Grammar Teaching; a Controversial ConceptSousan Sattar

Islamic Azad University of Najafabad

Abstract- Teaching languages, especially English as the language of communicationhas been a very popular and challenging job for years. However, languages have beentackled and used with varying degrees of success by the practitioners. In this study theintention is to uncover some EFL teachers' beliefs and practices about grammarteaching, and provide an insight into their practices in relation to what they say andwhat they actually do in their job and with their class of students. In particular the goalis to identify ways to improve our grammar classes, making them more challenging anduseful for the students’ real use of language. In doing so, some teachers with at least tenyears of experience in teaching English were interviewed to see how they feel aboutgrammar teaching and their grammar classes. Then, grammar classes of the sameteachers were indirectly observed to make sure if they actually do what they claim andbelieve in. Results indicated that while most of these teachers believed grammar is onemajor challenge they have to handle; such concern and interest didn’t clearly appear intheir practice. Different methods and approaches to teaching language, its skills andcomponents, have been introduced and teachers especially at university level knowabout them all; however, it was observed that some teachers still teach grammar in theold “grammar translation way” and deductive way of presenting grammatical rules wasthe major practice in their classes. So, the contradictory point encountered in this studywas that what teachers stated about the purpose and reason of the task was not inaccordance with what they actually did in their classes. Finally some suggestions weregiven for EFL educators to improve the present condition.

Introduction

Grammar is central to the teaching and learning of languages. It is also one of the moredifficult aspects of language to teach well.

A few decades ago grammar was taught as a step-by-step, systematic approach tomastery a foreign language. Then in the 1980s some linguists and researchers changedthis approach into a more communicative one. The trend in foreign language curriculaevolved in favor of fluency rather than accuracy. And so, teaching grammar receivedlittle importance. However, various forms of language still need to be explicitly taughtand learned. Chomsky (1981) introducing a biological innate faculty and acquire thegrammar of languages (UG) and Krashen (1985) defining comprehensible inputamongst the others changed the way foreign and second languages were taught. ThenLong (1983 & 1991) claimed that comprehensible input alone was not sufficient,mentioning the importance of comprehensible input, and focused on the form. Swain(1995) said that opportunities should be provided for the learners to provide output.Then in 1998 Long and Robinson suggested that negotiation for meaning connectsinput, internal learner capabilities and output in order to facilitate acquisition. Long alsosuggested that form and meaning are very intimately related and so discrete-point step-by-step grammar instruction will not lead to correct, meaningful structures used bylearners in actual use of language. And although Celce-Marcia (1991) stressed thatgrammatical accuracy will help developing fluency and communicative competence,still it is not an ideal way of learning a language.

Communicative only approach without paying special attention to form and thelanguage structure used will soon lead into serious problems, the same as the oppositecase will be. Schmidt’s “Noticing Hypothesis” (1990; 1993) claims that consciousawareness of grammar plays an important role in the process of how input becomesintake. Ellis (1999) claims that different grammatical structures may benefit fromdifferent instructional treatment. According to him, enriched input may be beneficial forthe study of more complex structures while explicit instruction seems to be moreeffective in case of easily explainable ones.Brag’s qualitative studies (1998, 1999) illustrate how teachers create and adapt theirown methods based on their experiences both as teachers and learners. Richards andRodgers (1986) ask “do methods really exist in terms of classroom practices, or doteachers, when using methods, in fact transform them into more complexes but lessdistinctive patterns of classroom processes?”

Kuaravadivelu’s “post method condition” also signals a shift away from conventionalmethods. Burn believes that teachers select and modify theoretical ideas in ways thatare consistent with their personal beliefs and practical knowledge. Borg (2001) points atthe teacher’s knowledge about grammar as having a direct impact on what and how theteacher teaches.The main points that have been addressed in this study are the following:

- How do EFL teachers feel about grammar teaching and their grammar classes?- Do EFL teachers actually work on what they claim and believe in their classes?

