Over at the Mail it's that time of year again when we discover that education is being fundamentally eroded, standards dumbed down, English destroyed and that the end of society as we know it is nigh.
Yep, they're on the warpath again about English exams. It's nothing new for them, it's the dreary old topic of texting. Apparently there is a "new English exam*" that includes "sections on texting". It isn't an exam about texting, it isn't an English exam that consists solely of texting, it's an exam that includes a section on texting.
According to the Mail on Sunday they have to "write an essay on the etiquette and grammar of texting, using their own messages as examples". Why is this any different to writing an essay on any other topic? There is no suggestion that they should write it using txt abbreviations (though I'll bet some of the students try) and it seems to me to be a perfectly proper essay question.

I do have a quibble about it in that they will, apparently (you can't trust everything that you read in the papers), be required to use their own texts as examples. Although most teenagers use texting abbreviations not all of them do. Some of them text in whole sentences. With punctuation. They will be at a disadvantage. That's my only slight doubt about it. Otherwise I will say again what I have said before. A text is a text is a text. The skill of reading means the skill of applying appropriate strategies to a text. It would, as I have pointed out in response to one of their previous hell-in-a-handbasket scares, be as ludicrous to read a train timetable from start to finish as it would to read a novel by taking random sentences from it. And it would be just as ludicrous to apply the same standards of creative writing to a text message saying "CU L8R" as to a sonnet or a letter to the bank manager or a diary entry.

The world isn't going to be destroyed because someone writes an essay about the etiquette of texting.

Incidentally the Campaign for Real Education website is one of the more pompous bits of self-righteous nonsense that I've read. It's also quite remarkably dull in its design, but then you wouldn't want to dumb it down by making use of any of those flashy internet thingies, would you?

*Incidentally it also isn't a new exam. It's a GCSE from the most prominent exam board in the country, the AQA, which happens to include a bit about texting in the new syllabus.

The concept of text-speak, like the now rare telegraphese, is a perfectly sensible linguistic development.

The constraints of the telephone keyboard, like the constraints of the telegram, meant that a particular style of abbreviated writing made it quicker, easier (and in the case of the telegram, cheaper) to construct a message. The use of such writing, where it is appropriate, is clearly a good thing.

It is when it is used inappropriately (in formal writing, for example) that its use could rightly be condemned.

My thoughts exactly. And that's why I think including it as part of the complete range of English teaching is a good thing and that getting students to write an essay about the etiquette of its use is a good idea. It should focus them on the distinctions of register that are required in various types of writing.

As is usual with these hobby-horses it doesn't stand up to any kind of critical scrutiny.

I agree with Richard and Bob as well. There is nothing inherently "wrong" about texting, provided users are aware of occasions when it shouldn't be used.

Several years ago we discovered in my late grandmother's effects some postcards that she'd exchanged with my grandfather (at the time her boyfriend or possibly her fiancé). They didn't carry the year in the dates, but must have been sent almost 100 years ago. At that time there were far more postal deliveries than now, and someone sending a postcard to a destination not too far away could be reasonably certain of delivery (or even a reply) later that day. I imagine that if they'd had a lot more money, they'd have sent telegrams.

To fit their messages into the small space on the cards they used a system of abbreviations (which were fun for us to try to decipher) and I'm sure that if they'd been around nowadays they'd have used texting.

That Campaign for Real Education struck me for a couple of reasons. First, isn't there a campaign for real ale in England? Do you have a lot of campaigns there?

Second, for a Web site to be campaigning for real education, it surely isn't an engaging one. It would hardly win any education awards.

quote:

That Campaign for Real Education struck me for a couple of reasons. First, isn't there a campaign for real ale in England? Do you have a lot of campaigns there?

So far as I am aware, the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) was the first such that used this particular form of words as its title. CAMRA quickly became hugely influential (some suggest that it has been the most successful consumer campaign ever) and its style of title was quickly adopted by other campaigns.

Most of them, I have to say, have been of limited success and limited duration - often because they have adopted the title but not the ethos. CAMRA, though, is still extant and now has 100,000 members - including many in the USA. My own conviction is that everyone who loves beer should join CAMRA; it is only due to the efforts of CAMRA that we now have the choice of beer we have worldwide. http://www.camra.org.uk/

quote:

Incidentally the Campaign for Real Education website is one of the more pompous bits of self-righteous nonsense that I've read. It's also quite remarkably dull in its design, but then you wouldn't want to dumb it down by making use of any of those flashy internet thingies, would you?

I agree it's pretty dull - but some of what is says seems reasonable.

As regards texting, for example, it says, "...The popularity of mobile phone texting is often cited as heralding the end of ‘Standard English’, but of course the same could have been said about telegrams fifty years ago, which were as ungrammatical as texting and for the same reason..." Which is more or less what we have agreed here.

quote:

the same could have been said about telegrams fifty years ago,

When did they write that, I wonder? Telegrams were beginning to die out 50 years ago, since by then a lot of people had access to a phone. If they'd said 150 years ago it would make more sense.

I agree it would have been more accurate had they said, "...up to about half a century ago..." Telegrams were still quite common back then - although more frequently used for commercial purposes; I used them quite often to reserve overseas hotel accommodation and the like.

Their section on grammar and spelling seems a little odd. They suggest that there's something wrong with not correcting all grammar mistakes. They seem to say that the fact that it might damage the student's motivation or self-esteem is irrelevant. But in ESL, it's been found that correcting grammar has little effect. That doesn't mean that teachers shouldn't correct grammar, but it does mean that they shouldn't waste time correcting every error. Perhaps the same thing is true with native speaking students.

They state that parsing sentences is "irrelevant", but it's still important because "Sadly, the average student from continental Europe today knows more about English grammar than most British teenagers." So is knowledge of how to parse sentences just a matter of national pride?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,

quote:

But in ESL, it's been found that correcting grammar has little effect. That doesn't mean that teachers shouldn't correct grammar, but it does mean that they shouldn't waste time correcting every error.

I suggest it has to do with the objective of the intervention.

Correction of errors is a good way of rectifying incorrect knowledge and maybe skills. But it is a relatively poor way of changing attitude. And if the correction is partnered with punishment then it is even less effective.

Young children are frequently corrected and reprimanded if they are caught telling lies - but it's a fair bet that they still lie as adults. They may be occasionally be corrected (although not invariably) if they misuse a word or make a grammatical error. But it's an equally fair bet that their command of their native tongue will be pretty good when they are adults.

I can't ever remember being taught parsing of English sentences. Later, we had to parse French and (especially) Latin sentences, so I've a fair idea of how to go about it in English, but to my mind it is irrelevant to native speakers. I don't know about ESL speakers; perhaps Bob could chime in here?

I wonder, do (say) French schoolkids get taught to parse their language, or do they learn it when they learn a second language?

The original meaning of parse is interesting. To identify the parts of speech (partes orationis) of words in a sentence. It was used within the context of teaching Latin as second language. I have diagrammed sentences, in grade school, using the Reed-Kellogg system developed in the USA in the late 19th century (link). Later, in linguistics classes on syntax, I learned to diagram sentences based on transformation grammar developed by Chomsky and his students in the late '50s.

Diagramming sentences does not really teach you much about grammar. It is a way to represent the syntactic structure of a sentence visually.

OK. I've taught both EFL and ESOL and there is a definite difference. In EFL teaching it's quite usual to teach grammar in some depth, perhaps not exactly parsing sentences (which, incidentally, I DID do at school) but certainly explaining grammatical terminology and describing things in grammatical terms. For example explaining that the present perfect is is constructed by using the present tense of the verb "to have " plus the part participle of the main verb.
This is rarely the case with ESOL students where a much more functional approach is used. Teaching the language without actually explaining it.

With regard to errors there is a middle ground. For language students, especially at the lower levels, it is extremely demoralising to try your hardest and then to have your work back with so much red ink that your writing is no longer visible. So what I do, and I am speaking only for myself here, is correct a few of the specific errors that would cause them to fail an exam (For example "I getting up in morning.") and correct strictly on whatever actual grammar point the exercise was meant to be practising.
I also always praise students where they have tried something more complicated, even if they have got it wrong, and make a point of indicating clearly, with big smiley faces, where they have done something that is particularly good.

Speaking of texting...

My daughter informed me the other day that my texts are "all wrong." I use punctuation and salutations and everything! I guess I'm just an old fogey.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Speaking of texting...

My daughter informed me the other day that my texts are "all wrong." I use punctuation and salutations and everything! I guess I'm just an old fogey.

I do that as well!