How to Teach English Grammar to Young Learners
Sources
TLDR
Summary
Chat with GigaBrain
What Redditors are SayingTeaching English Grammar to Young Learners
Contextual Learning
Teaching grammar in a functional context rather than through formal lessons is often more effective for young learners. Activities such as using picture cards or short stories can help children practice creating sentences that incorporate grammatical elements 
[1:1]. This approach makes learning meaningful and fun, encouraging correct sentence production naturally.
Play-Based and Interactive Methods
Many educators emphasize the importance of play-based learning, especially for elementary-aged students [1:3], [3:2]. Using toys, games, and imaginative play allows children to learn grammar through interaction and creativity. Songs with actions, simple art projects, and games like Simon Says are recommended for engaging young learners [3:3], [3:5].
Visual and Tactile Supports
Incorporating visual aids and tactile cues can enhance grammar learning. Sentence strips, visuals of prepositions, and articles with tapping cues can be used alongside language activities [1:9]. Tools like photo verb cards and sentence construction activities provide hands-on ways to explore sentence structure without requiring reading skills [4:7].
Recasting and Modeling
Research suggests that recasting—rephrasing a child's incorrect sentence without making them repeat it—can lead to significant grammar gains [1:8]. Modeling correct grammar during interactive activities, such as storytelling or role-playing, helps reinforce learning without direct instruction [1:2].
Resources and Tools
Several resources were mentioned for teaching grammar to young learners. Mad Libs and NoRedInk offer engaging ways to practice grammar [2:5]. Multisensory Grammar by Neuhaus provides a comprehensive approach to grammar instruction [2:4]. For educators seeking grammar books, "Practical English Usage" by Michael Swan and "A Practical English Grammar" by Thomson & Martinet are highly recommended [5:4].
Overall, the key to teaching grammar to young learners lies in making the process interactive, contextual, and enjoyable. By leveraging play, visual supports, and modeling, educators can effectively teach grammar without relying solely on traditional methods.
Your AI-powered social listening tool.
Stay ahead of trends with Gigabrain Ultra—set up advanced keyword tracking and instant sentiment alerts, customized for your brand's needs.Source Threads
POST SUMMARY • [1]Summarize
ORIGINAL POSTHello! I am fairly new to working with elementary aged students, as I have mainly worked in early intervention. What kind of activities do y’all do with students who have grammar goals? E.g- producing grammatically correct sentences. Do you begin the first couple of sessions teaching different grammatical elements (e.g- nouns, verbs, prepositions ect). Thanks in advance!
It really depends on the kid and why grammar is delayed. I work with mostly autistic kids, so the issue is usually needed lots of context for different forms. I sometimes do a little teaching (like explaining that you have to put -ed on the end to show it already happened), but I always design some kind of activity that allows for lots of repeated practice during play. And then I model the heck out of that form and recast their utterances if they don’t get it right away. For example, for working on future tense verbs, we fired a popper toy around the room, but we had to predict where it would go, fly, hit, bounce. So we were repeating “I think it will —-“ I keep doing the same thing with a slightly different game until they’re doing it independently in a couple different contexts.
This is actually one of the reasons I hated grammar goals in the schools and ultimately stopped writing them. Grammar development is unique from person to person and some kids will be able to use subordinate clauses while still having trouble with using is/am/are.
I don’t target grammar at all, and I didn’t when I was in the public schools either. Grammar is an output and the sign of a dysfunctional language system and I focus on treating that language system. Nephrologist don’t seek to fix pee. They wanna help kidneys. Grammar is very much like pee.
When I started focusing on story grammar elements and general narrative development, I found that my children made substantially better progress with their grammar. Once I switched to targeting story grammar in self generated play, I saw even greater gains in grammar skills. Although I had been in a private practice at that point, and I have no idea how you would do that in the public schools
Very interesting take! I have often wondered if I need to work on grammar. Especially with kids who make a lot of mistakes (in pronouns, verbs, etc.) but with whom I cannot quite say that that is the MAIN reason why it's hard to understand them. I mean, people learning a second language will often make mistakes like that too, but their language can be very functional. I feel like I'm often focusing on something that's just not the main reason why they have a hard time explaining themselves.
Can you elaborate on story grammar elements and general narrative development? I do know about story grammar elements and story champs. I just don't quite know how to use those best. Do you also practice correct sentences while doing this, or do you just recast correctly?
And actually, I’ll go ahead and add that I feel like many story, grammar curriculums like skill builders make the assumption children are ready to work on grammar within text, but I truly believe the extreme majority of children who struggle with story grammar need to work on it in play. The idea that we don’t have to do play based therapy to work on these skills because the child is in an elementary age is completely an objectively false in my opinion and I think sometimes that’s the fundamental building block that many children are missing that are getting overlooked because of the child’s age.
I actually use the Westby play scale for a lot of it! So I’ll use the symbolic level 6-8 (might be wrong. I’m pulling that from memory) skills to help structure their play better and then naturally when we’re playing making sure we have characters, assigning rules roles for characters. The characters have a dialogue, etc. etc. This way we can navigate through making the setting having the characters creating the problem, voicing the character thoughts of the problem, trial and error, fixing the problem and finally reaching a resolution.
