2 Literature Review
2.5 The role of grammar in second language learning and teaching
TESOL teaching has encompassed many methods of teaching grammar over the years. Richards and Rodgers (2001) have studied this issue from the perspective of historical periods when such methods gained popularity. They also discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each method as it applies to grammar teaching. Each of these methods has its own perspective on the role of grammar and how it should be addressed, and each one has advantages and disadvantages. The main teaching approaches in TESOL, set into their historical periods, are given in Table 2.1 below.
Table 2.1 Advantages and disadvantages of various grammar teaching methods in TESOL
(adapted from Richards & Rodgers, 2001)
Approaches / Methods Advantages Disadvantages
Grammar-Translation Method (19th – mid 20th
centuries)
Attention given to
language forms by explicit teaching of grammar rules.
Absence of
communicative practice. Reliance on translation impractical for classes with students from different language backgrounds. Direct Method
(early 20th century)
Speech before reading. Use of visuals to convey meaning.
Grammar taught through practice in target
language only.
Minimum reading and writing.
Audio-lingual Method (1950s – 1970s
Emphasis on speaking. Pronunciation modelled by teacher.
Use of drills to reinforce grammatical patterns. Useful language learned from outset.
Rote exercises can reduce cognitive engagement. Reading and writing postponed.
Time lag between oral and written work. Cognitive Approach (1970s) Grammar teaching considered very important. Emphasis on analysis of structures rather than communication practice. Less emphasis on pronunciation. Natural Approach (1980s) Language presented in a ‘natural’ sequence, i.e. listening, reading, writing, speaking.
Grammar not overtly taught
Focus on input (listening) can delay output
(speaking) Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) (1970s – current time) Communication is goal of instruction. Emphasis on meaningful interaction.
Use of authentic texts and contexts.
Focus on communication can result in ignoring of grammar. Emphasis on fluency at the expense of accuracy could result in many students not attaining sufficient grammar.
Other methods or approaches have also come to the fore in more recent times. Sugiharto (2006) has introduced “grammar consciousness raising (C-R)” (p. 144) and explains that it is a middle-ground approach between two extremes in second language grammar teaching, and is therefore a compromise between the grammar- translation method and the communicative method. However, this method does not ask the learner to use a grammar structure correctly, only to be aware of it. It therefore results in delayed language production. In this way, it takes the emphasis away from correct learner production in the immediate sense. The C-R method helps students to develop their understanding of grammatical features, rather than to use it as soon as it has been noticed. C-R can therefore be considered as a facilitator, which in the long term can convert explicit knowledge into implicit knowledge, which is the ultimate goal in language teaching. This method would
constitute a new way for teachers to present grammar, but could also cause a certain sense of frustration for the teacher, because there would be no immediate evidence of students’ ability to use the new grammar aspect that had been
presented. The ideas of Ellis (2002) and Noonan (2004) preceded those of Sugiharto, and although not using the C-R label, these two authors propose the same method of encouraging students to notice the grammar by becoming aware of the target structure, but not necessarily to produce it.
Teaching grammar in context can mean using situations that students find relevant for themselves, and can also mean integrating grammar into the four macro-skills of listening, reading, writing and speaking. Pekoz (2008) illustrates the ways in which to teach grammar in context through a series of electronically published grammar lessons. He mentions specifically that teacher input should be meaningful and that the grammar should relate to real life situations and be integrated into one or more of the four macro-skills. He comments that grammar teaching, like teaching the four skills, should involve three stages – before, during and after stages – in order to provide integration in the learning environment. In the pre-grammar stage, Pekoz recommends that the teacher should bring grammar to life, stimulate interest in the particular item and raise awareness by giving reasons for learning. In the while- grammar stage, the teacher should give students the opportunity to notice the new grammar point and should provide them with meaningful input through contextual examples, texts and pictures. Finally, the post-grammar stage should provide opportunities for students to use the grammar, and should relate grammar
instruction to real life situations. The main distinction between the while- and post- stages is that during the while-stage there should be clarification of the meaning, whereas the post-stage should focus on the productive aspects of the new grammar structure that has been taught.
Pekoz (2008) also refers to teaching grammar in context as “integrated grammar teaching” (section 2). This is amply supported by Myhill and Watson (2013), who explain that the British National Curriculum has attempted to contextualise the teaching of grammar since 1998 with varying degrees of success. These authors also remind readers of the “inseparability of language study from reading, writing,
speaking and listening contexts” (p. 43). Grammar teaching in context is supported by a number of authors, including Bae (2000); Metin (2000); Saricoban (2000); and Vavra (1996). Teaching grammar in context is further explored by Myhill et al. (2012) who insist that learning English involves language study as a vitally important component. They go on to explain that grammar is one aspect of language study, and it therefore needs to be taught and assessed in context, both because of its own interest and because of the way it contributes to communication and meaning making. They point out that grammar should not be taught or assessed as a list of facts.
The United Kingdom Literary Association (UKLA) Statement on Teaching Grammar (2013) supports all of the above with the following:
Language study is a vitally important aspect of learning in English, and … grammar is an important strand of language study, for its own intrinsic interest and for its contribution to communication and the making of meaning. However, if grammatical knowledge, spelling and punctuation are to make positive contributions to children’s writing, they need to be taught and assessed in the context of writing meaningful texts, not as sets of ‘facts’ or ‘rules’. (p. 1)
Teaching grammar in context has emerged as a prime concern of teachers and researchers in recent times. It is also a strand that emerged from the current study, as will be discussed in Chapters 4 and 5 of this thesis.
A related topic that emerged from the review of the extant literature is that grammar should be regarded as a tool for communication and not as an end in itself. Lopez Rama and Luque Agullo (2012) trace the three broad general ways of approaching grammar throughout the varied history of language teaching: (i) traditional grammar teaching; (ii) communicative language teaching; and (iii) post- communicative approaches. Traditional grammar teaching relied on the notion of knowledge of rules which would produce grammatical competence. The study of grammar rules was considered to be an end in itself. CLT was influenced by the functional language theories of Halliday (1976). These theories were instrumental in
causing language performance to become more important than language
competence. Thornbury (1999) explains that there emerged two schools of thought within CLT. Both of these schools of thought placed a high premium on using language in a communicative way. However, they disagreed as to when one should do this. The first – or shallow-end approach – might be thought of as the view that one learns a language in order to use it. That is, one should learn the rules and then should apply them in life-like communication. The more radical view, however, is that one uses a language in order to learn it. Supporters of this other approach – the deep-end approach – take an experiential view of learning: one learns to communicate by communicating. They argue that, “by means of activities that engage the learner in life-like communication, the grammar will be acquired
virtually unconsciously, and that studying the rules of grammar is simply a waste of valuable time” (pp. 18-19).
This deep-end approach is directly contradicted by Fraser and Hodson (1978). Even at the shallow end, grammar is considered as a means towards communication, not as an end in itself. At the deep end, communication is the sole consideration and grammar should be acquired unconsciously. Lopez Rama and Luque Agullo (2012) claim that the deep-end approach has proved to be inadequate. Post-
communicative approaches have shifted the emphasis from teaching to learning, from results to processes, and deem knowledge not to be learned but constructed in a collaborative way.
Foppoli (2008) has a nine-step approach to teaching. The first four steps truly correspond with a communicative approach with a focus on understanding the message. The final five steps, however, focus on grammar, but only after the meaning has been completely understood. This could be termed an eclectic method. Foppoli states that the advantage of this approach is that while students are dealing with the grammar, they will have a clear idea of the context in which the grammar item was used and the communicative need it fulfilled.
Nassaji and Fotos (2004) point out that there is a body of research showing that teaching approaches, where the main aim is meaning focussed communication,
have proven to be inadequate. They contend that where grammar is not adequately addressed, learners do not achieve accuracy, even if they have been exposed to long-term input. They conclude, therefore, that if learners are to develop high levels of accuracy, then focussing on grammar is necessary. They further conclude that CLT without grammar input is totally inadequate. Even more forthright is Ellis (2002), cited in Noonan (2004) with the statement that data from recent studies suggest that students who have received explicit grammar instruction arrive at a higher level of accuracy in grammar than those who have not received such explicit instruction.
Ur (1988) very skilfully points out the difference between first language grammar acquisition (as an infant) and second language grammar acquisition (as a school child or as an adult). For an infant, there is no need for conscious planning of learning because absorption takes place naturally. However, when considering formal learning in a school or college situation, time is of the essence. Therefore, grammar needs to be presented systematically for gradual absorption. Ur also goes on to say that grammar should be the main learning objective of any lesson only temporarily, as grammar acquisition is merely a means of gaining mastery of the target language and should not be an end in itself. If grammar exercises are employed in the early stages of learning, these should be replaced by fluency practice as time progresses, so that in the long term the emphasis is on successful communication, and with the passage of time, grammar learning becomes
incidental rather than the main objective. In order for this to happen, teachers need to be very skilful in how they approach the situation; this kind of grammar
skilfulness is very much associated with instinctive knowledge and confidence in their own abilities in this area.
Teacher knowledge and confidence are important issues when considering the teaching of grammar. Some East Asian countries, which previously had an emphasis on grammar and translation rather than on communication, have taken the step of introducing English at elementary school level. In Butler’s (2004) study conducted in Korea, Taiwan and Japan, it was reported that teachers perceived substantial
needed to teach English. The teachers themselves identified the widest gaps to be in the productive skills and in grammar in particular. An opposite view is to be found in the work of Belchamber (2007), who highlights the difference between accuracy and fluency, and recommends CLT without an emphasis on grammar for fluency to occur. She also suggests that CLT is more efficient in the mixed ability classroom, as it is a more creative approach to teaching and can be an aid for student motivation. Teaching institutions are able to choose their teaching methods although in all likelihood choices will be made according to the prevailing method or methods in the period of history in which they are operating.