Breaking down "The Sentence" in the classroom

The other day in my teaching methods class, we were given a paragraph of informational text and the challenge of "how would you teach this text to your students". Now, this was no normal piece of informational text designed by some Springboard scholars to actually help students comprehend some piece of information or practice a reading skill. This was a paragraph from the abstract of a research paper on some kind of breakthrough marine microorganism.

I was thinking how to teach reading this to 8th graders when I couldn't even get it!

You can see how high level the reading is in the example given to us. However, there is a way to make it simpler, but it requires a firm grasp of English Grammar. You can already see that I started doing that as I was reading. I was eliminating everything but the most crucial parts of the sentence - the Main Subject and Main Verb. To me, the first few sentences read: "The allocation is a complex process. We use analysis to investigate sources..."

Grammar is all about breaking down sentences into their parts and understanding how they interact. Students of mine will definitely not need to know the information in this passage, but they can practice the skill of breaking complex sentences into their components and labeling them. I would engage them in CCSS L.7.3a - Choose language that expresses ideas precisely and concisely, recognizing and eliminating wordiness and redundancy.

To one in the field of studying...whatever this paper is studying, none of this is wordy. Everything is quite precise. However, teaching a student to recognize adjectives and adverbs, adjectival phrases, prepositional phrases, dependent clauses....all the stuff that is necessary to making something precise to a scholar but confusing to a student...and having them eliminate them to get to the point is a skill. They won't even have to know what the words are or mean if they recognize the structural pattern of a sentence!

What concerns me with students in a typical classroom that I expect to be teaching is that many students lack the fundamental grammar basics. Nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, pronouns, prepositions, clauses....all of those things are lost on the student because they don't practice it enough. Traditional reading is not a priority, and the way technology has evolved, more people are concerned with sharing their thoughts via images rather than describing them in words. And even if their "statuses" are posted in words, they are in non SAE form, or internet "meme" slang. I'm sure I need some research to back this claim up, but that's my guess anyways.

I would like to teach a lesson on this topic. I would like to illustrate the lack of understanding of SAE and traditional language use in the classroom by social media and then propose some methods to teach against it (or with it if possible). We are on the prepositions and clauses part of our Grammar unit now, so I will focus on breaking those down in conjunction with my peers.

How words are made

Before I get into studying for my next test, there is something that I have to review when it comes to English Grammar. I have consistently gotten word formation incorrect because I forget what is what, so I will review that here so I won't forget.

Affixation
Not to be confused with choking (asphyxiation), affix is a common way for forming words by adding on a derivational affix. bake > baker


Compounding
This is when you join two or more words to make a new word. skate + board = skateboard (a board like object on which one skates)


Zero Derivation
No change is made to the word. It just changes in context. Buy a comb(noun) from the store to comb(verb) your hair.


Stress Shift
No change is made to the word but when pronouncing it, stress a different syllable. The doctor was able to successfully implant (unstressed/stressed) new hair implants (stressed/unstressed)


Clipping
Shortening of a long word (not to be confused with backformation). Mathematics > Math


Acronym Formation
Making of a word using the initials of what it represents. NASA . National Aeronautics and Space Administration


Blending
Parts of two words are used to make a new word. Breakfast + Lunch = Brunch


Backformation
This is the opposite of Affixation. Instead of adding affixes, you take them away to form a new word. This is different from Clipping in that clipping deals with taking away syllables which probably don't have an actual phonological purpose. Backformation takes away affixes with phonological purpose like removing "ham" from "hamburger".


Branding
The result of powerful marketing, this is when a commercial business brand name becomes popular enough to stand in for the object it represents. Facial Tissue > Kleenex


Onomatopoeia
When a word is created to emulate a sound. "Hiss" "Buzz"


Borrowing
More like taking a word from another language. Sushi Taboo Chic


I got these wrong for the most part on my first exam. Oh well, try again!

Grammar Basics (OMG why is it like this?)

