APPROACHES AND RULES FOR TEACHING GRAMMAR
APPROACHES AND RULES FOR TEACHING GRAMMAR
This paper is arranged to fulfill TEFL 1 class
lectured by Dr.
Widayanto, M.Pd
Fitrah Ramadhan
Imelda Fatmawati
Rosyida Nur Sabela
Fahmiawati Nurman Putri
English Language and Letters Department
Faculty of Humanities
Maulana Malik Ibrahim State Islamic University, Malang
2014
BACKGROUND
Understanding grammar of a certain
language has been regarded as a crucial for language learners to master the
language itself. Besides mastering the
four basic skill of language, those are speaking, listening, writing and
reading, understanding the grammar is also urgent to support mastering the
language. Grammar is
thought to furnish the basis for a set of language skills: listening, speaking,
reading and writing. In listening and speaking, grammar plays a crucial part in grasping and
expressing spoken language (e.g. expressions) since learning the grammar of a
language is considered necessary to acquire the capability of producing grammatically
acceptable utterances in the language (Corder, 1988; Widodo, 2004). However, many people argues that grammar is not too important to
learn when someone wants to study the language due to the fact that grammar is
not useful in daily conversation and general speaking. Indeed, grammar
sometimes shortens the learners’ freedom to speak because of the bound rules. Further, it has been observed that
although some learners can "pick up" accurate linguistic form from exposure to the target
language, few learners are capable of doing so efficiently, especially if
they are postpubescent or if their exposure is limited to the classroom, as is the case
when English is taught as a foreign language. In contrast, research has
shown that teachers
who focus students' attention on linguistic form during communicative interactions are more
effective than those who never focus on form or who only do so in decontextualized grammar lessons (Spada
and Lightbown 1993; Lightbown 1998). It follows, then, that most educators concur with the
need to teach grammatical form. However, they advise doing so by "focusing on form"
within a meaning-based or communicative approach in order to avoid a return to
analytic approaches in
which decontextualized language forms were the object of study.
Equating grammar with form and the teaching of grammar with
the teaching of explicit linguistic rules concerning form are unduly limiting, representing
what we have called myths (Larsen-Freeman 1995), which only serve to perpetuate the pendulum
swing between language form and language use. Grammar is about form and one way to teach
form is to give students rules; however, grammar is about much more than form, and its teaching is ill
served if students are simply given rules.
Thus, in this chapter, we will entertain a more robust
view of grammar. Then, we will briefly touch upon issues concerning its learning. Finally, we
will discuss its teaching through
discussing the procedures and rules for teaching grammar
.
DISCUSSION
A.
Definition
Grammar is the system of a language. People
sometimes describe grammar as the "rules" of a language; but in fact
no language has rules. If we use the word "rules", we suggest that
somebody created the rules first and then spoke the language, like a new game. But
languages did not start like that. Languages started by people making sounds which
evolved into words, phrases and sentences. No commonly-spoken language is
fixed. All languages change over time. What we call "grammar" is
simply a reflection of
a language at a particular time. We also can assume
that grammar is the mental system of rules and
categories that allows humans to form and interpret the words and sentences of their
language. A linguist, Davis Crystal argued
that Grammar is the business of taking a language
to pieces, to see how it works.
Grammar adds
meanings that are not easily inferable from the immediate context. The kinds of meanings realised by grammar are
principally:
a.
Representational - that is, grammar enables us
to use language to describe the world in terms of how, when and where things happen. e.g. The sun
set at 7.30. The children are playing in the garden.
b.
Interpersonal - that is, grammar facilitates
the way we interact with other people when, for example, we need to get
things done using language.
e.g. There is a difference between:
Tickets!
Tickets, please.
Can you show me your tickets?
May see your tickets?
Would you mind if I had a look at your
tickets.
Grammar is used to fine-tune the meanings we
wish to express.
B.
The importance
of Grammar
There are many arguments for putting grammar
in the foreground in foreign language teaching. Here are seven of them:
1. The sentence-machine argument
Part of the process of language learning must
be what is sometimes called item learning — that is the memorisation of individual items such as words and phrases.
However, there is a limit to the number of items a person can both retain and retrieve. Even
travellers' phrase books have limited usefulness — good for a three-wee holiday, but
there comes a point where we need to learn some patterns or rules to enable us to generate new
sentences. That is to say, grammar. Grammar, after all, is a description of the regularities
in a language, and knowledge of these regularities provides the learner with the means to
generate a potentially enormous number of original sentences. The number of possible new sentences
is constrained only by the vocabulary at the learner's command and his or her creativity.