I absolutely model the type of language that I want them to be using. So if they’re particularly struggling with past tense, we’ll do a historical scene and we’ll have people in that reenact flashbacks. For example, if they need to work on future tents, we’ll have people have a dream about what they want to have happen etc. I will also then facilitate communication breakdown repair by acting confused when they make a grammatically incorrect or by either pointing out did you mean to say or I’m sorry I didn’t get that. Could you try that again? Etc etc
This is an interesting take. Most of the research I’ve read says that as a hallmark of developmental language disorder, grammar should absolutely be prioritized to target, as it impacts not just expressive language but receptive skills as well. It’s true that grammar development is unique, but ideally you’d be going through what they’re producing and finding the individual structures they need to work out, the same as you’d do for something like vocabulary.
But ultimately I don’t know how much it matters what you feel about all that if you’re doing contextualized activities like narrative intervention, which is how you’d ideally be practicing undeveloped grammatical structures. Even just modeling, recasting, and having the child repeat seems to be highly effective. So it makes sense that you’re seeing good results without directly targeting syntax. I think that’s reassuring for people who are overwhelmed by getting into the weeds on grammar analysis.
I would also just add that even if an SLP isn’t doing grammar-specific activities, you can still write grammar goals to measure progress! A nephrologist may well target a functional goal like peeing if kidney problems are causing overactive bladder.
Actually, a lot of the research on grammar shows that recasting without making the student repeat has the same amount of gains as making the child repeat the utterance. I remember finding that study when I got out of my CF year, but I would have to take a while to find it.
I agree that grammar is an important thing to think about, but if you’re not doing it within a contextualized activity, I don’t think you’re going to see much gains. As targeting syntax at sitting down and teaching syntax is not going to give you anywhere near the amount of games as Working on a contextualized activity. It’s like working on a phoneme in isolation and magically thinking it’s going to pop up in conversation without you doing anything in between.
"Grammar is like pee." 😄 My SO teaches college English (composition and lit). I can hardly wait to tell him this! 😂
Love the grammar-pee analogy 🤣
Sentence strips or visuals of prepositions and articles are best with a tactile/tapping cue! I either incorporate a game or some kind of language activity and I stick with the same prompt “THE (subject) IS (verb)” and as time goes on, I expand the sentences and will even trial just conversation activities and with time I’ve started seeing growth with my kids. My go to is a matching picture game with images of kids doing different verbs “THE boy IS riding a bike AT the park” i’ve tried also incorporating a “who what and where” visual which sometimes I just forget to include in sessions, but it’s also very helpful (who - the boy, what - riding a bike, where - at the park)
I do a loooot of story retells with my students with grammar goals. There's an awesome resource for short stories including SGEs on Teachers Pay Teachers (by KKnight Therapy) that I am totally obsessed with. A lot of students who can drill correctly will often fall apart in a more difficult context like a story retell.
I would actually avoid starting with formal lessons on nouns and verbs. It's often more effective to teach grammar in a functional context. For example, using picture cards or a short story, you can have them practice creating sentences that use the grammatical elements. Focus on making the learning meaningful and fun, and the correct sentences will follow!
r/Teachers • [2]Summarize
How to teach English grammar to kids between the ages of 7-9?
Posted by cpfl0506 · in r/Teachers · 2 years agoTrying to crack my head to find a fun and engaging way to teach grammar. Anyone has any ideas or suggestions?
I have a few exercises I'm working on, but I can't share them, unfortunately.
However, what I find works is hardcore grammar instruction. Nothing else works. And nearly perfect grammar expectations every time, depending on their age or the curriculum. You can easily do end punctuation no matter what.
Grammar isn't inherently fun and engaging. Maybe there are some fun sentences, sure, but it's just something you do till it's rote.
Seconding this. I teach ESL to 4~5year olds. Reading is important, phonics crucial, but nothing helps them to speak correctly like grammar instruction. Lots of drilling, no mistakes, different exercises to practice the skills, and above all, the rules explained clearly.
The early days were like pulling teeth but their English really improved a lot.
Diagramming sentences
Check out Multisensory Grammar by Neuhaus. It’s wonderful!
Thank you for the hot tip
Mad Libs as a treat. They still sell the old school books, or there are online ones, or make your own. It’s a fun little review and a break whilst retaining info.
NoRedInk is also a great tool! My high school kids loved putting their names and friends names in it and cackling when they came up. It’s small, but it kept them engaged.
No red ink is cool
r/teaching • [3]Summarize
How am i supposed to teach english to small kids who can barely speak their own language.
Posted by otter_in_july · in r/teaching · 28 days agoHello everyone, i really need help. I recently got a new job as an english teacher. English is not my first language and i have no experience teaching, as well as no education in this field, i just do this outside of school. I teach two groups and one of them is great, but I don't know what am i supposed to do with the other. It consists of three kidn around four years old and they don't know how to read or write. They also know zero english. One of the kids in not very well behaved and one is extremely shy, refusing to do anything. We have a textbook, but its very boring for them, and finishing one chapter takes us around half the lesson. I tried to think of games for them, but i haven't been able to come up with anything other then puzzle. Another problem is that the lessons are two hours long without a break, and it's simply too much for them. Sorry for any mistakes, i know my english isn't the best, that's why i only teach small kids. I would be extremely grateful for any tips.
