國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
14
peripheral beliefs, they believe the reasons that cause tensions are due to the fact that core beliefs and peripheral beliefs do not always work harmoniously. Through a longitudinal 18-month research, they found that the teachers tended to justify their inconsistency with deeper, more general core beliefs about education. They further hypothesized that core beliefs are the beliefs that are “experientially ingrained,”
while peripheral beliefs are the ones that are only “theoretically embraced.” Calls were also made to encourage continuing research to verify their claims. Their study is of great value for researchers studying tensions in the field of language teaching.
2.2 Review of grammar teaching research
This section primarily outlines some key issues about grammar teaching. The first four parts discuss issues such as the role of grammar in language teaching, claims for and against grammar teaching, common grammar instruction approaches, the use of grammar terminology. The last part presents some empirical studies of grammar instructions in Taiwan.
2.2.1 The role of grammar in second language acquisition
There have been heated debates over the place of grammar in second language acquisition. Opponents such as Krashen (1982) claimed that acquisition happens subconsciously in a low-anxiety learning environment. With sufficient
comprehensible input, language learning will occur naturally without specific guidance from teachers. Similarly, Cook (2003) proposed that neither conscious learning nor explicit instruction can facilitate the natural order of language
acquisition. This view minimized the importance of grammar and limited grammar instruction to a few simple rules only (Krashen, 1982; Krashen & Terrell, 1983).
However, Krashen’s (1982) claim has been criticized by proponents of grammar
‧
teaching because of its lack of theoretical ground (Ellis, 2006; Nassaji & Fotos, 2004).
Numerous studies have already proved that explicit grammar instructions can actually facilitate learning in language classrooms (Ellis, 2006; Nassaji & Fotos, 2004). For example, Yip (1994) investigated the effect of grammatical consciousness-raising in learners’ acquisition of ergative verbs and found that students who received longer consciousness-raising lesson outperformed the others in post-tests. In another study, after reviewing 12 studies concerning the effect of instructions and exposure, Long (1983) concluded that formal grammar instruction are beneficial to students’ learning.
Although the controversy about the role of grammar still exists, most studies agree on the viewpoint that instructions indeed enhance the speed and success of second language learning.
2.2.2 Approaches to grammar teaching
Different scholars have proposed various point of views regarding how grammar should be taught. Main features of these approaches are illustrated below:
(1) Grammar Translation Method
Grammar Translation Method was originally used to teach students to read and appreciate foreign literature for the sake of developing mental discipline and
intellectual growth (Larsen-Freeman, 2000). Despite its great popularity in Europe from the 1840s to 1940s, some teachers still embrace this teaching method to date. It has four crucial characteristics. First, the teacher is the authority in the classroom and students are expected to follow the teacher’s instructions. Second, reading and writing skills are emphasized, so lots of time is spent on vocabulary and grammar.
Thirdly, there is usually little student initiation, and the interaction between students is rarely seen because it is the teacher who dominates the class most of the time.
Fourth, techniques such as translation exercises, reading comprehension questions,
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
16
deductive application of rules and memorization are often employed to facilitate the learning process (Larsen-Freeman, 2000; Richards & Rodgers, 2001).
(2) Inductive versus deductive teaching
The inductive and deductive distinction in grammar instruction mainly refers to the ways grammar is presented. In inductive teaching, students are exposed to a lot of examples first and then learn to discover or synthesize what they have seen on their own. Deductive teaching emphasizes more on given rules. Grammar structures or rules are presented at the beginning of instruction, followed by different types of practices or drills (Brown, 2001; Ellis, 2006). Deductive teaching has long been the focus of textbook editing and traditional ESL teaching technique such as Grammar Translation Method (Ellis, 2002a). On the other hand, scholars have found that inductive teaching not only improves students’ ability in hypothesis forming and testing (Corder, 1967) but also provides them more chances to explore the operation of language (Hawkins, 1984).
(3) Focus on form versus focus on forms
The term “focus on form” was coined by Long (1991) to elucidate how grammar should be viewed in a CLT classroom. In a CLT classroom where meaning is primary, students are often asked to participate in authentic tasks in which they can
communicate in the target language naturally. In this teaching context, focus on form is to direct students’ attention to “linguistic elements as they arise incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus is on meaning of communication” (Long, 1991, pp.
45-46). This facilitates the acquisition of linguistic elements which students may otherwise ignore (Long, 1991). On the other hand, “focus on forms” refers to the rationale of traditional grammar translation method in which forms are emphasized more than meaning (Sheen, 2002). Teaching activities are usually designed with an
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
17
aim to help students memorize grammar rules, practice forms and produce accurate utterances.
2.2.3 The use of grammatical terminology in language teaching
Scholars hold different positions toward the use of grammatical terminology in language teaching. The opponents of grammar translation method regard grammatical explanation and the terminology as indispensable tools to master a language (Brown, 2001; Larsen-Freeman, 2000). Aronson Berman (1979) also claimed that terminology serves as a shortcut for students to classify grammar structures. However, researcher like Mitchell and Redmond (1993) argued against the use of terminology because they believe the goal of language learning is to develop the ability to communicate rather than acquire the explicit knowledge about grammar. Larsen-Freeman (1991) and Brown (2001) took a more eclectic approach and suggested that the use of terminology should depend on the characteristics of learners. Adults and highly educated students, for example, can improve their language competence through the grammar explanation because of their cognitive maturity.
2.2.4 Grammar teaching in Taiwan
Traditionally in Taiwan, Grammar Translation Method and audiolingualism had been the key principle of English curriculum guidelines. Since the rise of CLT in the 1970s, the trend of English teaching had gradually shifted to a more notional, theme-based orientation. In 1994, CLT was officially included into the junior high school English curriculum guideline. The tenets of CLT center on students’ ability of communication and meaning negotiation (Brown, 2001; Butler, 2011;
Larsen-Freeman, 2000; Richards & Rodgers, 2001). Accuracy is no longer the first concern as long as communication can be done effectively. Therefore, grammar
‧
instruction under CLT requires teachers to keep explanations simple, lower the frequency of drills, and not to overwhelm students with too many grammatical terms (Brown, 2001).
Besides CLT, task-based language teaching also has some influence on English teaching in Taiwan. As its name suggests, task-based language teaching (hence TBLT) refers to an approach in which tasks are used to act as “the core unit of planning and instruction in language teaching” (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p.223).
Samuda and Bygate (2008) offered a clear definition about tasks: “a holistic activity which engages language use in order to achieve some non-linguistic outcome while meeting a linguistic challenge, with the overall aim of promoting language learning, through process or product or both”(p.69). Similar to the CLT’s advocators,
proponents of TBLT stress the importance of real communication. They believe learners can learn better through interacting communicatively while engaging in activities or tasks that are related to real life (Brown, 2001; Richards & Rodgers, 2001; Samuda & Bygate, 2008). Instead of learning grammar in isolation, students acquire different language structures through constant exposures to a variety of tasks.
Even though CLT and TBLT have been proposed in Taiwan for years, studies show that many teachers in Taiwan were still unable to integrate them into their class naturally. For instance, Lai (2004) employed both questionnaire and survey to
understand Taiwanese high school teachers’ grammar teaching beliefs. The findings showed that although some teachers had gradually accepted new trends of language teaching, a majority of participants still held strong conviction on the effectiveness of traditional teaching methods. The empirical study by Lin (2011) on Taiwanese vocational high school teachers came to the same conclusion. Recently, Chen and Tsai (2012) found that although local researchers dedicated themselves to making
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
19
proposals that meet local needs, some teachers were not yet ready to apply them into their practice. The following quotation may best describe the English situation in Taiwan:
Classroom practitioners are torn between the test-driven teaching style that have been practiced since the beginning of English education in Taiwan, and a desire to adopt novel teaching approaches and/or use modern technology to develop students’
English proficiency for pragmatic purposes (Chen & Tsai, 2012, p.196).