Do you know a subordinating conjunction or a preposition?

[turbobloke]

jmorgan said:

Used or new?

Recycled.

[saaby93]

Murph7355 said:

Lucas CAV said:

Well I don't know "this stuff" and I think my English is reasonable - so what's your point?

It's comforting to think that as a nation we are setting ourselves "reasonable" as a quality standard target.

If we're setting ourselves the same targets in mathematics, engineering, the sciences etc, our future is truly rosy.

I asked this too
If kids are to know about subordinating conjunctions should they know about unsprung mass, polar moment of inertia and Newton's apple? Maybe they do

[turbobloke]

Murph7355 said:

Lucas CAV said:

Well I don't know "this stuff" and I think my English is reasonable - so what's your point?

It's comforting to think that as a nation we are setting ourselves "reasonable" as a quality standard target.

If we're setting ourselves the same targets in mathematics, engineering, the sciences etc, our future is truly rosy.

Local radio just had a question from last year's SATs which offered four sentences and asked which one of them was a command. The presenter, together with a university lecturer they called and a couple of phone-in parents didn't know i.e. they got it wrong. That alone is a telling demonstration of where the country has been going wrong over the past two or three decades where "all must have prizes" held sway. A lack of rigour and grade inflation ensured these prizes were handed out...all meaningless in the face of widespread under-achievement which is then worn as a badge of pride.

At least the radio prog had the sense to call a private tutor who works with KS2 pupils and they (as expected, and unlike the lecturer) gave the correct answer.

[Derek Smith]

Murph7355 said:

Derek Smith said:

.. .

As an afterthought:

Being able to name specific tenses (and other definitions) is the same as in the study of Shakespeare building a model of the Globe.

My mother would be dismayed at the following use of the language, but what a load of bks.

Tenses are now too hard to learn too...?

It's no wonder our ability at second languages is so poor when we treat our own with disdain.

I'm not sure you fully understood my point.

How do you judge a 'good' writer? There is a bit of software that, it was suggested, analysed copy. However, all it does is calculate. It gives a list of the percentage of words of specific length, the length, in words, of sentences and paragraphs, and included averages. It gives the number of paragraphs per thousand words, the average number of sentences and you get the point.

Lots and lots of data but there was no way it can predict whether a particular bit of prose would be rated good by readers.

To put it another way, being able to name a pronoun or preposition, or the various tenses, does not help one write good copy.

The rules children should learn are such things that Lynn Truss wrote about.

The names of the different tenses in the English language is taught so that it can be tested.

[turbobloke]

Derek Smith said:

To put it another way, being able to name a pronoun or preposition, or the various tenses, does not help one write good copy.

In the case of Key Stage 2 lessons and the SATs I don't think that's the (whole) point, perhaps you didn't intend it to be.

The context in terms of analysing sentences is clearly of material interest but the ability to analyse is itself of use on a wider basis, whether the pupil is analysing part of a sentence or classes of lever or anything else.

This can be overlooked as part of the value inherent to a rigorous approach when teaching English.

[Derek Smith]

turbobloke said:

In the case of Key Stage 2 lessons and the SATs I don't think that's the (whole) point, perhaps you didn't intend it to be.

The context in terms of analysing sentences is clearly of material interest but the ability to analyse is itself of use on a wider basis, whether the pupil is analysing part of a sentence or classes of lever or anything else.

This can be overlooked as part of the value inherent to a rigorous approach when teaching English.

Indeed. My belief is, as above, that it is being taught to test. And, unlike when I was at school, tests don't seem to be intended to judge a child's ability so much as the teacher's.

I used to teach, instruct if you will. My department took over responsibility for teaching newbie traffic officers the law and mechanics specific to their post. In preparation a colleague and I reviewed the lesson plans of the previous instructors, traffic sergeants untrained in teaching.

Every morning there was a test of definitions that they had to learn. One particular one was of a recovery vehicle - the wording changing every four or five years. The only purpose was to allow such vehicle to be used on a road (also defined) without a tax disc, something that is of no interest to police.

These were adults.

We changed the make-up of the course, bringing in the ability to refer to text books, Sweet and Maxwell in particular. The burgers of traffic were outraged that there were only weekly tests, and even then they could use reference books. My colleague pointed out that all students had bought a condensed book on traffic law that they would take with them on patrol and could refer to when compiling reports. It was full of references, links if you will, to S&M.

