Adult Level Writing Course Teachers, Please Weigh In

Work Teaching English in Taiwan
1

For those of you who teach adult level writing courses (e.g. TOEFL Writing, Business Writing, College Writing, etc.) in Taiwan, I’ve got a few questions on which I’d greatly appreciate some feedback:

  1. How much grammar do you teach? I.e., do you cover all of the basics, including sentence structure, verb tense, articles, prepositions, reflexives, etc? Or, do you only cover a few of them?

  2. Do you teach usage in some form (e.g. common usage errors in writing)?

  3. If you had to select the top grammatical errors that result in the reader not understanding what is written, what would they be? In other words, what aspects of English grammar are most important if the writer’s goal is clarity of expression?

Note: I’m taking it as a given that you teach essay, paragraph structure, and unity. My focus here is on the sentence level.

If I get enough responses and there’s interest, I’ll share my own views on these topics.

Thanks to those who respond.

Tomas

2

I just took a Graduate linguistics course in the States, and from what I learned, you should stay away from grammar. The goal of ESL writing should not be “surface errors” -grammar, punctuation, etc, but “bigger picture” “global concepts”: quality of meaning, quality of thought. ESL writers should be expected to “write with an accent.” This might not be what students want to hear, though.

Grammar is learned when you are young through conversations at the playground, at the dinner table -through osmosis, and very VERY few foreign teachers will really be able to teach it well. That’s what they told me, at any rate.

3

[quote=“alazaskan1”]I just took a Graduate linguistics course in the States, and from what I learned, you should stay away from grammar. The goal of ESL writing should not be “surface errors” -grammar, punctuation, etc, but “bigger picture” “global concepts”: quality of meaning, quality of thought. ESL writers should be expected to “write with an accent.” This might not be what students want to hear, though.

Grammar is learned when you are young through conversations at the playground, at the dinner table -through osmosis, and very VERY few foreign teachers will really be able to teach it well. That’s what they told me, at any rate.[/quote]
I agree that the end goal will not be teaching them grammar, but to “stay away from it” would be a mistake. What students here produce is full of grammar errors that often make their compositions unreadable. Focusing on recurring grammar errors related to discourse level issues can help make their writing much better.

A writing class should not be a grammar class, but you can’t completely ignore the issues. Things like: learning to avoid using dependant clauses as complete sentences, using the right tense, and using a consistent narrative voice are grammar topics essential to good writing.

I would say that you shouldn’t be teaching them how to conjugate a particular tense, but when to use them in writing. The most confusing thing I see are students who write about things in the past as if they were in the present, or vice versa. It’s difficult for the reader to decide which grammar structure is in error.

I don’t think you need to concentrate on usage unless you are dealing with a very advanced class that is already writing generally cogent and cohesive papers. You might give them some usage tips as you go along as sort of sidenotes when something is encountered, but otherwise my opinion is that your focus could be better spent elsewhere.

Some grammar issues that cause confusion:
sentence fragments/run-on sentences
antecedants (making sure they are clear)
mis-matched tenses

There are a lot of grammar issues to cover, but often the students have learned the grammar before, they just need to be taught how to proof-read their work. Getting them to read their paper twice with an eye to editing would go a long way to fixing a lot of their mistakes.

4

When teaching an advanced class, it’s assumed that their basic grammar skills are pretty solid. Teaching English in Taiwan though, you cannot assume that. So it is a good idea to incorporate some grammar while teaching writing.

The best way to get them to correct their own grammar is to correct others. After getting them to read their own paper twice and editing, get them to fix other student’s grammar. From there, you can point out their mistakes and cover those grammar issues as it comes up.

5

All of what puiwaihin said.

In terms of specifics: Students in Taiwan have a poor understanding of what constitues a proper sentence. I teach sentence structure every class and have the students analyze their writing when proofreading in terms of basic sentence structure. This I have found to be a very powerful tool in improving the students ability to apply the grammar they already know. The issue for most students when it comes to proof reading is they don’t know where they are in the sentence. If they know this is a ‘noun clause’ then they can edit it appropriately. If they know this dependent clause is an ‘adverb’ then they know not to make it a stand alone sentence etc. This also helps them know what is the verb in a sentence, what is the auxilary and what are participles, gerunds and infinitives.

