Teaching Grammar in Second Language Classrooms

Integrating Form-Focused Instruction in Communicative Context

Hossein Nassaji, Sandra S. Fotos

• Editore: Routledge
• Anno: 2011
• ISBN:
  9781136966033
• Edizione: 1
• Argomento: Education
• Categoria: Education General

Recent SLA research recognizes the necessity of attention to grammar and demonstrates that form-focused instruction is especially effective when it is incorporated into a meaningful communicative context. Designed specifically for second-language teachers, this text identifies and explores the various options for integrating a focus on grammar and a focus on communication in classroom contexts and offers concrete examples of teaching activities for each option. Each chapter includes a description of the option, its theoretical and empirical background, examples of activities illustrating in a non-technical manner how it can be implemented in the classroom, questions for reflection, and a list of useful resources that teachers can consult for further information.

Chapter 1
The Changing View of Grammar Instruction

Introduction

Grammar is fundamental to language. Without grammar, language does not exist. However, nothing in the field of language pedagogy has been as controversial as the role of grammar teaching. The controversy has always been whether grammar should be taught explicitly through a formal presentation of grammatical rules or implicitly through natural exposure to meaningful language use. According to Kelly (1969), this controversy has existed since the beginning of language teaching. However, whatever position we take regarding grammar instruction, “it is bound to be influenced by the recent history of grammar teaching” (Stern, 1992, p. 140). Therefore, to provide a background to the book, we begin by providing a brief overview of the changes in the teaching of grammar over the years.

Changes in Grammar Teaching

Historically, approaches to grammar teaching have undergone many changes. These changes, which have been due to a number of theoretical and empirical developments in the field, have not been regular and have been characterized by many pendulum swings. They can be viewed in terms of three general instructional approaches, beginning with those that conceptualized teaching in terms of methods with an exclusive focus on grammar, continuing later as types of exposure to meaningful communication, and emerging more recently as a set of instructional options with a focus on both grammar and meaning. In the following sections we will briefly review these changes. We begin by discussing the traditional approaches to grammar instruction, followed by various kinds of communication-based approaches and their limitations and criticisms. We then consider recent developments in grammar pedagogy, including what has come to be known as focus on form (FonF), an instructional option that calls for an integration of grammar and communication in second language (L2) teaching.

Grammar-Based Approaches

For thousands of years, grammar was the center of language pedagogy. Language teaching was equated with grammar teaching and grammar was used as content as well as organizing principles for developing curriculum and language teaching materials (Celce-Murcia, 2001a). It was believed that language was mainly composed of grammar rules and that knowing those rules was sufficient for learners to know the language.

The centrality of grammar in language pedagogy stemmed from various historical reasons. According to Rutherford (1987), one reason had to do with the importance attributed to the knowledge of grammar in philosophy and science in the Middle Ages. During this period, there was also a close relationship between the study of grammar and other medieval disciplines (such as law, theology, and medicine), and the idea that knowledge of grammar was essential for the development of rhetorical skills. It was also believed that the best way of learning an L2 was through studying first language (L1) grammar. This belief led to the idea that the grammar of Latin, which was based on the eight Greek grammatical categories (nouns, verbs, pronouns, prepositions, adverbs, participles, articles, and conjunctions), was the best model for studying other languages (Fotos, 2005). Hence, the formal study of Latin grammar became an important component of the school system. Even when other foreign languages began to be taught in educational settings, the study of Latin grammar was still used as a model for language learning. Studying Latin grammar was also viewed as a means of developing the mind. In the 18th and 19th centuries, other foreign languages were introduced to educational settings (H. D. Brown, 2000). However, it was still believed that the best way of learning the grammar of another language would be through studying the grammar of Latin since it was considered “the model for studying the grammar of any language” (Rutherford 1987, p. 29).

The emphasis on grammar manifested itself in various traditional grammar-based approaches such as the Grammar Translation Method, the Audio-Lingual Method, and other structure-based methods. Although different from one another, these methods are based on the assumption that the major problem in learning a second or foreign language is learning its structure and that this aspect of language must receive exclusive attention.