Our curriculum was much more detailed and comprehensive. The students' reports to training after their first few months pestering the public, required to improve subsequent courses, were that they were astounded how little most of their new colleagues knew. One said that on his relief he was seen as a resource of law.

We were teaching what would be useful rather than what would be easy to test.

I suggested to my unit head that we should feed back some of the comments to the traffic brass, especially those who had been so obstructive. He said that out of all my weird ideas, that was the one most off the wall.

It is terribly hard to mark an examination other than the tick box variety, and definitions are included in that heading. But in 30 years in the job, and hundreds of court appearances, I've only ever had to recite one definition, and that was one that every bobbie knew by heart. Every other one was worthless.

I think teaching of the name of tenses is there to test. It can have no other function. I have been informed that pluperfect has been renamed. I have no idea when that occurred as no one talks about it. I'm pleased. It helps prove my point, the recovery vehicle all over again.

That said, I was taught names of tenses, sentence construction, and more and it has stuck. There's an advert on TV which says: This matters to you and I. It is almost generates a physical pain. But despite writing for money for the majority of my life (and for free when rejected) I have never found a use for their names.

[deadslow]

Derek Smith said:

Indeed. My belief is, as above, that it is being taught to test. And, unlike when I was at school, tests don't seem to be intended to judge a child's ability so much as the teacher's.

A test checks the effectiveness of learning and teaching. There is no need for these 'checks' to have published results or to impact the social standing of any pupil. No need for stress, or for anyone to be labelled a failure. Do a task/project/week's work/month'y work. At the end summarise and check understanding with a brief worksheet. Keep it simple and effective. Do not building up pressure.

In a globalised market/workplace we are looking comparatively dumber by the year. We do need to address this and probably provide a more rigorous curriculum. Kids (and most adults) can learn just about whatever you throw at them so long as they (or their parents) have not pre-decided they cannot do it.

[Roy Lime]

I was never taught about prepositions, embedded clauses, the perfect tense or any of the basic building blocks that provide the structure for effective communication. I've always found this puts me at an immediate disadvantage when trying to learn foreign languages. Indeed, it's embarrassing to admit to a non-native English speaker that I don't know what they're talking about when they try to explain.

A cursory glance at any of the social media sites provides a clear demonstration that the general standard of English is piss poor. Pistonheads, by contrast, is generally pretty good (although the growing trend of using 'a' instead of 'an' needs to be stamped on) with many well-constructed, fluid and easy-to-read posts.

Anything that will help to raise the standard in schools should be seen as a Good Thing. I saw an example of those tests yesterday and they looked bloody hard - as they would to someone who had never been taught properly. I wonder how many of those complaining are perhaps a little ashamed of their own lack of understanding. I know I am; I resent not being taught properly.

[turbobloke]

Derek Smith said:

turbobloke said:

In the case of Key Stage 2 lessons and the SATs I don't think that's the (whole) point, perhaps you didn't intend it to be.

The context in terms of analysing sentences is clearly of material interest but the ability to analyse is itself of use on a wider basis, whether the pupil is analysing part of a sentence or classes of lever or anything else.

This can be overlooked as part of the value inherent to a rigorous approach when teaching English.

Indeed. My belief is, as above, that it is being taught to test. And, unlike when I was at school, tests don't seem to be intended to judge a child's ability so much as the teacher's.

I would beg to differ when it comes to analysis, as this will involve using at least some intellectual horsepower (pupil) rather than an installed modification (teacher). Where teachers, and parents, enter the equation more critically in my view is with regard to stress transfer to the children. Kids would be more relaxed if teachers and parents were. They (children) love learning and don't mind a 'quiz' or two.

Derek Smith said:

I used to teach, instruct if you will. My department took over responsibility for teaching newbie traffic officers the law and mechanics specific to their post. In preparation a colleague and I reviewed the lesson plans of the previous instructors, traffic sergeants untrained in teaching.

Every morning there was a test of definitions that they had to learn. One particular one was of a recovery vehicle - the wording changing every four or five years. The only purpose was to allow such vehicle to be used on a road (also defined) without a tax disc, something that is of no interest to police.

These were adults.

Understood. However, there was no higher order thinking involved in that scenario (e.g. analysis, synthesis) unlike sentence analysis for pupils. It was simple recall of definitions and from your description these weren't actually of much use to police!

