Resource centre - Theory and issues - Grammar teaching
Larry Lynch adds his views to the debate about implicit versus explicit grammar teaching, and argues that the chosen approach should depend on the teaching and learning conditions of an individual class.
Based on my 15 years of EFL (English as a Foreign Language) teaching experience,
the statement "grammar teaching should be implicit, not explicit" could be
argued both for and against. Whether to teach grammar as an extracted focus of
ELT (English Language Teaching) or more passively as an inductive, integral
topic has been the theme of countless debates on the part of institutions,
professors, grammarians and language researchers for decades. Grammar is the
branch of linguistics dealing with the form and structure of words or
morphology, and their interrelation in sentences, called syntax. The study of
grammar reveals how language works, an important aspect in both English
acquisition and learning.
In the early 20th century grammarians like the German-American anthropologist
Franz Boas and the Danish linguist Otto Jespersen began to describe languages
and Boas' work formed the basis of various types of American descriptive grammar
study. Jespersen's work was the fore-runner of such current approaches to
linguistic theory such as Noam Chomsky's Transformational Generative Grammar.
Chomsky, who studied structural linguistics, sought to analyze the syntax of
English in a structural grammar. This led him to view grammar as a theory of
language structure rather than a description of actual sentences. His idea of
grammar is that it is a device for producing the structure, not of a particular
language, but of the ability to produce and understand sentences in any and all
languages. Since grammar is the means by which we can understand how a language
"works", a definitive study of language grammar is essential to language study.
Strictly explicit grammar study however, and even grammar-focused lessons are
often not communicatively based. They can therefore be boring, cumbersome and
difficult for students to assimilate. The strict teaching of grammar /
structure, except with students of the Logical - Mathematical or Verbal -
Linguistic multiple intelligences, can be frustrating and highly ineffective.
Grammar teaching should be implicit
In the early 20th century, Jespersen, like Boas, thought grammar should be
studied by examining living speech rather than by analyzing written documents.
By providing grammar in context, in an implicit manner, we can expose students
to substantial doses of grammar study without alienating them to the learning of
English or other foreign language. I also agree with this implicit approach of
teaching grammar. The principal manner in which I accomplish this is by teaching
short grammar-based sessions immediately followed by additional function-based
lessons in which the new grammar / structure is applied in context.
The hypothesis is that adult language students have two distinct ways of
developing skills and knowledge in a second language, acquisition and learning.
Acquiring a language is "picking it up" i.e., developing ability in a language
by using it in natural, communicative situations. Learning language differs in
that it is "knowing the rules" and having a conscious knowledge of grammar /
structure. Adults acquire language, although usually not as easily or as well as
children. Acquisition, however, is the most important means for gaining
linguistic skills. A person's first language (L1) is primarily learned in this
way. This manner of developing language skills typically employs implicit
grammar teaching and learning.
Grammar teaching should be explicit
This does not exclude explicit grammar-teaching entirely, however. Some
basic features of English language grammar structure are illogical or dissimilar
to speakers of other languages and do not readily lend themselves to being well
understood, even in context. In cases where features of English grammar are
diametrically opposed or in some other way radically different from the manner
of expression in the student's L1, explicit teaching may be required.
Aspects of English language grammar that may offer exceptional challenge to
EFL students include use of word order, determiners (this, that, these, those,
a, an, the), prepositions (in, on, at, by, for, from, of), auxiliaries (do, be,
have), conjunctions (but, so, however, therefore, though, although),
interrogatives, intensifiers (some, any, few, more, too) and distinctions
between modal verbs (can, could, would, should, may, might, must). Phrasal verbs
also present considerable difficulty to Spanish speakers learning communicative
English.
Some students also are logical or linguistically-biased thinkers who respond
well to structured presentation of new material. Logical-Mathematical and
Verbal-Linguistic intelligence learners are prime examples of those that would
respond well to explicit grammar teaching in many cases.
Based on my English language teaching and on my second and third foreign
language learning (L2, L3) experience, an exclusive approach using either
implicit or explicit methodologies is not as effective as utilizing one or the
other of these approaches as required. Although it is essential to teach
elements of language and develop communicative abilities in our students, there
is no one best way to introduce and provide practice in them. Young learners
have more natural facility in acquisition, while adults may benefit
substantially from more "formal" language learning. Learning styles and
intelligence strengths are also a significant factor.