As a teacher it is also a powerful tool for you in terms of instructing the students in how to manipulate sentences in order to improve the flow and impact of a paragraph.

Another area that I focus on is nouns. The nature of English nouns and the way they take articles or don’t and the countable/non-count nature etc. is very confusing for Asian language learners. It frequently trips them and makes even the best writing confusing. This points to the fact that even quite competent writers of English have this problem.

6

That’s what my students would like to hear. Most of them are bored brainless trying to get anything right. There’s just no pleasure in it for them because they can’t see the difference between something that is grammatically correct and something that is not. As for the “quality of thought” thing, you are in for a bit of a frustration there too. Taiwanese don’t like thinking generally and after a few years here you probably won’t either.

7

That’s what my students would like to hear. Most of them are bored brainless trying to get anything right. There’s just no pleasure in it for them because they can’t see the difference between something that is grammatically correct and something that is not. As for the “quality of thought” thing, you are in for a bit of a frustration there too. Taiwanese don’t like thinking generally and after a few years here you probably won’t either.[/quote]

Bob pretty well summarizes my thoughts. Those of us who end up teaching more advanced students have to deal with the garbage that all the blue eyed blond backpackers taught them for three or four years.

The reason why they can’t get anything right is because all the shiftless shits who posed as teachers before you got the class weren’t able to teach them anything correctly.

If I were to own a buxiban in Taiwan, my first rule would be not to hire anyone under thirty with blond hair and blue eyes.

8

Also have one problem create very much confuse. English with Chinese very not same. Chinese not have verb tense or part of speech. They feel why not able say “I want communication with foriegn people”. Communicate with communication what not same? Then why must say I bought book yesterday, am buying a book now, am going to buy book tomorrow. Why not yesterday I buy le book, I zai buy book now, tomorrow I hui buy book. Why must put auxiliary first? “Are” you going to buy book tomorrow? Why not, You hui buy book tommorow ma? Not understand verb tense so make question of method very not understand. This is most big problem for Chinese people.

9

Right. These are supposed to be adult students. If they’re grammar is as bad as the above post, then it is getting in the way of communicating their meaning and thoughts. In that case, they belong in a beginner-level writing class.

10

I’ve never taught writing, but from my experience reading what college applicants are writing, both in English and in Chinese, major problems include:

Run-on sentences

Poor punctuation skills, especially confusion as to the functions of commas and periods (full stops)

Poor logic flow

Not introducing the topic of the essay early enough

Vagueness, not enough information

Not enough citing of sources

Overuse of “not only … but also” construction

Use of “Although…but”

Overuse of “Because…A, B” and underuse of “B, because A”

Poor understanding of the use of the word “especially”

Many of the above stem from L1 interference and the general lack of good instruction in how to write Chinese.

11

[quote=“White Amazon”]The reason why they can’t get anything right is because all the shiftless shits who posed as teachers before you got the class weren’t able to teach them anything correctly.

If I were to own a buxiban in Taiwan, my first rule would be not to hire anyone under thirty with blond hair and blue eyes.[/quote]

Actually, they try too hard to get things right. I don’t blame the backpackers, I blame the curriculum handed down from generation to generation all the way back to Confucious.

Language is art, not science.

To that end, writing is the pudding wherin lies the proof. Even the best student is going to see where the problem areas are through writing.

How I maximize my writing classes are to get them to read their own samples aloud . In so doing, they are giving themselves a chance to recognize their own mistakes. Do this enough times and that particular mistake will disappear entirely from the students’ bag of errors. It is through the ear that languages are learned. Thinking or reading to one’s self are not going to get the same results as actually speaking the text.

So, trial and error over rote learning is how I base each and every lesson, from basic grammar to advanced writing. Each mistake is an opportunity for a lesson, not a chance for chastisement. Once a student is comfortable in this method and willing to go out on a Confucian limb by not trying to be perfect, the following process occurs:

-Translation between languages during message creation fades.
-Error self-recognition skills develop.
-Self-correction begins to take shape.
-Students learn to own their mistakes.
-Students master target language by learning to Think In English.

