Modern teaching methods

[Quake42]

We hear a lot about "trendy modern teaching methods" whereby children's spelling and grammar is never corrected as it interferes with their creativity, stifles expression etc.

Supposedly this started a couple of decades ago or so.

I'm in my early 30s and was certainly taught spelling and some grammar. My 28+ work colleagues generally don't struggle with either of these, but we have recently taken on a couple of younger guys (around 25) who are both reasonably intelligent, have university degrees etc but who can't write for toffee!

So, is this particular UL actually a fact? Any teachers out there, or parents with kids in schools, who can verify this?

 

[Yithian]

Spelling was hammered home relentlessly and grammar had to be impeccable but we were never acually taught formal grammar. Even at my grammar school... Am in my late 20s.

 

[Tyger_Lily]

There was a time when spelling phonetically was encouraged. People in aged about 38-45 should probably know and it was called ITA (Initial Teaching Alaphabet I think) but it had bugger all to do with cramping individuality or anything. Educationalists (who to this day still never actually set foot in a school so it seems) thought it would be easier for children to spell as they thought it sounded and then have the ability to pick up the corrections later. IE Spelling rough as ruff but learning the "ough" rule at a later date.

It didn't work and was dumped after a few years but left a generation of school children appalling spellers.

Older children tend to use text speak these days when writing notes in class and it sometimes spills over into their essay writing. That is far more frightening as they don't realise they're doing it and have no actual clue how to spell the word correctly.

 

[Quake42]

There was a time when spelling phonetically was encouraged. People in aged about 38-45 should probably know and it was called ITA (Initial Teaching Alaphabet I think) but it had bugger all to do with cramping individuality or anything. Educationalists (who to this day still never actually set foot in a school so it seems) thought it would be easier for children to spell as they thought it sounded and then have the ability to pick up the corrections later. IE Spelling rough as ruff but learning the "ough" rule at a later date.

Yeah, I've come across this - when I was very small a few schools here and there were still teaching it.

What I'm trying to find out is whether there is a policy in a lot of schools now not to correct things like grammar and spelling in case it puts children off expressing themselves.

As I say some of the writing skills employed by our younger employees suggests this may be the case, and another colleague who is a parent says his son is a terrible speller and rarely, if ever, has his mistakes corrected by teachers.

Of course, this could just be his excuse for his kid being a poor speller!

So if there are any teachers or other parents who could comment, I'd be very interested.

 

[JamesWhitehead]

The trend has been entirely in the direction of greater formality for many years now. Anyone rejoining the teaching profession after a break may be daunted by the jargon of the National Curriculum and related materials.

Of course, what gets measured gets done and by moving the goalposts at regular intervals, teachers are kept in line.

As a Grammar School boy, I was never exposed to much hippy-education. Apart from a few well-publicised disasters, I don't think do-what-you-want schools were ever common but they have been used as a stick to keep at bay any troublesome idealists ever since.

The human element does get squeezed out and real literacy continues to decline apace, whatever statistics claim. The majority of kids do not associate reading with pleasure. Even the skills of scanning and skimming have now to be taught as "Exam Techniques".

Anyone looking to be frightened by the directions of modern education and its historical roots should visit the Memory Hole site and follow the link to an online book by a man called John Taylor Gatto. He is writing about the US public school system but its applications elsewhere are not hard to see:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/edu/school-mission.htm

If just one tenth of that is true . . .


To address the specific question about correction of grammar and spellings. A teacher should mark work in a way which will encourage the pupil to improve. Marking every error is regarded as daunting for the weak pupil but it is policy in most schools to focus the mind of the pupil on two or three achievable targets. As for "free expression", I can't recall when I last saw it in any mission statement, syllabus or PowerPoint presentation. :shock:

 

[Tyger_Lily]

Well funny you should say that...I work in a primary school.