There are many generally accepted ways of introducing the sounds, structure and
vocabulary of English, including colloquial forms of conversation and the four
basic communication skills. Grammar provides for "communicative economy".
Grammar teaching should be implicit, or explicit, as teaching / learning
conditions may dictate helping to minimize the student response teachers fear
most, "Teacher, I don't understand".
Note: Academic references for this article are available on request.
Teaching children grammar through games
Is Grammar Really Important?
Three Fun Ideas for Teaching Grammar
Grammar rules and teaching ideas
What do you think of this article? Add a comment »
Yes, I agree. My student
(after 2 years in this country) has naturally picked up a core of vocab and some
basic grammar skills. However - some grammar, that differs vastly from his
native language, just has to be taught. For example, he still repeats subjects
twice in sentences: "the dog, he ate the bone" . Plus prepositions he has learnt
through teaching and worksheets - you are born "in" a country "on" a certain
date, "at" a certain time, "in" the year of...
I believe both implicit and
explicit ways of teaching grammar are prevailing. It depends on the pupils
requirements. I have a class of 2 Ss. One tries to speak and doesn't take notes
unless I warn him to but tries hard to speak. However, he makes many mistakes.
The other, wants to write every detail down and asks for an explanation in L1.
She speaks less and rather slow but doesn't make mistakes like the other one. In
my opinion grammar rules should be explained in detail and there still has to be
another material, speaking material to make Ss carry this rule out.
I agree that grammar should
be taught in a variety of ways, both implicitly and explicitly. It really comes
down to why the students are learning the language. If their goal is to know
enough English to communicate abroad on short trips, then communicative lessons
may be the best approach. If the student is hoping to take the First Certificate
or any other similar exam, then explicit grammar lessons must be an integral
part of their learning process. As teachers I think we must remember to take
into account that not everyone learns languages because it is enjoyable and, in
this way, help them reach their personal goals in the best way possible.
I think grammar should be
taught as implicit whenever possible. Yet, grammar teaching should be explicit
when students still cannot get it. The easiest way to teach grammar is the
direct way. Nevertheless, if I avoid it, it will be just because it sounds
boring for my students, though so effective.
Professor Lynch has already
addressed the point I was about to make when he says that neither approach
should be used exclusively. We need to keep in mind that students learn in
different ways and that what works for a particular group of students does not
necessarily work for another. We teachers need to be eclectic in our approach if
we want to cater to the different learning styles represented within our
classrooms.
I love to teach grammar the traditional way, that is, as a separate entity.
However, I usually begin or end with a story or dialogue that presents the
structure in an actual situation so that students don't look at the structure as
an isolated piece. I also teach mini-lessons with my writing students every time
I return a writing assignment. In this case, I focus on a structure the students
constantly trip on either individually or collectively. In sum, it is important
to feed students grammar in small chunks and in a manner that connects the
structure to an actual situation.
Grammar is a necessary tool
for all students, not just LEP students. I work with 3rd graders 20/25 are LEP
and I find it necessary to teach grammar at least for 10 minutes a day in class.
I am amazed at how little monolingual student understand about grammar. I
believe providing grammar instruction not only helps scaffold the LEP students'
native language (all languages have grammar rules), but also provides
monolingual student a broader base for if/when they decide to learn a foreign
language.
As for myself, I had no formal grammar instruction in school. It wasn't until I
took a sophomore year French class in college that the light bulb in my head
went off and I said to myself, "Eureka!! I know what a subject is and why the
verb needs to agree!!"--sad, but true. Unfortunately sometimes our schools, in
trying to be natural about their approach to language, set students up for
failure. It may be dull and boring for a group of kids to sit through language
rules, but with a little game or good attitude it can be managed. I think the
biggest problem is that the teachers teaching grammar do not have a strong grasp
on grammar themselves. Let us all put in the extra effort, roll up our sleeves,
take a deep breath, and just do it--at least when these students grow up and go
to college they will know subject verb agreement means!
This long lasting
discussion about implicit / explicit grammar teaching is academically savoury.
Like many theories in science and arts they look like two paths that do not
cross. Our preferences make them like that and we take one as good, or "correct"
and the other we take as a challenge, to say the least.