It is so simple that students can hardly believe it and go through extraordinary lengths to make it difficult. I spend more of my time training them to let go of their Confucian precepts than I do teaching grammar points or syntax. The worst question a student can ask me is, “Why?” There is no why, there is only when and how.

As an educator, think of yourself as the voice inside the students brain that recognizes and prompts mistakes. If you do this, they will eventually make you redundant. That is the endgame.

12

[quote=“John Rennie 78”]

Actually, they try too hard to get things right. I don’t blame the backpackers, I blame the curriculum handed down from generation to generation all the way back to Confucious.
[snip]
I spend more of my time training them to let go of their Confucian precepts than I do teaching grammar points or syntax. The worst question a student can ask me is, “Why?” There is no why, there is only when and how.
/quote]

Dude, what are you talking about? There is no curriculum handed down from generation to generation from Confucius down to the present. And you are seriously deluded if you think your students are walking around loaded with Confucian precepts.

13

And the question “why” is VERY low on the list of Confucian thought precepts. It maybe doesn’t even exist there at all.
And in fact, there is an answer to pretty much every “why” question related to grammar points – grammar didn’t happen by accident, after all. Although I admit that’s probably beyond the scope of teaching for most ESL teachers, or for most English teachers in general.

14

[quote=“Feiren”][quote=“John Rennie 78”]

Actually, they try too hard to get things right. I don’t blame the backpackers, I blame the curriculum handed down from generation to generation all the way back to Confucious.
[snip]
I spend more of my time training them to let go of their Confucian precepts than I do teaching grammar points or syntax. The worst question a student can ask me is, “Why?” There is no why, there is only when and how.
[/quote]

Dude, what are you talking about? There is no curriculum handed down from generation to generation from Confucius down to the present. And you are seriously deluded if you think your students are walking around loaded with Confucian precepts.[/quote]

What I am referring to is the prevelant attitude that making mistakes = loss of face. Traditional buxiban curriculum is therefore designed around rote learning where making mistakes is minimized and chastized. The “handed-down” curriculum is such that the same style of teaching is being applied to language learning as is to scientific learning. A black and white sort of curriculum. The results of which are that kids are grauduating high school able to spell a thousand words, but can’t give me directions to the nearest MRT.

Seriously deluded? Nice! Remind me to share what I believe works with you guys more often. The fact of the matter is that each and every Taiwanese person is walking around and operating under the Confucian precept of 法家. This bars them from trying anything that may result in a mistake. I am not deluded in this. I have seen shining examples of it in each and every student I’ve taught or citizen I’ve interacted with. You are deluded if you think it doesn’t exist. Ask yourself why you have a job so easily. Teaching English in Taiwan is a joke, a money grab. So many schools opening everyday, yet Taiwan scores amongst the lowest on the standardized tests given internationally. Why? ( :wink:) Fear of making mistakes. Sorry to burst your bubble, but language cannot be learned that way. It is by making mistakes that language is learned.

[quote=“sandman”]And the question “why” is VERY low on the list of Confucian thought precepts. It maybe doesn’t even exist there at all.
And in fact, there is an answer to pretty much every “why” question related to grammar points – grammar didn’t happen by accident, after all. Although I admit that’s probably beyond the scope of teaching for most ESL teachers, or for most English teachers in general.[/quote]

When teaching a natural approach, I discourage trying to understand why, but to intuit how and when. I can explain the why in most situations and still will, but I prefer not to. I think it is counter-productive. Be “why” confucian or not, they still want to know the answer. I discourage that kind of thinking.

15

[quote=“John Rennie 78”][quote=“Feiren”][quote=“John Rennie 78”]

I challenge you to find this equation anywhere in the Analects. And while you are at it, please find a reference to the concept of ‘face’.

Fine, I agree. But the ‘traditional Buxiban curriculum’ is a response to Taiwan’s examination systems, which are a modern institution. The curriculum has nothing to do with Confucianism in the narrow sense of what is contained in the Analects, nor in the broader sense of the state-sanctioned system of learning based on the Confucian classics that funnctioned from the Song Dyasty down to the founding of the Republic.