Review of related literature

The origin of the word grammar can be traced to the Greek gramma, or letter, as in analphabetic letter. This is a development of the word graphein which means to draw orwrite. The plural form of the word is grammata which evolved at one point to mean therudiments of writing, and eventually to mean the rudiments of learning. Eventually theadjective form of the word, grammatike, was combined with techne and meant the “artof knowing one’s letters” (Dykema 23). Grammar involves rules of phonology, syntax,semantics, and pragmatics that are all internalized, usually by the age of 5.

Chomsky (1957) suggested that a grammar should describe a native speaker’s intuitiveunderstanding of the language he or she uses. He uses the terms “deep structure" and“surface structure” to describe that intuitive knowledge. According to Chomsky, justsuch a grammar would be the grammar that he introduced as "TransformationalGrammar". Initially Chomsky tried to explain how actual language users created andunderstood grammatical structures they had never encountered in previousexperience. He therefore established a set of transformational rules that explained auser’s competence with language. This competence, he theorized, explained howlanguage users could generate grammatical sentences. He explained that competence inlanguage use did not mean a user could invoke the generative rules of the language. Weneed to look at the term “generative grammar”, the rules from which all thegrammatical sentences of a language can be generated, in order to better understandChomsky’s point here. "Generative grammar" as

Holdaway (1979) maintains that there are two forms of knowledge. Productiveknowledge that involves the knowledge of how to do something. Abstract knowledgewhich is the knowledge about something. When we relate this to the issue of grammar,Holdaway stresses that it is far more important that students know how to use languageeffectively. It is less important that they know the analytical terms that relate tolanguage and syntax. He adds that educators have made the mistake of thinking thatstudents need to know about how the language operates in order to use the languagesuccessfully. He believes the purpose of langauge arts instruction should be readingand writing fluency. That cannot happen as successfully if teachers take up class timeto drill on “unintelligible rules of syllabification” (86).Rei Noguchi is another newer voice that is asking teachers to think critically about therole of grammar in the classroom. His book "Grammar and the Teaching of Writing",(1991) suggests that teachers limit the use of grammatical terminology to thoseelements or features that are necessary in helping students create fewer errors.

Grammar teaching has received renewed attention in academic circles since the late1980s or early 1990s, when the naturalist movement began to fade. This attention hasgenerally taken on the nomenclature of Focus on Form (FonF), even though a focus ongrammar includes a great deal more than simply a focus on form. Form and meaningare inseparable, especially in any worthwhile L2 grammar instruction (B.Azar, 2007).

To understand the complexity of the grammar issue, teachers need to have someunderstanding of the language acquisition process. And they need to understand thatchildren enter the classroom with a thorough grounding in the internalized system ofrules of their language (N, G. Patterson, 1999)

Children by the ages of five or six are usually fluent in their language. They use itconfidently without knowing the names of the parts and structures they speak. By thetime children reach school age they are competent in the use of all five basic sentencepatterns (Hunt 1995). They are able to use negatives, passives, ellipses, andimperatives (Gillet and Temple 1984) and they can use present, past, and future tenses(Loban 1976). These grammatical concepts are first learned through oral speech,through the immersion process that allows children to develop language (Moffett andWagner 1992). But one of the traditional elements of a language arts program isisolated grammar instruction (Elley, Barham, Lamb and Wyllie 1975). English teachershave traditionally placed great faith in the direct benefits of separate grammarinstruction (Elley et al 1975). Specifically, they often teach grammar in isolation fromwriting (Tchudi 1991). The skills approach to literacy has its foundation in behavioristtheory, which assumes that literacy is acquired through direct separate skillsinstruction. These skills would then become integrated through practice (Griffith,Klesius, and Zielonka 1991).

Some teacher-researchers found that grammar instruction can be far more effective if itis incorporated into student writing instruction (Atwell 1987, Meyer 1990).

Bell hooks (1994) eloquently points out a few problems with the notion of teachinggrammar. In essence she asks “whose grammar are we teaching?” If the goal ofgrammar teaching (whether within the context of writing or not) is to help studentsspeak and write the language of power, we must ask ourselves if this is a noble goal.And by assuming that there IS a language of power, and that those who master it have abetter chance of being “successful” what are we saying about those who do not, or willnot, speak that language?