I have been involved with language and teaching for over 35 years now. As the
author poses, he is L2, l3 levels. I am already on L6 level and that includes
Mandarin Chinese as one of them. Any language, including your mother tongue,
requires some logical-mathematical approach, which means, formal grammar lessons
with drills in order to enable one to master it. Boring or not, one will speak
like an illiterate if he or she does not study grammar, both syntax and
analysis.
I don't think the problem is about teaching it explicitly. The problem is the
simplicity with which life and everything is seen nowadays. As teachers, we must
establish good psychological contracts with our students on the very first day
of class. Once we do it, teaching grammar is just a detail in the whole picture.
Grammar structures, whether one agrees or not, comprise the material we use in
building the mastery of a language. They help us become conscious of vocabulary
usage. They help us generate meaningful sentences and convey messages that truly
communicate.
I have seen teachers that mostly play games with their students. They are
popular indeed, no doubt about it. However, life is not only fun and games: the
world is increasingly competitive and mastery is fundamental, in any field.
Unless we are prone to allow the Chinese to rule the world, our future
generations must be masters in all fields and that includes at least a L4
level!
Benedito more or less says
it all. Both methods are necessary and at least a cursory glance at, say, the
passive, will be useful to students who will then notice and observe it when
they see it and then start to recognise it and use it for the rest of their
lives. Unless things are explicitly pointed out to students they will take twice
as long or even more time to start to use the correct form.
There is so much emphasis on "fun" these days. The fun really begins when the
correct form is pointed out, then observed and put into practice. Years and
years of fun rather than frustration will follow on from the explicit "noticing"
of what the students are going to see for the rest of their lives.
The debate doesn't have to involve academics. It doesn't have to be an academic
discussion. Ordinary people want to learn and to communicate. Most students want
to know how they can learn quickly. They should have an explanation of the
grammar point and then observe its usage over years and years of reading and
writing.
Both types of presenting
grammar are important in EFL environments. I am a foreigner teacher and I have
the chance to work in a language center in my country, Colombia. I developed
Focus on form with my students and that helped them to understand the language.
They gained in confidence when dealing with a second language.
Personally I think that the implicit way encourages students to develop their
own abilities when they need to respond to the different activities and
materials in classroom settings. Of course we can assume one is better than the
other but as teachers we can emphasize on one of those, providing students with
the tools they need to master the language.
After reading everyone's
comments, there really isn't much more to say, except that I agree with all! My
students are really struggling with some of the structures and verbal phrases -
necessitating the need for explicit mini-lessons. However, the use of real
literature and immediate practice puts lessons into context well. Isn't it
fascinating to look at English through the eyes of an ELL?
I think that explicit
teaching of grammar is essential. Without basic building blocks one can achieve
only a very shaky structure. Implicit teaching has its place but as a secondary
method. I am horrified at how little progress is being achieved by the implicit
teaching of grammar at the school in which I work. Students are unable to
translate effectively without detailed grammatical knowledge. Could it be that
the real problem lies with teachers who are unable to teach the rules of
grammar?
I have been teaching
English as a foreign language for two years. I generally try hard to teach
grammar in dialogues or texts. However, many of my students have difficulty in
understanding English grammar well. To my experiences in two years I realized
that my students need the structure of the language in order to understand it in
a speech or make a conversation by using it. So in my lessons I start with a
dialogue or a text. After reading them I ask my students what is new in it. We
talk about the new structure and I get my students attention to the new
structure of the grammar. That is to say both of these methods are useful in my
lessons.
After some years teaching
English as a Foreign Language I can say that everyone is a different world. But
there is something I've learned: At starter levels Students just want to be able
to understand and manipulate the language as much as possible. They want to
communicate ideas, feelings, etc. So rules and structures must be taught
according to their needs.
Then at intermediate and advanced levels they start analyzing structures,
comparing them with L1 and it is a very interesting process to consolidate what
they learned before and they feel more confident with their own level. Doesn't
matter if they got it deductively or inductively. There's a time when all
Students are concerned about how English works.
As far as I am concerned I
think that grammar should be taught implicitly in the initial stage and
explicitly later, then we should make the students acquire grammar by
themselves. In my experience I feel that the student often gets confused with
passive form and participle form
Some people eat their food
using a knife and fork. Other use chopsticks, whilst elsewhere, fingers and
spoons help to keep the digestive juices working! Each, according to their
abilities - as long as they are fed! Student-centred learning is the pivot.
