All Discussions Tagged 'grammar' - Classroom 2.02024-03-28T16:05:38Zhttps://www.classroom20.com/forum/topic/listForTag?tag=grammar&feed=yes&xn_auth=nosuggestions for teaching grammar with online tools?tag:www.classroom20.com,2013-07-29:649749:Topic:9498312013-07-29T13:22:59.027ZMark Jarmonhttps://www.classroom20.com/profile/MarkJarmon
<p>Can anyone share suggestions/experiences with effective ways of teaching grammar using online tools (grades 6-12). I was recently introduced to Grammardog.com, but have not used it in the classroom yet. </p>
<p>Can anyone share suggestions/experiences with effective ways of teaching grammar using online tools (grades 6-12). I was recently introduced to Grammardog.com, but have not used it in the classroom yet. </p> The Great Grammar Debatetag:www.classroom20.com,2009-10-26:649749:Topic:3969842009-10-26T16:02:15.057ZMark Penningtonhttps://www.classroom20.com/profile/MarkPennington
It seems to me that the key lines of division within grammar instruction (meaning syntax, word choice, usage, punctuation, and even spelling—a catch-all term that most English language-arts teachers use to describe the “stuff” that we “have to , but don’t want to” teach) have been drawn between those who favor <b>part to whole</b> and <b>whole to part</b> instruction. As a brief aside… isn’t this much akin to the graphophonic (phonics-based) and whole language reading debate? Anyway, here is my…
It seems to me that the key lines of division within grammar instruction (meaning syntax, word choice, usage, punctuation, and even spelling—a catch-all term that most English language-arts teachers use to describe the “stuff” that we “have to , but don’t want to” teach) have been drawn between those who favor <b>part to whole</b> and <b>whole to part</b> instruction. As a brief aside… isn’t this much akin to the graphophonic (phonics-based) and whole language reading debate? Anyway, here is my take on the assumptions of both positions:<br />
<br />
Advocates of part to whole instruction believe that front-loading instruction in the discrete parts of language will best enable students to apply these parts to the whole process of writing. Following are the key components of this inductive approach.<br />
<br />
1. <b>Memorization</b> of the key terminology and definitions of grammar to provide a common language of instruction.<br />
2. <b>Identification</b> of grammatical constructions leads to application.<br />
3. Familiarity with the <b>rules of grammar</b> leads to correct application.<br />
4. Teaching the <b>components of sentence construction</b> leads to application.<br />
5. <b>Distrust of one’s own oral language</b> as a grammatical filter .<br />
<br />
Advocates of whole to part instruction believe that back-loading instruction in the discrete parts of language, as is determined by needs of the writing task, will best enable students to write fluently and meaningfully. Following are the key components of this deductive approach.<br />
<br />
1. <b>Minimal memorization</b> of the key terminology and definitions of grammar and minimal practice in identification of grammatical constructions.<br />
2. <b>Connection to one’s oral language is essential</b> to inform fluent and effective writing.<br />
3. Reading and listening to exemplary literature and poetry provides the <b>models</b> that students need to mimic and revise as they develop their own writing style.<br />
4. <b>Minimal error analysis</b>.<br />
5. Teaching <b>writing as a process</b> with a focus on coherence will best enable students to apply the discreet parts such as subjects, predicates, parts of speech, phrases, clauses, sentences, and transitions to say something meaningful.<br />
<br />
Of course, how teachers align themselves within the <b><a href="http://penningtonpublishing.com/blog/grammar_mechanics/the-great-grammar-debate/" target="_blank">Great Grammar Debate</a></b>is not necessarily an "either-or" decision. Most teachers apply bits and pieces of each approach to teaching grammar. I take a stab on how to integrate the inductive and deductive approaches in <b><a href="http://penningtonpublishing.com/blog/grammar_mechanics/how-to-integrate-grammar-and-writing-instruction/" target="_blank">How to Integrate Grammar and Writing Instruction</a></b>. Why D.O.L. Doesn't Worktag:www.classroom20.com,2009-09-03:649749:Topic:3788652009-09-03T01:26:05.630ZMark Penningtonhttps://www.classroom20.com/profile/MarkPennington
