Job Discussion Forums

[Capergirl]

I am really perplexed by those who teach ESL or EFL and believe that grammar needn't be a part of their classroom instruction. If your job is to simply be a moderator for a conversation class, then you are not "teaching" and therefore don't need to focus on grammar. Otherwise, you are doing your students a disservice, in my opinion, when you omit grammar lessons from the curriculum.

Even "mother tongue" English speakers (elementary school and junior high school students, in particular) need to learn the rules of the English language. These "rules" include correct pronunciation, spelling, punctuation, grammar, sentence structure, and eventually, paragraph organization and essay format. Second language acquisition should not be any different. How does one learn to read, write, and speak a language properly without learning the basic structures of the language? Can a language simply be absorbed as though by osmosis? I do not believe so. Many of our students aspire to become somewhat or very proficient in the English language. They will not accomplish this goal if their English teachers are omitting lessons in grammar and basic sentence structure. Rote learning will only take them so far and then they will get to a point where they are hindered by their lack of grammar knowledge.

In my classes, the rules of grammar are taught (in addition to reading, writing, speaking, listening, and comprehension), with the proper terminology and all (e.g. they know what "third person singular" means). My students are given the rule, the exceptions, examples, and many, many practice exercises. When a question arises about a grammar point, I try to get them to draw on what they have learned to find the answer rather than just giving them the answer. If there is confusion about a grammar point, we review that point until it is clear. I have noticed a huge difference in my students' ability to read, write, and speak English over the past few months. They even correct each other's work in class, which speaks volumes about what they have actually learned.

As you can see, I feel strongly about grammar instruction in the ESL/EFL classroom. I'm interested in hearing other views, both for and against.

[chinagirl]

Capergirl,

I think the question should be, "Is grammar instruction important in acquiring a second language?" We all have "grammar." If you believe linguists such as Chomsky, all humans come pre-equipped with a universal grammar that helps them to make sense of languages.

Grammar yes! Grammar no! There are teachers and linguists the world over debating this point.

Instruction? Depends on the context. I personally feel that grammar instruction should be limited to higher level classes, if at all. There is no need for formal grammar instruction when teaching ESL /EFL to children. (By this I mean, teaching grammar terminology, diagramming sentences, plugging in present continuous verbs into sentences.) They will acquire the language naturally with exposure to a rich language environment: reading, writing, speaking in English with modeling from the teacher and a print rich environment.) As far as adults go, my experience is that for beginners, it is not appropriate to drill and kill grammar exercises. Depending on their educational backgrounds and literacy in their L1, grammar exercises are often not developmentally the right choice. From all that I've learned and practiced, it makes more sense to teach grammar in context and teach it through authentic language use.

What level/age and in what country are you teaching? It's hard to apply your statements with a broad brush to all ages and levels. I certainly wouldn't advocate teaching an eight-year-old about the third person singular by using grammar terminology! It sounds like you are teachng adults.

You can find all opinions on this board regarding this topic. Some seem to think that kindergarteners can be formally taught grammar. This goes against current research in Lang. Acquistion, as well as Reading and Literacy development. That is not to say that by exposing a child to standard English spelling through books, and word order through speech, that they are not sorting out the "rules" and grammar for themselves. Post-puberty seems to be another matter.

I am by no means an expert on this subject and look forward to everyone else's responses. Thanks, Capergirl!

Chinagirl

(who has taught grammar, "conversation", reading, and sundry language skills to students of all ages on three continents)

PS: My major pet peeve: English teachers who can't spell the word "grammAr."

[chinagirl]

Oops! I just saw your avatar. You're in Nova Scotia...doh!

Chinagirl

[struelle]

I think grammar study is necessary for ESL classes, but the key is how it's taught. In China, Korea, and I'd guess other Asian countries, students learn English in the education system but they are taught exclusively grammar and the complex rules thereof. When they graduate, they can pass difficult English tests that focus on grammar (such as the CET-4 in China) and recite the rules, but they have a hard time with confidence and impromptu speaking.

The biggest problem I see with traditional methods of teaching grammar is that lessons become a study about the language, rather than immersion in English conversation. Traditional methods would include introducing a grammar point, explaining the rules and exceptions, and having students give examples that fit into the stucture. For the student, he or she likely finds this experience to be constraining and boring, with little room for expression. Along with this, grammar is introduced in a sequential and orderly form, which students also find boring. First you learn the present tense, then the past simple, then present perfect, etc.

In real native English, people seldom talk like this, or limit their grammatical expressions to fit an orderly model. You often find non-linear use of grammar, even in the simplest of conversations. Take a native speaking to a new English speaker, he or she tries to 'rough tune' the speech to make it easier to communicate. Things like speaking slower, using clearer pronunciation, and simple sentences, are all part of 'rough tuning'.

For example, simple introductions to a new immigrant at a party:

Native: So, my name is Bob. What's your name?
New Speaker: I'm Bill.
Native: Hi Bill, how are you doing today?
New Speaker (pauses for a second): Fine, thank you, and you?
Native: Not bad. So, how long have you been in the country?
New speaker: 3 months.

In this example, we see that Bob used the present perfect tense to ask his simple question. Bob didn't think, "Oh wait, I'm not supposed to use the present perfect yet, because he hasn't learned it, I'd better stick to present simple." Rather, the meaning was quite clear from the context, and Bill likely figured out the question from the words, 'how long' and ' in the country'

Having said all this, the study of grammar is still important for new learners, to be able to figure out the patterns of speech. However, I like to go about it another way than the traditional approach. First, have the students exposed to some kind of language input. Can be a simple dialogue, tape, reading, etc. Then, students comprehend the meaning of the text. After, play around with the meaning with fluency exercises. Then, analyze the text for grammar.

This is often called the 'lexical approach' in that language is composed of blocks of meaningful communication called 'lexis'. Lexis contain grammar in them except that the blocks of language have communicative meaning. Grammar by itself usually does not. What's nice about lexis is that students can figure out their meaning from the context, and at the same time, they are exposed to imbedded grammar.

Makes a class far more interesting than explicit study of grammar rules.

[C76]

I've tried, and...I can't seem to get over the idea that grammar is very important. It's the "when" and "how" to teach it that gets me.

I've been taught to be careful. You can really put off some students by overpowering them with too much info too soon.

Still, a former student of mine said she preferred hardcore grammar correction in conversation class. She's @ the advanced level. I could understand everything she said perfectly, in spite of her errors. Yet she didn't seem to go for that "fossilization" nonsense. Nor do I.

[chinagirl]

This is an interesting article from Humanising Language Teaching Magazine. Check out the applied linguistics board. There are some good posts over there!

http://www.hltmag.co.uk/mar03/mart1.htm

[Bertrand]

It all sounds very good, but what do you mean by grammar (that is a very broad term and has many different uses; do you, for example, mean both syntax and phonology? Are you also referring to morphology? Phonetic grammar, do you also mean that?) Furthermore, you speak as if you know exactly what the grammar is; but most 'elementary' structures have thus far eluded explicit description.

Yes, Chomsky asserts that there exists a Universal Grammar (UG) that provides the infant with a template for all possible natural human languages (that have non-obvious features; cf. Chomsky's hierarchy of languages) and which provides a series of Principles (invariant features and laws) and Parameters (that can be set by the boundary conditions of experience; i.e., is the language to which the infant exposed SVO or SOV? Is it Head Initial or Head Last? Etc., etc.). But whether or not this UG is available to learners outside of the critical period is still a raging debate. Also, remember that Chomsky's observations refer mainly to features that few, if any linguists, believe can be extracted from the corpus of speech surrounding the child such as, for example, anaphoric resolution, particularly long distance resolution, and Aux Do Insertion (Q-Formation), and thus is not exactly relevant to second language learning.

[Celeste]

Bertrand-
I am a bit confused by some of the terminology you used in your post. I don't really have a background in linguistics, but I am trying to learn. Could you clarify a couple of things for me?

[Linda L.]

I would politely ask to join your "confusion club" but I honestly feel like a charter member!

So this little West Virginia GED backpacker has been reading up on this a little.

The key to my understanding this difficult concept is found in something written by Krashen which I will share with you in the hope that it may help you as it did me.

Stephen Krashen's Theory of Second Language Acquisition
Assimila��o Natural -- o Construtivismo no Ensino de L�nguas
Ricardo Sch�tz
Last revision: January 30, 2002
"Language acquisition does not require extensive use of conscious grammatical rules, and does not require tedious drill." Stephen Krashen
"Acquisition requires meaningful interaction in the target language - natural communication - in which speakers are concerned not with the form of their utterances but with the messages they are conveying and understanding." Stephen Krashen
"The best methods are therefore those that supply 'comprehensible input' in low anxiety situations, containing messages that students really want to hear. These methods do not force early production in the second language, but allow students to produce when they are 'ready', recognizing that improvement comes from supplying communicative and comprehensible input, and not from forcing and correcting production." Stephen Krashen
"In the real world, conversations with sympathetic native speakers who are willing to help the acquirer understand are very helpful." Stephen Krashen
Introduction
Stephen Krashen (University of Southern California) is an expert in the field of linguistics, specializing in theories of language acquisition and development. Much of his recent research has involved the study of non-English and bilingual language acquisition. During the past 20 years, he has published well over 100 books and articles and has been invited to deliver over 300 lectures at universities throughout the United States and Canada.
This is a brief description of Krashen's widely known and well accepted theory of second language acquisition, which has had a large impact in all areas of second language research and teaching since the 1980s.
Description of Krashen's Theory of Second Language Acquisition
Krashen's theory of second language acquisition consists of five main hypotheses:
� the Acquisition-Learning hypothesis,
� the Monitor hypothesis,
� the Natural Order hypothesis,
� the Input hypothesis,
� and the Affective Filter hypothesis.
The Acquisition-Learning distinction is the most fundamental of all the hypotheses in Krashen's theory and the most widely known among linguists and language practitioners. According to Krashen there are two independent systems of second language performance: 'the acquired system' and 'the learned system'. The 'acquired system' or 'acquisition' is the product of a subconscious process very similar to the process children undergo when they acquire their first language. It requires meaningful interaction in the target language - natural communication - in which speakers are concentrated not in the form of their utterances, but in the communicative act.The 'learned system' or 'learning' is the product of formal instruction and it comprises a conscious process which results in conscious knowledge 'about' the language, for example knowledge of grammar rules. According to Krashen 'learning' is less important than 'acquisition'. (Veja o texto ao lado e tamb�m outra p�gina em portugu�s sobre Acquisition/Learning).

This is not a paid advertisement nor an advocacy piece, just my humble attempt to assist those who are confused like me!

[Sherri]

My treatment of grammar depends on who I am teaching, their level, nationality and reasons for study. Recently I have been teaching advanced level adults in Japan (TOEFL 600+). I don't present grammar structures to them formally. We usually deal with grammar and structure as it comes up in authentic listening or reading passages, or in their own speaking and writing.

The main reasons for this is that they have been "taught" almost every tense, aspect and structure in their high school and university days but they still can't apply many of them when they speak or write. My focus with them is to get them to recognise their most common errors and correct them themselves.

I agree with the current thinking that "grammar" itself is oversimplified in textbooks. It makes students (and some teachers) think that if they learn all the tenses and aspects, 3 conditionals etc, etc, they have mastered English when in fact it is just not that simple. Language is so hugely complex, we haven't even begun to understand exactly how it functions. This is not to say that I think we as teachers should just ignore it and hope our students pick it up, but I think that we do have to accept that we can't break down all grammatical structures down into pieces, present them to students and that eventually the whole picture appears.

Most research (what little I have read) seems to show that some focus on form is necessary or students risk fossilization. PPP (how I learned to teach) has now been thoroughly discredited and unfortunately many texts that I see on the market now, still present language in this way. Every lesson has to have a grammar point which is set up in artificial dialogues, reading and listening passages. How disappointing.

[Bertrand]

[Bertrand]

[Linda L.]

Bertrand I strongly suspect that you have never successfully taught L2 in Asia.

I also suspect that you believe that ESL/EFL learners must "master perfect English."

[Dr.J]

As I see it, grammar rules are applied onto the language, rather than stemming from them. The rules don't exist in the same way they exist in a game, such as chess, so they don't form a complete logical system...so teaching them as strict 'rules' is kind of misleading the students.

But, they are a useful way of seeing the language, and as they are also common currency I think they should be taugh alongside lots of comprehensible input, so students can get used to the harmony of the language.

It's too simplistic to say we should or should not teach grammar in the classroom. The choice depends on several factors, such as age, level, learning style and teaching style. I think it's best to be eclectic, because you never know what will work for each individual.

[Bertrand]