Grammar teaching - a fading star

A teacher said, “That is what I wanted to hear - 'Communicative Language Teaching doesn't exclude grammar or even translation' !!!”

Rest assured, Grammar will never be without a job.

Up until the 1970's, Grammar used to be the mega movie star of English teaching, a true prima donna. Grammar was simply adored by all fans; teachers and students, alike. Grammar's name featured prominently on every textbook or coursebook. People memorized every aspect of Grammar. It was near worship. Then Chomsky released his blockbuster which, while not widely accepted by the entire public, marked a new era and saw Grammar's popularity begin to wane. Grammar suffered further humiliation when Krashen came along. Now many people respect Grammar just as many people regard Casablanca or Gone With The Wind, one of the greatest movies ever made. But when most people want real entertainment, they don't go to these old movies any more.

That doesn't mean Grammar is out of a job by any means. It still plays an important supporting role in many movies just like many former stars appear in smaller parts in movies and TV shows. (Alan Alda even won an Oscar for his supporting role in the new movie Little Miss Sunshine.)

As Krashen puts it:

"I recommend delaying the teaching of these rules until more advanced levels. I would first give acquisition a chance, and then use conscious knowledge to fill in some of the gaps. There is no sense teaching rules for Monitoring that will eventually be acquired. Grammar, thus, is not excluded. It is, however, no longer the star player but has only a supporting role."

More from Krashen:

In my reviews of these studies, I have concluded that they confirm the correctness of the Comprehension and Monitor Hypotheses: they show only that even after substantial grammar study, even very motivated students show only modest gains in accuracy, and these gains occur only on measures that encourage a focus on form. Truscott (1998) has arrived at very similar conclusions.

Some have interpreted this position as a claim that all grammar teaching is forbidden. Not so. There are two good reasons for including grammar in the EFL curriculum.

The first is for "language appreciation," otherwise known as "linguistics." Linguistics includes language universals, language change, dialects, etc. The second is to fill gaps left by incomplete acquisition and places in which idiolects differ from the prestige dialect. Society’s standards for accuracy, especially in writing, are 100%: We are not allowed "mistakes" in punctuation, spelling or grammar. One public error, in fact, can result in humiliation. Even well-read native speakers have gaps, places where their grammatical competence differs from accepted use.

Consciously learned rules can fill some of these gaps, which are typically in aspects of language that do not affect communication of messages. The place to use this knowledge is in the editing stage of the composing process, when appealing to conscious rules will not interfere with communication.

I recommend delaying the teaching of these rules until more advanced levels. I would first give acquisition a chance, and then use conscious knowledge to fill in some of the gaps. There is no sense teaching rules for Monitoring that will eventually be acquired.

Grammar, thus, is not excluded. It is, however, no longer the star player but has only a supporting role.

More: http://www.sdkrashen.com/articles/eta_paper/02.html

"Grammar lessons do not help children write proper"

Further to our favorite topic, Grammar Translation vs Communicative Language Teaching, I submit this piece of news. I realize it is not exactly on our topic but useful for our discussion:

Grammar lessons do not help children write proper
The Guardian
Joanne Lawson
Tuesday January 18, 2005

New findings suggest that teaching children grammar is of little use in improving their writing skills.

The study undertaken by researchers at the University of York found that teaching children old-fashioned grammar was not as helpful as teaching them skills such as how to combine short sentences into longer ones.

The funding for the research has come from the Department for Education and Skills, which undertakes regular reviews of the evidence to establish what are the best educational practices. The University of York English review team looked at the results of over 100 years of studies on formal grammar teaching, including previous government-backed reviews.

Why my students hate me

One teacher confided, "The first thing I do is to explain why I'm asking for change."

I've had entire classes rebel and reject me when they thought I didn't teach enough grammar. I've been told I was the worse teacher a particular student ever had (and he was an adult.) I have taught in classrooms with a big "No Pain - No Gain!" sign over my head that the students' regular teachers had placed to make sure the students knew that learning was supposed to be an academically masochistic(1) experience.

A teacher has two options in these situations.

A) Go along with what everyone wants. After 10-12 years of grammar translation training in school they have at least reached low intermediate level -- so just give them more of it.

B) Help them learn about learning and teach them about teaching.

This is the same thing a doctor does when he introduces a new therapy, drug or treatment. He explains the research. He explains the results. He explains the problems with the older and the advantages of the newer. The doctor teaches you. He doesn't say, "Well, if your mother always said cod liver oil will heal anything, then let's try that."

We have to explain the history of English teaching and the advances that have been made in understanding how the mind and language works. We have to sell our methods and set their minds at ease. I tell my students about Dell Hymes. I tell them about Krashen. (I'm going to have to start telling them about Mert.) I don't follow a Krashen plan (nor Mert plan) but I mention these things to show them some of the ideas involved in current research. I think we have to hit the problem head on. Teach them exactly why we are going to do things differently and really sell it. Teach them exactly why they don't already know English from their previous learning experience if it was under strong Grammar Translation.

Of course, this doesn't preclude the possibility that cod liver oil is just what some people needed nor the possibility that many people learn best with a strong grammar translation method. I had an American buddy who loved grammar. To him it was like a puzzle. We picked up a how to learn Japanese book with lots of grammar in it and after three months he was speaking Japanese and I knew nothing.

But if Grammar Translation and Audio Lingual are so great then everyone in China should be speaking English fluently by now.


(1) A willingness or tendency to subject oneself to unpleasant or trying experiences. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)

Academia resists change

Xiujuan Zhang and Hongna have pointed out the challenges that they've faced as teachers in China. If there were more support or at least tolerance for change it would not be so difficult. Changing academia is one of the hardest things in the world to do. How do you tell the teachers that they don't know?