Grammar is a kind of 'sentence-making machine'. It follows that the teaching of
grammar offers the learner the means for potentially limitless linguistic
creativity.
2. The fine-tuning argument
The purpose of grammar seems to be to allow
for greater subtlety of meaning than a merely lexical system can cater for. While it is
possible to get a lot of communicative mileage out of simply
stringing words and phrases together, there comes a point where 'Me Tarzan, you Jane'-type
language fails to deliver, both in terms of intelligibility and in terms of appropriacy. This is particularly
the case for written language, which generally needs to be more explicit than spoken
language. For example, the following errors are likely to confuse the reader:
Last Monday night I was boring in my house.
After speaking a lot time with him I thought that him attracted me.
We took a wrong plane and when I saw it was very later because the plane
took up.
Five years ago I would want to go to India but in that time anybody of my
friends didn't want to go.
The teaching of grammar, it is argued, serves as a corrective against the
kind of ambiguity represented in these examples.
3. The fossilisation argument
It is possible for highly motivated learners
with a particular aptitude for languages to achieve amazing levels of proficiency without any
formal study. But more often 'pick it up as you go along' learners
reach a language plateau beyond which it is very difficult to progress. To put
it technically,
their linguistic competence fossilises. Research suggests that learners
who receive no instruction seem to be at risk of fossilising sooner than those who do
receive instruction.
4. The advance-organiser argument
Grammar instruction might also have a delayed
effect. The researcher Richard Schmidt kept a diary of his experience learning Portuguese in
Brazil. Initially he had enrolled in formal language classes where there was a heavy
emphasis on grammar. When he subsequently left these classes to travel in Brazil his
Portuguese made good progress, a fact he attributed to the use he was
making of it. However, as he interacted naturally with Brazilians he was aware that certain
features of the talk — certain grammatical items — seemed to catch his
attention. He noticed them. It so happened that these items were also items he
had studied in his classes. What's more, being more noticeable, these items seemed to stick.
Schmidt concluded that noticing is a prerequisite for acquisition. The grammar
teaching he had received previously, while insufficient in itself to turn him into a fluent
Portuguese speaker, had primed him to notice what might otherwise have gone unnoticed, and hence
had indirectly influenced his learning. It had acted as a kind of advance organiser for
his later acquisition of the language.
5. The discrete item argument
Language seen from 'outside', can seem to be a
gigantic, shapeless mass, presenting an insuperable challenge for the learner. Because
grammar consists of an apparently finite set of rules, it can help to reduce the apparent
enormity of the language learning task for both teachers and students. By tidying language up
and organising it into neat categories (sometimes called discrete items), grammarians
make language digestible. (A discrete item is any unit of the grammar system that is sufficiently
narrowly defined to form the focus of a lesson or an exercise: e.g. the present continuous,
the definite article, possessive pronouns).
6. The rule-of-law argument
It follows from the discrete-item argument
that, since grammar is a system of learnable rules, it lends itself
to a view of teaching and learning known as transmission. A transmission
view sees the role
of education as the transfer of a body of knowledge (typically in the form of
facts and rules) from
those that have the knowledge to those that do not. Such a view is typically associated with
the kind of institutionalised learning where rules, order, and discipline are highly valued.
The need for rules, order and discipline is particularly acute in large classes
of unruly and
unmotivated teenagers - a situation that many teachers of English are
confronted with daily. In this sort of situation grammar offers the teacher a
structured system that can be taught and tested in methodical steps.
7. The learner expectations argument
Regardless of the theoretical and ideological
arguments for or against grammar teaching, many learners come to language classes with
fairly fixed expectations as to what they will do there. These expectations may derive from
previous classroom experience of language learning. They may also derive from experience
of classrooms in general where (traditionally, at least) teaching is of the transmission kind
mentioned above. On the other hand, their expectations that teaching will be
grammar-focused may stem from frustration experienced at trying to pick
up a second language in a non-classroom setting, such as through self-study, or through
immersion in the target language culture. Such students may have enrolled in language
classes specifically to ensure that the learning experience is made more
efficient and systematic. The teacher who ignores this expectation by encouraging
learners simply to experience language is likely to frustrate and alienate them.
C.