Children are taught spelling and grammar every day but as James rightly says, the NC is so constricted that a teacher gets an hour literacy per day and have to pack in a huge amount. Most kids pick up punctuation and spelling from reading and class work with their natural ability filling in the gaps, but the weaker ones tend to get left behind because of the demands the the NC makes. There isn't enough time to practise handwriting and grammar as such, because of what the NC says the children should be learning (and not what they ought). Saying that though, and I do sound like I am contradicting myself, certain schools "bend" the NC and do give children spelling tests but they cover what the NC dictates they should be doing by writing it in their lesson plans but making it fit to their way of teaching. It depends on the school/teacher really.

If a school is deemed by Ofsted as not being one of the better ones then any wobble away from the NC is frowned up, every aspect must be covered to make it improve, but if a school is seen as being consistantly good then the way the NC is "interpreted" is accepted.

Do you remember when you were at school and you did topic work? you got books from the library and always chose something like cars or sport of horses? Well, kids don't do that anymore, which is a darn shame because it covers an awful lot of the demands that the NC makes but it is not seen as instrumental to their learning. Bollocks really.

Children are encouraged to express themselves using correct spelling and grammar but unfortunately they don't get time as the teachers are either dealing with issues from children who can't cope with a mainstream education (don't get me started on social inclusion...) or working at such a cracking pace to keep up with the sodding NC that it just gets forgotten.

 

[gordonrutter]

I teach and I do correct my pupils spelling and grammar. I do tell them that they will generally not lose marks in exams for incorrect spelling as long as it it is obvious what they are trying to say - and the easiest way to ensure that is to get it correct in the first place!

Gordon

 

[Rrose_Selavy]

There was a recent report about the poor basic skills of graduates.

Having started primary school in the late 60s I already could read Ok at 5 - I remember being allowed to skip a few of the Ladybird books - Even remember the first three pages of the very first ladybird book - 1a
First page: Jane,
Second page: Peter,
Third page: Peter and Jane......
etc..

I wonder if I had anything to do with parents - my dad mostly - having books at home, him Reading for pleasure or me reading Marvel comics which he brought home each week for us - No internet or Pcs in those days - I couldn't wait to join the local ibrary - what a pleasure books did and still give to me.

He's no longer around but - Thanks Dad.

-
-

-

 

[filcee]

There was a time when spelling phonetically was encouraged. People in aged about 38-45 should probably know and it was called ITA (Initial Teaching Alaphabet I think) but it had bugger all to do with cramping individuality or anything...

...It didn't work and was dumped after a few years but left a generation of school children appalling spellers.

I have horrible memories of ITA (I'm 35). I could already read and write by the time I started infant school (Thanks, Ma), but ITA made no sense at all. The school were convinced I was dyslexic and / or ignorant (my older brother had been through the same school a few years before, he is dyslexic (and ignorant)). It took my Ma coming into the school with a copy of 'A Tale of Two Cities' and telling the teacher to open it at any page and let me read.
By the time I got to senior school teaching of grammar, punctuation and spelling had gone completely out of the window...

 

[JamesWhitehead]

I wonder if I had anything to do with parents - my dad mostly - having books at home, him Reading for pleasure or me reading Marvel comics which he brought home each week for us - No internet or Pcs in those days - I couldn't wait to join the local ibrary - what a pleasure books did and still give to me.

It had everything to do with exactly that! A well-produced book or even a sinfully-enticing comic is something that a lot of kids never see at home or in school. It is common now for schemes of work to be photocopied. The business of learning English is reduced to a succession of fragmented exercises.

One of the themes in the Gatto book I mentioned above is that the rise of the professional teacher has corresponded to a steep decline in literacy. He gives a detailed account of the evolution of the American school system and produces evidence that home tuition and the flawed methods of the emancipated slaves and freed convicts who were the first teachers resulted in nearly universal literacy during the Nineteenth Century.

Why? He suggests that their basic and instinctive phonics system empowered children by enabling them to read unfamiliar words. He argues that the word-recognition system - Janet & John to us - limits the vocabulary and confidence of the child. This debate continues, fuelled by blinding statistics on all sides.