Derek Smith said:

We changed the make-up of the course, bringing in the ability to refer to text books, Sweet and Maxwell in particular. The burgers of traffic were outraged that there were only weekly tests, and even then they could use reference books. My colleague pointed out that all students had bought a condensed book on traffic law that they would take with them on patrol and could refer to when compiling reports. It was full of references, links if you will, to S&M.

Seems reasonable, in some contexts open book exams are also reasonable...usually where the test is of higher order skills as illustrated above, and where the student would be in a position to look up factual aspects (in the real world) anyway.

Derek Smith said:

Our curriculum was much more detailed and comprehensive. The students' reports to training after their first few months pestering the public, required to improve subsequent courses, were that they were astounded how little most of their new colleagues knew. One said that on his relief he was seen as a resource of law.

We were teaching what would be useful rather than what would be easy to test.

Hopefully the tests for children also test what is useful and that includes the powers of analysis as well as recall.

Derek Smith said:

I suggested to my unit head that we should feed back some of the comments to the traffic brass, especially those who had been so obstructive. He said that out of all my weird ideas, that was the one most off the wall.

Derek Smith said:

It is terribly hard to mark an examination other than the tick box variety, and definitions are included in that heading. But in 30 years in the job, and hundreds of court appearances, I've only ever had to recite one definition, and that was one that every bobbie knew by heart. Every other one was worthless.

Understood, but if the context of the learning of that useless stuff also helped to develop powers of analysis then there would have been some benefit.

Derek Smith said:

I think teaching of the name of tenses is there to test. It can have no other function. I have been informed that pluperfect has been renamed.

What, you didn't get the memo?!

[Derek Smith]

Roy Lime said:

I was never taught about prepositions, embedded clauses, the perfect tense or any of the basic building blocks that provide the structure for effective communication. I've always found this puts me at an immediate disadvantage when trying to learn foreign languages. Indeed, it's embarrassing to admit to a non-native English speaker that I don't know what they're talking about when they try to explain.

A cursory glance at any of the social media sites provides a clear demonstration that the general standard of English is piss poor. Pistonheads, by contrast, is generally pretty good (although the growing trend of using 'a' instead of 'an' needs to be stamped on) with many well-constructed, fluid and easy-to-read posts.

Anything that will help to raise the standard in schools should be seen as a Good Thing. I saw an example of those tests yesterday and they looked bloody hard - as they would to someone who had never been taught properly. I wonder how many of those complaining are perhaps a little ashamed of their own lack of understanding. I know I am; I resent not being taught properly.

I'm not picking on you, it's just that you raised a point.

Learning doesn't end at school. I've always thought of it as a grounding. If you don't take history at A-level then you should read books on it all through your life.

I've learnt more about English language and literature since school.

I've taken a number of courses throughout my life and, if the costs were not so prohibitive, would be on an OU course now.

I'm learning Italian. I've studied Japanese history, or rather am studying. Neither was taught at school.

Libraries are an unending source of new.

As I say, not having a dig.

[Einion Yrth]

Roy Lime said:

I was never taught about prepositions, embedded clauses, the perfect tense or any of the basic building blocks that provide the structure for effective communication. I've always found this puts me at an immediate disadvantage when trying to learn foreign languages. Indeed, it's embarrassing to admit to a non-native English speaker that I don't know what they're talking about when they try to explain.

A cursory glance at any of the social media sites provides a clear demonstration that the general standard of English is piss poor. Pistonheads, by contrast, is generally pretty good (although the growing trend of using 'a' instead of 'an' needs to be stamped on) with many well-constructed, fluid and easy-to-read posts.

Anything that will help to raise the standard in schools should be seen as a Good Thing. I saw an example of those tests yesterday and they looked bloody hard - as they would to someone who had never been taught properly. I wonder how many of those complaining are perhaps a little ashamed of their own lack of understanding. I know I am; I resent not being taught properly.

Ironically, given that your standard of English is really pretty good, you kind of argue against your own point. It is true however that learning a second or third language can be made easier by knowledge of the formalism of which you were deprived.

[Bring on the clowns]

turbobloke said:

Murph7355 said:

Lucas CAV said:

Well I don't know "this stuff" and I think my English is reasonable - so what's your point?

It's comforting to think that as a nation we are setting ourselves "reasonable" as a quality standard target.

If we're setting ourselves the same targets in mathematics, engineering, the sciences etc, our future is truly rosy.

