CC BY
109
ЛИНГВИСТИКА И ПЕРЕВОД
УДК81'22
ON FACTORS INFLUENCING THE RIGHT APPROACH TO GRAMMAR INSTRUCTION
Lindita Kacani
(Когфё, Albania)
The teaching of grammar has been one of the most controversial issues in foreign language education. The demand for superior communicative ability in the target foreign language has made teachers confused about the approach in teaching grammar for a communicative purpose: teaching grammar explicitly or implicitly. Reviewing relatively recent theoretical and empirical studies on formal explicit and implicit grammar instruction, the paper presents the need of both types of grammar instruction to promote foreign language acquisition and the factors influencing the right approach to grammar instruction. Teachers need to be eclectic in selecting the appropriate instructional strategy to address the needs of their learners and contexts.
Keywords: communicative language teaching, factors, explicit instruction, implicit instruction.
1. Introduction
1.1 The aim of the study
The teaching of grammar has been one of the most controversial issues in language teaching (Richards & Renandya 2002: 145). It remains one of the most debated issues in foreign language teaching as well (Achard 2008: 433, Nassaji & Fotos 2011: 1). The most disputed questions have been about the role of grammar and the approach to grammar teaching in a foreign language classroom. The theoretical and empirical developments in language acquisition and other sciences (such as linguistics, psychology and sociolinguistics) as well, have influenced the approach to grammar teaching (ibid., Richards 2001, Richards & Renandya 2002). There is recently an agreement among researchers, educators and teachers on the necessity to teach grammar. Grammar competence, as part of the
communicative competence (Celce-Murcia 1991, Hedge 2000), is needed to be developed for effective and successful communication. However the present issue is not whether grammar should be taught or not, but how to teach it effectively (Richards & Renandya 2002: 145, Ellis et al. 2009).
What is often observed in a foreign language classroom is communication marked by low levels of linguistic accuracy, though learners have studied its grammar for many years. Naturally, the following question arises: are there any factors that influence the right choice between the implicit and explicit instruction strategies in the classroom-based settings?
This study attempts to draw on explicit and implicit grammar instruction and factors that influence the right grammar instructional strategy in classroom-based settings emanating from foreign language acquisition theory and research. A broader understanding of this issue has a positive advantage for foreign language teachers in improving grammar teaching in classroom-based settings.
1.2 Methodology
Literature review was conducted following a four-stage process, including research of preliminary sources, use of secondary sources, study of primary sources and synthesis of the literature (Gall, Borg & Gall 1996: 117). Preliminary source research was conducted using the databases of Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), EBSCO and Cambridge Journals Online (from Electronic Resources for Albania, ERA2012). References within preliminary sources helped in choosing the primary material relevant to the topic, which critically studied, allowed a deeper insight in the subject.
2. Definitions of explicit and implicit instruction
Many foreign language teachers and students find confusing and sometimes synonymous the terms dealing with the approach to grammar teaching: explicit and deductive, implicit and inductive. Referring to the definitions of explicit and implicit instruction provided in second/foreign language acquisition, a clearer and wider understanding can be provided on explicit and implicit instruction practice.
According to Thornbuy (2008) and DeKeyser (1994), deductive (approach) involves presenting a rule before the examples in which the rule is applied; inductive involves presenting examples from which a rule is inferred.
According to DeKeyser (1994) and Ellis (Ellis et al. 2009)
- explicit instruction involves making learners aware of the rule deductively (by providing them with a grammatical description of the rule
before examples or practice) or inductively (by helping learners to discover the rule from provided data, examples or practice). Ellis (Ellis et al. 2009), also, distinguishes reactive explicit instruction (when teachers provide metalinguistic corrective feedback on learner' errors in the use of the target feature) from proactive one (when the teacher offers a metalinguistic explanation of the target rule prior to any practice activities or when the teacher invites learners to discover the rule for themselves from data provided).
