Introduction
There are two philosophies for teaching grammar: the implicit approach, and the explicit approach (Toprak, 2019, pp. 210). These opposing perspectives stem from the evolution of the communicative implicit approach of teaching languages (Lakhoua, 2016, pp. 1). The implicit approach treats the instruction of grammar as an experiential tool with which students can discover for themselves the rules and standards of grammar through modeling and examples. This is the opposite of the explicit approach, which directly teaches these concepts to students through rote learning and memorization. In this paper, I describe these two approaches and how they have divided the teaching community across the world. I will then decide at the end what approach, if any, I think is the most sufficient for the instruction of grammar.
Keywords: grammar; implicit approach; explicit approach; communicativism; deductivism
The Implicit Approach
The implicit approach favors communicative, constructivist strategies that are “oriented towards student-centered methods and techniques” (Anilan, 2014, pp. 1915). Constructivism and “neo-grammar” (Anilan, 2014, pp. 1915) are congruous in that both emphasize “actively learning the functions and rules of a language, discovering the logic and operating rules of the language, and using these in reading and writing studies” (Anilan, 2014, pp. 1915) while transferring the subconscious lessons of a native tongue, taught via life experience, to a conscious plane so that students perceive broader dimensions of grammar without memorizing rules and definitions” (Anilan, 2014, pp. 1915). While supporters of this communicative approach agree that grammar should be taught within reading and writing lessons rather than directly (Toprak, 2019, pp. 216), within its scope still exists dissent on whether grammar should be taught at all.
Arguments against teaching grammar cite a gap between that which is taught and that which is executed by students (Lakhoua, 2016, pp. 2), as well as a noticeable shift in focus from form and correctness to meaning and competent communication (Lakhoua, 2016, pp. 2). Others refer to a dependence on Michael Lewis’ 1993 philosophy, the lexical approach theory of foreign language instruction, which puts “more stress on vocabulary and lexical chunks than on formal grammar” (Lakhoua, 2016, pp. 2). Many ESL instructors agree that minor written grammatical mistakes may be passable until they culminate to the point of impediment upon the discernment of the written text because with the oral communicative approach, “grammar mistakes are tolerated as far as they do not impede comprehension” (Lakhoua, 2016, pp. 10). Furthermore, the results of a survey conducted on one hundred “university teachers who were teaching English at preparatory language schools of several large and mid-sized universities in Turkey” (Toprak, 2019, pp. 207) show the majority of participants agreeing that it is not their primary responsibility to correct spoken grammar mistakes because oral fluency trumps oral accuracy and formal error correction tactics fail in a context where students learn their errors through context alone (Toprak, 2019, pp. 214).
Those who support teaching grammar disagree on whether it should be taught before or after communicative tasks (Toprak, 2019, pp. 213), lessons during which instructors become facilitators rather than presenters (Toprak, 2019, pp. 214). Moreover, implicit grammar instruction is better suited for younger students ineligible for what Jean Piaget called the formal operations stage, when “the ability to use grammar consciously calls for a meta-awareness of language,” and because “child language learning can be defined as to be implicit, automatic, and domain-specific” (Toprak, 2019, pp. 211). When grammar is taught, the typical structure of a sentence becomes an important concept in preparation for college readiness (Lakhoua, 2016, pp. 8) and, “at a more advanced level, the choice of what grammar to teach should become more selective and match the learners’ specific learning outcomes” (Lakhoua, 2016, pp. 8). Some instructors even take it one step further by allocating a separate hour of grammar instruction for informal, specific need-based evaluations of their students’ grasp of the material (Anilan, 2014, pp. 1918).
The Explicit Approach
As adamant as many of the instructors from the aforementioned study were in opposing explicit grammar instruction, the majority of their peers stated that grammar should be taught deductively and formally rather than with these communicative, inductive strategies (Toprak, 2019, pp. 212). Based on the fact that communicative approaches do not directly teach grammar (Toprak, 2019, pp. 211), deductivists add that grammar should be taught explicitly because “being aware of grammar rules would offer language learners an advantage” and “explicit attention to grammatical form can contribute to spontaneous production” (Toprak, 2019, pp. 210). While some say that oral fluency trumps oral accuracy, deductivists argue that it is generally important to practice grammar lessons to increase this fluency and advance students’ rule-learning abilities (Toprak, 2019, pp. 215). They further defend their side by saying that a learning gap can happen during any learning process, yet learning a language introduces new, strenuous challenges which make proficiency a struggle to achieve (Lakhoua, 2016, pp. 2-3).
Meaning and competence in communication are valuable facets of communicative grammatical instruction, yet they are difficult to apply to the real-life contexts of students who lack authentic exposure to the language (Lakhoua, 2016, pp. 3). The lexical approach has limitations because there are hundreds of lexical chunks and grammar is better for “putting together comprehensible phrases that will serve learners later to improve their proficiency” (Lakhoua, 2016, pp. 3). Grammar instructors who are non-native speakers of the language tend to support teaching grammar deductively and explicitly because those kinds of strategies helped them become highly proficient in the language when they were first learning it themselves (Lakhoua, 2016, pp. 4). Error correction is a must for deductivists because grammar instruction reduces errors in written texts (Lakhoua, 2016, pp. 5). These instructors seem to favor the “focus on form” instructional method (Boroujeni, 2012, abstract), which involves “exposing students to oral and written discourse that mirrors real-life, such as doing job interviews, writing letters to friends, and engaging in classroom debates” while also helping students recognize their own grammatical errors through modeling (Poole, 2005, pp. 47-48).