Studies in second language acquisition show that even experienced studentshave an incomplete knowledge of the rules they are taught, do not remember therules well, and have difficulty applying them (Krashen, 1993b, Alderson,Clapham, and Steel, 1997).

Study

The goal of grammar instruction is to enable students to carry out their communicationpurposes. Most of our teachers teach grammar through their own interpretive analysisof their students’ abilities, the books, their educational setting, and their students’ goalsand motivation that all shape their practice. Language teachers and language learnersare often frustrated by the disconnect between knowing the rules of grammar and beingable to apply those rules automatically in listening, speaking, reading, and writing.

Considering difficulties most of our students experience while trying to write or saysomething in English due to inability to use correct and accurate forms in that language,this study aims at investigating what do teachers do in their grammar classes andsuggest ways to improve our grammar courses. In doing so, grammar classes of twelveEnglish teachers with at least ten years of teaching experience were observed, each forthree or four sessions. The teachers were not aware of the actual intention of theobserver. It was tried to observe classes of rather the same level. The teachers’ privacywas respected and so they were ascertained that they would not be identifiable. Theresearch database also consists of interviews in which teachers express their ideas and

beliefs about teaching grammar.

Once you've taken a job as an English teacher there are certain aspectsof your performance that will be critical to your success or failure. As a teacher you willbe expected to improve your student's verbal communication skills and their aural abilit

y. A teacher's teaching methodology is a personal choice based on a number ofdifferent factors including class level and motivation, classroom environmentand numbers, availability of teaching resources as well as the desire to provide adynamic and exciting learning experience for the students to do their best to learn.

the following represents what some teachers claimed during the interview about theirteaching:

- I don't know that there is a really good way, but I found that if you teachprepositions and prepositional phrases along with nouns it helps a little bit.

- I only teach grammar within the context of writing... otherwise it doesn't seem tostick at all.

- I introduce a Sentence Pattern each week. Each week we identify something new ina sentence, but always sticking to the basics of finding the simple subject and the verb.

- I think from a 'learning theory' approach, the more facts one can associate with whatis being learned, the better it will be understood and remembered.

- Grammar is the single most important part of language learning. Absolute perfectionand accuracy is important.

- Sometimes we teachers as well as our students get disappointed. We know studentshave potentials and so try to do everything we can to motivate them. Sometimes itworks, sometimes it doesn't.

- Our job is what we make of it. I love every minute of my teaching experience.Students have great energy that if tapped can make a big difference in class. We shouldhelp our students not just learn but also enjoy learning.

Results

Results indicated that although grammar seemed to have played an important role in theteachers’ own learning experiences, most of them failed to acknowledge its importancefrom a teaching perspective. While most of the teachers claimed that they favoredteaching in context, looking at grammar teaching in particular, few of them were foundto do so and teaching grammar items was not a step to enhance communication. Despitethe new changes, especially at the theoretical level for teaching grammar teacherssimply feel more secure with the presentation-drilling techniques that they have beenmanipulating for years. Some other teachers adopted a structural approach to teachingeven if the materials assigned were functional. In most cases, grammar rules wereintroduced explicitly first and then practiced in context not longer than sentences.Eliciting the rules was also, most of the time, done by teachers rather than the students.In these classes, the focus was clearly on the acquisition of grammatical forms andsome reinforcement was provided by means of exercises available in the same textbook.

Teaching grammar by explaining the forms and rules and then drilling students onthem, results in bored, disaffected students who can produce correct forms on exercisesand tests, but consistently make errors when they try to use the language in context. Inlearning a L2 grammar, students face a dilemma. On the one hand, they need to knowthe rules, as that is what they are tested on at schools. On the other, considering rapid

advancement in technology, using computer, especially surfing the net for havingaccess to the huge body of information there seems to be a must for the educatedpeople. Chatting, attending conferences on line, living/ educating in foreign countriesand foreign visitors to one's country are among the factors that emphasize the need forcommunication in an L2. That is why there is a need to look at the ways of combiningform and meaning in teaching foreign languages.Moreover, understanding how a structure works helps many students formulate how to

say what they mean and helps lead to successful communication experiences.