Are there toys and things you can play with? Just use imagination and play and speak only English when you do it. Have a tea party. Help Mr. Teddy who came to the doctor with a stomachache. Do a simple art project and give the directions in English. Young kids are not going to respond to textbooks. They learn through imagination and play.
Teach them songs with actions. Teach them to sing then perfectly. My school has 4 year old singing French . Also teach numbers and number songs. Play games like counting off . Play games like Simon says.
Songs:
Head, shoulders, knees and toes, knee and toes. (Repeat).eyes and ears and mouth and nose.
Old McDonald had a farm.
If you’re happy and you know it clap your hands.
do they have any lesson plans? or anything? or are they just throwing you into a classroom and saying "go teach" and that's it?
from reading your typed bits here your English sounds fine. Children this young are probably fine with basically just exposing them to the language with some very mild lessons on learning new words/constructions, but if you just immerse them and try to only speak English that will let a lot more than you think seep in (caveat: assuming you spend enough time with them).
4 years old would do good with songs and other children-oriented media in english.
i don't understand - "i have no experience teaching, as well as no education in this field"
then what are you doing "teaching?!?"
Well, it's something like tutoring school (i am not sure what the rite term is) and a lot of others working there are in a similar position as me. Sorry, i should have mentioned it in the post. I do it basically because i want to get some experience and it's quite common for young people where i live, i just didn't expect to teach kids this young.
play with them- make art with them- don't focus on mechanics, just interact 🍀
Dunno how to say this hut thats why we study for this...
Start with short 10m bursts.
Could well be outside the US. Native speaker of English is enough to get a teaching job.
OP wrote that they’re not a native English speaker.
Here are a couple of links to similar questions.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ESL_Teachers/comments/10ig39x/preschool_resources/
r/slp • [4]Summarize
How to approach grammar and sentence structure goals with children who can't read
Posted by containedexplosion · in r/slp · 7 months agoI inherited goals for a handful of students in second and third grade who still cannot read. I'm wondering if it's even appropriate to target these goals or how to do it without requiring that they be able to read/write.
One idea would be to target morphology. That’ll help them with grammar, vocab, AND support their reading development. You can also target sentence structure orally and there’s no harm in showing them the written language as you do it, just not expecting them to read it perfectly. You still have so many options.
To add to this, I almost always have written language as visual supports in my morphology and sentence structure activities even with my students who can barely decode.
I read out what it says to them as I point to the words. Sometimes, I’ll have them read out the simpler words if they can. Or I’ll give them the phonemes as I point to each letter and then have them blend the sounds. I’m at the middle school level though, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
This is tough! My experience has been to just target those goals without requiring them to read. I like hands on activities, like working with pictures or small manipulatives for things like verb tense, plurals, etc.
Something I’ve noticed as a trend with many of my older kids who can’t read…you may need to advise the family that they’ll need additional services for reading and writing if they want their child’s language to continue to advance. It becomes difficult to work on age-appropriate and even grade-appropriate language skills when they are not able to access it due to literacy deficits.
Unfortunately, reading is a tough skill to learn for kids with learning disabilities or language disorders, which just continues to widen the gap between them and their peers as they get older. It stinks, and I know how it can be tricky to target those goals when they’re not able to read and write.
I worked on irregular past tense verbs with a handful of kids entirely through verbal drill “today I run, but yesterday….” You could probably work on a variety of verbs through verbal drill like that
Exactly what I do. I use the super duper cards to start and try to group them by “o” (broke, drove, dove etc), “a” (sank, drank etc.) and find that that helps a lot! I also like the verb fishing game, I can target pronouns and sentence structure with that one!
Widgit or Lessonpix visuals, and putting together sentences with pictures?
I like using photo verb cards for simple SVO sentences, and this sentence construction activity for longer sentences!
Love those sentence building magnets, thanks for the link!
They even include some blank ones and markers so you can write or draw on them! And they have a variety of regular and irregular verbs. It's great!
Also, just curious, have you worked in primary education before? Because most of my students, even in the upper grades, have significant trouble with reading. At this point, I'm surprised when I come across kids who CAN read, especially in lower grades.
Same, most of my kids can barely read if they can at all. I find my best readers are my minimally speaking autistic kids
No. Usually im in preschool. I just got added school aged kids
r/TEFL • [5]Summarize
best grammar books for native English speakers?
Posted by FaryRochester · in r/TEFL · 2 months agoI'm working towards becoming an English teacher and just starting to learn grammar, which is kind of sad, I guess, but I was never taught any grammar rules growing up!
I've been working with Grammar for English Language Teachers by Martin Parrott, which is great, but I was wondering if anyone has other suggestions.
Also, I'm planning on teaching young kids, so my thinking is that I won’t be teaching them too much grammar, right?
Language in reality is not rule-based. But descriptive grammar is one way to simplify language so as to present and teach it--like, for example, a principle by which to organize a course syllabus.
