|
COPYRIGHT 2004 Adam Mickiewicz University Press
ABSTRACT
For many years the role of gntmmar instruction in foreign language pedagogy has been subjeet to considerable controversy. Apart from generating a diversity of theoretical positions and models, the issue has resulted in a number of empirical investigations, which have clearly demonstrated that teaching grammar is helpful, or even neeessary, as it not only accelerates the process of language development but also leads to higher levels of ultimate achievement. In addition to contributing to our knowledge concerning the effectiveness of formal instruction, the studics conducted to date have enabled researchers to suggest preliminary guidelines concerning the choice of grammatical structures to be targeted by pedagogie intervention as well as the timing and intensiveness of such intervention.
What is particularly important from the teacher's point of view, research into form-focused instruction has provided us with important information on the effectiveness of different techniques and procedures that practitioners have at their disposal when teaching grammar. The present paper aims to discuss such methodological options in the light of current theoretical positions and research findings, evaluate their usefulness in the Polish educational context, and suggest a handful of tentative recommendations conerning their most beneficial application in the foreign language classroom.
I. Introduction
The question as to whether the teaching of linguistie forms, or, to be more precise, grammatical structures, should be incorporated into language instruction remains one of the most controversial issues in second language acquisition (SLA) theory and research as well as language pedagogy. (1) The last thirty years have seen a heated debate concerning this issue and numerous studies bave been conducted which sought to determine the effectiveness of grammar instruction either to develop and test SLA theories or, less frequently perhaps, to identify what constitutes effective pedagogic practice (cf. Ellis 2001). Although caution has to be exercised about the findings of this research due to the methodological problems from which it suffers and the conflicting nature of the results obtained to date, such studies have brought us closer to understanding the place of grammar instruction in second language development. In particular, empirical investigations have provided us with important insights into the choice of linguistic forms to be taught, the timing and intensity of instruction as well as its place in the curriculum, and the effectiveness of different pedagogic options in teaching grammar (cf. Doughty and Williams 1998; Ellis 2001, 2002).
While acknowledging the significance of research contributions in all of these areas, the present paper focuses on the one that appears to be of greatest relevance to practitioners, and aims to present the options in grammar teaching that researchers have shown to be worthy of incorporation into classroom practice, evaluate their usefulness and, ultimately, offer a handful of tentative suggestions on how they could be combined to enhance the effectiveness of teaching grammar in Polish schools. For the sake of clarity and completeness, the discussion of the pedagogic options in form-focused instruction is preceded by a brief presentation of the changing views on the role of grammar teaching and the reasons why it should be included in the curriculum.
2. From grammar-translation to communicative language teaching
For centuries foreign language pedagogy relied on a sequential presentation of linguistic forms or functions, pre-selected and graded according to their perceived difficulty, frequency or usefulness, and, thus, embodied what Wilkins (1976) terms the synthetic approach to syllabus design. In addition, there was a belief that teaching the selected forms explicitly and more or less in isolation would result in the mastery of the target language, and, therefore, the predominantly analytic teaching strategy was applied, where "the learner (...) pays attention to formal and functional features which are deliberately abstracted at least to some degree from the living context" (Stem 1992: 301). (2) Obviously, teaching of this kind took various forms in different teaching methods, but what all of them had in common was a linear presentation and sequencing of the material, and the belief that learning would closely reflect teaching. This also applies to more recent functional-notional approaches, which organize content on the basis of the forms needed for particular communicational or situational activities, but still focus on specific language features, sequence them in a linear fashion and stress immediate production of correct forms (cf. Stem 1992; Hinkel and Fotos 2002).
In the 1970s the traditional synthetic syllabi and teaching procedures were questioned as SLA researchers came to realize that such instruction did not work and was at odds with the natural processes of language development. Confirming what many teachers were well aware of, it was found that knowing grammar rules does hot guarantee being able to use language spontaneously, that learuing does not mirror teaching, and even when it does, its effects wear off relatively quickly. More generally, it became clear that acquisition is not a process of accumulating entities (Rutherford 1987). Equally influential were research findings showing the existence of a natural order of acquisition of grammatical morphemes as well as a number of developmental stages in the acquisition of certain areas of syntax (e.g. negation), and the necessity of being developmentally ready before the next stage in a sequence can be acquired (Pienemann 1984). Doughty (1998:134-135) summarizes the reasons for the inadequacy of the traditional approaches as follows: "(...) because traditional language teaching isolates linguistic form, provides no opportunities for the development of fluency, misconstrues the notion of complexity, and ignores the existence and ordering of natural acquisition processes, it has not been an effective way to promote classroom language acquisition."
The numerous shortcomings of traditional language teaching methodology, its failure to tbster language development and the mounting empirical evidence that learners followed their own internal syllabus resulted in the emergence of communicative, natural or procedural approaches. Such approaches attempted to replicate in the classroom the conditions of naturalistic language acquisition in accordance with the belief that language can be learn incidentally from exposure to target language samples. This meant adopting what Stern (1992: 301) calls the experiential teaching strategy, which "invites the learner to use the language for a purpose, and to focus on the message rather than any specific aspect of the code". In the case of many variants of communicative methodology this entailed espousing the so-called 'zero option', or the proposal to abandon grammar instruction and error correction in favor of meaningful language use (e.g. Krashen 1985, Prabhu 1987). The rationale for such a position originated from Krashen's (1985) Monitor Model, which provided the theoretical underpinnings of communicative pedagogy and significantly contributed to its rise.
3. The need for grammar instruction
With time, however, it turned out that the complete rejection of formal instruction might have been premature and in the 1990s grarnmar was rehabilitated and recognized once again as an essential component of language learning. Obviously, the revival of interest in form-focused instruction was not tantamount to reverting to the discredited teaching practiees of the traditional approaches as is evident, for instance,...
Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.
|
Bookmark this article
Print this article
Link to this article
Email this article
Digg It!
Add to del.icio.us
RSS