I strongly believe that
grammar should be taught both implicitly and explicitly. With younger learners
the latter method works much better, whether adult learners prefer the former
one. It's up to the teacher to decide which is better for particular students
and groups.
I think both approaches to
grammar teaching are important and each of them adds up to master the language.
What I think is that it's absolutely necessary to give grammar a meaning by
contextualizing it appropriately, according to student's needs. There are
students who need to analyze in detail, others who learn in a more holistic way
and, as in most cases different learning styles converge, all student's should
find opportunities for approaching the language in the way that best suits their
needs.
Hi everyone here! I am from
Myanmar. We Myanmar people enjoy learning English Grammar, Writing and Speaking.
For Non-native speakers, I think learning grammar is the first step of learning
English. Grammar can help students speak, write and understand English. I
usually teach my students how to use helping verbs in English because everybody
knows how important it is in English. This can help students speak and write
English very quickly. But the students should be taught the difference between
spoken English and written English. Grammar can give us confidence in using
Language. In short, beginners of English should be taught grammar.
I accept that grammar
should be taught both explicitly and implicitly especially in ESL classrooms.
specifically in the Nigerian context where learners require English for
functional purposes.
Oh when will teachers learn
that students learn in spite of us, not because of us. Yes explicit has a role -
a very minor one but if you believe that language acquisition and not language
learning is the way forward (and it has been proven), then implicit learning
without complicated metalanguage, is better for the learner. I didn't learn
grammar rules in order to speak English fluently so why oh why do many teachers
think that we have to?
Some teachers above have said it's easier to teach using an implicit method.
This is only true of bad teachers. Good teachers have to work much harder to use
this method. I suggest a starting point for those teachers that think an
explicit approach is the best method, to consider that rules came after the
language and in fact make teaching much easier for the teacher, not the learner.
Then read M Lewis, 'The Lexical Approach' and start learning to teach learners
how to learn.
I think both ways have a
place in the language classroom. I like to challenge the students and make them
participate actively in class; that is, I try to use the implicit way as much as
I can when dealing with grammatical structures. I have also made use of
different activities, visuals, games, CDs, etc for this purpose. Unfortunately,
there are some structures that are really complex for the students to understand
just by using the inductive approach. They need to be explained mainly because
the meaning and use are different in the student´s native language ( the
present perfect tense ) or the same word order is used with a different meaning
in another context ( the conditional clauses ). In brief, I think that the use
of the implicit or explicit way depends mainly on the grammatical structure to
be presented and the teacher´s creativity to find the appropriate activity for
the presentation.
I have been teaching
English for 4 years in an EFL context. I have tried both explicit and implicit
approaches to teaching grammar in my classes. Based my observation, i recommend
an explicit approach to teaching complex rules, and an implicit approach to
teaching simple rules. My criterion for complexity of grammatical rules is the
differences between students' L1 and L2 grammatical systems. For example, i
teach past simple implicitly since the counterpart of this tense is present in
my students' L1. But I found it quite impossible to teach present perfect
implicitly since it hasn't got any counterpart in my students' L1.
I agree that both explicit
and implicit approach to grammar should be practiced in the classroom. As
teachers, they should know what their learners need and wish to learn. Although
explicit grammar instruction can be boring, it still helps students to see the
patterns and structures of the language. Explicit teaching can still be
interesting if the teachers know how to do it. For students who are preparing
for external examinations, it is not surprising they wish to know the rules
explicitly as it is a 'short cut' to understanding the rules. However, based on
my study, I found that learners are keen on both ways of learning grammar."
In my opinion, finding a
homogenious class in the sense of students' learning strategies is impossible.
So both explicit and implicit instruction is needed in the classroom.
I agree both implicit and explicit way of teaching
are good for successful learning of grammar. However, explicit teaching is more important in countries where
English is taught as a foriegn language because students do not have enough exposure therefore they
need to be taught more rules and structures of a language to be competent in written and spoken communication.
Contact | Advertise | Terms of use | Disclaimer | Privacy | Site map | Testimonials | TEFL blog | ESL exams
Copyright © 2012 Eslbase. All rights reserved.
