups.  It's not fun?  Deal with it.

But what about those students who can't deal with it?

Teaching "Soft Skills" to Chinese ESL Students

TEACHING “SOFT SKILLS” TO CHINESE ESL STUDENTS!

Most experienced teachers will tell you that Chinese students are shy (so they struggle with communicative speaking activities) and accustomed to rote learning instead of critical thinking (and thus have difficulty with generating opinions, taking linguistic risks, and producing novel utterances rather than spewing out only what they’ve heard before).  This argument, while truthful, is often used to explain Chinese learners’ common reluctance to share opinions or listen to classmates in group discussions.

I argue that shyness and the rigidity of China’s education system aren’t the only culprits.  China, after all, was the battleground for the Cultural Revolution.  The poverty and starvation throughout the country resulting from Mao Zedong’s purge of historical successes created an every-man-for-himself, dog-eat-dog, survival-of-the-fittest culture.  This mentality is often interpreted as selfish or course.  This can explain the apparent “loudness” and “rudeness” that can often be observed in Chinatown communities in the United States.  It’s this “can’t afford to care about anyone but myself” mindset that’s been passed down to the current generation of young Chinese people (though it’s gradually dying out) and is responsible for the unwillingness to cooperate or actively listen to group discussions in the ESL classroom.

An argument might be, “Well, as ESL teachers it’s our job to teach the correct discourse functions and soft skills to get these Chinese students prepared for academic life or careers in the U.S.”  To an extent, this is true.  However, such deeply engrains cultural norms are hard to change.  And should we even be trying to change them?  What constitutes teaching students the soft skills we think they need, versus stripping them of there cultural heritage?  After all, most of the successful Chinese immigrants in this country probably got that way by being hardworking and, not least, selfish.  A healthy selfishness is important in a capitalist culture such as America.  After all, one can go around caring too much about others, leaving no attention for himself.  The question is, is “a healthy amount of selfishness” an element of what it means to be Chinese?  Should we be trying to change this common personality trait of our Chinese students?  Is it even possible to change it?  Of course it’s good to teach open-mindedness and the ability to accept and discern others’ opinions in reference to your own, but how far is too far when it comes to pushing these soft skills?  As teachers, we need to be aware that the soft skills we’re teaching are western skills, and that some of them may not be “teachable” to students of certain cultures.

This could be applied to the teaching of foreign languages to American students as well.  An example is teaching Japanese to American students.  Japanese culture has a strong emphasis on humility, respect, and indirectness, and the language closely reflects this.  It’s thus common for American students to make social faux pas when trying to get their meaning across in Japanese.  It’s also common for an American to simply lack the words to accurately and directly express her opinion through a medium such as Japanese that doesn’t allow for such directness.  A teacher of Japanese might wish to train her American students in the soft skills of Japanese culture, so as to prevent these mistakes and make their speech more native-like.  However, Americans are direct and casual by nature and it’s hard to change this.  Students from other cultures may be dealing with the same struggle when we push soft skills in ESL instruction.

Language Competition

LANGUAGE COMPETITION!

I’ve always found a problem when learning a foreign language.  I like to call it “language competition.”  Basically, language competition occurs when two people are both trying to learn each other’s native language, and results in a subtle disagreement about which language to use when communicating.  Other linguaphiles have discussed this concept, most notably Mark Manson (markmanson.net).  As a simple example, you, a native speaker of English, are trying to learn Chinese.  You meet a Chinese person who seems friendly and is trying to learn English.  She starts the conversation with an English “hello!”, and you decide to answer with a Chinese “Ni hao!” (you’re trying to practice your Chinese, after all).  The conversation progresses steadily in Chinese for a few sentences, when your interlocutor suddenly decides to switch to English.  Her English is quite good, and she continues to reply in nothing but English, regardless if your utterances are in your L1 or L2.  The relentless attempt to dominate the conversation with one language (the one you already speak and don’t need to learn) becomes a nuisance, and it’s a classic example of language competition.

I’ve found language competition to be ubiquitous in places like China where people are focused on personal success, yet less common in places like Japan, where shyness, humility about one’s language ability, and willingness to make sacrifices for others prevail.

Although language competition is common, I have yet to discover it in any sociolinguistic research.  The question is: would the results of any such research be useful?

What do you think?  Please post comments.