In many cases a strong focus on grammar rules only, led to moving away from meaningand so to mere memorization and internalization of structures that would soon beforgotten, highlighting the fact that grammar is not an issue, a separate entity to beworked on in isolation. Even single-sentence items can have clear contexts if properlywritten, though some single-sentence items are directed purely at manipulation of form."One of the reasons that many practicing EFL and ESL teachers often becomedisenchanted with grammar book learning is that pedagogical grammar rules arefrequently simplistic and do not account for the large number of cases or examples thatlearners come across in real life." (Eli Hinkel & Sandra Fotos, 2002,p. 196). Studentsbenefit from both authentic and adapted materials; the use of one does not exclude theuse of the other. Indeed, they are mutually supportive within a curriculum. Moreover,teachers need to consider the students' learning preferences, educational and grammarbackgrounds, skill level, and academic or work goals, among other things. It is obviousthat lesson planning is central to any teaching activity. This does not mean that thelesson plan should replace the textbook; both are necessary for effective teaching.However, in few of the classes observed teachers had a plan for what they exactlywanted to do during the time limit. Therefore, unless teachers try to keep abreast of theliterature on second/foreign-language teaching, they will not be able to understand therationale of recent and changing classroom practices, nor will they be able to “mediate”between theory and practice in order to design and evaluate their own lessons.

Discussion

Grammar is, as Pennington says, "nothing more or less than the organizing principles ofa linguistic or (broader) communicational system, without which, there is no system"

(2002, p. 78). The teaching of grammar means teaching how English works throughhelping students to understand grammar concepts (i.e., the organizing principles of alinguistic communicational system) as well as particulars. Pennington calls for the fieldto bring grammar "back from the margins and into the heart of language and thelanguage teaching profession where it belongs" (2002, p. 78).One important aspect of grammar teaching is that it helps learners discover the nature oflanguage, i.e., that language consists of predictable patterns that make what we say,read, hear and write intelligible. Without grammar, we would have only individualwords or sounds, pictures, and body expressions to communicate meaning. Grammar isthe weaving that creates the fabric (B.Azar, 2007).

We teachers believe that students need to be exposed to the target language, to know therules, and to be sensitive to the correctness of their structures and that they should useand expand their grammatical knowledge. We usually express ideas and beliefs aboutwhat our students should do what they need and what they have to do. However, weseldom say what we ourselves should do in order to help them in doing so. It is thoughtthat involving teachers in studies such as this and then allowing them to look back ontheir practice can make a useful contribution to their professional development (Borg,1998a). I observed that students in my writing class who had experienced grammarinstruction had an advantage over those students who had not. Students with a goodgrounding in grammar needed only to be reminded that, for example, they were tryingto say "She is extremely confused" not "She is extremely confusing." Those withoutthat grounding in grammar needed a lot more teaching time in order to understand, justas one example, the difference between "ing and ed" adjectives. Although it seemsnecessary to know how English works, for the students with a good grounding ingrammar focusing on form works well. It may seem that the truth of the grammar issuemay be that there is no truth. Students acquire language and literacy in much the sameway, through social interaction, through dialogue. Pavel V. Sysoyev, 1999 says," ifstudents need grammar for communication, it should be taught communicatively, thatis, meaning-based. On the other hand, if students need the grammar knowledge to beable to translate from L2 to L1, and that is what they are going to be graded on, thenform-based approaches will be more appropriate. However, these are polar oppositepositions that leave no room for nuance." A common theme is; however, theimportance of second language acquisition research on how grammar is perceived andtaught.

Recommendations for EFL educators

Taking into consideration the following guidelines may help improving the quality ofour English courses in general and our grammar courses in particular:

1- Students should feel confident and challenged and feel that they are makingprogress.

2- Students need to be frequently exposed to the target language. However, theproblem is that in our country learners neither have readily access to the target languageculture in their everyday life nor to the different forms of it. Moreover, sometimescommunicative activities that are used in the classroom are not likely to make directsense to them.

3- There should be focus on both form and meaning. Teachers should highlight theimportance of meaning by placing emphasis both on accuracy and ability tocommunicate. That is, knowing the mere rules without ability to use them in

appropriate situations and when needed is of no use.4- Students should be given opportunity to practice both spoken and written skills.5- Students should be actively involved in their learning.6- Grammar should be taught in an authentic context. Language learning should be

context based and realistic. Students do not need to master every aspect of eachgrammar point, only those that are relevant to the immediate communication task.

7- Students need to use the language creatively in a variety of situations. An importantpart of grammar instruction is providing examples. Teachers need to plan theirexamples carefully and be sure that the examples are accurate and appropriate.Examples should be used as teaching tools.

8- Students need frequent exposure to the correct form of the language, although errorcorrection is not always the instructor's first responsibility. Teachers need to let studentsknow when they are making errors so that they can work on improving. Teachers alsoneed to build students' confidence in their ability to use the language by focusing on thecontent of their communication rather than the grammatical form.

9- The four skills are inseparable and so need to be built into the lesson.10- Students should be encouraged to work in groups when possible. This way they

may learn from each other or help one another in producing different forms of languageand are no longer afraid of making mistakes. Although groups can be very effective,teachers should not be naive about group interaction. Teachers hold the responsibilityfor making sure that there is no misuse, and that students have equal opportunities toparticipate and express their thoughts.

11- Target language should be used and native language should be avoided as much aspossible.

12- Grammar should not be taught as subject matter to be memorized; grammar isnever taught as an end in itself. At the same time students need overt instruction thatconnects grammar points with larger communication contexts.

13- The more resources and obviously, the more varieties of learning opportunities, thebetter your chances are that each student will be able to learn the grammar point well.

14- As we teachers usually have a class of mixed learning styles, we need to try toprovide instruction using as many different methods as possible.

15- Using communicative drills is also recommended as theses type of drills encouragestudents to connect form, meaning, and use because multiple correct responses arepossible. In communicative drills, students respond to a prompt using the grammarpoint under consideration, but providing their own content.

As instructors usually have the opportunity to develop part or the entire coursecurriculum, they can develop a series of contexts based on the real world tasks thatstudents will need to perform using the language, and then teach grammar andvocabulary in relation to those contexts.Finally important to note that good teaching can not happen without mastery oflanguage structures. Knowing something about the language and having something “tohang on to” is essentially important for the students as this knowledge reassures themthat they at least know something.

References

Azar, B. (2007) Grammar-based Teaching. TESOL Quarterly, Vol.11, N.2.Azar, B. (2003) Fundamentals of English grammar, 3e. White Plains, NY

Brown, D. (1994). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to languagepedagogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Regents.

Celce-Murcia, M., & Hilles, S. (1988). Techniques and resources in teaching grammar.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (1993). The structural syllabus and second language acquisition. "TESOLQuarterly," 27, 91-113.

Ellis, R. (2002). The place of grammar instruction in the second/foreign languagecurriculum. In E. Hinkel and S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching insecond language classrooms (pp. 17-34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: an SLA perspective. TESOLQuarterly, 40, 83-107.

Fotos, S. (2005). Traditional and grammar translation methods for second languageteaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching andlearning (pp. 653-670). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M.H. (1991). An introduction to second languageacquisition research. London: Longman.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2001b). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring.Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second-language learning. London: EdwardArnold.

Pearson Longman and Azar, B. (1999). Understanding and using English grammar,3e. Upper Saddle River, NJ

Pennington, M. (2002). Grammar and communication: new directions in theory andpractice. In E. Hinkel and S. Fotos, (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching insecond language classrooms (pp. 77-98). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Stern, H. H. 1983. Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Sysoyev, P. (1999).Integrative L2 Grammar Teaching: Exploration, Explanation andExpression. TESL Journal, Vol. V, No. 6

Ur, P. (1988). Grammar practice activities: A practical guide for teachers.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.