NALA 2013 - What has grammar teaching ever done for us?

Post on 28-Nov-2014

706 views 0 download

description

 

Transcript of NALA 2013 - What has grammar teaching ever done for us?

Jo Gakonga

What has grammar teaching ever done for

us?

Why does teaching

grammar get a bad press?

Illustrations from Jan, J.M. & Ollúa, R. (1950) El Inglés Práctico; Comercio, Exámenes y Viajes, Buenos Aires: Academias Pitman.

Do we need to teach grammar

at all?

http://iatefl.britishcouncil.org/2011/sites/iatefl/files/session/documents/walter_grammar_iatefl2011_handout.pdf

Catherine Walter

IATEFL Plenary 2011

Should we be planning to teach grammar?

Do we need to ‘teach’

anything?

Krashen's Input Hypothesis (1977)

"Language acquisition does not require extensive use of conscious grammatical rules”

Stephen Krashen

"Acquisition requires meaningful interaction in the target language in which speakers are concerned not with the form of their utterances but with the messages they are conveying and understanding."

"The best methods are therefore those that supply 'comprehensible input' containing messages that students really want to hear.”

"The best methods are therefore those that supply 'comprehensible input' containing messages that students really want to hear.”

i +

1

Monitor theory

Introduced in 1965 to give English speaking Canadian children a

chance to learn French

“Practice" is replaced by "creative construction”. Learners encouraged to experiment with linguistic forms.

Errors are not seen as bad

Canadian immersion studies (Swain 1985; Genesee 1987).

The result?

Immersion students often perform as well as native French-speaking students on tests of reading and listening comprehension in French.

However, they seldom achieve the same high levels of competence in speaking and writing as they achieve in comprehension.

Three problems:

Grammar is less complex and less redundant than that of native speakers.

Their grammar is influenced by English grammar.

Their use of language is often non-idiomatic

BUT…..

Of significance for ESOL learners

Common ground

Common ground

Significant amounts of exposure

A real need to communicate

(Paucity of opportunity to speak?)

So, explicit teaching is necessary….

Should we forget grammar and only teach vocabulary?

Vocabulary is arguably more important

Should we forget grammar and only teach vocabulary?

Michael Hoey – Lexical Priming

Should we forget grammar and only teach vocabulary?

Lexical Approach – Michael Lewis

Should we forget grammar and only teach vocabulary?

..but do they get enough exposure?

Evidence to support grammar

teaching?

Norris and Ortega (2000)

meta-analysis

Gass and Selinker (2008)

meta-analysis

Spada and Tomita (2010)

meta-analysis

Other reasons to teach grammar?

Conscious knowledge of grammar is

seen to help at different stages. Ellis 1994

Learners’ expectations

Task Based Learning

Jane and Dave Willis

Learners do task and rehearse their language to present to group

Learners present what they have practised

Teacher gives input on the ‘gap’.

Language input

Output

Task Based Learning

Proponents of task-based teaching all

argue for a place for pre-planned grammar

instruction in a TBI framework.

Skehan, 2003; Willis & Willis, 2007; Ellis,2006

Dogme

Suggests emergent language but still doesn’t suggest no language teaching

Luke Meddings and Scott Thornberry

Dogme

Possible problems – coverage and teacher skill

Luke Meddings and Scott Thornberry

Do we need to teach grammar?

YES!

What I am NOT saying…..

If we teach grammar, how

should we do it?

If we teach grammar, how should we do it?

Getting creative with grammar teaching

Jo GakongaThank you!