Grammar Translation and Audio-Lingual Methods

The Grammar Translation Method was introduced towards the end of the 18th century and then spread throughout the world in the 19th century. Different versions of this method are still widely used in many places, particularly in foreign language contexts. Drawing on the approaches used in the teaching of classical languages such as Latin and Greek, this method focused exclusively on studying grammatical rules and structures. Based on categories of Greek and Latin grammar, the target language was segmented into various parts of speech (e.g., nouns, verbs, adverbs, pronouns, articles, participles, conjunctions, and prepositions), which were taught deductively through an explicit explanation of rules, with memorization and translations of texts from the L2 to the L1. With a focus on written language, other purposes of this method included exploring the literature of the target language, preparing learners to develop an understanding of the first language, and training learners’ academic capacities.

Towards the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries, with the rise of structural linguistics, the focus shifted from studying grammar in terms of parts of speech to a description of its structural and phonological characteristics. With the advent of World War II, a strong need arose for oral communication and the ability to speak foreign languages fluently. These changes, along with developments in behavioral psychology, led to the emergence of the Audio-Lingual and Direct Methods. The Audio-Lingual Method did not present grammatical rules in the same way as the Grammar Translation Method did. However, the focus was still on learning grammatical structures, and not on the development of real-life communication skills. Theoretically, this method was greatly influenced by behaviorist psychology that viewed learning as a process of habit formation and conditioning; thus, it considered memorization of structural patterns essential for L2 learning. It was believed that such memorization formed and reinforced language habits. The Audio-Lingual Method was also influenced by the American school of descriptive and structural linguistics that shifted the focus from studying grammar in terms of parts of speech to a description of its structural and phonological components. As such, lessons in Audio-Lingual teaching consisted mainly of grammatical structures sequenced in a linear manner, usually beginning with an easy structure and ending with more complex forms, with little attention to meaning or context. However, rules were taught inductively through examples and repetition of sentence-level patterns. The emphasis was mainly on developing abilities in oral skills rather than written skills. Instructional units typically began with a conversational dialogue, followed by some pattern drills.

Many other methods emerged after the Grammar Translation and Audio-Lingual methods, such as the Reading Approach, the Oral and Situational Method, the Silent Way, and Total Physical Response. Although they somewhat differed in their underlying assumptions about how language is learned, in terms of syllabus, they were all grammar-based. That is, classroom contents were organized mainly based on analyses of language forms with little focus on language functions or real-life communication. Therefore, they all reflected what Batstone (1994) has characterized as teaching grammar as product, or what Wilkins (1976, p. 2) has characterized as a synthetic approach, in which language is segmented into different parts that are taught one by one in isolation.

Presentation-Practice-Production (PPP) Models

Grammar-based approaches are still used in many L2 classrooms. A very popular form of this approach is the PPP (Presentation-Practice-Production) model of language instruction. According to D. Willis (1996b, p. v), this approach is “so widely accepted that it now forms the basis of many teacher training courses.” Different versions of the PPP model can be seen in various language teaching and teacher training textbooks for foreign and second language teachers (e.g., Celce-Murcia & Hilles, 1988; Harmer, 1996; Ur, 1988). The PPP is what many teachers conceive of as a basic lesson structure in many current L2 classrooms (Crookes & Chaudron, 2001).

In the PPP model, grammar instruction consists of a structured three-stage sequence: a presentation stage, a practice stage, and a production stage. In the presentation stage, the new grammar rule or structure is introduced, usually through a text, a dialogue, or a story that includes the structure. The students listen to the text or read it out loud. The main purpose of this stage is to help students become familiar with the new grammatical structure and keep it in their short-term memory (Ur, 1988). The presentation stage is followed by a practice stage, in which students are given various kinds of written and spoken exercises to repeat, manipulate, or reproduce the new forms. The practice stage usually begins with controlled practices that focus learners’ attention on specific structures and then moves to less controlled practices with more open-ended activities. The aim of the practice stage is to help students gain control of the knowledge introduced in the presentation stage, to take it in, and to move it from their short-term memory to their long-term memory (Ur, 1988). Finally, in the production stage, learners are encouraged to use the rules they have learned in the presentation and practice stages more freely and in more communicative activities. The aim of this last stage is to fully master the new form by enabling learners to internalize the rules and use them automatically and spontaneously. In a sense, the aim here is to develop fluency.