Two Core
Approaches
Broadly speaking, in teaching grammar, there
are two approaches that can be applied: deductive and inductive. In this section, we would like to
briefly highlight the two approaches.
1.
Deductive
A deductive
approach starts with the presentation of a rule and is followed by examples in which the rule
is applied. The grammar rule is presented and the learner engages with it through the
study and manipulation of examples. In this case, rules, principles, concepts, or
theories are presented first, and then their applications are treated. In conclusion,
when we use deduction, we reason from general to specific principles. Dealing with
the teaching of grammar, the deductive approach can also be called ruledriven learning. In
such an approach, a grammar rule is explicitly presented to students and
followed by practice applying the rule. This approach has been the bread and butter of
language teaching around the world and still enjoys a monopoly in many course books
and self-study grammar books (Fortune, 1992). The deductive approach maintains that
a teacher teaches grammar by presenting grammatical rules, and then examples of
sentences are presented. Once learners understand rules, they are told to apply the rules
given to various examples of sentences. Giving the grammatical rules means no more
than directing learners’ attention to the problem discussed. Eisenstein (1987) suggests
that with the deductive approach, learners be in control during practice and
have less fear of drawing an incorrect conclusion related to how the target language
is functioning. To sum up, the deductive approach commences with the presentation
of a rule taught and then is followed by examples in which the rule is applied. In
this regard, learners are expected to engage with it through the study and manipulation of
examples.
In the case of
the application of the deductive approach, therefore, Michael Swan (cited in
Thornbury, 1999, p. 32) outlines some guidelines for when the rule is presented.
Among them are
1.
The rules should be true.
2.
The rules should show clearly what limits are
on the use of a given form.
3.
The rules need to be clear.
4.
The rules ought to be simple.
5.
The rules need to make use of concepts already
familiar to the learners.
6.
The rules ought to be relevant.
Most importantly, when the rules are presented
in the deductive approach, the presentation should be illustrated with examples,
be short, involve students’ comprehension and allow learners to have a
chance to personalize the rule. Nonetheless, the deductive approach has its
own advantages and disadvantages as
below.
Advantages and disadvantages of the deductive approach to teaching grammar:
a.
The deductive
approach goes straightforwardly to the point and can, therefore, be
time-saving.
b.
A number of
rule aspects (for example, form) can be more simply and clearly
explained than elicited from examples.
c.
A number of
direct practice/application examples are immediately given.
d.
The deductive
approach respects the intelligence and maturity of many adult learners
in particular and acknowledges the role of cognitive processes in
language acquisition.
e.
It confirms
many learners’ expectations about classroom learning particularly
for those who have an analytical style.
Disadvantages
a.
Beginning the
lesson with a grammar presentation may be off-putting for some learners,
especially younger ones.
b.
Younger
learners may not able to understand the concepts or encounter grammar
terminology given.
c.
Grammar
explanation encourages a teacher-fronted, transmission-style classroom, so
it will hinder learner involvement and interaction immediately.
d.
The explanation
is seldom as memorable as other forms of presentation (for example,
demonstration).
e.
The deductive
approach encourages the belief that learning a language is simply a case
of knowing the rule.
(Widodo:126-127:2006)
2.
Inductive
An inductive
approach comes from inductive reasoning stating that a reasoning progression
proceeds from particulars (that is, observations, measurements, or data) to generalities
(for example, rules, laws, concepts or theories) (Felder & Henriques,1995).
In short, when we use induction, we observe a number of specific instances and from them
infer a general principle or concept. In the case of pedagogical grammar, most
experts argue that the inductive approach can also be called rule-discovery learning. It
suggests that a teacher teach grammar starting with presenting some examples of
sentences. In this sense, learners understand grammatical rules from the
examples. The presentation of grammatical rules can be spoken or written. Eisenstein
(cited in Long & Richards, 1987) maintains that the inductive approach tries to utilize
the very strong reward value of bringing order, clarity and meaning to experiences.
This approach involves learners’ participating actively in their own
instruction. In addition, the approach encourages a learner to
develop her/his own mental set of strategies for dealing with tasks. In other words, this
approach attempts to highlight grammatical rules implicitly in which the learners are
encouraged to conclude the rules given by the teacher.
Similar to the deductive approach, the
inductive approach offers advantages and disadvantages as seen in the below explanation.
Advantages and disadvantages of the inductive
approach to teaching grammar:
a.
