國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
7
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Six major sections are presented to review literature on grammar teaching through English songs. The first section is about arguments against and in support of grammar teaching. The second section provides empirical evidence for and against teaching grammar. The third section introduces grammar with Communicative Language Teaching. The fourth section describes drills in language classrooms. The fifth section elaborates on the relationship between songs and language teaching.
Finally, the last section is about the studies on the effects of English song instruction in Taiwan.
Arguments against Grammar Teaching
The role of grammar is perhaps one of the most hotly debated issues in language teaching (Richards & Renandya, 2003). It has long been argued that whether grammar teaching is necessary in language teaching. Krashen (1981), for example, proposed the Input Hypothesis, claiming that learners will acquire a language as long as enough comprehensible input is provided. In addition, he made a distinction between learning and acquisition and argued that grammar teaching only has a “perpherial effect” because language should be acquired naturally, not learned through formal instruction (Krashen, 1999, p. 245). It was claimed that learning does not transform into acquisition (Krashen, 1982), so grammar teaching is of little value. A similar claim to Krashen’s comprehensible input was also made by Hatch (1978), who believed that no instruction in grammar was needed for language, proposing that grammar would “emerge as a result of interaction and commnuication”(cited in Celce-Murica, M, 1990, p. 204).
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
8
Truscott (1998), suggested that grammar instruction only led to learners’
success on metalinguistic knowledge but had little relation to authentic use of language. What’s more, explicit grammar instruction does not necessarily guarantee a long-term benefit on language learning since most studies conducted their tests right after the instruction.
Arguments in Support of Grammar Teaching
Although there are a lot of studies (Krashen, 1981; Richards & Renandya, 2003;
Truscott, 1998) questioning the effectiveness of teaching grammar, a lot of researchers, on the other hand, agree that there is a need to reconsider the role of grammar teaching in the L2 classroom (Nassaji, H. & Fotos., S, 2004). Schmidt (1990), Rutherford and Sharwood (1985) have argued that noticing or consciousness-raising facilitates learners’ language learning. According to Schmidt (1990), conscious attention to form is a necessary condition to convert input into intake. In addition, given the findings from immersion programs, Harley (1989) emphasized the need of grammar teaching cannot be discarded even under the context of French immersion classes where a large amount of input is given. He points out the problem of early French immersion programs was that even after years of learning, learners’ grammatical competence still differed from that of native French speakers. Thus, he suggested that the proper use of grammatically arranged teaching materials can facilitate leaners’ grammatical development. Lightbown and Spada’s (1990) study of Canadian immersion programs adds further support to the beneficial effects of formal instruction. The results showed that if learners are to achieve high level of accuracy in target language, form-focused instruction should be provided.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
9
Celce-Murcia (1990) advocated that for the purpose of effective communication, grammar is an important part of language teaching. That is, grammar, along with two other aspects, meaning and function should interact with each other. Pienemann’s (1989) Teachability Hypothesis suggests that instruction is beneficial and can promote language acquisition if it is close to learners’
development of structure. Terrell (1991, p. 62) noticed that grammar instruction can be served as an aid by making “grammatical forms more salient” to learners.
Empirical Evidence for and against Teaching Grammar
A growing body of research has explored the effectiveness of grammar instruction in language class through empirical studies. Pica (1985) conducted a study to compare how 18 adult Spanish speakers’ production of English grammatical morphology differed under 3 situations: (1) through classroom instruction, (2) in natural environment and (3) mixed (a combination of 1and 2) and found out that the instruction group showed high accuracy of the production of plural -s. Pavesi’s (1985) study of relative clause formulation on 48 Italian learners also supports the view that learners displayed greater improvement in acquisition. In Weslander and Stephany’s study (1983), 577 Southeast Asian students in Grade 2 through 10 were evaluated after receiving English instruction, or grammar instruction and the results revealed that instruction helped during the first year but the effect decreased during the second and the third year. The conclusion confirmed the findings of Long’s (1982), which stated that instruction appeared to be more beneficial in the early stages.