While a seemingly paradoxical statement, the idea that language does not have rules is a fundamental shift in perspective within linguistics, particularly in the branch of formal linguistics. This view doesn't mean that language is chaotic, but rather redefines what we consider to be a "rule" and where the structure of language comes from.
Instead of language being governed by a set of explicit, rigid rules that we consciously follow (like a rulebook for a game), this perspective suggests that linguistic structure emerges from underlying principles and constraints.
The Shift from Rules to Principles
This idea is most famously associated with Noam Chomsky and his theory of Universal Grammar (UG). Chomsky argued that the traditional view of grammar as a set of learned rules was insufficient to explain how children acquire language so quickly and with so little explicit instruction.
- The Problem with "Rules": The word "rule" implies a prescriptive, learned command (e.g., "don't end a sentence with a preposition"). However, children learn to form grammatically correct sentences without ever being taught these rules. They seem to know, for instance, that a sentence like "What did you eat?" is correct, while "What you did eat?" is not, even if they've never heard that specific sentence before.
- The Solution: Principles and Parameters: Chomsky proposed that humans are born with an innate, biological capacity for language—a Universal Grammar. This UG is not a set of specific rules for English or Japanese, but rather a set of abstract principles that are common to all human languages. These principles are like a blueprint for language.
- Parameters: The variation between languages (e.g., word order, the use of articles) is explained by parameters. These are like switches that are set based on the language a child is exposed to. For example, a "head-initial" parameter means the head of a phrase comes first (e.g., English "ate the apple"), while a "head-final" parameter means it comes last (e.g., Japanese "apple ate"). The child's mind "sets" the appropriate parameter based on the linguistic input they receive.
The Cognitive Linguistics Perspective
A separate but related approach, Cognitive Linguistics, also moves away from the idea of formal, abstract rules. It argues that language is not a separate module of the mind, but rather an extension of our general cognitive abilities.
Instead of rules, it focuses on the following:
- Usage-Based Learning: Language structure isn't innate but emerges from the statistical patterns and regularities a person observes in the language around them. Grammar is not a static set of rules, but a dynamic system of generalizations based on experience.
- Embodiment and Metaphor: Cognitive linguists argue that grammatical structures are deeply connected to our physical experience of the world. For instance, we understand abstract concepts like time ("the good old days") and emotions ("feeling down") through metaphors grounded in our spatial and bodily experiences.
Murphy red and blue.
I’m a fan of these books because they give numerous practice examples. If you include Comprehension Check Questions or exit tickets in your lessons, you have plenty of sentences to choose from and adapt.
My main reference has been Practical English Usage by Michael Swan. Also useful is A Practical English Grammar by Thomson & Martinet.
Same struggle! I started using the LinkedIn Learning course on grammar to help me :).
I'm a native English speaker but I was never taught any grammar rules growing up as well! It doesn't matter if you're a native or non native speaker, I think it's the same for many countries. I only got taught grammar rules once I studied TESOL at university. It was really helpful since being an English teacher is my ultimate goal and I got taught everything I know from this degree.
r/teaching • [6]Summarize
Kindergarten Grammar
Posted by dcporlando · in r/teaching · 2 years agoAn increasingly popular view in the language learning community is that any four year old has all the grammar that they need as an adult strictly from hearing others talking. While they haven’t learned to read or have a huge vocabulary, they are described as perfect grammar.
Due to this view, many are suggesting no one should study grammar as they will just acquire it from hearing others talk believing. The view is that there is no reason for either kids or adults to learn grammar and that it is only taught because they it is in the curriculum.
As a teacher, do you believe that four year olds have a very strong mastery of grammar equivalent to the average adult?
No, and it's developmentally appropriate for even the most "well spoken" children to make grammatical mistakes like switching tenses and saying things like "worser"
Yep! My background is in language acquisition. At four, many children still haven't acquired all of the English phonemes, and it typically takes a little longer if they are multi-lingual. It is common to hear both pronunciation and grammatical errors from kids until they are about seven years old. Beyond that, grammar for complex sentence structures needs to be taught so kids can learn how to write properly. The 'rules' we use for spoken/conversational English have differences from written English.
Thank you!
How increasingly popular is this? I have been teaching second language learners in immersion programs and teaching English Language Arts for 17 years and I just finished a master's degree in specialising in second language education, and I've never heard that 4 year olds have grammar mastered.
We have years and years of language arts classes in our curriculums, first and second language, teaching students to read and write and speak and develop vocabulary. Kids in their first language don't have it mastered. We teach kids grammar both explicitly and implicitly for years.
What I have read a lot of research about, and believe to be true based on my experience, is that grammar shouldn't really be taught in isolation. Grammar instruction should be integrated into reading, speaking, and writing lessons, so that you are learning it as a communication tool and not as a thing unto itself. The grammar learned through isolated grammar worksheets doesn't effectively transfer over to the writing.
But integrating grammar instruction isn't the same as getting rid of grammar instruction.
If you go to r/languagelesrning or r/dreamingspanish that view is very prevalent. I believe that people need to study grammar and the Comprehensible Input crowd is very much against that.