- implicit instruction involves enabling learners to learn the rule without awareness, but by providing them with experience of specific exemplars of the rule or linguistic form while they are focused on meaning. As such, implicit instruction needs creating a learning environment that is 'enriched' with the target feature. Implicit instruction can be reactive (where the attention to linguistic form arises naturally) or proactive (when tasks are designed to elicit the use of a specific linguistic form, and their performance naturally creates opportunities for experiencing the target feature).
Housen and Pierrard (2006, cited in Ellis et al 2009: 18), also, describe implicit instruction as attracting learner's attention to the target form in the context, without making use of rule explanation; what is more, he describes it as delivered spontaneously (e.g. in a communicative activity), encouraging free use of the target form. While explicit instruction predetermines and plans teaching the target form by directing learners' attention to it, presenting it in isolation by using rule explanation and practicing it in controlled practice activities.
Explicit and implicit instructions are not to be confused with explicit and implicit learning: implicit instruction do not always necessarily lead to implicit learning (learning that takes place without either intention-ality or awareness) or that explicit instruction leads to explicit learning (intentional conscious process) (Ellis et al 2009: 18). When the learner is not attentive to teacher's explanation, he may acquire a certain grammatical item implicitly in communicative activities; equally, being involved in implicit instruction, the learner "may work out what the target of the instruction is and seek to make the understanding ofit explicit" (ibid.).
It is also worth noting that, according to Ellis (ibid.), explicit instruction aims at not just developing explicit knowledge (knowledge about language) but also implicit knowledge (knowledge oflanguage). The extent of the effectiveness of explicit instruction in the acquisition of implicit and explicit knowledge is still an inconclusive issue (ibid.).
3. On factors influencing the right approach to grammar instruction
3.1. Theeducationalobjective
Referring to different approaches and methods used in the history of foreign language didactics (Richards 2001; Larsen-Freeman 2000), implicit and explicit instruction is closely related to the educational objectives. Celce-Murcia (1991) (among other variables) considered educational objectives important in deciding the need to focus on form. "If the learner's goal is survival communication, formal accuracy is of marginal value" (ibid.: 464); on the other hand, if the learner's goal is accurate, meaningful, and appropriate communication, then a high degree of formal accuracy is important.
Grammar-translation method and cognitive approach relied entirely on explicit approach. Limiting the aims of studying a foreign language to making students able to know, prescribe, read and translate the written language, grammar-translation method approached the target language deductively through detailed analysis of grammar rules followed by application of this knowledge to translating written language. Though learners had considerable explicit knowledge of grammar rules, they could not express their thoughts or use the language communicatively. Similarly, the cognitive approach of language teaching, emphasizing the cognitive skills, approached explicit grammar instruction and diminished the importance ofthe communicative skills in language learning.
Direct method, total physical response and deep-end version of communicative approach relied entirely on implicit approach. Increased opportunities for communication among people created a demand for oral proficiency in foreign languages. These methods prioritized oral skills and applied implicit grammar teaching. The direct method and the total physical response encouraged natural language learning just as children pick up the grammar of their native language; without translation and grammar rules, but being immersed in language, learners would be able to induce the rules of grammar. Similarly, community language learning and desuggestopedia methods, assuming that learners would acquire the forms and vocabulary naturally, during the process of comprehending input, gave no formal grammar instruction. Also, the deep-end version (Thornbury 2008: 22) of communicative method rejected grammar instruction believing Krashen's model of L2 acquisition (Krashen 1981) who suggested that rules are acquired naturally from meaningful input and opportunities to interact in the classroom, and that explicit grammar instruction was not needed.
Other methods as audio lingual, oral and situational method and silent way, largely, but not entirely relied on an implicit instruction. They were mainly organized based on the language forms and little on real life communication.
Therefore, being dissatisfied with the extreme of explicit or implicit grammar instruction, there has recently been suggested a need for both a focus on language forms and a focus on communication (Nassaji & Fotos 2011: 12). Researchers have agreed that grammatical competence cannot be attained simply through exposure to meaningful input: without some attention to form, learners may risk 'fossilization' (Hinkel & Fotos 2002: 5); moreover, certain types of language knowledge (such as English articles and conditional sentences) and skills (such as academic speaking and writing) are difficult to attain in the process of naturalistic learning. In such cases, instructed learning is needed to attain high levels of language competence and performance. Therefore considerable research has followed on methods for integrating grammar instruction with communicative language learning and supporting a combination of explicit and implicit instruction. Focus on form' approach, drawing learner's attention to linguistic forms in the context of meaningful communication (and reconciling the extreme explicit and implicit positions) is suggested to be effective in second/foreign language acquisition. Nassaji and Fotos (2011) recommended six input-and output-based instructional options for teaching grammar communicatively, suggesting the need of both implicit and explicit form-focused instructions to promote foreign language acquisition: processing instruction, textual enhancement, discourse-based grammar teaching, interactional feedback, grammar-focused tasks, and collaborative output tasks. It is important for teachers of foreign languages to try them in order to give their interpretations and suggestions for improving the quality ofgrammar teaching.
3.2. Other factors influencing the right approach to grammar instruction
Some researchers (Ellis et al. 2009, Khatib & Ghannadi 2011, LI & TIAN 2008, Nassaji & Fotos 2011, Spada & Lightbown 2008) have emphasized the benefit and need of both types of form-focused instruction (explicit and implicit) in foreign language acquisition. It is also evident even from the definitions of explicit and implicit instruction provided in second/foreign language acquisition that foreign language learners can benefit from both explicit and implicit instruction. Explicit instruction, drawing learners' attention to linguistic forms and developing their meta-
linguistic knowledge of the target language structures, helps learners express meaning more effectively and accurately in the communicative interaction and not use continuously incorrect forms; whereas, implicit instruction enhances the communicative learning process by providing learners with more experience of specific exemplars of a rule or linguistic form as they are focused on meaning.
Furthermore, they have concluded that the choice of a grammar teaching strategy is affected by a number of factors.
Learners' native language: Spada and Lightbown (2008), Nassaji and Fotos (2011) support the use of explicit instruction for clarifications when native language has strong influence on foreign language by helping learners enhance their awareness of the target linguistic forms and learn them.
Salience in the input: ' Some grammatical features are inherently more salient (easy to notice) than others' (Ellis et al. 2009: 145) and as such, they are not acquired the same. For example, 'verb -ing (more phono-logically salient) is acquired before third person -s (less phonologically salient)' (ibid.). Researchers (Akakura 2012, Ellis 1997: 80, Nassaji & Fotos 2011: 136, Spada & Lightbown 2008) claim that explicit instruction is useful with features that are not salient in the input. Clearly, directing learners' attention to the target language form(s) through explicit instruction can assist them to notice language forms that occur frequently but are imperceptible in the input. Therefore, it is necessary to make foreign language teachers aware of the salient features of the target foreign language, so as to help them decide the right instructional strategy in their teaching practice.
The frequency the grammatical feature in the input is also reported to be considered important in teaching grammar (Ellis et al. 2009: 144, Burgess & Etherington 2002, Nassaji & Fotos 2011: 136). The more frequent the feature is, the more noticeable it becomes. In the case of rare grammatical forms (such as function words), explicit instruction, attracting learners' attention to the grammatical feature and enhancing their awareness, can help learners notice and learn them in the input in the communicative activities. What about English articles, for example, which occur extremely frequently in the input but are certainly not easy to acquire?
Another factor, also recorded in relevant studies is rule complexity. Some linguistic forms (such as English articles) are considered structurally simple but functionally very complex as they perform a number of different functions (Ellis 1997: 80; Ellis et al. 2009: 150) (relating to type
of the noun they determine, the situational context and the discourse context). In such cases, the complex feature will require a complex explanation, using even technical metalanguage (as generic/specific reference or countable/uncountable nouns). For this reason, as authors have assumed in their studies (DeKeyser 1995, Ellis 1997, Ellis et al. 2009, Nassaji & Fotos 2011, Spada & Lightbown 2008), implicit form-focused instruction is more suitable for complex linguistic features and rules, while explicit instruction is more effective with simple ones. But Andrews's empirical study (2007) on the effects of explicit and implicit instruction on simple and complex grammatical structures for English language learners does not support the assumption of the above researchers. His study resulted that explicit instruction was better than the implicit for the complex rule (relative clauses) and that both strategies were equally effective for the simple rule (subject - verb agreement). Therefore further research is needed in this aspect: approaching the right teaching strategy to the type and complexity of the target structure, so as to guide teachers in choosing the most effective one.
Researchers (Ellis 1992, 2006, LI & TIAN 2008, Nassaji & Fotos 2011, Spada & Lightbown 2008) relate the form of instruction even to the learner developmental level. Formal instruction is considered peda-gogically effective if it is "timed to match the learner's developmental stage" (Ellis 1992: 52). If a learner is not developmentally ready to learn a structure as it is beyond his/her current developmental phase, he/she can hardly master the target structure. In this way, learners who have more metalinguistic knowledge and skill (even in the native language) can be more able to notice the target language form in a communicative context than those with poorer metalinguistic ability. For this reason the first group oflearner needs less explicit approach than the latter.
Individual learning styles: Studies in educational psychology suggest that some learners have an analytic style; they, consciously or unconsciously, learn best by formulating and testing hypotheses or rules (Celce-Murcia 1991, Celce-Murcia & Hilles: 5). While other learners have a holistic style; they learn best by experiencing, gathering, and restructuring relevant data but doing little or no apparent analysis (ibid.). Foreign language learning studies suggest that, to be successful in learning, analytic learners need more explicit instruction, while holistic learners need more implicit instruction. Therefore, as foreign language classrooms may consist of learners having different learning styles, teachers need to select the appropriate instructional strategy to address their needs. However,
the above mentioned empirical research has not considered this factor in valuing the effectiveness of each grammar teaching approach (explicit/ implicit) in language acquisition.
Learners' age is also considered influential in the approach to grammar teaching Celce-Murcia 1991, LI & TIAN 2008, Nassaji & Fotos 2011, Spa-da & Lightbown 2008). It is suggested that young children, as being more holistic in their approach to learning than adults, may need little explicit grammar instruction, while older children and adults (even because of their superior cognitive ability) may learn a foreign language more effectively and quickly with the support of some explicit focus on form.
Another investigated factor related to the approach to grammar teaching is previous language learning experience. Research has revealed that learners who have learnt language via a traditional grammar-based approach often have preferences for continuing to learn explicitly (Celce-Murcia 1991, Spada & Lightbown 2008). Even teachers often teach grammar in the way in which they were taught (Borg 2003, cited in Spada & Lightbown 2008). Our teaching and observation practice support them.
There is little research on the direct relationship between the approach to grammar teaching and the two following factors: learner and teacher preferences about grammar instruction, and teacher's metalinguistic knowledge. Dornyei (2005, cited in Spada & Lightbown 2008) reported that learners benefit most from the type of instruction that suits their preferences about grammar instruction (not their teacher's). It is also reported (Spada & Lightbown 2008) that the extent to which grammar is taught deductively depends on the level of grammar metalinguistic knowledge the teacher has.
Conclusion
Current foreign language acquisition theory and research do not support the extreme of explicit or implicit instruction. Relying largely on either of them has been deficient in language learning and using the target language accurately and fluently; explicit instruction did not help learners use the target language communicatively, whereas implicit instruction did not help learners develop certain types of language knowledge and skills. It is suggested and naturally agreed that both types of instruction can be beneficial in promoting language acquisition: explicit instruction increases learners' awareness of the target language; implicit instruction, providing learners with comprehensible linguistic input, helps them develop grammatical competence in meaningful context. Empirical research on this issue is limited; therefore further studies are needed to value the
effectiveness of the instructional options that combine explicit and implicit grammar instructions.
