4
Annotated Bib, Jo Doran, March 2014
Teaching Grammar in Second Language Classrooms
Integrating Form-Focused Instruction in Communicative Content
By Hossein Nassaji and Sandra Fotos
2011 – Routledge/Taylor & Francis, 167 pages
Chapter 1 – The Changing View of Grammar Instruction
This book begins with the history of grammar teaching, specifically three methods of thought.
· Latin Grammar: The use of Latin grammar in L1 classroom, since grammar was considered necessary for rhetorical skills, and that studying L1 grammar was a prerequisite to learning another language. Latin was based on the eight Greek grammatical categories: nouns, verbs, pronouns, prepositions, adverbs, participles, articles, and conjunctions.) This was “The Model” of grammar instruction.
· Grammar Translation Approach: introduced toward the end of the 18th century and which spread throughout the world during the 19th century. Using the same eight Greek grammatical categories and included a deductive method of rule learning, memorization, and L2 text translation to L1. While WWII resulted in a dire need for more people to be fluent in foreign language, two methods, Audio Lingual and the Direct Method, resulted – but neither truly focused on real-life communication skills; instead they continued to focus on grammatical structures. These methods have been described as synthetic approaches and focusing on grammar as product instead of communication[1].
· Presentation-Practice-Production (PPP) Method: This method assumes that grammar learning is a cognitive skill best worked through by working through three stages: Presentation: listening to the L2 for short term memory work (via text, dialogue, or story); Practice: practicing speaking the L2 language through the practice of becoming familiar with the L2 in the first stage; Production: using what has been learned to produce communication in the L2, which is assumed will be a time when what has been learned is internalized.
These methods, which assume that learning grammar is a deductive and linear method of learning rules, have been criticized by individuals who state there is insufficient research to show that learning grammatical rules results in true communicative learning of a second language.
Responses to the above methods resulted in a move toward “a focus on meaning and language use in communicative contexts.”[2] Hymes “communicative competence”[3], where the student became able to use the target language communicatively and appropriately, was a motivator in this area. Widdowson emphasized the ability to use and interpret the target language as paramount.[4], [5]
Communicative-based teaching of grammar (which I will refer to here as CBT) began with little to no strict methodology. The evolution of CBT has included a more free style of learning, where acquisition denoted an unconscious process and learning denoted learning as conscious and explicit process. CBT has been lauded and criticized for its lack of methodological soundness and its contextually based process. A focus on Task-Based approaches, with little to no inclusion of traditional grammar, has been one general criticism of CBT. While CBT has undergone changes over the past forty years, it has evolved into a strongly supported method of grammatical teaching with a combination of grammatical form and a real-life approach to communication needs of second language learning: Explicit grammar instruction combined with implicit contextualized teaching have proven to make CBT a successful means of teaching grammar holistically. A recurring caveat is that students need sufficient time with both explicit and implicit types of teaching (input and output). Consequently, a relationship between form-focused instruction and CBT continues to prove successful – and more successful than previous methods of grammar teaching.
Michael Long[6] defined three types of ‘focus/form’ based teaching:
· FonFs: a Focus on Forms – the traditional approach that began with Latin grammar
· Focus on meaning: Meaning-based activities with no attention to form
· FonF: Focus on Form: “…is learner-centered, represents the learner’s internal syllabus, and happens when the learner is attending to meaning and has a communication problem”[7]
Nassaji and Fotos’ main interest is on FonF where communicative based activities are combined with a focus on linguistic forms, the best of both worlds for grammar teaching:
Following R. Ellis (2001b) and Williams (2005), we … adopt a broad definition of the term “form,” taking it to include various formal components of language including grammatical, phonological, lexical, and pragmatic forms. In short, we believe that FonF must be a component of a broader L2 instructed learning that provides ample opportunities for meaningful and form-focused instruction including a range of opportunities for L2 input, output, interaction, and practice.”[8]
Chapter 2 – Focus on Grammar through Processing Instruction
Processing Instruction: “[A] particular approach to teaching grammar that is based on how learners interpret and process input for meaning … [which] … rests on the assumption that the role of input is central to language acquisition and that grammar can best be learned when learners attend to it in input-rich environments.”[9]
The authors rely strongly on VanPatten, using eight sources from him in the book and basing their instruction system on his ideas. The authors use VanPatten’s definition of ‘input processing’ as the basis for Chapter 2: “[S]trategies that learners use to link grammatical forms to their meanings or functions.”[10] It is important to distinguish here between VanPatten’s concepts:
· Processing: the mechanism used in drawing meaning from input
· Perception: the registration of acoustic signals present in an utterance that the learner hears
· Noticing: the conscious registration of those forms in memory
· Intake: that part of input that the learner has noticed and stored in working memory for further processing[11]
VanPatten seems to have made several advances in the study of language acquisition, and while these may be simple concepts, they are incredibly important. For example, he notes that learners struggle with delineating between form and meaning in learning an L2. What VanPatten stresses is that there may be difficulties in the ways learners process input, such as the following:
- Learners process meaning before form. Such selective, if unconscious, learning limits types of learning for acquisition.