Theoretically, the PPP model is informed by information processing and skills acquisition models of learning, claiming that language learning is a cognitive skill similar to other kinds of learning. In this view, language is learned by processing information available through input and then accessed for subsequent comprehension and production. Skills acquisition theories (e.g., Anderson, 1982, 1983) claim that learning is a movement from declarative knowledge (i.e., explicit knowledge of rules and systems) to procedural knowledge (i.e., knowledge of how to use the system). Students first learn the new target rules and structures through the development of conscious knowledge, and then practice them in order to gain control of them. In this view, presentation and practice play a key role in the acquisition of language. It is believed that “it is through practice that the material is most thoroughly and permanently learned” (Ur, 1988, p. 10).

Inadequacies of Grammar-Based Approaches

Approaches to grammar instruction that focus on teaching grammar as a set of rules and structures have been found inadequate in meeting the communicative needs of L2 learners. One of the major assumptions underlying traditional grammar-based approaches is that language consists of a series of grammatical forms and structures that can be acquired successively. Grammar teaching is viewed as a deductive and linear presentation of these rules. It is believed that through such presentations of grammar forms, learners are able to develop the kind of knowledge they need for spontaneous language use.

In recent years, however, many researchers have questioned the above assumptions. Reviewing past research on form-focused instruction, Long and Robinson (1998) argued that none of the many studies on L2 learning over the past 30 years shows that presenting grammar rules in a discrete fashion matches the manner in which learners develop language rules. R. Ellis, Basturkmen, and Loewen (2002, p. 421) pointed out:

While there is substantial evidence that grammar instruction results in learning as measured by discrete-point language tests (e.g., the grammar test in the TOEFL), there is much less evidence to show that it leads to the kind of learning that enables learners to perform the targeted form in free oral production (e.g., in a communicative task).

N. Ellis (2002, p. 175), while not denying the role of explicit instruction, observed that:

The real stuff of language acquisition is the slow acquisition of form-function mappings and the regularities therein. This skill, like others, takes tens of thousands of hours of practice, practice that cannot be substituted for by provision of a few declarative rules.

Researchers also believe that L2 acquisition is a developmental process and that although there may be individual variations, it follows developmental patterns that are regular and systematic. These sequences, however, are not always amenable to the teachers’ teaching agenda. Therefore, learners do not often learn grammatical structures in the order presented by the teacher. Long and Crookes (1992, p. 31) pointed out:

Where syntax is concerned, research has demonstrated that learners rarely, if ever, move from zero to targetlike mastery of new items in one step. Both naturalistic and classroom learners pass through fixed developmental sequences in word order, negation, questions, relative clauses, and so on—sequences which have to include often quite lengthy stages of nontargetlike use of forms as well as use of nontargetlike forms.

For the same reasons, the underlying assumptions of the more common PPP models have also been questioned. Ellis (2003) argued the PPP models are questionable because they are based on the belief that “practice makes perfect.” This notion, he noted, is not appropriate because language acquisition processes appear to be governed by many psychological constraints (Pienemann, 1998). Skehan (1996b) contended that the PPP models are not only inconsistent with the premises of current second language acquisition (SLA) theory, but they are also unsupported by research findings. He pointed out that “the evidence in support of such an approach [PPP] is unimpressive” and that “levels of attainment in conventional language learning are poor, and students commonly leave school with very little in the way of usable language” (p. 18). Skehan (1996b) argued that the reason for the popularity of this method is that is it easy to use, to organize, and to evaluate, and also the teacher is in full control of the structures intended to be covered. Other L2 scholars have criticized the PPP models on the grounds that such models are based on the f...