Moreover, theory and research inform that there are many issues for teachers to consider in deciding on the right instructional strategy in teaching grammar effectively for communicative purposes: native language influence, salience and frequency of the grammatical feature in the input, rule complexity, learner developmental level, individual learning styles, learners' age, learner and teacher preferences, teacher's metalinguistic knowledge and previous language learning experience. More specifically, explicit instruction is recommended when native language has strong influence on FL, the target grammatical feature is rare or not salient in the input, teaching functionally simple language forms, teaching grammar to older children and adults and learners with poor metalinguistic ability and those that have an analytical learning style, and when the level of teacher's grammar metalinguistic knowledge is high. In other teaching contexts (salient and frequent grammatical forms in the input, functionally complex features, teaching FL to holistic, young children or learners with considerable metalinguistic knowledge, the other instruction strategy can be used when it suits learners' preferences as to make them feel comfortable and motivated. But if this preference is either extreme implicit or explicit the teacher's responsibility should be to gradually accommodate the learners with the other instructional approach.
Considering all these issues, FL teachers' decision on how to teach grammar has to be taken individually, based on his/her teaching situation and professionaljudgment in order to address the needs of their learners and create the best possible conditions where accuracy and fluency of language use can be developed simultaneously and supplementary.
Reference
1. Achard, M. (2008). Teaching construal: Cognitive Pedagogical Grammar. In, P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (pp.432-455). Taylor & Francis.
2. Akakura, M. (2012). Evaluating the effectiveness of Explicit instruction on implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. Language Teaching Research. 16(1), 9-37.
3. Andrews, K. (2007). The effects of implicit and explicit instruction on simple and complex grammatical structures for adult language learners. Tesl-EJ, 11(2), 1-15.
4. Burgess, J., & Etherington, S. (2002). Explicit or implicit grammar? System, 30, 433-458.
5. Celce-Murcia, M. & Hilles, S. (1998). Techniques and Resources in Teaching Grammar (Teaching Techniques in English as a Second Language). Oxford University Press.
6. Celce-Murcia, M. (1991). Grammar Pedagogy in Second and Foreign Language Teaching. TESOL QUARTERLY, 25(3), 459-480.
7. DeKeyser, R. (1994). Implicit and Explicit Learning of L2 Grammar: A Pilot Study. TESOL QUARTERLY, 28(1), 188-194. Retrieved from http://203.72.145.166/TESOL/TQD_2008/VOL_28_1. PDF#page=183
8. DeKeyser, R. (1995). Learning Second Language Grammar Rules. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 379-410.
9. Ellis, R. (1992). Second Language Acquisition and Language Pedagogy. Multilingual Matters.
10. Ellis, R. (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press.
11. Ellis, R., Loewen, Sh., Elder, C., Erlam, R., Philp, J., & Reinders, H. (2009). Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing and Teaching. Multilingual Matters.
12. Gall, M.D., Borg, W. R. & Gall, J.P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman.
13.Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford University Press.
14.Hinkel, E. & Fotos, S. (2002). From Theory to Practice: A Teacher's View. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms. ESL & Applied Linguistics Professional Series (pp. 1-12). Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Inc.
15.Khatib, M. & Ghannadi, M. (2011). Interventionist (explicit and implicit) versus non-interventionist (incidental) learning of phrasal verbs by Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(3), 537-546.
16.Krashen, S. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Pergamon Press Inc.
17.Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and Principals in Language Teaching (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
18. Li, X. & TIAN, T. (2008). On formal explicit and implicit grammar instruction. US-China Foreing Language, 6(3), 54-58.
19.Nassaji, H. & Fotos S. (2011). Teaching Grammar in Second Language Classrooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context. Routledge Taylor &Francis Group.
20. Richards, J. C. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge Language Teaching Library.
21. Richards, J.C. & Renandya, W. A. (2002) Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge University Press.
22. Spada, N. & Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Form Focused Instruction: Isolated or Integrated? TESOL QUATERLY, 42(2), 181-207.
23.Thornbury, S. (2008). How to teach grammar. Longman.
