Ôèëîëîãè÷åñêèå íàóêè/ 1.Ìåòîäèêà ïðåïîäàâàíèÿ ÿçûêà è ëèòåðàòóðû
Cand. of Philol. Sc. Isakova M.L.
SHEI “National Mining University”, Dnipropetrovsk,
Ukraine
Grammar Teaching Concepts Reviewed
Teaching
grammar is an enjoyable process (from the teachers' perspective), at the same
time, for students it might seem tedious and useless. The question is if we can
find the golden mean in teaching (and learning) this necessary evil.
We
are going to investigate into the subject from two perspectives: teachers’ and
students’ needs and demands. While the former usually enjoy the process of
presenting and grammar points to students and practicing with them (as well as
they used to enjoy it back in their university days), they tend to believe that
students share their warm feelings towards the subject. At the same time,
students (not necessarily university students, as under this term I mean
anybody learning a language) notice that so many people communicate
successfully with very little grammar. The question remains: which is more
important – sound knowledge of grammar or extensive vocabulary, in other words
– accuracy or fluency?
It
is no secret that understanding and correct usage of grammar depends heavily on
the method of its introduction: students always find it very difficult to learn
and understand grammar when it isn’t integrated into communication. Rules
without context seem aimless, as grammar is considered to be a tool for the
main purpose of language learning – communication. Knowing grammar rules is a
must, first and foremost for teachers: a teacher of English must know all
grammar rules so well as to explain any rule for learners of any level and any
age. But this doesn't necessarily mean that the teacher must make his/her
students to learn grammar as well as the teacher him/herself. I fully
understood this only when one of my university colleagues asked me at what
stage of learning process I taught Subjunctive mood to my students. I was
puzzled by this presentation of the point especially taking into account that I
work at technical higher educational institution and teach future miners,
mechanics or geologists.
It
seems ironical that the majority of experienced teachers of English (10+ years
of teaching) were taught grammar in a traditional way by means of
grammar-translation method. To put it simply, first of all, you had to learn
the structure, then the rules of the usage, then, if you were lucky to have a
progressive teacher – you would use these rules in dialogues. However,
communicative approach to teaching languages has changed everything (or almost
everything). Having risen to prominence in Europe and the US in 1970-1980s, it
gained its momentum in Post-Soviet countries only about several decades ago,
which means that those same teachers trained in the best traditions of grammar-translation
approach had to change their focus, tools and attitude to students and learning
process, thus adjusting to new trends in language teaching and learning. At the
same time, modern communicative approach with its light-weight arms seems
flimsy against the heavy grammar arsenal of the English language. From the
students’ point of view, this approach is the ideal one for acquisition of
working knowledge of grammar structures in target language with the help of
authentic texts with the focus on the learners’ experience and needs. The
question remains: where is the golden mean between grammar-translation and
communicative approaches to cater for needs of both teachers (aimed at sound
and profound knowledge of grammar to make a strong foundation for further
independent language acquisition by their students) and students (each being a
personality, with his/her own pace of learning, preferences and
objectives)? Personally I was lucky to
be taught by a school teacher with progressive views combined with strong
Soviet grammar-translation approach.
One
more issue on grammar teaching and learning is as follows: is grammar static or
dynamic? Is any grammar point to be taught in the same way to different age
groups, learning styles, courses (exam preparation vs. speaking course) etc.?
The answer to this question with both points of view in mind is definite:
grammar should be taught in a user-friendly way appropriate to the target group
of learners in order to develop their working knowledge of this or that grammar
point. In other words, we give different examples demonstrating grammar in
context for different specialism areas of our students as well as we choose
different presentation styles depending on the age of our students and their
learning styles.
This
brings us to another burning question for teachers of English which concerns
the choice of grammar reference books and exercise books. The wide choice
available at any book store can be roughly divided into two categories by the
method of presenting material, namely, first rule then practice (the so-called
PPP – Presentation-Practice-Production approach), or else, first context and
only then rule and practice (approaches known as ECRIF –
Encounter-Clarify-Remember-Internalize-Fluently Use (for more details see http://www.ecrif.com/), MMM – Meeting the language-Manipulating-Making it your own etc.).
These two approaches are totally different, the first being perfect from the
teachers’ perspective (clarity and brevity of explanation followed by
straightforward practice), the second being much more appealing from the
students’ point of view, at the same time potentially producing confusion
unless worked through properly. It almost seems that Russian (and Ukrainian)
authors are stubborn in giving preference to the first-rule-then-practice
approach despite the recent global trends in “humanization” of grammar
teaching. Take for example “Grammar workbook” by Yu. Golitsynsky, the seventh
edition of their book appeared in 2011 to start with the brief and rather vague
explanation of the article usage. The explanation is in Russian and contains
references to other grammar points such as: common noun, possessive adjective,
demonstrative pronoun, cardinal numeral, negative particle – at the same time
you cannot see any examples. It seems strange that the first rule doesn’t even
contain the English articles themselves; they appear only in rule #2 after two
exercises. Bearing in mind that there is no such notion as article in Russian, it
seems irrational to start an almost 600(!) page grammar book with a most
confusing grammar point.
Before
turning to the analysis of common misconceptions about grammar usage, we sum up
the main points of the research: knowing grammar is important as it is a tool
for the main goal of language learning – communication; thus, grammar should be
presented in communicative context taking into account many factors such as
age, learning style and area of specialism of the learners; therefore, grammar
exercises and tasks should be designed bearing in mind all the above – begin
with the end in mind.
Moving
on to misconceptions, one of the most widely spread false understanding of
grammar is that effective communication is impossible if one makes grammar
mistakes, being only partially true (grave mistakes still might cause
misunderstanding). It is a usual case that context and common sense make up for
the majority of grammar mistakes. Another controversial point is as follows:
grammar should be taught first to provide a solid foundation for communication.
It is doubtless that grammar does give building blocks for communication;
however, unanalysed chunks are often acquired rather early. For instance,
during his/her first lesson in a class the teacher uses imperative mood (“Sit
down”, “Open your books” etc) without prior explanation of this same mood. Some
believe that learning grammar rules is not helpful for everyone, which is only
partially true. It depends on the purpose of language learning and the
environment, on the length of the course and on the level of language
acquisition. Good rules can help learners, and support and guide learning,
whereas formal study may not suit everyone. The prerequisite of successful rule
acquisition is learners’ personal involvement in the process of rule formation
and explanation. And last mentioned here, but not least, are the concepts that
fluency is more important than accuracy or else, accuracy is more important
than fluency, both of which are extreme and thus, inappropriate. The problem is
that all accuracy and no fluency may restrict opportunities for experimentation
and learning through trial and error, at the same time all fluency and no
accuracy may not serve learners who need to pass exams etc. All in all, much
depends on the learners, their needs, and reasons to learn English.
References
1. Golitsynsky Yu.B. Grammar
workbook. – 7th ed. – St-Petersburg: KARO, 2011. – 576 pp. –
(“English language for pupils” series)
2. Planning a Grammar Lesson with
PPP // Electronic resource (available at): http://www.usingenglish.com/weblog/archives/000411.html