I just posted about how I really wanted to learn the intricacies of the English Language. Then I read the chapter and am all of a sudden wavering in my resolve. No wonder the textbook (English Grammar: Language as Human Behavior 3rd Ed.) prefaced the chapter with a very long explanation of Why and How we study language. In a nutshell, it goes like this:

• Language is important as it holds value socially and educationally
• Like, what do you think of a person that says "ain't" over someone that says "am/is not"
• "I ain't about that life" vs. "I am not about that life" or "I ain't over him yet" vs "I am not over him yet"
• There is no official authority on how English must be
• Who decides what is right or what is wrong?
• Because of the large amounts of groups and individuals who use English, standardization of one variation under one authority is impossible
• Unless we want real grammar Nazi's and persecution of people who say "who" instead of "whom". I don't think we want that
• Language is constantly changing
• huge impact of internet and instant messaging
• Seriously, kids are pretty much anti-establishment. If adults something is the straight and narrow, it's not cool. Thus, slang, and if something is used enough, it becomes mainstream.

Result: We should study language to understand the dynamics of it and its impact on society because it is this important thing that people care about. 

So here is what I understand:

Constituents - Language is made up of these things. Parts. Components. Constituents are words or groups of words that somehow belong together. They make sense. 

Those parts are organized in a heriarchy. At the bottom you have roots and affixes. These are the base form of words and the attachments that change the word meaning. Then there are the words themselves, roots combined with affixes. Then phrases, groups of words that go together as a noun phrase or verb phrase. Then when a noun phrase and verb phrase combine you get clauses. Finally, you can have a combination of independent and dependent clauses that make sentences.

It's like how atoms make molecules, molecules make compounds, compounds make mixtures, etc.

Then there's the rules and regulations that make sense of everything - the SYNTAX.

(that word is so intimidating)

Syntax is broken up into three major categories: Lexicon, Word Order, Inflectional Morphology

Lexicon consists of word classes. This is the stuff we learned in elementary (or grammar) school. Nouns, Verbs, Adjectives, Adverbs, etc. 

Word Order - words are arranged in order of their grammatic and functional meanings. These are unmarked word orders. However, when writers or speakers move the words around to create emphasis or voice, then this is marked order. 

Inflectional Morphology - finally, the way that individual words make sense is the use of morphology. Function words include minor word classes like prepositions and articles that make sense of the main words....like stuffing in a turkey. The turkey is great on its own, but the stuffing helps keep it all together and making sense as a meal. (Arguably, stuffing is great on its own too, but that makes this analogy fall apart) Then, grammatical morphemes like affixes help to distinguish tense, aspect, voice, modality, and mood.

I don't want to be late for a test on this but this is all I can process at the moment. I'll update this post afterwords....probably with a drink. Wish me luck

I use language because I care

This strip from one of my favorite webcomics just so happened to appear just as I was considering starting up writing again, this time as a writing assignment for my English Grammar class. It illustrates perfectly (or perfectly illustrates?) this feared and abhorred Grammar Nazi mindset of educated individuals. As I learn more about our language and explore all the nooks and crannies of our English, I run the risk of becoming one of these who persecute those who do not adhere to the latest rules speaking. However, that is not my intent.

I want to learn language because, as the comic implies, it is one of the main means of connecting with others. I remember a scene from the movie The Dead Poet's Society in which the character played by Robin Williams (you're free, genie) stated that "language was invented for one reason...to woo women." While I do not seek any romantic companionship as a result of my studying language, I acknowledge it as such a powerful force that it deserves scrutiny. How is it that we give meaning to utterances of sounds and syllables? Why do we put value on certain words? What is their origin and how are they transformed from morpheme to morpheme? I'll admit, I don't know, but if understanding language as a means communication will connect me to other human beings and I can bring others into the fold so we aren't so alone, then I'm happy to pay the price. (Seriously, I didn't know an English class could cost so much.)

Ryan Writes #6: Think for yourself!

Something happened in class the other day. I hadn't noticed it, but when I took the opportunity to lead a discussion about Utopian ideals vs Dystopian realities, I dropped a couple of example. Of course, this is common practice, since in order to get the students to understand what I was talking about, I wanted to make the concept relatable. So, I made the connections for the students and seemed to get some nods of acknowledgement and understanding. Satisfied, I turned the class back over to my mentor so she could lead them in their typical post-discussion reflection.

A week later, after my mentor had gone through the journals, she pulled me aside to show me something. "Remember when you gave an example of this last week?" She showed me several students' journal writings, all citing the same example I had given them. "All they did was copy down what you said." At seeing that, a little bit of me died inside. I thought I had gotten through to the students, that they actually understood what I was trying to teach them. I was, for the most part, wrong.

In a culture of testing and assessments, students seem to pick up on what is expected of them to pass the class, albeit marginally. They look for hints as to what the teacher wants them to spit out to get satisfactory marks. They are trained to pick up the clues dropped by the instructor as to what to reiterate, without understanding or practicing the inherent concept. Basically, they are trained to repeat, not to think for themselves. My mentor, however, is tough enough and experienced enough to not be moved by these simple acts, and she is always urging the students to "think for themselves."

This trend I see in students shows me how "lazy" they are in that they don't want to think, but re-actively practice "monkey-see-monkey-do." I'm frightened because this translates to potential voters who just jump on the bandwagon, drones who are incapable of escalating the career and administrative hierarchy. I know that it can't be done in one lesson, but I have not spent enough time with my mentor to see exactly how she teaches her students to "think for themselves."

Ryan Writes #5: Never too late to Annotate

I'll try to remember this as best as I can, but I heard a quote that went something like...

...a book is never truly owned until it is annotated and the margins are full of marks...

I don't know. What I do know is that I dread writing in ANY book, even workbooks. I remember back in Japanese class how I would photocopy the pages of the workbook to practice my kanji instead of just writing it in and tearing it out. It hurt me psychologically and I blame my upbringing in a poor private Catholic school. Our teachers would never let us write in the books...ever. Even if we knew the books were falling apart because they had already seen two generations of students (Mrs. Czerniecki made a point of singling out students who were kids of students she taught before), we still were forbidden from making it worse with our notes and doodles. And so, I never learned how to annotate.

Annotating is like having a conversation with the author. A note like "this is interesting" symbolized with a little asterisk mark or underlining a passage that was maybe a bit too confusing at the time signifies active learning. Making the effort to write down a note registers that information in your brain, repeating over and over again through each reread. It is like leaving comments in a youtube video or blog (like and comment below!)

Students are simply not embracing this idea of annotation. It is work, yes, but they fail to see how much it helps, and honestly, how much fun it could be. Imagine getting a book back at the end of the year after annotating it up at the beginning and seeing what interested you and intrigued you. Imagine constructing personalized assessments based off of what the students annotated. There is so much to be done to help the students see the importance of taking notes and writing in the margins. It sure would have helped me, as I am finally getting into the practice.

Kids...please...annotate your reading.

Ryan's Writes #4: Step away from the scaffolding

Today I witnessed something happen in my classroom. All of the dull days of just rote reading, struggling to get through the key ideas, answering questions that nobody wanted to talk about gave way to a phenomenon of understanding and engagement. My students' assignment was to conduce a "reader's" theater and then discuss the key facets of the story "Harrison Bergeron" in groups. What I saw was a class filled with energy and enthusiasm for learning. The reading was done with passion and the discussions were very engaging, and my mentor teacher just sat back and watched as the whole scene unfolded.

How did this happen? For weeks it seems that my mentor teacher has been planning and preparing for this very outcome. I just didn't see it until I finally stepped away. The technique of "scaffolding" is the practice of making sure all the basic techniques and content knowledge has been taught so that students may engage in higher order thinking and learning. For students to have engaged in the discussions that I was hearing today, it was necessary to understand the unfamiliar vocabulary, read the story thoroughly, and come prepared with some ideas or notions about the themes prior to the discussion. All this was achieved through weeks of scaffolding, the boring and tedious stuff that I felt was dragging on and unnecessary. However, if this did not occur, then the scene today would have looked more like the teacher leading a bunch of clueless students into a discussion with him/herself. They would have done no work or thinking for themselves because they were not properly prepared for it. I wonder if any of the students see the method to a teacher's madness. After all, if you are the one scaling the scaffolding, how could you possibly see all the rungs and ladders that have brought you to where you currently are.