Though some of the studies have found grammar instruction beneficial, others have failed to do so. Schumann (1976), for example, did a one-to-one instruction on
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
10
an adult learner—Alberto, but found out that after a ten-month instruction, Alberto did not improve accuracy in spontaneous speech. Ellis (1984) conducted a study to investigate the effects of grammar instruction in WH questions on 13 children’s ability to see if they could have accurate oral production. Again, he found out that the instruction did not help learners produce structures accurately. In addition, Felix (1981) also provided evidence that instruction may sometimes cause errors not seen in naturalistic acquisition when conducting a study of 34 German children learning negative structures of English.
From the inconsistent findings such as the ones mentioned above, it has been suggested that grammar teaching is no longer an issue which can be neglected. As Garrett points out: “To teach grammar without understanding how it functions in communication is a waste of everyone’s time, but not to teach it may jeopardize the whole endeavor” (Garrett, 1986, p. 134).
Grammar with Communicative Language Teaching
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) has been the dominant approach in English teaching for more than two decades (Beale, 2002). In Taiwan; however, not until the 1990s did Taiwan start to switch from the traditional structural approach to CLT (Chung, 2006). In a weak and a strong version of CLT proposed by Howatt (1984), the former emphasized the needs of incorporating drills or controlled practices with communicative activities, which is close to the PPP (presentation, practice, production) method (Beale, 2002). In contrast, the latter believes that learners can acquire language naturally through the process of interaction in the target language. It is the belief of the strong version in CLT that led to the emergence
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
11
of immersion programs in Canada and the task-based instruction (TBI). As we have seen in arguments in support of grammar teaching, the main problem of the immersion programs, also regarded as a form of content-based instruction(CBI), is that learners fail to develop high level of accuracy in the target language even after several years of learning (Harley, 1989). TBI sees language learning as an “organic process,” in which learners subconsciously acquire language form by doing tasks (cited in Willis & Leaver, 2004, p. 17 ). Through the process of meaning negotiation, learners can acquire the language forms naturally (Herusatoto, 2005).
In sum, the primary focus of CLT, CBI and TBI is on meaning rather than on form (Herusatoto, 2005). However, the rejection of explicit teaching of grammar raises concerns among some researchers. Schmidt (1990), in particular, argued the importance of conscious attention to form on the cognitive process of language development. Swain (1988) suggested even though in immersion programs, learners were fluent in French, more direct formal instruction is needed.
In the strong version of CLT when communicative proficiency is emphasized over the learning of structures, many high school English teachers in Taiwan still hold the thought that grammar teaching is necessary and that only when students are taught grammar can they express themselves correctly in the target language (Lai, 2004). If our goal is to equip learners with communicative competence (Canale and Swain, 1980), it is unarguable that grammatical competence, being one of the four components of the communicative competence, should be emphasized in language teaching. As Richards & Renandya (2003) stated, there is no one best way of teaching grammar, but we need to consider how to teach grammar effectively.
Therefore, how to create a stress-free learning environment to facilitate learning has
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
12
aroused many interests among researchers. One of the most widely used pedagogical tools is music, or songs in classrooms.
Drills
Drills, or sometimes called pattern practices, were popular in the 1940s. Deeply rooted in the theory of Structuralism and Behaviorism, drills were seen vital in Audiolingual Method (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). Due to the popularity of Audiolingual Method, learning was a regarded as a process of habit formation and through exposure to large amount of drills would learning occur. Structural linguistics argued that speech is the primary focus of language. Therefore, a lot of oral drills should be presented to learners in learning a language. In behaviorists’
point of view, if appropriate reinforcement is provided during the stimulus-response chains, learning behavior is likely to occur. And finally, it may become a habit (Skinner, 1957).
Types of Pattern Practices
Paulston (1971) divided grammar activities into three types: mechanical, meaningful and communicative drills. And she stated that grammar practice should begin with mechanical, then move on to meaningful drills and then communicative drills follow. Other researchers (e.g. Paulston & Bruder, 1976; Rivers & Temperley, 1978) shared the same view with Paulston that grammar practice should follow the sequence.