I do, however, keep encountering individuals who must have learned a great deal from casual pre-school home tuition and who clearly recall how their early reading skills impressed their teachers - until it began to annoy them. 8)

 

[Kondoru]

It had everything to do with exactly that! A well-produced book or even a sinfully-enticing comic is something that a lot of kids never see at home or in school. It is common now for schemes of work to be photocopied. The business of learning English is reduced to a succession of fragmented exercises.

I never learnt to read untill I realised that it was fun. No one taught me that.

 

[gordonrutter]

I never learnt to read untill I realised that it was fun. No one taught me that.

I remember not being able to read and seeing others getting obvious pleasure at reading - laughing, gaining knowledge etc, and I knew I wanted some of that. I wish I had more time to read now.

Gordon

 

[OldTimeRadio]

"We hear a lot about 'trendy modern teaching methods' whereby children's spelling and grammar is never corrected as it interferes with their creativity, stifles expression etc. Supposedly this started a couple of decades ago or so."

Quake, I can assure you that these "teaching methods" were being railed against as long ago as my own grade school days (1947-1955). But they were always being implemented some place else - some other town, some other state, even some other country.

"But HERE, young man, we STILL learn the PROPER rules of spelling and grammar."

 

[Leaferne]

I derive some hope from the gnashing of teeth here recently over the thread title "Less Users".

 

[gerardwilkie]

mods- I think this should be moved as it has little relevance to urban legend.

By the way , as an ex teacher , I know that teachers regularly cut corners to achieve higher grades . Teachers tend to work towards kids passing exams and teach them how to answer exam type questions parrot-fashion. I used to teach modern languages and taught the kids what I felt they needed to know and understand , but other teachers would look at what would be in the exam and teach that over and over again . In the language department , this created situations where kids could write a letter to a pen-pal with extreme ease , but were unable to talk about football or the weather . Also , the exams in the UK are now structured so that almost everyone is guaranteed a pass , but when the education system is accused of too many kids passing due to dumbing down , there is outrage.

 

[lupinwick]

My wife teaches one of the few A level subjects where essay writing is requird as part of the exam. For the last few years she has had to spend the first couple of weeks of the year ramming the grammar, punctuation and spelling down the students throats. I've read a number of the essays ( ) and they are in deed dire.

However, our son - now at secondary is routinely pulled up for spelling, grammar etc. but sadly use of MSN very quickly removes the benefits So perhaps standards are improving.

As for graduates, in my experience they're taught what industry would like to see on a VC and not a whole lot else. In IT it seems all graduates can program in Java but couldn't say how virutal memory works.

 

[JamesWhitehead]

A VC!

OMG! It is qualification inflation I tell you! In my day it was possible to be a coward and still get a job - even if it was just making the custard.

 

[dreeness]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_language

:nah:

 

[boynamedsue]

regarding drilling kids 4 xams.....

in my combined science gcse course we repeated the same xperiment testing rates of reaction of marble chips and hydrochloric acid around once a month.

When the practical exam came, lo and behold, it was that same experiment with a slightly different type of acid.

Is it any wonder i lit a fire?

 

[lupinwick]

A VC!

OMG! It is qualification inflation I tell you! In my day it was possible to be a coward and still get a job - even if it was just making the custard.

Aaah a CV of course. Too much of a rush that day

 

[Rrose_Selavy]

I know one size doesn't always fit all and we have differing learning styles but it's amazing that after all these years the "experts" can't agree on the best way to teach something as fundamental as reading.

Teaching of reading to be revised
The national curriculum in England is to be revised so children are taught to read primarily using the method known as synthetic phonics.
The approach is a key recommendation of a review headed by former Ofsted inspections director Jim Rose.

He says phonics - letter sounds - must happen alongside paying attention to speaking and listening.