Learners are
trained to be familiar with the rule discovery; this could enhance
learning autonomy and self-reliance.
b.
Learners’
greater degree of cognitive depth is “exploited”.
c.
The learners
are more active in the learning process, rather than being simply passive
recipients. In this activity, they will be motivated.
d.
The approach
involves learners’ pattern-recognition and problemsolving abilities in
which particular learners are interested in this challenge.
e.
If the
problem-solving activity is done collaboratively, learners get an opportunity for
extra language practice.
While
the disadvantages are:
a.
The approach is
time and energy-consuming as it leads learners to have the appropriate
concept of the rule.
b.
The concepts
given implicitly may lead the learners to have the wrong concepts of the
rule taught.
c.
The approach
can place emphasis on teachers in planning a lesson.
d.
It encourages
the teacher to design data or materials taught carefully and
systematically.
e.
The approach
may frustrate the learners with their personal learning style, or their
past learning experience (or both) would prefer simply to be told the rule.
D.
Rules
What conclusions are to be drawn
about the teaching of grammar? Here are some rules of thumb:
a.
The Rule of Context
Teach
grammar in context. If you have to take an item out of context in order to draw attention
to it, ensure that it is re-contextualized as soon as possible. Similarly,
teach grammatical
forms in association with their meanings. The choice of one grammatical form over
another is always determined by the meaning the speaker or writer wishes to
convey.
b.
The Rule of Use
Teach
grammar in order to facilitate the learners' comprehension and production of
real language,
rather than as an end in itself. Always provide opportunities for learners to
put the grammar
to some communicative use.
c.
The Rule of Economy
To
fulfill the rule of use, be economical. This means economising on presentation
time in order
to provide maximum practice time. With grammar, a little can go a long way.
d.
The Rule of Relevance
Teach
only the grammar that students have problems with. This means, start off by finding out
what they already know. And don't assume that the grammar of English is a
wholly different
system from the learner's mother tongue. Exploit the common ground.
e.
The Rule of Nurture
Teaching
doesn't necessarily cause learning - not in any direct way. Instead of teaching grammar,
therefore, try to provide the right conditions for grammar learning.
f.
The Rule of Appropriacy
Interpret
all the above rules according to the level, needs, interests, expectations and
learning styles
of the students. This may mean giving a lot of prominence to grammar, or it may
mean never
actually teaching grammar at all - in any up-front way. But either way, it is
your responsibility
as a teacher to know your grammar inside out.
Some conditions
The
Rule of Nurture argues for providing the conditions for grammar learning. What
are these conditions? If the answer to this
much disputed question could be reduced to a handful of essentials,
they would probably be these:
a.
The input they get: will it be presented in such a way that the learners are
likely to engage with it, thus ensuring a reasonable chance of it becoming
intake?
b.
Their
output: will it be of sufficient quantity
and/or quality to ensure that they have opportunities to develop both
accuracy and fluency?
c.
The feedback they get: will it be of the type and
quantity to ensure that some of their attention is directed at form?
d.
Their
motivation: will the content and design of the lesson be such that
learners are motivated to attend to the input,
produce optimal output, and take account of the feedback?
Here are five teacher “confessions”. Which rule did the
teacher break, in each case?
1.
I
explained it and drilled it - and still they made mistakes. So I explained it
and drilled it again.
2.
I
presented the rules of adverb order, and then we did some exercises in the
book. Tomorrow
I'm going to do the second conditional.
3.
They
don't have any problems with the past tense, but I'm going to teach it again because
it's in the book.
4.
I
gave them five sentences in different tenses and asked them to work out the difference.
Then we did some sentence gap-fill exercises.
5.
The
presentation took about 40 minutes. That left me ten minutes for the role play.
CONCLUSION
By
thinking of grammar as a skill to be mastered, rather than a set of rules to be
memorized, we’ll be helping students go a long way toward the goal of being
able to accurately convey meaning in an appropriate manner.
When
the psychological conditions of learning and application are matched, what has
been learned is more likely to be transfer. Therefore, presenting rules and
forms in the context of communicative interaction is necessary.
Assuredly beneficial and praiseworthy guidance allocated by you. I am sure this might benefit many teachers and make their teaching strategy effective. Continue sharing. One can speak and practice English in an effective way, just by downloading English Learning App on your own smartphone, which you can use whenever and wherever you want to practice your communication skills with experts.
BalasHapusPractice English app | English Speaking App