A couple years ago we were having our annual Communicative Approach (CA) vs. Grammar Translation (GT) debate. A teacher said that although she believed CA was more effective she had to teach GT because their school expected them to do it that way. The teachers had to act against her conscience and against what she thought was in the best interest of the student in order to please their employer. And in this case this was an American teacher in New York, USA! So we can only have sympathy and admiration for our Chinese colleagues who struggle to do something different in their schools.

It was the end of my last class when she came in. She unloaded an armful of books on the desk and asked me if I had any videos or films that she could borrow to help her learn about business. I assured her I could help her and offered to leave them with one of the students to pass to her. She asked me to not do that. She explained that although she has been an English teacher for many years, she just passed a special training to allow her to teach business English but now she doesn't want students or her superiors to know that she doesn't know a thing about business. She felt very badly about being so covert about the whole thing but made it clear that showing any kind of weakness in professional skills was risky.

Teachers feel bad about inadequacies but at the same time the necessity to cover them up. It is likely they are covering them up from superiors who also are covering up inadequacies from their superiors who are also covering up inadequacies from their superiors, all in the politics of academia.

This sort of situation, which happens in certain academic situations in many places around the world, can be like that children's game where everyone makes a circle and slowly sit down until they are sitting on the knees of the person behind them while at the same time providing their knees as a seat for the person in front of them. They can even march, although, only in a circle. Lots of action but not getting anywhere. But if one person stands up then everyone falls down. The dynamics are that there is more common interest in perpetuating the system and strong risks in challenging it or rocking the boat.

Dynamics like these cannot last an instant in business where it is sink or swim and constant change and real progress are the keys to survival. Academia does not have to play the survival game.

Why it is difficult for Chinese English teachers to use the communicative approach

[Photo: Professor Li Xiao Ju and Dave]

There was tremendous resistance to the Communicative Approach (CA) when it was first introduced in China in 1980 by Professor Li Xiao Ju at a conference at the Guangzhou University of Foreign Studies. In fact I was told, only one young teacher at the conference welcomed the idea. Even though the Ministry of Education later accepted it as the approved way to teach it seems they had to back down a bit later due to some pressure.

For those who embrace CA it is an uphill battle to spread its acceptance in China. Why? Perhaps there are two reasons. Before I discuss them I'd like to set some definitions. I believe ALL teachers want their students to learn grammar. The question is how? Grammar-Translation (GT) advocates believe rule learning and a direct understanding of the mechanics of the language are essential. CA advocates believe language mechanics study is an extra step leading to complicate and even frustrate the learning of the language. They believe the best way to learn the language is to use it and the grammar will be learned internally. But in the scope of CA advocates is a range of extremities. Many hold Krashen as the most extreme.

Back to the reasons, first, there is not complete acceptance of CA amongst western teachers. Many teachers in the west believe GT to be a required part of language teaching. This has been witnessed on this list with the subject of GT vs. CA flaming up about once a year. But what I think is more interesting is what I consider the second reason of why CA has not spread around China more easily. Can Chinese teachers do it?

The question was "Can Chinese English teachers make use of the Communicative Approach?"

The skill level of Chinese teachers varies widely. With some teachers you forget they are not native English teachers because their English is flawless. But some teachers have very poor English. It is difficult for them to communicate in a conversation. They are hard to understand and it is hard for them to understand you. I'm not sure how to quantify the number of teachers at these various levels of skill. Another thing is that we must factor in some cultural factors and the politics of academia. After all of that I would guess that less than 25% of Chinese teachers could operate in a CA classroom without losing face and my guess is probably very very generous.

On the other hand, GT is a much more comfortable way of teaching. Rules are laid out, memorized and recited. Drills are given with structured sentences that require only one correct answer. The teacher does not have to score a sometimes convoluted mass of words that the student has used to describe something. The teacher has to check if the correct word is filled into the blanks. Certainly I'm over-simplifying this but I use it as an illustration.

This leads us to a bigger question. What do you do in a country with 100 million English students to teach and only a small percentage of your teachers have near native English skills themselves? Is Grammar-Translation the answer?

Must students understand language mechanics to achieve language usage?

Private Sub Reply_to_message_about_grammar()
Dim MESSAGE as String
MESSAGE = "Hello," & Chr$(13) & Chr(10) & Chr$(13) & Chr(10) & "I think the goal is to teach our students to use the language. "
MESSAGE = MESSAGE & "Sometimes trying to study the mechanics makes it more difficult and confusing. "
MESSAGE = MESSAGE & "The same is true with computers. Most of us just want to use programs. "
MESSAGE = MESSAGE & "Trying to study computer language makes it more difficult and confusing."
MESSAGE = MESSAGE & Chr$(13) & Chr(10) & Chr$(13) & Chr(10) & "However, computer people should understand programming. Teachers should understand language mechanics."
MESSAGE = MESSAGE & Chr$(13) & Chr(10) & Chr$(13) & Chr(10) & "Dave Kees"
TextBox MESSAGE
End sub

IN CASE YOU DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE COMPUTER LANGUAGE ABOVE, THE FOLLOWING IS THE OUTPUT:

Hello,

I think the goal is to teach our students to use the language. Sometimes trying to study the language mechanics makes it more difficult and confusing. The same is true with computers. Most of us just want to use programs. Trying to study computer language makes it more difficult and confusing.

However, computer people should understand programming. Teachers should understand language mechanics.

Dave Kees