- Learners focus on communicative or meaning-based language before non-communicative language. Additionally, using up one’s degree of attention to one aspect (communicative) limits or omits any focus on non-communicative language, thus limiting learning.
- Learners usually apply meaning to the first noun in a sentence; VanPatten calls this the ‘first-noun strategy.’ Therefore, according to VanPatten, learners need to know who does what in order to understand and connect with a text.
- Learners pay more attention to first words in a sentence and struggle with understanding how object pronouns work because the object comes later in the sentence.
Using processing instruction involves three steps:
- Provide learners with information about the target linguistic form being taught.
- Help learners by showing learners what input processing strategies might inhibit their learning the target linguistic form being taught.
- Use input-based activities that help learners process the form being taught.
One strength of processing instruction is that it provides strategies for learners so they convert more input to intake than traditional or solely communicative learning. Remember, intake is that part of learning that is stored in memory. Teresa Cadierno and VanPatten developed the idea that success in second language processing instruction is determined by where – in the teaching (input) process – the instruction comes from the teacher.
Traditional Second-Language Teaching
Input Intake Developing System Output
Processing Instruction
Input Intake Developing System Output
Research supports that those learners who received input processing strategies before focused practice outperformed learners who received traditional teaching, no input processing strategies, and no teaching at all.
While the authors support input processing strategies, they state, “production-based instruction may be more effective for promoting production skills.”[12]
Structured input teaching, using input processing, is the use of classroom activities that focus on specific target structure for meaning and include referential and affective activities. Referential activities are those that have a right or wrong answer. Affective activities do not have a right or wrong answer. Structured input teaching can use either oral or written activities.
Input processing guidelines:
1. Keep meaning in focus: Unlike traditional grammar teaching, Nassaji and Fotos stress the importance of including a focus on meaning. What is being learned should be important to the learners in the sense that it makes sense in their lives.
2. Present one item at a time: Do not turn the classroom into an explicit grammar lesson. Do not be over zealous in what you think can be taught in an hour. Begin with one item.
3. Use oral and written input: This also helps individual learners who have different learning styles.
4. Move from individual sentences to connected discourse: Like #2, begin simply and expand to larger pieces of discourse – gradually.
5. Have learners do something with the input: Learners should be required to do some action related to what they are learning to ensure the learners understand the meaning of what they are reading/hearing. This can be in the form of homework/quizzes/in-class work of true/false responses or even work of matching pictures to words. It can also include affective responses of learners, such as sharing their feelings about what they are reading. For example, do they like going to the movies, like the person in the story?
6. Keep learners processing strategies in mind: Get to know your students and learn where they struggle. Go further with this – and inform your learners of areas where they struggle – or may struggle – in learning.
Chapter 3 – Focus on Grammar through Textual Enhancement
Chapter 4 – Focus on Grammar through Discourse
Chapter 5 – Focus on Grammar through Interactional Feedback
Chapter 6 – Focus on Grammar through Structured Grammar-Focused Tasks
Chapter 7 – Focus on Grammar through Collaborative Output Tasks
Chapter 8 – The Role of Context in Focus on Grammar
Conclusion: Focus on Grammar in L2 Classrooms
[1] See Wilkins 1976 and Batsone 1994.
[2] Teaching Grammar in Second Language Classrooms, Nassaji and Fotos, page 6 (hereafter referred to as “Text”)
[3] See D. Hymes, 1972: “On communicative competence” for more (and interesting) information.
[4] 1978
[5] Other individuals of note in this area include Searle (1969), Gumperz (1972), Labov (1972), and Halliday (1978, 1984).
[6] 1991
[7] Text, page 10
[8]
[9] Text, page 19
[10] Text, page 21
[11] Text, page 21
[12] Text, page 27