Why do we continue to teach grammar and mechanics with a strategy that simply does not work? Why do we force students to rehearse errors and teach grammar exclusively out of the writing context? Would love to hear your responses. More points at <b><a href="http://penningtonpublishing.com/blog/grammar_mechanics/why-daily-oral-language-d-o-l-doesnt-work/" target="_blank">Why D.O.L. Doesn't Work</a></b> and, <b>more importantly</b>, a grammar/mechanics warm-up/opener/bell-ringer that uses a…
Why do we continue to teach grammar and mechanics with a strategy that simply does not work? Why do we force students to rehearse errors and teach grammar exclusively out of the writing context? Would love to hear your responses. More points at <b><a href="http://penningtonpublishing.com/blog/grammar_mechanics/why-daily-oral-language-d-o-l-doesnt-work/" target="_blank">Why D.O.L. Doesn't Work</a></b> and, <b>more importantly</b>, a grammar/mechanics warm-up/opener/bell-ringer that uses a balanced approach of <b>error analysis and model writing</b> is detailed at <b><a href="http://penningtonpublishing.com/blog/grammar_mechanics/sentence-lifting-d-o-l-that-makes-sense/" target="_blank">Sentence Lifting: D.O.L. That Makes Sense</a></b>. Pronunciation Pet Peevestag:www.classroom20.com,2009-08-03:649749:Topic:3696342009-08-03T04:19:10.053ZMark Penningtonhttps://www.classroom20.com/profile/MarkPennington
I found a terrific lesson plan on the NCTE/IRA Read-Write-Think website regarding common pet peeves that Americans have regarding inaccurate pronunciation. The lesson plan gets students involved in identifying and explaining their own pronunciation pet peeves. See <a href="http://www.readwritethink.org/lessons/lesson_view.asp?id=1091">http://www.readwritethink.org/lessons/lesson_view.asp?id=1091</a> for the lesson plan.<br />
<br />
I plan on using the lesson plan and have primed the pump a bit with my own…
I found a terrific lesson plan on the NCTE/IRA Read-Write-Think website regarding common pet peeves that Americans have regarding inaccurate pronunciation. The lesson plan gets students involved in identifying and explaining their own pronunciation pet peeves. See <a href="http://www.readwritethink.org/lessons/lesson_view.asp?id=1091">http://www.readwritethink.org/lessons/lesson_view.asp?id=1091</a> for the lesson plan.<br />
<br />
I plan on using the lesson plan and have primed the pump a bit with my own list of pronunciation pet peeves. I tried to avoid foreign phrases, place names, technical terms, dialectical differences, or idiomatic expressions. For example, no "ax" for "ask." Many of the pronunciation errors described above are made by people with poor <a href="http://penningtonpublishing.com/blog/reading/top-ten-reasons-to-teach-phonics/" target="_blank">decoding</a> or <a href="http://penningtonpublishing.com/blog/reading/the-top-ten-syllable-rules/" target="_blank">syllabication</a> skills.<br />
<br />
Following are our Top 40 Pronunciation Pet Peeves in no particular order. Please add to the list and get it off your chest before we begin school. It's good teacher therapy, I think.<br />
<br />
1. Library is pronounced “lie-brair-ee,” not "lie-bear-ee.” [No, it’s not libarian either]<br />
2. Nuclear is pronounced "nook-lee-er," not "nUke-U-ler." [Ode to Bush]<br />
3. February is pronounced “Feb-roo-air-ee,” not "Feb-U-aire-ee.” [Frequently misspelled, as well]<br />
4. Orange is pronounced “or-anj,” not "are-anj.” [Orange you glad you know this?]<br />
5. Prostate is pronounced “praw-state,” not "praw-straight.” [Unless you are lying down]<br />
6. Height is pronounced “hite,” not "hite with a ‘th’.” [That “e-i” or “width” must confuse us]<br />
7. Probably is pronounced “praw-bab-lee,” not "prob-lee.” [Or some say “praw-lee”]<br />
8. Definite is pronounced “def-in-nit,” not " def-ah-nut.” [It’s not “dah-fine” either]<br />
9. Pronunciation is pronounced “pro-nun-see-a-tion,” not "pro-noun-see-a-tion.” [But pronounce]<br />
10. Athlete is pronounced “ath-lete,” not "ath-ah-leet.” [Despite the ath-ah-leets foot commercials]<br />