Local radio just had a question from last year's SATs which offered four sentences and asked which one of them was a command. The presenter, together with a university lecturer they called and a couple of phone-in parents didn't know i.e. they got it wrong. That alone is a telling demonstration of where the country has been going wrong over the past two or three decades where "all must have prizes" held sway. A lack of rigour and grade inflation ensured these prizes were handed out...all meaningless in the face of widespread under-achievement which is then worn as a badge of pride.

At least the radio prog had the sense to call a private tutor who works with KS2 pupils and they (as expected, and unlike the lecturer) gave the correct answer.

There was also a radio debate (not the same as the one you relate, I think?) where Adrian Chiles would not stop harping on about fronted adverbials. A guru - seemingly brought on to explain why children did not need to learn the technicalities of grammar, though he contradicted his own argument so much that it was hard to tell - finally told the listener convincingly what it was, using the quoted test question as the vehicle. He got it totally wrong! Yet this is one of the most obvious (and over played) terms in KS2 that almost any pupil would be able to explain and to give an example of.

[Murph7355]

Derek Smith said:

I'm not sure you fully understood my point.

You are probably correct as I still don't and your subsequent posts didn't help

Derek Smith said:

...
The names of the different tenses in the English language is taught so that it can be tested. ..

Things are named and defined so that people can refer to them in a commonly understood way. It helps get one's point across whether teaching or learning and gives a set of building blocks from which great things can be built.

This doesn't start and end with things I hope we all accept as important like spelling and punctuation (though increasingly I suspect people cannot be bothered with these either), but includes things like naming tenses etc.

The purpose of testing should be to ensure those learning these building blocks understand them and can put them to use. If done properly, it will test both the student and the teacher. And that has to be a "good thing".

I agree with you that being equipped with the building blocks is not the sole determinant in whether you'll be good at one thing or another, as most roles in life require more than just a purely technical understanding of a subject. There has to be application too. But not understanding those building blocks makes life very difficult.

[bloomen]

I remember spending an awful lot of time at school. I also seem to remember that no one taught me the slightest thing about grammar. Not one goddamn bean.

I once had a womanfriend who was learning English. She kept asking me about past participles, first person singulars and lord knows what else. I didn't have the slightest clue what she was on about and I'm pretty sure she was talking English at me the whole time.

[otolith]

If you have a thing that most educated people understand without ever having been taught it in a formal way, and you want to make sure that everyone understands it, you might need to give it a name. It's quite likely that a lot of people who understand the thing won't recognise the name. That doesn't really matter, the people you need to recognise the name are the people you are trying to teach the thing to, not the people who already get it.

[Derek Smith]

Murph7355 said:

Things are named and defined so that people can refer to them in a commonly understood way. It helps get one's point across whether teaching or learning and gives a set of building blocks from which great things can be built.

This doesn't start and end with things I hope we all accept as important like spelling and punctuation (though increasingly I suspect people cannot be bothered with these either), but includes things like naming tenses etc.

The purpose of testing should be to ensure those learning these building blocks understand them and can put them to use. If done properly, it will test both the student and the teacher. And that has to be a "good thing".

I agree with you that being equipped with the building blocks is not the sole determinant in whether you'll be good at one thing or another, as most roles in life require more than just a purely technical understanding of a subject. There has to be application too. But not understanding those building blocks makes life very difficult.

Let's put it this way.

If the vast majority of people can not only get through life without knowing the names of such things, but perform highly in creative writing, then it is pointless demanding that children learn such terms sufficiently to regurgitate them in tests.

Professional writers have no need to know them. They can create without definitions.

Writing, in other words transferring information, ideas and suggestions through words, is a practical skill, rather like driving. It might be useful to know of the Ackerman Angle, but there is no need to remember its name.

As you seem to be suggesting, ensuring students understand sentence construction is important. I would suggest that the way of testing this is to construct a sentence. Knowing the technical jargon is pointless and proves nothing other than that they remember a word.

It is 'shoveling them into the ditch of what each one means' as a poet once said. Is the verb present progressive or past progressive. Do we need to know to get the full sense of what the author meant? That's the essence of communication. I failed last time with you it seems. I hope I have been clearer this time.

[turbobloke]

Derek Smith said:

If the vast majority of people can not only get through life without knowing the names of such things, but perform highly in creative writing, then it is pointless demanding that children learn such terms sufficiently to regurgitate them in tests.