Mechanical drills were defined as those which a controlled response or one correct answer is expected from the learners. For example, substitution and transformation drills fit into this category. Learners may not need to know the exact meaning of the sentence to complete this kind of drill successfully. Like mechanical
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
13
drills, only one right or wrong answer is elicited during meaningful drills. Unlike mechanical drills, however, leaners have to comprehend the meaning of the sentence in order to complete the drills. For example, when practicing prepositions, a teacher might hold up a picture and ask students “where is John’s cat?” All the learners can see the cat in the picture under the sofa, so the answer “it is under the sofa” is a very controlled response. But it is only when learners understand the meaning of the question can they answer it. As for communicative drills, there is no right or wrong answer involved in the drills but they acquire learners to exchange information in order to communicate. For example, information gap activities are one of them or questions that need learners to express their opinions, such as “what are your hobbies?” or “what is your advice to Mary?”
Drills in Language Classrooms
Though the notion that learning is likely to occur through repetition of drills is advocated by structuralists and behaviorists, some researchers (Lightbown, 1983;
Savignon, 1972; Wong & VanPatten, 2003) are strongly against the use of drills in language classrooms. Savignon‘s (1972) empirical study indicated that L2 French leaners in the drill group did not develop communicative competence after engaging in drill practices. Another group, however, which received communicative training performed significantly better than the drill group. Lightbown’s (1983) study also lent support to this view that drills are unnecessary and may be harmful to their learning. In her longitudinal study of French-speaking ESL learners, she found out that learners tended to overuse the grammatical morphemes in English, which may result from learners’ memorization and repetitive practice.
Even though the use of drills caused strong attack from some researchers
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
14
(Lightbown, 1983; Savignon, 1972; Wong & VanPatten, 2003), other scholars (Ellis, 2006; Hammerly, 1991; Hedge, 2000; Nunan, 1999; Politzer, 1968; Stevick, 1996;
Ur, 1996; Vilson, 2007) hold the view that drills are necessary in language classrooms. Ur (1996) contended that after presenting and explaining grammar, grammar activities should be followed. Another researcher, Hedge (2000) indicated that grammar teaching consisted of presenting and practicing grammatical structures.
Ellis (2006) also argued that grammar teaching involved drawing learners’ attention to focus on certain grammatical structures before they could internalize language.
Based on Lai’s (2004) survey on high school teachers’ belief of grammar teaching, she found out that most high school teachers hold a positive view about the incorporation of pattern practices in grammar teaching. That is to say, the use of drills still has its place in language learning.
As Vilson (2007, p9) argued, “there is no such thing as language learning without drills.” In addition, several researchers (Hatch, 1978; Savigonon, 1972;
Spada, 1987) argued that learners will need to engage in both meaningful and communicative drills to achieve higher level of language proficiency. Therefore, drills cannot be totally discarded in language classrooms.
Songs and Language Teaching
The study of music and language has drawn a lot of attention from researchers (Patel, 2003). Even though music is perceived as an important aspect at school, its role in second language learning is still at a beginning stage (Huy, 2000). Some studies tried to discover the relationship between music and language learning.
Medina (1990), for example, conducted a study to investigate the effects of music
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
15
and picture illustrations on second language vocabulary acquisition. All 48 second-graders of limited English proficiency listened to the same story and were divided into four groups: 1. Sung story version, i.e. the story is presented in the form of singing; 2. Oral story version, i.e. the story is read; 3. Sung story version plus picture illustrations, i.e. the story is presented in the form of singing accompanied with pictures of the target words; 4. Oral story version plus picture illustrations, i.e.
the story is read and accompanied with pictures of the target words. The results showed that the group with either songs or picture illustrations used scored higher in vocabulary gains than the other two groups without. Learners in the third group who heard the sung version story and saw illustrations at the same time showed the highest vocabulary gains among the four groups, which is consistent with previous studies regarding the effects of music on language acquisition.
In a more recent study conducted by Rafiee, M.; Kassaian, Z., & Dastjerdi, H.
(2010), they examined the effects of humorous songs on the listening comprehension of 30 Iranian’s EFL learners. The experimental group listened to humorous songs before they did the exercises on the coursebook, while the control group did the same exercises without listening to songs beforehand. After 17 sessions of treatment, the two groups took the TOEFL listening test, also used as pre-test again. It is surprising to find out that the experimental group outperformed the control group in the listening test. It is concluded that using humorous songs in EFL classroom could lower learners’ “psychological barrier” and therefore enhanced learners’ listening comprehension.
