Some of the tools in the grammar toolbox

I was recently chatting with some old friends about perhaps getting back to learning/brushing up on a second language.  I mentioned there are some good apps out there that some people do well with, but for me they were a boring way to learn.  I like learning with other people, in an experiential way, either in person or virtual.  However, my friend said one of her friends had good luck with one, but she wasn't sure if she would try one.  For me this highlights that there are difference instructional methods that work well for some and not for others.

The instructional methods for teaching grammar fall under a wide spectrum.  Because many students have differences in the way they learn or prefer to learn, I think it's important that we use a variety of methods in the classroom.

Thornbury (1999) gives a good summary of these approaches.  Grammar translation (translating from one language to another) may see like a relic from the past (going way back), but depending on the teaching context there may be some use for this method.  A class where you have learners with the same L1 may benefit from some grammar translation.  At the other end of the spectrum is the natural approach and deep-ended Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), where students learn from full language immersion with no rules for grammar teaching.  When I was a preschooler, I remember watching a French children's show called Chez Helene.  It was designed to teach French to English children without using English.   I loved it.  I think children can easily learn with these methods.

In between these methods on the spectrum are the Audio lingual and Direct Methods, which both claim to be more 'natural based'.  The Direct method focuses more on oral skills with little grammar instruction, requiring students to pick up the language from immersion, just as children learn language too.  The audiolingual method focuses on learned behaviour and uses a series of pattern drills.  Therefore, it's not surprising that it was developed to teach soldiers languages during the second world war, and is also called the Army Method (TEFL, n.d.).  Its primary focus is on the memorization of material. These methods might be very difficult for older learners where memorization of material can be difficult.

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) (shallow-ended) is an inductive method that allows students to study material and work out the grammar rules themselves, so it falls closer to the Grammar Translation end of the scale with more focus on the rules of grammar.  In addition to these methods, there is also a movement to incorporate 'focus on form' and 'consciousness raising', which draw attention to the rules of grammar, helping students notice the features of the language (Thornbury 1999, pg. 24). This is very important, and without it, students can stall in their learning, risking fossilization of language. This develops critical thinking skills, and allows students to apply what they have learned.  This often requires more preparation and longer time periods, but is more learner-centered (Sikorzynska 1995).

My preference for teaching and learning of these grammar approaches would be the shallow-ended CLT.  I think it gives students a more balanced approach in learning and also encompasses a wider range of the way individual students learn. It provides both for experiential learning and the 'discovery' of the language, as well as guidance with rules of the language providing a scaffold for learning the language.

Lynch (n.d.) suggests the implicit teaching of grammar through acquisition and learning, combined with application of the skills in a task-based learning for the best approach for students to develop language skills.  However, there are some aspects of grammar that require an explicit or deductive approach which teaches the grammar rule, and then allows students to practice it.  This method sometimes works well for beginner learners, or with complicated grammar structures, such as prepositions, conjunctions, modal and phrasal verbs and other parts of language that are not common in many languages.

Betty Azar (2008) suggests that we really need a balance of approaches in teaching grammar. She describes a young man who the system utterly failed in grammar learning.  As a high school graduate and college student he was unable to write properly. The naturalist approach to language learning had failed him. It was an excellent example of fossilized usage with the student stuck with little knowledge of grammar rules.  This really emphasizes to me the importance of incorporating grammar teaching into language learning, and as Azar suggests you really need to use different approaches and include both grammar teaching and CLT.

Another factor in grammar teaching is distinguishing with learners that grammar in speech and grammar in writing can be very different (Crystal 2005; Bright 2012).  There are a number of aspects to consider such as more formality and structure in written grammar, especially in formats of essays, reports, letters, etc. Speech grammar is less formal and looser, with more colloquialisms and idioms, and partial sentences.  Also, when speaking there are more facial expressions and gestures which we rely on to make our point, whereas with the written word we must often work hard to express ourselves.  There are many other differences which we have to consider, but the main point I have garnered is to ensure that our students recognize and understand that speech grammar is often not the same as written grammar.

Every student is a different learner. Every class has a different makeup of learners. Every lesson has its nuances, difficulties and strengths. And one approach to teaching grammar does not fit all the time.  One of my co-learners (Theresa Hunt) made an important point this week, suggesting teachers are always adjusting as they go, even within a class.   As teachers one of the hardest things is to adapt and learn, often on the fly, to the context of our teaching.  With grammar teaching, as with other aspects of teaching English, it’s very important to have many tools in our toolbox.

References:

Azar, B. (2012, October 30). Teaching Grammar in Today's Classroom—Part 1 [Youtube video].
 Retrieved from https://youtu.be/YJwbnQOguEk
Bright, W. (2012). What’s the Difference between Speech and Writing? Linguistic Society of
America, Retrieved from https://www.linguisticsociety.org/resource/whats-difference-between-speech-and-writing

Crystal, D. (2005). Speaking and Writing. Toronto, ON: Pearson, Longman.

Lynch, L. (n.d.). Grammar Teaching: Implicit or Explicit. Retrieved
from https://www.eslbase.com/teaching/grammar-teaching-implicit-explicit

Sikorzynska, A. (1995). Discover it yourself. Wydawnictiwa Szkolne: Pedagogiczne.

Thornbury, S. (1999). How to teach grammar. Essex, UK: Pearson Education Limited.