grammar debate

7/29/2019 Grammar Debate

1/19

Grammar Debate

EE5308E

Lecturer: Dr. Jennifer Tan


2/19

Consciousness-raisingActivities in Some LebaneseEnglish Language

Classrooms: TeacherPerceptions and LearnerEngagement

Language Awareness Vol. 14, No. 2&3, 2005


3/19

Introduction

1. Objectives of the action research study

2. Introduction (CR)

3. Research Questions

4. Research Methodology and Findings

a. Procedures (CR activities)

b. Findings (classroom implementations; studentsattitudes and engagement; teachers own views on CR)

5. Results and Discussion of Findings (RQs)

6. Conclusion (Limitations, possible implications andsuggestions for further research)


4/19

Objectives

To evaluate the appropriateness of consciousness-raising(CR) approach to grammar learning/teaching

To discuss the limitations of CR approach to grammarlearning/teaching


5/19

Introduction (CR)

James (1992) made a distinction between the raising ofawareness and consciousness (Awareness VsConsciousness)

RC (involves creationof new knowledge)

RA (person can be

made aware of whatthey already know)


6/19

Introduction (ctd)

According to Ellis (1994: 643):

...in consciousness-raising activities the learners are notexpected to produce the target structure, only to understand itby formulating some kind of cognitive representation of how itworks

Means = an understanding of how grammar rule works,production-for-practice exercises NOT part of CR

Hedge(2000)considers a CR approach to be compatiblewith the culture of the communicative classroom ; more

inductive nature as CR approach associates with learner-centred classroom

CR activities = involves learners in talking about languagethus providing a communicative dimension


7/19

Research Questions

How do the teachers perceiveCR activities?

How do the students perceive

CR activities?


8/19

Methodology

Action research (AR) study using the qualitative approach:

(Lebanese Sec Sch) 4 EL teachers implemented a series of 5/6CR activities with each lasting 15-30 min, over a period of 4-week period in secondary levels 7, 8 and 9 of the English-medium stream, nearly 200 students carried out the CRactivities

Background of students: highly communicative in EL as theirschool is an English-medium stream.

Background of teachers: university graduates and receivesome in-service training at school

AR teachers involvement to implement the CR activities,keep a diary of doing so, and write a brief report at the end ofit


9/19

Methodology (ctd)

Process:

1. training of teachers in the use of CR activities and in

AR2. teachers implement CR activities over a period of 4week, keep a diary and write a final report

3. individual teacher interviews, and interview withEnglish language coordinator (ELC)

4. ELC conducts class discussions to collect studentimpressions


10/19

CR Activites

A given text with a set of exercises (1 to 5)

Students were induced to notice certain grammaticalfeatures in a text by marking them e.g. underlining,putting slashes

Aim: conscious reflection on understanding the grammarrules in the specific contexts for a particular purpose (e.g.how clauses function form a sentence)

Most salient features of CR activities: induced noticing andtalking about grammar element BUT no production-for-practice/PPP; against the conventional wisdom that

practice makes perfect in favour of CR tasks (Ellis, 1993)
http://consciousness-raising%202.pdf/http://consciousness-raising%202.pdf/http://consciousness-raising%202.pdf/


11/19

Findings

Classroom implementations

Language use

All the work was carried out in EL (school policy)

Work mode

Similar pattern: students did exercise first, shared solutions in pairs,class discussion (varied forms depending on the teacher)

Student autonomy

Teacher 3: interventions as interfering

Timing

Teacher 4: Timing was really an obstacle supported by Teacher 3

Relationship to the curriculum

CR activities didnt fit into their syllabus at that time


12/19

Findings (ctd) Students attitudes and engagement

Overall mood Mostly positive response; however some were disappointed and bored to work on

the same text except for T3s class

Metalanguage and concept

Unfamiliarity caused students to feel confused and upset

Level of concentration

Teachers agreed that students had been concentrating on solving the exercises

Training effect

The further they got on with the exercises, the more engaged they were in theexercises

Increased interest partly due to greater cognitive challenge but familiarity alsoplayed a role; accumulated grammatical consciousness, increased level ofdifficulty and familiarity with exercise type

A learning process

When students sharing and explaining their answers; the increasing speed withwhich students were working and correcting their work

Culture of learning (conceptual approach to grammar, noticing)

While noticing (Schmidt, 1990) does not gurantee intake (Leeser, 2003,cited in VanPatten, 2004) CR assumes it to be a first step


13/19

Findings (ctd)

The teachers own views of the CR

Absence of a production element VS integration of skills

Created an artificial situation as production-for-practice

exercises were excluded

Challenges

Student questions are unpredictable

Student queries demand a high level of language awarenessfrom the teacher

Personal interests and preferences Played a part in the degree of accepting CR activities


14/19

Results and Discussions

Expectations and beliefs of individual teachers can have an

effect on how students perceive of and interact withapproaches and materials (Carless, 2003 and Karavas-Doukas, 1995, cited in Carless, 2003)

RQs:

How do the students perceive the CR activities?

Enjoyed sharing and discussing responses

Reacted well to analytical nature of CR tasks

Engaging actively and focusing on the CRtasks+ve

Bored with the same text

Occasionally anxious or confused bysome terminology and

classifications of grammar

-ve


15/19

Results and Discussion (ctd) How did the teachers perceive the CR

activities?

Self selection process (volunteer toparticipate)

Open to changes

Ability to deal with students questions

Appreciate the analytical, inductive nature oftasks

Encourage active student engagement andenthusiasm+ve

Critical of the lack of integration ofskills

Some difficulty in theterminology/classifications in thematerials

Demands more in-depth languageanalysis

-ve


16/19

Limitations

absence of students voice (time constraint)

CR implementation demands high-level of the teacherslanguage awareness to students queries and the need to solvethem adequately on the spot

T3 prefers the production element as its more effective, assupported by (Hopkins and Nettle, 1994) suggest that Ellis(1993) proposal to replace practice activities with CR activitiesdoes not meet the practical demands of classroom teaching,such as learner expectations

(Hedge, 2000) observes that practice can contribute toimplicit grammatical knowledge by providing frequentoccurrence of a particular form for students to notice from theT3 findings


17/19

Conclusions

CR approach is useful and effective if teachers are able to integrateinto their regular syllabus

3 out of 4 teachers view the analytical nature of CR activitiesenjoyable and useful

CR learning culture of encouraging student autonomy, learners

making intellectual effort to understand to understand the targetedfeature (Ellis, 2003)

Integration of CR into regular syllabus will result in greaterefficiency in terms of time by noticing a gap component(Thornbury, 1997)

Elliss (1993) claim is supported by this study to the extent thatCR approach leads to grammar learning with no production-for-

practice exercises as he argues against practice makes perfect

Generally CR activities are attractive, engaging and motivating, thisapproach leads learners passively acquire knowledge from teacher


18/19

Questions

How effective are CR activities in your own opinion?

Do you think CR is the best approach? Yes/No, why so?

Do you agree CR is a supplement and not an alternativeto communicative activities (Ellis, 2002)? Yes/No, whyso?


19/19

Thank you for Listening

grammar debate

Documents