Part of my argument is that we teach grammar through grade 12 for a reason. Also the FSI teaches it.
i mean, massive exposure and surrounding yourself with a language is key to learning. but the assumption is that everyone around you speak correctly so you dont strengthen your mistakes. 4-year olds are often surrounded by other 4year-olds, so ignoring grammar is like lord of the flies. the kids will go their own way
I teach Latin and Greek on the college level (so my input may or may not be welcome here). I’ve had students who don’t what the subject of a sentence is. Not that they couldn’t find the subject by case endings, but that they didn’t know how English sentences go together, let alone trying to learn how another language does it.
Grammar can be systematically taught through comprehensible input using pattern-based lessons. I taught in the classroom with 80%-100% ELs for 10 years, always embedding grammar in writing or speaking lessons, and currently teach ESL pull-outs in a public school; I teach grammar through reading and writing.
Four year olds' grammar is super immature; they don't have the abstract cognitive processing to even understand more complex structures, let alone produce them. Is there any research backing up this wild opinion? It just seems really arbitrary and frankly weird to imagine anyone's grammar development as complete by age 4. Is it one of those "misinterpreted a study and now it's common knowledge" situations, like only using 10% of our brains?
Even if they speak with perfect grammar, they will not understand or write with perfect grammar, so no, I do not think so.
The reason my knowledge of grammar is high is 1) explicit teaching and 2) learning Latin and other languages, which requires understanding grammar. I did not have either of those at 4.
I teach 9th grade. I have students who write well but cannot tell me what a verb is. When they do have mistakes with verbs or participles or gerunds, it takes more time to explain because they do not know what a verb is (let alone an adjective, noun, participle, or gerund). If I have to require complex sentences, I have to start at the beginning.
has all the grammar that they need as an adult
To me it depends on how much work the word "need" is doing.
Can an adult with a 4 year olds level of grammar get by in society? Absolutely.
Will they be able to do everything they might want to do? Probably not.
Yeah, it's going to be difficult to communicate across cultures if we don't have a shared language construction.
I totally support the idea that different regional dialects are valid, but if you're sending important communications that are indecipherable or struggling to understand communication then you're going to be pretty upset with the adults in your life who didn't teach you "proper English".
There are so many regional dialects that it would be impossible to teach everyone to perfectly understand them all, so a common "proper" dialect is necessary.
This is especially true for any international communication where a language barrier will naturally exist and the other party may only know proper English.
Some.
Not all kids have the same level of exposure. And taking grammar out of the curriculum is just further disadvantaging neglected or under socialized kids or kids with undereducated parents/families as well as children and families whose first language is not english.
r/TEFL • [7]Summarize
How do you teach grammar if you're supposed to follow a boring book?
Posted by illuzjoni · in r/TEFL · 8 months agoHi! I've been teaching for around 7 months and I really want to improve the way I teach Grammar. Our school provides us with textbooks to give out to our students and every week we have an assigned topic to follow. Now we are constantly told we need to make our class interactive, and fun, adapting the exercises from our book and creating a fun game out of it. Still, sometimes I feel like this is a bit insane. I remember when I was a student, I wanted to fill my book up but if we are told we need to adapt, and give our own material, why exactly do I even have the book? And obviously, I cannot just NEVER use the book because that is a waste of paper and extra weight in my students' bags. I cannot not use the book so that is not a solution but I want to know what you do to adapt material from it, SPECIFICALLY GRAMMAR. I try to do kahoots, cut-ups, gap-fills but seriously, is this effective for them to learn? I don't remember ever having these when I was younger (except the gapfills ofc) and learning English.
EDIT: If it makes any difference, the age group is like teens (16ish) to adults (sometimes up to 50)
In many countries around the world students of English suffer from an overdose of grammar. If schools hire foreign teachers they usually expect more interaction and conversation. Grammar can be taught by local English teachers. Many Asian students know grammar better than their foreign teacher but they can't string a sentence together.
Honestly, 'teaching' grammar, as in going through the forms and rules on the board or in a book is probably a waste of time. For most people, most of the the time, it won't actually meet their needs.
Here's a better way: set them a speaking task that necessitates the use of the grammar in question- so, question forms, interview your partner (set up a reason and a context for this); circulate,noting down errors in your target structures; write some errors on the board and ask students to identify and correct the errors. Give feedback and corrections. Get them to do the task,or a similar task again, with a different partner. Point out and correct some errors once more. Set them a short piece of writing based on the task for homework.
If your academy is teaching at a level higher than what they are doing in school, you absolutely do need to go through form. You can try and make it more interactive and fun though. Don't just tell them.
The general consensus in SLA is that instruction can increase the rate of take up, but not the route. That is to say, you can teach the present perfect at them till you are blue in the face, but they won't incorporate into their own interlanguage they've gone through all the intermediate steps. In terms of grammar instruction, it's quite likely that the only directly teachable bits, as in areas where your explanations are likely to make a difference, are in grammar areas that students are on the cusp of grasping- in their ZPD pace Zygotsky. What I outline above is a way to work out what those areas are, and a way to teach to them and hopefully maximise your efficacy.
What I like to do, especially with younger students (teens/early 20s) is a "straight from the book" explanation, then I leave up the barest bones of the rules and start doing fill in the blank. Every time it's wrong, I act all excitable and try to get people to match my energy while correcting problems. When something is consistent, it's "what's the rule? let's get this back on the board" and have them find the rule in the book, repeat it, then get it back up, and keep going.