Beaton (as cited in Whittaker, 2005) described the importance of music in the early childhood language curriculum and mentioned a study of how children
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
16
learning French benefited from grammar learning through songs. Apparently, those who were taught a grammatical structure could remember the rule more clearly than those who were taught by using traditional method because they seemed to recall better due to the repetition of the song lyrics. Stokes (2008, p. 25) also supports the view that the combination of music and language can create many connections, as
“language is primarily processed in the brain’s left hemisphere and music is in its right hemisphere.” It is believed that the use of music in language class can aid memory (Stokes, 2008). Wallace (1994) demonstrated in his study that music can contribute to text recall. That is, the interaction between music and language facilitates memory.
Studies of English Song Instruction in Taiwan
A lot of empirical studies in Taiwan have proven the usefulness of using songs in language teaching (see Table 2.1). Pien (2007) examined the effects of using pictures in English song instruction on 63 third graders in elementary school in Kaohsiung. The results show that students’ vocabulary and reading comprehension ability were strengthened after the instruction. Chen (2008) investigated the effects of using English songs on writing proficiency of 44 second-grade senior high school students. She indicated that students had significant improvement in writing after the English song instruction. Liu (2008) incorporated song teaching with reading instruction to foster reading proficiency of 55 students who received 40-minute instruction once a week. After 15 weeks of instruction, the experimental group made significant progress in reading proficiency than the control group. In Wen’s (2009) action research, he found out that using English pop songs as a teaching material improved sixth-grade students’ four skills.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
17
A study by Lin (2010) indicates that the 72 seventh-grade students’ listening comprehension improved as a result of English song instruction. Similar results were also found in Chu’s study (2010) of sixth-grade students. Chen (2010) concluded that pop songs can be a powerful tool to improve EFL young learners’ sight vocabulary acquisition and reading fluency. Lee (2011) compared the performance of the experimental group who received lessons of English songs integrated with lecturing and the control group who was taught mainly through lecturing. She found out that the experimental group outperformed the control group in English achievement test after an eight-week treatment.
In conclusion, the application of English songs in language classrooms is beneficial for both elementary and junior high school students in their development of four skills, vocabulary proficiency and grammar learning. This view is also supported by Whittaker (1981), who asserts that songs can be useful tools in developing learners’ listening, speaking, reading and writing. As Schoepp (2001) stated, songs can be used to increase opportunities for learners in the development of cognitive process.
Moreover, in terms of affective domain, a number of studies (Chang, 2008;
Kuo, 2010; Lee, 2003; Lee, 2010; Lee, 2011; Liu, 2009; Wen, 2009) point out learners’ motivation was greatly enhanced after the English song instruction. For instance, Wen’s (2009) study indicated that most students are more active to learn more and believe that English pop songs can help their English learning after Wen used English pop songs as teaching materials. Similar results were found in Kuo’s (2010) study. Kuo’s (2010) study examined 22 low achievers of fifth-graders’
attitude after English song instruction and the results revealed that participants
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
18
showed a very positive attitude towards the 16-week of English song instruction. In addition, Lee’s (2010) study investigated the effects of English songs and rhymes on the motivation of two classes of second graders, showing that the experiment group demonstrated higher motivation than the control group after the treatment.
When it comes to the age of the participants, most of the studies (Chang, 2008;
Chen, 2010; Chu, 2010; Kuo, 2010; Lee, 2005; Lee, 2010; Liu, 2008; Liu, 2009;
Pien, 2007; Wen, 2009) focus on the effects of English song instruction on elementary school students (see Table 2.2). Among the four studies (Kao, 2008; Lee, 2011; Lin, 2010; Yang, 2002) conducted in the environment of junior high schools, Lin’s (2010) study concentrated on the effects of songs on learners’ listening comprehension, while Lee (2011) and Yang (2002) focused on the effects of songs on learners’ overall English proficiency. However, few, if any were conducted to investigate what effects English songs have on junior high school students.
Therefore, it is worthwhile investigating the effects of English songs on grammar learning and retention of grammar points of junior high school students.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
19
Table 2.1 Related Studies on English Song Instruction in Taiwan
Four skills focus
Four skills focus