Schools failing to teach English proper, like.

bnt

According to an Irish Times article, students entering the Journalism BA have “gaps in their grasp of basic English, including spelling, grammar, punctuation and word usage”. The result: DCU students will spend 50% more time learning these skills than in previous years.

When we talk about declining literary standards . . . what I mean is that in the context of everybody having a B in honours English, which is a high standard, there is a surprisingly high proportion who can’t spell or who don’t properly understand words [or] definitions or who have grammar a little bit wrong.

All I will say is: if you're currently in school, hoping to do anything in the Humanities after you leave school, then you need to do your own reading in your own time. Newspapers, classic books (free from Project Gutenberg), popular science books from your local library - whatever you can get in to your paws. If you can enter university knowing the difference between "your" and "you're" etc., and how to use commas in sentences, you'll be starting with an advantage over the average student.

As for Boards - fugeddabouttit, it's a lost cause already!

Biggins

Sooner or later some kids will need a large dictionary to understand a basic dictionary!

Lord TSC

It was something which shocked me last year training to be an English teacher; the number of 12-14 year olds who still had not grasped basics such as fullstops and capital letters was stunning. I went in during the first few weeks thinking I'd be diving into creative writing and reading and ended up having to spend two weeks on punctuation :S

Orando Broom

Unpossible!!

mconigol

It's all communication at the end of the day. We may not like where it is heading but the primary function of language is to transfer information from one person to another. When the kiddies aren't able to communicate at all is when we should become worried.

Biggins

Orando Broom wrote: »

Unpossible!!

Double-plus ungood!

MitchKoobski

I remember there were people in my 6th year class who still couldn't structure and write a basic essay. It was there I started to develop my grammar nazi tendencies.

Angron

The people not getting the difference of "your" and "you're" or "their", "they're" and "there" always bugged me. I don't make a point of making fun of them or anything for it, it just annoys me.

ImpossibleDuck

bnt wrote: »

According to an Irish Times article, students entering the Journalism BA have “gaps in their grasp of basic English, including spelling, grammar, punctuation and word usage”. The result: DCU students will spend 50% more time learning these skills than in previous years.

All I will say is: if you're currently in school, hoping to do anything in the Humanities after you leave school, then you need to do your own reading in your own time. Newspapers, classic books (free from Project Gutenberg), popular science books from your local library - whatever you can get in to your paws. If you can enter university knowing the difference between "your" and "you're" etc., and how to use commas in sentences, you'll be starting with an advantage over the average student.

As for Boards - fugeddabouttit, it's a lost cause already!

I'm not surprised tbh. There's the people who care and the people who don't. I have always cared but it seems that a growing number don't. It disgusts me how little ability these children have when it comes to reading/writing.

I'd say the highest level of reading they'll do before the LC, is Harry Potter or that other sh*te (Can't remember the name), which is sad really.

Angron

ImpossibleDuck wrote: »

I'm not surprised tbh. There's the people who care and the people who don't. I have always cared but it seems that a growing number don't. It disgusts me how little ability these children have when it comes to reading/writing.

I'd say the highest level of reading they'll do before the LC, is Harry Potter or that other sh*te (Can't remember the name), which is sad really.

Twilight? (I automatically associate that book with sh*te, I read the first one and it was just dreadful)

mikemac

A panda walks into a café. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and proceeds to fire it at the other patrons.
'Why?' asks the confused, surviving waiter amidst the carnage, as the panda makes towards the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.
'Well, I'm a panda,' he says, at the door. 'Look it up.'
The waiter turns to the relevant entry in the manual and, sure enough, finds an explanation. 'Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves.'

Deals with all this topic if you want to read more

Hank_Jones

I remember when I what does has school and they make us how done when spelling.
My friend Billy did has good done spell did done milk everywhere.

Seachmall

The language is evolving, it happens.

Think Shakespeare would compliment you on your fine use of the language or criticise you on your bastardization of it?

Logical Fallacy

Seachmall wrote: »

The language is evolving, it happens.

Think Shakespeare would compliment you on your fine use of the language or criticise you on your bastardization of it?

Evolution of language is an interesting beast, this much is true. That said, when i was in school the basic ability of about 50% of my class to deal with English was very poor. Not just with structure or punctuation or anything like that but with simple things like reading a piece of poetry and then finding a relevant quotation to back up a certain theme or subtext.

It wasn't really a lack of ability so much as completely disinterest in being able to do so.

I'm not entirely sure that Shakespeare would be the best example to use, as i don't think his work was written in the commonplace structure of the day.

ImpossibleDuck

Denny M wrote: »

Twilight? (I automatically associate that book with sh*te, I read the first one and it was just dreadful)

That's the one! I wouldn't touch them with a 10-foot pole

pickarooney

They have 'grammar a little bit wrong'?

wild_cat

My grammar and spelling leave a lot to be desired. With out the aid of a fire fox dictionary add on my posts would be very hard to understand....


I was taught how to spell phonetically in primary school and I was shipped off with another kid a few hours a week to learn how to spell from a book of broken up words....

The other kid had severe learning difficulties and spent most of his time with the special ed teacher so I'm still rather annoyed about being classed in the same educational league as him, he really should have been in a special school and not to offend but to this day he's known as the local soft boy.... Which is awful. The two of us didn't get the right educational needs.

This would have been in the early 90's so I presume things have changed a good bit since then.

My problem solving and creative skills are a lot higher than the average person but this was only recognised when I went into secondary school. Strangely enough I was never tested for dyslexia or never bothered looking into it myself.

JohnMarston

Hank_Jones wrote: »

I remember when I what does has school and they make us how done when spelling.
My friend Billy did has good done spell did done milk everywhere.

Oh i get it now

Cuddlesworth

wild_cat wrote: »

My grammar and spelling leave a lot to be desired. With out the aid of a fire fox dictionary add on my posts would be very hard to understand....


I was taught how to spell phonetically in primary school and I was shipped off with another kid a few hours a week to learn how to spell from a book of broken up words....

The other kid had severe learning difficulties and spent most of his time with the special ed teacher so I'm still rather annoyed about being classed in the same educational league as him, he really should have been in a special school and not to offend but to this day he's known as the local soft boy.... Which is awful. The two of us didn't get the right educational needs.

This would have been in the early 90's so I presume things have changed a good bit since then.

My problem solving and creative skills are a lot higher than the average person but this was only recognised when I went into secondary school. Strangely enough I was never tested for dyslexia or never bothered looking into it myself.

Bart: Let me get this straight: we're behind the rest of our class and we're going to catch up to them by going slower than they are? Coo Coo!
[rest of the class starts mindlessly chanting "Coo coo!", forcing the teacher to individually snap them out of it]

c_man

I totally agree with the thread title. I was shocked lately to see some kids use Smiley faces when a Wink would have been far more appropriate and even in one case I saw a Cool in place of a Pacman. I blame the teachers.

NomdePlume

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

It was something which shocked me last year training to be an English teacher; the number of 12-14 year olds who still had not grasped basics such as fullstops and capital letters was stunning. I went in during the first few weeks thinking I'd be diving into creative writing and reading and ended up having to spend two weeks on punctuation :S

Unfortunately this also applies to many students who are in third level. I was a tutor at college for a while, and the number of first year English students with very poor writing skills was shocking.

Starting Every Word With A Capital Letter For No Reason Was Surprisingly Common, as was using apostrophe's in plural noun's.

These students needed a "Grammar from Scratch" module, but of course there's nothing like that (at least not in my day) at University level. It's taken for granted that the schools are teaching the basics, when clearly something is going wrong somewhere along the line.

There should be a mandatory grammar course at Leaving Cert, imo, complete with an exam that awards points. Seems to me that some schools (and some students) won't treat basic writing skills with much importance unless it directly translates into points.

wild_cat

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Bart: Let me get this straight: we're behind the rest of our class and we're going to catch up to them by going slower than they are? Coo Coo!
[rest of the class starts mindlessly chanting "Coo coo!", forcing the teacher to individually snap them out of it]

Ha! Exactly!

Seachmall

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Evolution of language is an interesting beast, this much is true. That said, when i was in school the basic ability of about 50% of my class to deal with English was very poor. Not just with structure or punctuation or anything like that but with simple things like reading a piece of poetry and then finding a relevant quotation to back up a certain theme or subtext.

It wasn't really a lack of ability so much as completely disinterest in being able to do so.

If we went back to the 16th or 17th centuries I don't think there would be much difference. Obviously formal education wouldn't have been as common as it is today but if it were I'd suspect the rate of interest in studying poems, speeches, plays etc. would be more or less the same. You can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn, at least not without instilling fear in them.

I don't think students are less interested then they have been in the past it's just we notice it now that pretty much everyone has schooling and we've removed fear as a motivator (as it would've been over the last 50 odd years).

Language gets broken down and rebuilt with every few generations, although it's probably more visible today with the invention of texting and the internet. I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing, things just evolve.

I'm not entirely sure that Shakespeare would be the best example to use, as i don't think his work was written in the commonplace structure of the day.

True, I was using him as he was undoubtedly a master of the language during his time as oppose to comparing his style of writing to today's.

In saying that take Francis Bacon, a philosopher from the same era. While his writings are somewhat formal they would be closer to the common-day language of the time:

WHAT is truth? said jesting Pilate,and would not stay for an answer. Certainly there be, that delight in giddiness, and count it a bondage to fix a belief; affecting free-will in thinking, as well as in acting. And though the sects of philosophers of that kind be gone, yet there remain certain dis- coursing wits, which are of the same veins, though there be not so much blood in them, as was in those of the ancients. But it is not only the difficulty and labor, which men take in finding out of truth, nor again, that when it is found, it imposeth upon men's thoughts, that doth bring lies in favor; but a natural, though corrupt love, of the lie itself. One of the later school of the Grecians, examineth the matter, and is at a stand, to think what should be in it, that men should love lies; where neither they make for pleasure, as with poets, nor for advan- tage, as with the merchant; but for the lie's sake. But I cannot tell; this same truth, is a naked, and open day-light, that doth not show the masks, and mummeries, and triumphs, of the world, half so stately and daintily as candle-lights. Truth may perhaps come to the price of a pearl, that showeth best by day; but it will not rise to the price of a diamond, or carbuncle, that showeth best in varied lights. A mixture of a lie doth ever add pleasure. Doth any man doubt, that if there were taken out of men's minds, vain opinions, flattering hopes, false valuations, imaginations as one would, and the like, but it would leave the minds, of a number of men, poor shrunken things, full of melancholy and indisposition, and unpleasing to themselves?

- Source

Structure and punctuation is pretty similar although it is different. The main difference is obviously wording with some spelling differences (e.g. "examineth" = "examined"). I suspect if you go back even further the differences would become even more noticeable.

pickarooney

Really, it's not the schools failing to teach, it's the pupils not bothering to learn. We all went to the same schools but some practised their reading and writing while others didn't. You wouldn't blame a school for you being **** at hurling when you just didn't bother training, would you?

Thinspired

ImpossibleDuck wrote: »

I'm not surprised tbh. There's the people who care and the people who don't. I have always cared but it seems that a growing number don't. It disgusts me how little ability these children have when it comes to reading/writing.

I'd say the highest level of reading they'll do before the LC, is Harry Potter or that other sh*te (Can't remember the name), which is sad really.

Well considering neither the Twilight series nor the Harry Potter series of books are on the curriculum, then if kids are reading them it means they're actually bothering to do some extra-curricular reading - and that's something to be encouraged.

Regardless of their plot, these books have been professionally edited and as such contain correct grammar, syntax etc so why the snobbery? I know several university lecturers with half the alphabet after their names who put in pre-orders for the Harry Potter books.

I hope to goodness that if a child comes to you and says: 'I want to get a book from the library' and you ask them which one and they reply 'Harry Potter' you won't look down your nose at them and tell them to get War and Peace instead. It's not entirely what you read, it's how much you read that broadens your horizons and improves your command of the language.

bnt

Seachmall wrote: »

The language is evolving, it happens.

Think Shakespeare would compliment you on your fine use of the language or criticise you on your bastardization of it?

You would expect that evolution would lead to improvements, but what we see is the opposite. When someone uses "where" instead of "were", that's not an improvement, it is just a mistake. Where there were two words, with two meanings, now there is just one word, and meaning has been lost.

I can't emphasise this point sufficiently: the English language is complex, but so are the concepts we try to express with it. A simple language is fine for simple people, but English is complex for good reason. If you simplify it, explicitly or implicitly (by merging words), you rob it of its power to convey your full meaning to your audience. This is not nit-picking or Grammar Nazism, this is fundamental.

What do you think Shakespeare would say if we found ourselves unable to fully appreciate his work, due to the "evolution" of the English language?

Shakespeare (Julius Caesar) wrote:

O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

PS: I have never read a Harry Potter book, but from what I've seen they're well-written and should be a good thing for literacy standards.

Seachmall

bnt wrote: »

You would expect that evolution would led to improvements, but what we see is the opposite. When someone uses "where" instead of "were", that's not an improvement, it is just a mistake. Where there were two words, with two meanings, now there is just one word, and meaning has been lost.

I can't emphasise this point sufficiently: the English language is complex, but so are the concepts we try to express with it. A simple language is fine for simple people, but English is complex for good reason. If you simplify it, explicitly or implicitly (by merging words), you rob it of its power to convey your meaning to your readers.

What do you think Shakespeare would say if we found ourselves unable to fully appreciate his work, due to the "evolution" of the English language?

Maybe it's getting simpler to become more functional, easier to write, as oppose to more descriptive. Take short-hand for example, it's much more efficient to spell words as they sound and let the context describe their meaning.

With texting and chatting online speed of writing has become an important issue for the new generation, they're adapting the language to suit their needs.

looksee

mconigol wrote: »

It's all communication at the end of the day. We may not like where it is heading but the primary function of language is to transfer information from one person to another. When the kiddies aren't able to communicate at all is when we should become worried.

You cannot communicate unless there is agreement on the meaning of words and the use of grammar. Two kiddies may be able to communicate with each other, but if they wish to communicate with anyone who does not know their personal language then they have problems.

It has become fashionable to use language as an expression of anarchy - we will speak/write anyway we wish and you can't do anything about it. In fact all that has happened is that an alternative language is evolving which it is 'cool' to use. Unfortunately it is not precise and does not permit communication on subjects other than personal relationships and interests.

The people who use it are forcing themselves into a subculture that is unable to communicate in the world of employment, education, even social and consumer rights. People who are capable of communicating in standard English but use 'cool' English on Facebook and Twitter are exacerbating the problem.

Boards is, thank goodness, making some effort to keep things literate. It would not be desirable to have grammar nazis picking on every detail so Spell Czechs is a great outlet for the grammatically picky

ImpossibleDuck

NomdePlume wrote: »

These students needed a "Grammar from Scratch" module, but of course there's nothing like that (at least not in my day) at University level. It's taken for granted that the schools are teaching the basics, when clearly something is going wrong somewhere along the line.

There should be a mandatory grammar course at Leaving Cert, imo, complete with an exam that awards points. Seems to me that some schools (and some students) won't treat basic writing skills with much importance unless it directly translates into points.

It begs the question; what are children being taught in Primary/Secondary School? It seems to me that most children walk into Secondary school with very. very little knowledge of English, Irish or basic arithmetic!

speedboatchase

Ah, I love this story. Here's my take on it: http://www.joe.ie/news-politics/current-affairs/omg-dcu-2-alloc8-gr8r-time-4-teach1ng-grammr-2-1st-yr-students-0013623-1

Also: 3,000 posts, woot!

flutterflye

My brother, sister and cousins who are all teenagers haven't the slightest idea how to spell simple words, construct sentences, or use grammar goodly.

Their facebook statuses and text messages make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

These are the doctors, politicians, teachers of the future, and they can't write or speak correctly.

I know all languages and language rules change over time, but not so obviously, so quickly.

American-English seems just like lazy English to me, but Irish teenagers today are so much worse.

I don't know where the turning point was.
The point in which it was the done thing to write English essays in txt spk.
Was it lol cats?

I don't think English is taught any different nowadays, than it was when I was in school, so why do I not feel da nd 2 tk lyk dis?

I don't blame the way English is taught per se, but due to the general lack of grasping simple language skills, maybe it is time for the department to alter their teaching content and strategies.

westendgirlie

Can you speak proper what like I can?

looksee

looksee wrote: »

You cannot communicate unless there is agreement on the meaning of words and the use of grammar. Two kiddies may be able to communicate with each other, but if they wish to communicate with anyone who does not know their personal language then they have problems.

Exactly. People talk about "well if you can get the point across what's the problem", but frequently the point is lost, either outright or through ambiguous language. The meanings of the words do change with subtle spelling differences. People seem to expect that the reader should put in extra effort to decipher their writing when a little more effort on their own side would guarantee clarity and avoid any confused back-and-forth.

I don't care so much about laziness or typos or anything in informal settings (honestly, they can type on facebook however they like as long as they can then turn around and write an essay in proper English), but it is certainly carrying through to formal settings and it is a problem.

The quote in the original post makes a good point: students are getting Bs in Honours English despite obvious gaps in their spelling/grammar/general English.
And whatever about the rest of us, students wanting to do journalism... surely they of all people should have a high standard of English?

Seachmall

looksee wrote: »

The people who use it are forcing themselves into a subculture that is unable to communicate in the world of employment, education, even social and consumer rights. People who are capable of communicating in standard English but use 'cool' English on Facebook and Twitter are exacerbating the problem.

But it's not a subculture, it's completely mainstream. The kids of today who understand txtspk will be the employers of tomorrow. Language doesn't evolve over one generation, it takes one generation to bridge the gap and create the new language, another generation to accept and refine it and another to make it common use.

This is where the language is going, for better or worse the English language is becoming faster to write with a small compromise to legibility (which is compensated for with context).

The language we use today is a perfect spoken language, but it's a terribly slow written one.

ImpossibleDuck

flutterflye wrote: »

I don't know where the turning point was.

I do. Mobile Phones.

jester77

Their is some awful grammar said on this site, I do be sometimes amazed at how bad young people can be at righting there mother tongue.

flutterflye

ImpossibleDuck wrote: »

I do. Mobile Phones.

Yes, but we all have mobile phones.

I got one when I was 14, it was the same year that everyone in Ireland had one.

Yet I have never used text speak, especially in everyday usage, and this is the same for most.

It is only the teenagers today that are like this.

Logical Fallacy

jester77 wrote: »

Their is some awful grammar said on this site, I do be sometimes amazed at how bad young people can be at righting there mother tongue.

I done speak proper....what me Dad does.

flutterflye wrote: »

It is only the teenagers today that are like this.

Actually without wishing to cast any aspersions on anyone, my young sister is a teacher, she is in her mid twenties and if her Facebook is anything to go by the textspeak is prolific among her and her other teaching friends. It actually makes me weep a little when long conversations from her profile end up in my "News" stream.

flutterflye

flutterflye wrote: »

It is only the teenagers today that are like this.

Well... that might be a bit extreme. It might just be because of the internet and everyone getting their say that it seems worse than before?

Superbus

ImpossibleDuck wrote: »

It begs the question; what are children being taught in Primary/Secondary School? It seems to me that most children walk into Secondary school with very. very little knowledge of English, Irish or basic arithmetic!

My Irish was actually better in 6th Class than it is now going into 6th Year, and in 1st Year you launch straight into the JC Maths curriculum so basic arithmetic is assumed, and I feel that to be fair.


With English it's more complicated. I did Work Experience with a 6th Class, their reading material was 'Millions', which they read reluctantly in class and eventually watched the movie of. This is a children's book, but by next year they'll be studying Willy Russell, and by the year after that it'll be Shakespeare. The jump is too great, and too sudden - one moment you are still learning the complexities, reading one word at a time with your finger under the sentence and writing 'My Summer', as throughout primary school; the next it's a 4 page essay on the Theme of Rivalry in 'Romeo and Juliet'.

ImpossibleDuck

Superbus wrote: »

My Irish was actually better in 6th Class than it is now going into 6th Year

This is such a common phrase!!! It makes me kind of sad to think about it because I love the Irish language and was taught in very well in primary school but as you say, as soon as I went into 1st Year, the level dropped dramatically.

flutterflye

bluewolf wrote: »

Well... that might be a bit extreme. It might just be because of the internet and everyone getting their say that it seems worse than before?

Maybe.
I don't know.

I definitely think it is way, way worse than ever before.

Anyone see that movie 'Idiocracy'?
The film itself is dreadful, but it is indictive of society today - everything dumbed right down, language becoming more and more simple, people becoming more and more simple.

I thought we were supposed to evolve, not regress.

Seachmall

flutterflye wrote: »

language becoming more and more simple

This is a good thing. Simplify the language and literacy will increase.

Aside from common understanding 2 things make a language a good language: efficiency and descriptiveness.

Txtspk is more efficient and just as descriptive. Even emoticons are hugely beneficial to the language, take the examples

• You're a prick.
• You're a prick :P

The first example is contextually ambiguous, however add the emoticon and the context becomes clear.

People don't like txtspk because it's new but as generations move on it will, or something close to it will, become the new standard. And objectively that's a good thing because it is an improvement.

flutterflye

Seachmall wrote: »

This is a good thing. Simplify the language and literacy will increase.

Aside from common understanding 2 things make a language a good language: efficiency and descriptiveness.

Txtspk is more efficient and just as descriptive. Even emoticons are hugely beneficial to the language, take the examples

• You're a prick.
• You're a prick :P

The first example is contextually ambiguous, however add the emoticon and the context becomes clear.

People don't like txtspk because it's new but as generations move on it will, or something close to it will, become the new standard. And objectively that's a good thing because it is an improvement.

Good god!

I don't even know what to say to that!

But I completely disagree!

Logical Fallacy

Seachmall wrote: »

People don't like txtspk because it's new but as generations move on it will, or something close to it will, become the new standard. And objectively that's a good thing because it is an improvement.

It's only a good thing once subtlety and fluidity is not lost.

I think txtspeak is more about blunting the language that anything...while people might not know all the meanings, the meanings tend to very specific.

To be honest, it's not something we really have to worry about, as historically the language that will still be around in the future is Chinese. lol

Seachmall

flutterflye wrote: »

Good god!

I don't even know what to say to that!

But I completely disagree!

Disagree because you think it's less efficient? Less descriptive? Or you just don't like it?

An argument would be nice...

DublinWriter

flutterflye wrote: »

I don't know where the turning point was.

The big turning point came in the primary education system in the late 80's/early 90's where emphasis on teaching children to read and write was put back from their fourth to their seventh year.

Seachmall wrote: »

Txtspk is more efficient and just as descriptive. Even emoticons are hugely beneficial to the language, take the examples

• You're a prick.
• You're a prick :P

In which case let's ditch the language altogether and communicate via doodles.

Logical Fallacy

DublinWriter wrote: »

In which case let's ditch the language altogether and communicate via doodles.

Already on the boil.

Jam

NomdePlume wrote: »

Unfortunately this also applies to many students who are in third level. I was a tutor at college for a while, and the number of first year English students with very poor writing skills was shocking.

Take this and swap English with Maths in science courses.

It's still shocking how many final year physics students that can only just about do basic algebra after 16~ odd years of education.

Back on topic:
I blame txting and TV. Or maybe society in general where it's commonly seen that one doesn't require talent, or skills earned through hard work, to succeed in life. Look at Jedward, Bieber, etc. I don't need to make an effort, I just need to get noticed.

suitseir

Mobile phone text messaging has a lot to do with it, and the shortening of phrases and sentences even on discussion boards!

Just a personal opinion or as one would see on discussion boards....IMO!

PseudoFamous

ImpossibleDuck wrote: »

It begs the question; what are children being taught in Primary/Secondary School? It seems to me that most children walk into Secondary school with very. very little knowledge of English, Irish or basic arithmetic!

I find that the majority of education in primary school is to be seen in junior and senior infants. The rest of the time is just spent forgetting it, and first year of secondary school seems to be teaching the entire curriculum of primary school again.