The government and the Tories back the findings. The Lib Dems say it should be for teachers to decide what is best.

And Steve Sinnott of the National Union of Teachers said teachers would be bemused because phonics was already a national curriculum requirement for infants.

Phonics first

The current approved strategy involves a mixture of approaches.


I am clear that synthetic phonics should be the first strategy in teaching all children to read
Ruth Kelly
Education Secretary

Phonics focuses on sounds - rather than, for example, having children try to recognise whole words.

In the widely-used analytic phonics, words are deconstructed into their beginning and end parts, such as "str-" and "-eet".

In pure synthetic phonics, children start by learning the sounds of letters and of letter combinations: "ss-t-rrr-ee-t".

Only once they have learnt all these do they progress to reading books.

The final Rose report, published on Monday morning, recommends that for most children, systematic phonics teaching should start by the age of five.

There should be extra help for children who fall behind.

Head teachers should make phonics the priority - and set ambitious targets for what children should achieve by the time they finish primary school six years later.

Scottish example

In the most famous experiment, in Clackmannanshire, children taught using synthetic phonics were years ahead of their contemporaries by the time they moved on to secondary school.

The method is already endorsed by the Scottish Executive.


Unless you can actually decode the words on the page you will not be able, obviously, to comprehend them
Jim Rose

Critics say it might teach children to read - but not necessarily to understand what they are reading.

And research commissioned by England's education department said the evidence base for using synthetic phonics was weak.

The Westminster government is proud that its national literacy strategy, introduced in 1998, has seen the proportion of 11-year-olds reading at the expected level for their age rise from 67% to 84%.

But it acknowledges that one in five children still does not reach the necessary standard in English overall and, as a result, their teenage learning is hampered. Ms Kelly said she accepted all the recommendations in the report and had launched a programme of training for teachers.

She said: "I am clear that synthetic phonics should be the first strategy in teaching all children to read."

Her department will work with the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority on how best to embed this in the national curriculum.

'Challenge' ahead

Mr Rose said the best schools already use systematic phonics teaching within "a language-rich curriculum".

He said he had reached his conclusions because synthetic phonics combines both word recognition - cracking the alphabetic code - and comprehension.

"This is a programme for beginner readers," he said. "This is for children starting out on the way to reading and undoubtedly the evidence shows that this is the most successful route."


Unless a child can learn to read, they can't learn at all
Lord Adonis
Schools minister

However, he stressed that phonic work was only "part of the story".
"It's not the whole story but it's an extremely important step because unless you can actually decode the words on the page you will not be able, obviously, to comprehend them."

The Conservatives campaigned for such an approach during last year's general election.

Shadow schools minister Nick Gibb said synthetic phonics should be happening in every primary school.

"The alternative 'look and say' approach has, over two generations, led to poor literacy levels in this country and the associated problems at secondary schools of low levels of attainment and disruptive behaviour," he said.

Liberal Democrat education spokeswoman Sarah Teather said being overly prescriptive approach would not leave any flexibility for teachers to decide what was best for the children in their class.

"Schools should get guidance based on the latest research but the precise mix of methods used in classrooms is a matter for teachers working with individual pupils," she said.

"Phonics is only one tool to help children learn the English language. The national curriculum neglects communication skills and more needs to be done to address speaking and listening in the early years."


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/e ... 818516.stm

Published: 2006/03/20 10:28:40 GMT

© BBC MMVI

The debate about phonics teaching
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4486814.stm

 

[crouton1198]

The lack of spelling and grammar skills shocks me when I visit another website's forum, the membership of which seems to be mainly teenagers. The common belief that the words 'they're', 'there', and 'their' all mean the same thing and can be used interchangably irritates me no end, as well as the incorrect use of the words 'where' and 'were', and 'your' and 'you're'. As for grammar, if we can't agree on a set of rules for language and use them correctly, how can we understand what anyone else is saying? The Tower of Babel is nothing compared to what will happen in the next generation or so. :cry: