I had a batty teacher in ninth grade who was infamous in the school for being brilliant, but absolutely crazy. She graduated from a very respectable Ivy League school and had her doctorate, which was hard to come by in my large public school. She was an odd grader, an interesting dresser, and an unconventional teacher.
Part of her curriculum for our freshman year was to learn grammar. She told us that we didn't really know grammar, and that we never were taught it correctly in grade school. So she made it her personal mission to make sure we knew our grammar by the time we left her classroom. She tried different methods, and I remember diagramming was one of them. In fact, I was surprised to see that it was something that she hadn't invented, because it seemed so outrageous. The class reacted in a pretty unanimous way - the diagramming seemed silly and superfluous, and if anything, a distraction. There are of course merits to unconventional and outside-the-box teaching, but this just seemed like it was not one of them.
It seemed contrived, and quite frankly, took away from the productivity of the class, because we spent more time learning how to construct the picture than we did learning the content. Perhaps if it is implemented at a younger age in the curriculum, it could be a more feasible way of teaching grammar and sentence structure. However, it is a different way of teaching within a system that already exists and rejects it, and therefore, is difficult to adapt to and fully appreciate.
I think this type of teaching method may be very valuable for ESL learners or young children, but it must be kept in mind that it is a method, not the solution. A teacher should experiment with other types of teaching to see which is most well-received, as each student is an individual learner. Ultimately, it sounds like a great idea, but may be a gimmick for most.
Comments