Once it's like.....successful "ish", I like to pair off students and have them come up with examples for the board. While doing this, they're actively teaching each other and working with one another's strengths, I'm moving around making sure they're "speaking only in English" but giving a lot of space for them to quietly speak in their native language so they have an easier time connecting the two, and also making sure that examples they're writing are accurate.
Then they all go up on the board. All at once, or to match as many markers as I have. Students love doing that. So examples that I've checked are up, and we go through them as a class. We get to fix and nitpick little mistakes in established grammar, drill the new grammar, AND everyone has a chance to have fun trying to read a lot of different fonts and writing styles. When we're done, I move on to a reading exercise, pair them back off, and spend the rest of the time coming around and trying to help connect them.
I've used the book in a way that builds right off their resource when they leave, but I've mostly left the rest of the book material untouched for homework, review, etc., by having them engage with each other in the class. It spurs conversation, creative thinking, and encourages a more dynamic space. I keep my energy high so they have a baseline to match.
It's not really a lesson of "fun and games" but it is a great way to just keep the energy going and to get them out of the book without ignoring it all together.
The Ultimate ESL teaching manual is good. It gives lots of speaking exercises to practise grammar instead of boring gap-fill exercises. Students seem to love it.
I will check this out thank you!
Just try using Edvibe platform. You can create all sorts of exercises there, and it's very affordable, too!
Honestly, the only 2 platforms that an ESL teacher need is, Edvibe and MIRO. Or at least one of them.
r/slp • [8]Summarize
Grammar
Posted by RockRight7798 · in r/slp · 2 months agoHow do you guys target grammar in kids 4th grade and younger? Looking for activity ideas. Cannot be anything with words/reading, none of my kids can read😅
Specifically looking for activities working on pronouns (he/she/they) and verbs (mainly irregular past tense).
I started halfway through the school year fresh out if grad school, and the only thing I came up with was using a visual for he/she/they and using picture cards with actions (e.g. I ask “who is brushing hair in this picture?” looking for student response SHE is brushing her hair). Irregular past tense verbs I kinda just winged as I went along😂
I target irregular past tense using a verbal sentence frame “today I will eat, yesterday I (expectant pause)” and the student would say “ate.” I use a similar strategy for irregular plurals, “one mouse, many….”Mice. Visuals can help as well, one picture of someone eating would suffice for verbs. Two pictures for plurals, one with a single mouse, one with multiple.
I use the story champs curriculum
Shape coding?
What is that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot-uekkC560
Basically, it’s a way of using shapes and lines to show agreement. Would work for past tense!
Some ideas for you: There are some good free videos on YT and online games for young ELL/ESL students that I use for pronouns - ELL kids commonly struggle with pronouns too -especially since not all languages have gender marked pronouns and not all languages have different subject/object pronouns. Just quickly searching YouTube, I found this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tXENKptt27Q msny more came up too.
I also like this free site: gamestolearnenglish.com - one of the activities, I think it’s Clothing, requires kids to match apparel to people while listening to sentences -eg He is wearing blue pants. She is wearing a yellow shirt.etc. So it includes pronoun work. Kids need adult assistance for most of the site’s activities bc they require some reading skills but the activities are colorfully but simply illustrated and are engaging
For young students with grammar goals I also like using SuperDuper’s book The Grammar Processing Program - I usually have kids drill with it in the first the first part of session and then we focus on something more creative like describing or storytelling and games that allow more more natural practice or at least drill embedded in something more fun which helps with motivation and retention.
You also can get cheap irregular verb past tense cards by F N L and other flash cards targeting different grammar skills on Amazon for cheap. After quick drilling, I have students make up sentences or stories with them - telling them in present tense snd then retelling them in past tense or vice versa
You can also have kids generate stories for simple picture sequences or wordless picture books (or really any picture book) - storytelling requires use of pronouns and verbs of course. You might have to explicitly model - do you think this character is a boy or a girl? A girl? Okay, then we will use SHE when describing what she does in the story…
Also make sure your grammar targets are reasonable for the kid’s age-Brown’s stages are misleading - plenty of “typical” 5 and 6 year olds make lots of grammatical errors when they try to use more complex language - like in storytelling or elaborating when explaining - sometimes I inherit IEPs with goals that would be challenging for a kid without a language disorder to meet. - eg common core standards for common irregular past tense verbs are not introduced until 2nd grade
r/languagelearning • [9]Summarize
Thoughts On Studying Grammar
Posted by RelativeWealth9399 · in r/languagelearning · 6 months agoSo I’ve seen a lot of YouTube videos from language learning channels talk about how it isn’t efficient to study grammar. Often the “fact that babies don’t study grammar” to learn their native tongue is part of this argument. I think a lot of the time people forget that A.) parents correct their children’s speaking (Toddler: “ I eated ice cream!” Mom: “You ATE ice cream? That sounds so yummy!”) B.) you drill grammar in school
To me learning grammar has definitely been unimaginably helpful. Especially with a language like Korean, where the syntax/ word order and the way things are conjugated, the use of particles, etc is vastly different from English. Being able to recognize where a grammar pattern begins and ends has enabled me to be able to pick out the individual words more easily so I can look them up, and it helps me understand what is being said more easily.
There’s the argument that you can pick up grammar structures over time, which is true I suppose, but I’m an impatient person. When I come across a pattern I don’t recognize I look it up right away and make a note of it. Plus I don’t trust that my trying to intuit the meaning/ purpose of the grammar form would necessarily be right.
Or I’ll flip through my Korean Grammar in Use books, pick a structure that looks fun to learn, and read the chapter/ find videos about it and practice it with my own sentences. To me, it’s a lot of fun. Even if I can’t use it at the drop of a hat, being able to say “oh hey I learned that structure—this is a bit familiar” when reading/ watching something is nice.
What are your guys’ opinion on studying grammar?
Babies don’t study grammar but first-graders very much do.
This must vary based on generation and where you were raised, but I was not given explicit grammar instruction as a child. We were taught to read, but we never did analytical dissection of grammar rules.
Later we were taught how to write essays in a certain format, which I would argue is less "grammar rules" and more "cultural guidelines for what is acceptable and not acceptable in formal writing".
So your teachers never demanded from you to learn the correct article and plural for any noun that you encountered? The correct declination for it? The adjective declination? They never explained to you what a Hauptwort is, what a Tuwort, and what an Eigenschaftswort? They never explained the many different Fürworte either?
To me it depends on the language. With a language like Japanese, Chinese, or Korean, I definitely feel like grammar can be essential at the beginning ….not something to harp too much on, but something to be aware of.
When studying languages like Italian when you already speak Spanish, I think the time could be better spent just acquiring the language.
The "babies don't study grammar" reasoning is so flawed lol. No, they don't. But we aren't babies anymore. So we do. I relate to you with grammar having been extremely helpful. Sure, you have to think about grammar in your head before you speak at first, but it's because it's new and with time it becomes natural. People beat themselves up over translating in their heads and thinking about grammar, but have only been learning for like, a few months.
And not to mention, learning without studying grammar takes way. too. long. Just like you mentioned, lol. It takes babies until they're like, almost 10 years old to use language correctly. So if someone really wants to use that argument, I just ask if they also plan to take 10 years to speak like an adult.
I will say though, while I love traditional grammar study, I also find it super helpful to mine subtitles and conversations with my language partners to study grammar structures. So I guess that's kind of more natural. I always like to plug FluentU for this because I'm part of their blog team and have used the program for YEARS, for this very reason. They have a Chrome extension that lets you put clickable bilingual subtitles on YouTube and Netflix content, so I like to pause when I catch a new grammar pattern I don't recognize or understand. And I can click on words I don't know to get their meanings with example sentences, and then study them in the app/website later.
I talked about this at length before, but I don't think input is actually significantly slower than traditional learning.
I mean regardless, learning a language will be a very long journey, no matter what methods I use. I think most beginners really underestimate how vast an undertaking language acquisition is. I want to maximize my chances of making the whole journey, so I chose a method that I personally find fun.
But again, I’m not convinced it’s actually slower. If it is, I think it’s a difference of maybe 15-20%.
This FSI learner took 1300 hours to learn Spanish. The Dreaming Spanish timeline for competent fluency is 1500 hours, which is very similar.
FSI estimates it to take 2200 hours to learn Thai and they use every trick in the book to try to grind out competent speakers as fast as possible. There’s also some anecdotal reports from FSI learners that the timelines they claim aren’t exactly accurate, and that the most successful learners are the ones who continue to diligently study in the months and years after the initial program.
I've been learning Thai for 1800 hours and I think my progress is on a very similar trajectory to these traditional learners who have each put in a ton of hours.
Way over 3000 hours, probably more like 5000 hours
This theoretical uberlord traditional learner who has blazed past my progress in just 1000 hours just hasn't appeared. Languages are simply huge; it's a matter of finding the tools that help you circumnavigate the ocean rather than trying to strap a rocket to your boat.
Your progress with Thai is really impressive, and thanks for linking me out to these other posts! I'm not saying that comprehensible input alone or not studying grammar isn't effective. I know it is. But I think for the sake of being able to utilize the language in daily life and become well functioning in it without waiting a long time, traditional studying will get someone there faster.
For example, Spanish is my heritage language and I now speak it at a C2 proficiency. I live in Lima, Peru with my husband who can't speak English. I only use English on the internet and when talking to my American mom. Although I was exposed to Spanish as a child (my dad is Venezuelan), I couldn't really form my own sentences and probably had about an A2 level my whole childhood. At 16 I decided to study it traditionally because I was sick of being made fun of by my family for not speaking the language. And I learned it pretty fast.
Now, in Peru, on the occasion that I come across a new word, phrase, slang, etc. that I don't know, it's usually because my husband used it in a sentence. I don't really know how to translate it, but I know what it means by context. But it takes me hearing it from him or other people about 3-5 times before I can confidently use it myself.
Compare that to if I had studied the word in a course and put it on a flashcard. I would know exactly what it means and how to use it within the first day.
At the level I'm at now, I 100% prefer the first approach: me being exposed to new words, listening to others use them in context, and then being able to confidently use them without ever having looked them up. But it took me years to get here, and if I had taken that approach at the beginner level, while I probably would've ended up at the same place/level as I am now eventually, I wouldn't have been able to start using the language as fast as I did.
But overall, the most important thing is what you mentioned at the very beginning--language learning is an extremely long journey, so choosing the method that's the most fun and sustainable for you is the best way to make sure you actually make it. Regardless of what that method is.
I found flash cards for grammar rules really helpful. I literally followed a text book and created a flash card for each rule I didn’t know or get wrong in exercises. It actually didn’t take too long, but my written French has notably improved, and when I’m reading now I constantly understand why something is written the way it is.
Even if I get the rule wrong in my writing/speaking, I’ve got a point of reference and ready understanding of why it’s wrong which makes me better quicker
Could you please provide the title of the textbook?
It is unjustly demonized
r/Preply • [10]Summarize
I need advice for teaching kids
Posted by Small-Macaroon5949 · in r/Preply · 3 months agoHi everyone! I've been a tutor on Preply for about a year now and so far I've only taught adults and one 15 year old child. The language I teach requires learning a lot of grammar (it has grammatical genders, grammatical cases, the verb conjugation seems to be pretty complicated for most of my English speaking students etc). I had no issues with the 15 year old, because their native language also had these things and they were able to simply 'feel' how our grammar works.
However, the other day I had a trial lesson and my students will be a 8 year old and a 10 year old whose native language is English. Their parents also attended the lesson, said they were really happy with me and subscribed.
During the trial lesson I showed them our alphabet (which is very different from the Latin one).
The thing is, I'm not really sure how to proceed from now on. I'm planning on showing them lots of pictures, however in order to say something as simple as "one apple" or "one banana" correctly, a student should know how our grammatical genders work, as the word for "one" is going to change based on the grammatical gender of the noun it's describing.
Has anyone had a similar situation? What would you do? How do you teach grammar to kids? Especially grammar that's vastly different that the one in their native language.
Teaching kids is completely different, the lessons at this age will be mostly game-based (which is quite difficult to do both one on one and online). I've got years of experience teaching children in classrooms but I wouldn't do it online for so many reasons. Here are a few things to consider/look out for;
-50 minutes is a very long time for a one on one class for a child, although girls tend to be better at it
-once the novelty wears off, keeping them engaged requires a lot of planning time, a good rewards system, and cooperation from the parents to keep them engaged
-it's a completely new set of material, and children require a lot more visual stimulus = more prep time
-expectations from the parents can be unreasonable
That said, the fact the parents were there is a good sign they at least aren't just going to dump the kid in front of the screen. Find some online resources on teaching phonics and vocab sets. Honestly, you're also going to need to seriously consider if this is profitable. A good lesson for kids takes so much planning time and needs so many materials, you can easily spend an hour or two prepping per lesson (for a high quality lesson), so if you can't reuse the lessons/materials on multiple students it's not going to be profitable.
I think we should normalise turning down a student that we don’t know how to teach and leaving it to someone who is qualified to do so. I don’t mean that to sound rude or anything. I just mean that it sounds like it would cause you more stress than it should. Just because the parents liked you doesn’t mean you shouldn’t let them know that you’re not sure how to teach this language to their child. Save yourself the pressure and kindly pass them on to someone else. That’s what I would do anyway, especially with how little I make on Preply compared to teaching privately.
I strongly encourage you to take some 120h courses about TEFL. They are not the best but definitely useful. I already have a master degree in this domain but when I casually took that course it was totally worth it and it didn't cost me much (35bucks) anyway I hope my comment was helpful if not just disregard it.
But English doesn’t have grammatical genders. Children learn by repetition, when you were a child you didn’t need to study grammar, just by repetition and correction. If the students are learning, it’s also easier to convince the parents to add an extra class a week after a month of classes.
Top People to Talk to
Related
AI Answer
how to teach english grammar to young learners?
Key Considerations for Teaching English Grammar to Young Learners:
Use Simple Language: Start with basic concepts and use simple, clear language. Avoid jargon and complex explanations.
Incorporate Games and Activities: Engage learners with fun games, songs, and interactive activities. This keeps them motivated and makes learning enjoyable.
Visual Aids: Utilize pictures, charts, and flashcards to illustrate grammar rules. Visual aids help young learners grasp concepts more easily.
Contextual Learning: Teach grammar in context rather than in isolation. Use stories, dialogues, or real-life situations to demonstrate how grammar is used.
Repetition and Practice: Reinforce grammar concepts through repetition and practice. Use worksheets, group activities, and oral exercises to solidify understanding.
Positive Reinforcement: Encourage and praise learners for their efforts. Positive feedback boosts confidence and encourages participation.
Be Patient and Flexible: Young learners may take time to grasp grammar rules. Be patient and ready to adapt your teaching methods based on their needs.
Recommendation: Start with foundational grammar concepts such as nouns, verbs, and simple sentence structures. Use engaging resources like children's books, educational apps, and interactive websites to make learning grammar fun and relatable.
Still looking for a better answer?
Get more comprehensive results summarized by our most cutting edge AI model. Plus deep Youtube search.