On that basis yes, possibly so, but it's also one aspect in one subject where pupils are carrying out the higher order task of analysis. In the example I gave earlier relating to sentence types, pupils don't memorise actual sentences as this would be pointless - they could be given any simple sentence to analyse.

To take my previous example further, in terms of the lever example, they may also be asked to analyse illustrations of levers in order to identify them as Class 1/2/3, what's the point when they won't consider this when buying or using a wheelbarrow or tweezers...the point is that it involves analysing the relationship between and relative positions of the fulcrum, load and effort. The ability to analyse benefits from practice.

Having examples of this taking place in all or most subjects is beneficial. There's research around pupils learning music that illustrates how wider benefits than the purely subject-specific variety can be derived from various activities in various subjects.

The paper by Professor Susan Hallam “The Power of Music: its impact on the intellectual, social and personal development of children and young people” demonstrates how music supports wider cognitive development in pupils. PDF here:

http://www.laphil.com/sites/default/files/media/pd...

Prof Susan Hallam said:

Recent advances in the study of the brain have enhanced our understanding of the way that active engagement with music may influence other activities. The cerebral cortex self-organises as we engage with different musical activities.

In addition I agree with other PHers who point out that when it comes to learning a foreign language, it's very useful to know the formal terminology. If there's a grounding in English already available then it will help here as well.

[Digga]

bloomen said:

I remember spending an awful lot of time at school. I also seem to remember that no one taught me the slightest thing about grammar. Not one goddamn bean.

I once had a womanfriend who was learning English. She kept asking me about past participles, first person singulars and lord knows what else. I didn't have the slightest clue what she was on about and I'm pretty sure she was talking English at me the whole time.

Funnily enough, the first time during my education that those concepts came up was in French lessons, not English...

[Roy Lime]

Murph7355 said:

Things are named and defined so that people can refer to them in a commonly understood way. It helps get one's point across whether teaching or learning and gives a set of building blocks from which great things can be built.

This doesn't start and end with things I hope we all accept as important like spelling and punctuation (though increasingly I suspect people cannot be bothered with these either), but includes things like naming tenses etc.

The purpose of testing should be to ensure those learning these building blocks understand them and can put them to use. If done properly, it will test both the student and the teacher. And that has to be a "good thing".

I agree with you that being equipped with the building blocks is not the sole determinant in whether you'll be good at one thing or another, as most roles in life require more than just a purely technical understanding of a subject. There has to be application too. But not understanding those building blocks makes life very difficult.

It's hard to argue with any of this.

We're all beating around the bush here. Standards of spoken and written English are very poor indeed. I can accept the that the internet in general (and social media in particular) has brought this to the fore somewhat - prior to its advent we weren't as exposed to each other's* written English - but when you've got journalists on the bloody BBC regularly making howlers then, like it or not, there's a problem.

I appreciate that for some it's de rigueur to criticise the Government for everything they try, but the international statistics tell a tale that needs to be addressed. I'm all for teaching proper English in schools.

• I had to check the possessive apostrophe here. Perhaps, if I'd been taught properly...

[Derek Smith]

I don't think the BBC is the cause, the main cause at least, of the lowering of standards of written English. The worst offenders I feel are the ones which used to set high standards but now flounder on basics. Take the Mail on line. It's a ghastly paper, but is also an abuser of the language. The majority of their bloggers will make basic errors regularly, and often more than once in a post.

However, I'm not sure their are of a lower standard than previously.

In the printed news, the lack of sub-editors is the main cause of poor English. The average journo would produce awful copy. I used to be a printer, a monotype keyboard operator, and had to type from their drivel. It would then go to the sub who would correct it and send it back to me to retype. The odd thing is that if I corrected the grammar on the original galley, I'd be for it. 'Follow the copy out the window' was the saying.

We had an ex Fleet Street journo who returned to local weeklies so she could look after her kids following a divorce. Her copy was immaculate. She subbed a bit but was better than either of the regulars, so that didn't help.

I struck me as odd that there I was, paid a third of what the journos got, picking out their errors. Not only that, I've phoned the sub on occasion to ask if it is permissible to change the copy into English.

Yet these were the educated, the majority university graduates, who were unable to write a thousand words without error. So I'm not sure that standards have dropped all that much. It's just that there's no long-stop.