to ask what grammar teaching happens in your country?

[DorothyL]

I have a theory that it's just the English who have this strong negative reaction to explicit grammar teaching. I know it takes place in Germany. Would like to build up a wider picture.

I'd just like to point out that an understanding of grammar is essential for correct punctuation. For some people, this understanding can be intuitive, but others need to be taught it explicitly. It's impossible to explain the "rules" of punctuation to someone who doesn't know any grammar. The same applies for preventing comma-splice sentences and incomplete sentences.

The new system may well be too much too soon - I don't know. But the old methods in place 20 years ago involved simply telling children that a sentence was a complete thought, and a comma was where you took a breath. I had to teach my oldest daughter grammar and punctuation in her first year at Uni, because her writing was so poor. If we have over-reacted, it is at least in part due to the deliberate, philosophically-motivated neglect of sensible grammar teaching in the past.

The way some would have it up until the new curriculum there was zero Spag teaching going on

Well, that's definitely wrong. On the other hand, I think it is possible to question how effective it has been - not so much how it was taught, as the fact that for so many children it hasn't seemed to be a priority to practise what they were taught in their actual writing, so they just continued with bad habits. I'm honestly not sure what the answer is to that, although I have read some teacher blogs about secondary schools that are trying to tackle it in various ways.

One problem is undoubtedly that so many teachers were brought up in the SPAG-free era, that some have inaccurate spelling and punctuation themselves, so children see incorrect usage on whiteboards and posters at school. Studies have shown that being exposed to incorrect usage tends to "blur" your grasp on what is correct, even if you previously understood it.

My dd once received a certificate for "A beautifle storyboard"

Another teacher corrected my dd's work as wrong when she wrote "Talk to me!" as an example for an imperative. In the teacher's mind there was a set list of "bossy verbs", not a grammatical structure that could be applied to any verb.

The other day a poster on here posted their dd's work where a teacher had marked work as wrong because they hadn't recognised "fast" as an adverb.

It will indeed be very difficult to see this through while teachers themselves struggle so much with the subject matter! It also shows in the repeated statements that terms like "subordinating conjunction" are degree-level linguistic terms. They really are not.

I grew up in the States and went to a private school. I have hellish memories of the sentence diagrams we had to do in elementary school - like this.

I have been surprised how patchy and poor grammar teaching is for my children, but they have to learn Latin and perhaps the schools are relying on this to firm up grammar knowledge?

Teaching no grammar is as foolish as teaching too much, but I don't think anyone is proposing returning to the days when almost none at all was taught in primary schools.

I am very much in favour of teaching the important functional elements of grammar, but the curriculum that a PP posted last night looks a rather unnecessary, prescriptive and above all timeconsuming way of teaching English to native speakers.

You can learn a MFL successfully with minimal grammar knowledge, and much of what little grammar is required in the beginning stages of learning a language could be taught explicitly in a couple of lessons. What's required for successful MFL learning is good teaching by native-level speakers, in small groups, and for many hours a week. My DD age 14 in a French high school has 9 hours a week of Spanish teaching by native speakers, with history and geography lessons taught entirely in Spanish. Not surprisingly she is quite good at Spanish. It has almost zero to do with being drilled grammar since the age of 6.

kesstrel That is exactly how I was "taught" comma use. When I did my MA, my tutor told me that I had no idea how to use a comma correctly - and he was right.

I went to primary school in the 60s and finished secondary school in the 70s. Formal grammar was taught for English in my Grammar school but reinforced by MFL and Latin. All of which built on the basics learnt at Primary School.

latte yes, ditto (born 1964, went to a very trad primary followed by a grammar). I still don't think we learnt as much grammar as modern Y6s - or at least, not as much convoluted vocabulary - I don't recognise half the terms they use.

Interestingly, my husband who is a little older than me (born 1960) and went to similar schools learnt much less grammar. He has a few gaps in his grammar knowledge but that didn't stop him learning MFL or becoming a translator ;)

Both my children (Y9 and Y11 in French schools) know far more grammar than I ever knew - think they passed me in about Y5. One is a good writer who is good at MFL. The other really isn't.

My schooling was in the 80s and 90s. I remember doing quite a lot of spelling - weekly lists of words to learn that we were tested on - but absolutely no grammar.

I had to learn the terms and rules for English grammar when I moved abroad and took up teaching EFL as a career. I didn't find it too hard to learn, but have seen some others struggle more. Most get there eventually though.

In terms of learning French grammar (it being necessary for me to learn French when I moved here) I used the Michel Thomas Method CDs which are really fantastic IMO.

I think that punctuation is still a big weakness for me. I really don't know the rules at all, and only heard about comma splices quite recently from mumsnet! Punctuation is so low down on the list of needs of my EFL students here that I've never had to get to grips with it really.

Ie if you leave off a full stop on an otherwise perfect answer it won't be correct??? If handwriting isn't good enough they lose marks?Yes/no?

Not quite. There's no handwriting requirement in the SPAG test as long as the marker can read the answer. Given the majority of the sample test is tick boxes, underlining or adding missing punctuation this probably isn't too much of an issue anyway.

There are 3-4 questions out of 49 which require children to write or rewrite a sentence which do require it to be punctuated correctly, but that instruction is given in in the question.

The 1 question that needs children to explain something doesn't need to be written in full sentences, let alone punctuated. It only needs the answer to be correct and unambiguous.

You can learn a MFL successfully with minimal grammar knowledge, and much of what little grammar is required in the beginning stages of learning a language could be taught explicitly in a couple of lessons.

As someone that taught both ESOL and MFL, I strongly disagree with this. It is impossible, for example, to learn Modern Greek without an understanding of the function of an article, the ability to distinguish between an adverb and an adjective, and an understanding of tense and case.

Children under the age of about 14 fare better because they tend learn constructions piecemeal, but British adults desperately struggle, largely because articles in English do not change according to gender or case. Some adult students never get it - - and an understanding of case can be vital for a basic understanding of how the language functions.

I really do not understand the resistance to grammar teaching or learning in Britain. I suspect people associate it with "boring and tedious" lessons. In reality, a good grasp of grammar is a very powerful tool that allows you to perceive and manipulate the nuts and bolts of spoken and written communication.

I went to independent school in America. We had formal grammar, including diagramming sentences, throughout high school. We had two English classes per day: one period Language Arts (grammar and writing) and one period Literature (literature, and learning to analyze a text, form a thesis, and write a critical essay).

We also took Latin, and this greatly enhanced my understanding of grammar in English.

werks how long does it take to teach a 14 year old to distinguish an article, adverb and adjective? If you can teach this to 7 year olds, it can be taught rapidly to teenagers.

Nevertheless I completely agree that it helps in MFL teaching if students arrive with some basic grammar knowledge. I don't think anyone on here has come out against teaching grammar. My own view is that there are always trade offs in education - more grammar means less of something else (unless you extend school hours, or recruit more teachers so class sizes get smaller). So if you're going to put all your eggs in the grammar basket, you should at least have some decent evidence that it's going to produce the desired effect.

Slightly off topic, but washed have you seen the entire sample paper, or just the few questions that have been circulating for the last week or so?

I think most of the paper is probably quite accessible for the majority of children who have been taught grammar. The biggest issue is not knowing what the thresholds will be and this years year 6 who will only have had 2 years being taught the new curriculum.

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/439299/Sample_ks2_EnglishGPS_paper1_questions.pdf

I have no idea how grammar is taught here in Finland but its such a complicated grammatical system that I'm sure they must have some formal teaching at least.

I learnt far more about English grammar when I started Finnish lessons than I did when I was in school!