The reality of professional life introduces a harsher perspective to those who support implicit grammar instruction. According to a survey conducted on ninety-four professionals, frequent grammatical errors may present a professional as lazy with details, as a poor communicator, and as poorly educated (Gubala, Larson, Melonçon, 2020, pp. 272). Professionals are much less forgiving of unfamiliar peers, which is why a properly formatted and grammatically sound resume and cover letter are vital for being interviewed and hired (Gubala, Larson, Melonçon, 2020, pp. 270). Internal documents were found to be more important than publicized external documents, emphasizing a strict grasp on correct grammar (Gubala, Larson, Melonçon, 2020, pp. 268), yet the majority of participants agreed that grammatical mistakes made by their companies make them feel embarrassed for the company and that the writer is a poor reflection of the company who needs immediate guidance (Gubala, Larson, Melonçon, 2020, pp. 274).
Final Thoughts
Grammar instruction is certainly a divisive matter. One article which summarizes a pinnacle application of the communicative, implicit approach describes the role of television series in foreign language learning, and all of its arguments impeccably emphasize the tactics of the constructivist implicit approach and put the deductivist, explicit approach into question. Using a television series that interests an entire class encourages grammar learning because it is episodic, giving the teacher “a huge bank of scenes, rich in authentic language, from which lessons can be designed;” the “addictive nature of a television series is an advantage” here (Schecter, 2018, pp. 94). The right series can be used to reinforce grammatical structures like word order and subordinate clauses, and verb forms, especially when in the learned language these structures are unique and not easily translatable (Schecter, 2018, pp. 94). The inclusion of television series in English curricula eases the difficulty of bridging the gap between grammatical knowledge and ability as a means of memorable “language awareness activities and creative grammar practice imbued with imagination and humor” (Schecter, 2018, pp. 94) while grammar textbooks impede learning authentically with their “atomized view of language” (Schecter, 2018, pp. 94). Students remember memorable lines, quotes, and speeches as well as find interest in the development of plot which makes them want to understand everything, including the grammar, developing “their sociolinguistic and pragmatic competence” with grammar (Schecter, 2018, pp. 94-95). Television series aid the process of “paying attention to the language one hears and trying to incorporate the new forms into one’s developing communicative competence” and provide an opportunity for internalized “guided noticing” rather than fleeting attention to form (Schecter, 2018, pp. 95).
It is vital for students to learn authentically through implicit, communicative grammar instruction. The communicative approach is realistic in its emphasis on gradual learning, which is akin to real-life contexts of spoken language. Having a firm grasp of how grammar is spoken directly correlates with having a firm grasp on how grammar is written correctly. Students need to know the importance of grammar in getting their messages across, something which textbooks and rote instruction fail to elucidate. However, it is important to balance these authentic lessons with formal repetitive instruction of grammatical rules because rules provide further context for authentic learning. Without any kind of direct instruction, students are left with a more subjective definition of grammar and a more situational sense of application. In the end, a good balance of these two approaches, with more emphasis on implicit instruction, is the most beneficial avenue for grammar instruction. After all, “the treatment of grammar with a ‘one-size-fits-all’ methodology instead of utilizing a balanced perspective based on the needs and context of the learners is not expected to yield sufficient results in any language teaching contexts” (Boroujeni, 2012, abstract).
References
Anilan, H. (2014). Evaluation of Turkish Grammar Instruction Based on Primary School Teachers’ Opinions. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice. 14(5), 1914-1924. DOI: 10.12738/estp.2014.5.2096.
Boroujeni, F.A. (2012). Investigating Controversies in Teaching Grammar: A Case for the Iranian High School Students. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(8), 1570-1575. DOI: 10.4304/tpls.2.8.
Gubala, C., Larson, K., Melonçon, L. (2020.) Do Writing Errors Bother Professionals? An Analysis of the Most Bothersome Errors and How the Writer's Ethos is Affected. Journal of Business & Technical Communication. 34(3), 250-286. http://libproxy.bridgeport.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=143250410&site=eds-live&scope=site.
Lakhoua, L. (2016). To Teach or Not to Teach Grammar: A Controversy? Centre for Applied Linguistics Research Linguistics Journal. (7), 1-13. http://web.aou.edu.lb/images/stories/lebanon/Research/CALR/issue7/articles/CALR%207%20article%204.pdf.
Poole, A. (2005). Focus on form instruction: Foundations, applications, and criticisms. The Reading Matrix, 5(1), 47-48.
Shechter, D.A. (2018). Overcoming the Grammar Barrier in Foreign Language Learning: The Role of Television Series. Journal of Language & Education. 4(2), 92-104. http://libproxy.bridgeport.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=131240775&site=eds-live&scope=site.
Toprak, T.E. (2019). “Teaching grammar is not my main responsibility”: Exploring EFL Teachers’ Beliefs About Grammar Teaching. International Online Journal of Education & Teaching. 6(1), 205-222. http://libproxy.bridgeport.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=134397548&site=eds-live&scope=site.
Comments