11. Strategy is pronounced “strat-uh-gee,” not "stra-ji-dee.” [Though we never say “stra-ji-jick”]<br />
12. Aluminum is pronounced “uh-loo-mi-num,” not "al-U-min-um.” [Brits have their own version]<br />
13. Etcetera (etc.) is pronounced “et-set-er-ah,” not "ek- set-er-ah.” [Not “ek-spe-shul-lee” either]<br />
14. Supposedly is pronounced “suh-po-zed-lee,” not "su-pose-ub-lee.” [Or "su-pose-eh-blee”]<br />
15. Difference is pronounced “di-fer-ence,” not "dif-rence.” [Often misspelled due to this error]<br />
16. Mischievous is pronounced “mis-chuh-vus,” not "mis-chee-vee-us.” [You’ll look this one up]<br />
17. Mayonnaise is pronounced “may-un-naze,” not "man-aise.” [“Ketchup-catsup” is another matter]<br />
18. Miniature is pronounced “mi-ne-uh-ture,” not "min-ah-ture.” [Who drives an Austin “min-uh”?]<br />
19. Definite is pronounced “de-fuh-nit,” not " def-ah-nut.” [For define, it’s “di-fine” not “dah-fine”]<br />
20. Often is pronounced “off-ten,” not "off-en.” [Probably just sloppy pronunciation]<br />
21. Internet is pronounced “In-ter-net,” not "In-nur-net.” [Not “in-ner-rest-ing either]<br />
22. Groceries is pronounced “grow-sir-ees,” not "grow-sure-ees.” [It’s not “grow-sure” either]<br />
23. Similar is pronounced “sim-ah-ler,” not "sim-U-lar.” [But Websters says “sim-ler” is fine]<br />
24. Escape is pronounced “es-cape,” not "ex-cape.” [It’s not “ex-pres-so” either]<br />
25. Lose is pronounced “luze,” not "loose.” [Think “choose,” not “moose”]<br />
26. Temperature is pronounced “tem-per-ah-ture,” not "tem-prah-chur.” [Cute when kids say it]<br />
27. Jewelry is pronounced “jewl-ree,” not "jew-ler-ree.” [More syllables won’t get you more carats]<br />
28. Sandwich is pronounced “sand-which,” not "sam-which.” [Or “sam-mitch” either]<br />
29. Realtor is pronounced “real-tor,” not "real-ah-tor.” [Similarly, it’s “di-late,” not “di-ah-late”]<br />
30. Asterisk is pronounced “ass-tur-risk,” not "ass-trik.” [It’s not called a star, by the way]<br />
31. Federal is pronounced “fed-ur-ul,” not "fed-rul.” [Use all syllables to ensure all federal holidays]<br />
32. Candidate is pronounced “can-di-date,” not "can-uh-date.” [It’s not “can-nuh-date” either]<br />
33. Hierarchy is pronounced “hi-ur-ar-kee,” not "hi-ar-kee.” [It’s not “arch-type”; it’s “ar-ki-type”]<br />
34. Niche is pronounced “neesh,” not "nitch.” [This one drives some people crazy]<br />
35. Sherbet is pronounced “sher-bet,” not "sher-bert.” [I’m sure, Burt]<br />
36. Prescription is pronounced “pre-scrip-tion,” not "per-scrip-tion.” [and prerogative, not “per”]<br />
37. Arctic is pronounced “ark-tik,” not "ar-tik.” [Not “ant-ar-tik-ah either]<br />
38. Cabinet is pronounced “cab-uh-net,” not "cab-net.” [Likewise, it’s “cor-uh-net,” not “cor-net”]<br />
39. Triathlon is pronounced “tri-ath-lon,” not "tri-ath-uh-lon.” [Not “bi-ath-uh-lon” either]<br />
40. Forte is pronounced “forte,” not "for-tay.” [But Porche does have a slight “uh” at the end]<br />
<br />
And for the culinary snobs among us… It’s “bru-chet-tah” or “bru-sket-tah,” but definitely not “bru-shet-tah.” And it’s “hear-row,” not “gear-row” or “ji-roh.” grammar texttag:www.classroom20.com,2007-09-08:649749:Topic:478042007-09-08T13:24:48.610ZCamela Giraudhttps://www.classroom20.com/profile/camgira
Just started using some cool web 2.0 tools this fall, Moodle being my biggest addition. Told kids one goal of mine was not hand out or collect any papers this year. We'll see. Anyway, my grammar text is on backorder. Thought I might jump on the chance to ditch it and pick up something good on DVD instead. Our school became a 1 to 1 this year so kids have computers in class daily. I was using Warriner's High School Handbook in hard copy. I have several good reasons for dropping the text, but I…
Just started using some cool web 2.0 tools this fall, Moodle being my biggest addition. Told kids one goal of mine was not hand out or collect any papers this year. We'll see. Anyway, my grammar text is on backorder. Thought I might jump on the chance to ditch it and pick up something good on DVD instead. Our school became a 1 to 1 this year so kids have computers in class daily. I was using Warriner's High School Handbook in hard copy. I have several good reasons for dropping the text, but I like the explanations and the exercises in Warriner's. Any ideas?