grammar

Grammar is SUCH a case-by-case subject. Its very difficult to define exactly how grammar should be taught, but I believe that as a general rule, like most language concepts, it needs to be contextualized. So I really liked how in chapter 15, Ellis raises the case for consciousness-raising. I especially like the "deductive" side of it in which a rule is given that can then be applied to a task. This is very similar to some of the ways that Richards gives in chapter 14 for how to address grammar within task work. I really like this way of teaching grammar.

It was encouraging to me to read this section, because just the other day I did something like this with the Spanish IV students at the school where I am doing my clinical hours for my methods class. It's not teaching English, but it is teaching a language, and so I think it is applicable here. In that lesson, I taught the students an explicit grammar structure. It was very procedural; something that needed to be followed step-by-step. Then, rather than giving the students a "subject" to discuss in groups, I gave them each a role in their group. The students, working together, had to create their own role-play that incorporated the structure we just used. To give them a few ideas, I had them draw several objects out of a box I had with toys, candy bars, etc. This allowed them to use a very limited grammar structure in a creative way. As Richards points out, one of the ways to address grammar within task work is to "pre-teach linguistic forms that can be used in a task". I can attest to the effectiveness of this technique.

Chapter 13 reminded me of a conversation I had at a conference this past weekend. I went to the ICTFL (Illinois Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages) conference in Tinley Park, and one of the sessions I attended was all about proficiency. I can't say that I was a huge contributor to this conversation that I'm about to describe, but I was kind of listening in. Two older teachers were discussing the importance of students' grammar accuracy vs. their ability to get their point across. Ironically, these two textbook-adhering instructors were complaining that the textbooks, and also "younger teachers", focus too much on accuracy.

I asked them, "why do you have to stick so closely to the textbook?" I tried to be very polite about it; after all they have many more years of experience than I do. But their answers contradicted and I was confused. They seemed insistent that the textbook needed to be used (for some reason) but they didn't like it and really wanted to focus more on communicative competence.

Chapter 13 explicitly states that the fact that it is in the textbook is not a good reason to teach grammar. I agree. I think its important to teach it explicitly, at times, but I also think its important to recognize the textbook's inability to directly meet the needs of each individual student. This is where our autonomy as teachers is a good thing! That is, as long as we don't take our freedom too far and step out of our bounds. I think it would be more important to stick to the textbook in a "core" subject area class like Math, where the students are going to be responsible for the material on a standardized test. But as language teachers, we have the advantage in that our content isn't tested that way. In the case of English, it might be indirectly... but we have more freedom than core subject teachers. We just need to use it wisely, and I think grammar is a perfect example of a content area where we need to use discretion and a bit of autonomy.