Oh, come on. Don’t be so sensitive. I’m happy that you are sharing what works for you and that’s what Forumosa is all about in my book. But Forumosa is also about correcting misinformation.

法家 refers to what is usually known as the Legalist school. The Legalists were rivals to the Confucians because they believed that practicing pragmatic statecraft with a clear system of rewards and punishments was more conducive to building up a powerful state than the wholesale return to the ancient rituals of the Chou dynasty that Confucius advocated. In many sense, Confucius was akin to the Amish or the Hasidim in that he wanted to retain (in Confucius’s case, revive) antiquated social structures.

I’m sure you are a fine teacher and that you have methods that work. Your cultural explanations, however, are misguided at best.

[quote]
Ask yourself why you have a job so easily. Teaching English in Taiwan is a joke, a money grab.
[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

Why do you assume that I teach English? I’ve always thought that whether it is a 'joke; depends on the teacher’s professionalism and the desire of the students to learn.

16

Fair enough, I am arguing with someone much more knowledgable than my lay interpretations of these concepts can bring to light. Thank you for challenging my assessment. Yes, my view is simplistic. But I am striving to understand why students are so shy. I am pretty sure it has to do with being laughed at, smacked and punished everytime they’ve made a mistake since they were 5 years old. I knew 法家 was not Confucian directly, but I did think it came from his students. I did not know it was a group that challenged his teaching. 無為而治 I believe (in my simplistic vision of things) is a far better teaching tool than 法家 . I seem to make it work. But I guess not effectively enough or one of my students would have had the courage to speak up and teach me how I was misinterpreting this. Thanks F. Seriously.

Edit: Thanks for the link to legalism. Very interesting. I am going to use it in my next Adv. Conversation class.

17

I think the Taiwanese experience with family, school, and work accounts for a lot of what you are calling shyness and what I would call passivity. And also keep in mind that a lot of the folks who are studying English as adults are doing so because they went to mediocre schools down south or weren’t the brightest students in the class.

I think it’s great that you are trying to understand your students, and while I think sometimes cultural explanations are in order, I think you will be more rewarded if you try to understand more about how modern Taiwanese society works rather than looking to the ancient past.

Anyway, peace and welcome to Formosa. I apologize for not having looked at your number of posts before starting to ride one of my favorite hobby horses.

18

I’m not entirely certain that “language” is either. The “use” of language, as a native speaker especially, certainly feels like an art, at least at the best of times; but the study of languages is more of a science. Teaching a second language should be a bit of both. On the science side that means ensuring that students are aware of, and have had lots of practice with, the basic grammar structures. Communicative practice with loads of contextual clues to meaning but loosely structured around a particular grammar point seems to me like the most effective means for developing communicative competence.

Then again I’m off topic so…

19

Good response bob. Let me say that learning a language, at the onset, can be treated as a science in that rules need to be learned and alphabet/spelling needs to be memorized. Comes a time when a student must just put that away and simply use the language, which, I believe is what the latter part of bob’s post is saying (correct me if I am wrong bob). This is where the most effective learning happens, that of trial and error.

My job, as I see it, is to provide a stimulating, safe and comfortable environment for the student to practice their skills and to assist them in developing their own error recognition/self-correction skills by acting as a surrogate conscience.

Additionally, whilst traipsing across any campus in the West, I am sure you’ll discover that buildings are divided into Arts and Sciences: Earth Sciences, Biological Sciences and Language Arts. At least, that’s how my alma mater differentiated its structures.

Once it’s all boiled down, the fact remains that a successful student of any L2 must learn to THINK before they can walk.

MHO-YMMV

20

Nice. I think the danger of “language use as art” approach generally is that proponents of such a view fail to acknowledge that a person can’t use what he hasn’t learned, or especially, acquired. I understand the TPR and TPRS people put forward a method of teaching that allows for a good deal of language aquisition free of analysis and my own, probably somewhat misguided, experiments with their ideas leads me to believe it’s a great approach. With older and/or more analytically inclined people though I have found that a strong foundation in basic grammar followed by enormous amounts of comprehensible input and opportunities for self expression is really the best combination.