Seminar 1

TEACHING GRAMMAR

1.A Communicative Approach to Teaching

Grammar Theory and Practice
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) emerged in the West in the
1960s and reached Eastern countries like Malaysia and Taiwan in the
following decades. Malaysia adopted CLT in the 1970s, while Taiwan
began transitioning from a structural syllabus to CLT in the 1990s. CLT
focuses on communicative proficiency rather than simply mastering
grammar rules, a key departure from the structural syllabus, which
emphasized pronunciation, memorization, and drills.

In Malaysia and Taiwan, textbooks were redesigned to align with CLT's

principles, which prioritize communication, fluency, and context over strict
grammatical accuracy. The challenge remains, however, in replacing the
deeply embedded structural approach in Asian education systems. While
CLT promotes learner-centered methods and authentic materials, the
structural approach continues to play a significant role, especially in the
early stages of language learning.

The paper explores the differences between the structural and

communicative syllabi, analyzing grammar exercises from Malaysian and
Taiwanese textbooks. It concludes that both approaches have a role in
English as a Foreign Language (EFL) and English as a Second Language
(ESL) settings, particularly in Asia, where cultural norms and the
importance of grammar knowledge remain influential. A proportional
approach, which gradually shifts from form to function, is recommended
for language learners to build a foundation before advancing to
communicative tasks.

Using games in ESL and EFL classrooms is a common strategy, though

opinions differ. Some see games as time-fillers, while others recognize
their ability to make lessons more engaging and memorable. A survey in
Taiwan found that students prefer games and contests, showing that
games can boost interest in learning.
To effectively use games, teachers should follow three principles: think
about the games, understand their components, and know how to modify
them. For example, games like Monopoly or Snakes and Ladders can be
adapted for teaching grammar by placing sentences or cue words on the
game squares. Teachers can adjust these games based on lesson goals
and student proficiency levels.

Games not only make learning fun but also help students practice
language forms and meanings in a relaxed, communicative way. This
approach can supplement traditional exercises and help students use the
target language naturally while enjoying the activity.

2.A Contrastive Study of Grammar

Translation Method and Communicative
Approach in Teaching English Grammar
2.1 Grammar teaching 2.1.1 Definition of grammar 2.1.2
Principles of grammar teaching

Definition of Grammar:

Grammar is the set of rules governing how words are structured and
combined to make meaningful sentences. Every language has its
own grammar. It's often compared to a building’s blueprint, where
words are like bricks and grammar is the plan. Without grammar,
even knowing many words won’t allow someone to communicate
effectively.

Principles of Grammar Teaching:

Effective grammar teaching is guided by several key principles.

Hedge (2000) emphasizes presenting grammar in ways that aid
learning, such as showing high-frequency grammar items or
contextualizing them in real language use. Thornbury (2001)
outlines six key rules for teaching grammar:

 Rule of Context: Teach grammar within meaningful contexts,

associating forms with meanings.
 Rule of Use: Focus on helping learners understand and produce
real language, not just memorizing rules.
 Rule of Economy: Keep presentations brief to allow more time for
practice.
 Rule of Relevance: Teach only the grammar that students
struggle with, recognizing their prior knowledge.
 Rule of Nurture: Learning is a gradual process, so create the right
environment for grammar acquisition instead of forcing learning.
  Rule of Appropriacy: Tailor grammar instruction to the students’
levels, needs, and learning styles.

2.2 A brief survey of Grammar Translation Method 2.2.1 The

history of Grammar Translation Method

In the Western world, language learning in schools initially focused on

Latin and Greek, which were seen as essential for intellectual
development. Latin was taught using the Classical Method, which
emphasized grammar rules, vocabulary memorization, translation, and
written exercises. This method was applied to other languages in the 18th
and 19th centuries, focusing more on reading proficiency than speaking or
listening skills.

By the 19th century, the Classical Method became known as the

Grammar-Translation Method, originating in Prussia. The method aimed to
simplify language learning for schools, adapting traditional self-study
approaches for classroom use. Instead of using full texts, it focused on
exemplary sentences and grammar exercises. Though this method was
widely adopted, it was criticized for prioritizing knowledge about language
over practical language use.

2.3 The positive views on the Grammar Translation Method

Simplified Summary of Translation in Second Language Learning

Duff believes that a learner's first language plays a helpful role in learning
a second language. Our native language shapes how we think and
influences how we use a new language. Translation helps learners
understand where their first language might cause mistakes in the second
language, allowing them to avoid those errors.

Chellapan (1982) adds that translation helps students better understand

the target language by comparing it with their native language. This
comparison improves thinking and analysis. Stern (1991) agrees, saying
that using translation can highlight similarities and differences between
languages, making the second language easier to learn.

2.4 Communicative Approach (CA)

The Communicative Approach (CA), a response to the Grammar

Translation Method, focuses on developing "communicative competence"
rather than just language rules. Originating in Europe during the 1960s
due to increased interdependence among European countries, it spread to
Taiwan in the 1970s and has since been widely applied. The approach
prioritizes the goal of using language for real communication and
integrates activities to practice all four language skills.

In 1971, experts began developing a unit-credit system to break down

language learning into smaller tasks, reflecting learners’ needs. British
linguist Wilkins (1972) played a crucial role in this approach by identifying
the communicative functions and meanings learners needed to
understand and express. His analysis included notional categories (e.g.,
time, quantity) and communicative functions (e.g., requests, complaints).

Wilkins' work led to the development of communicative syllabuses and

heavily influenced language programs and textbooks in Europe. The
Communicative Approach, initially a British innovation, quickly gained
global acceptance, shaping modern language teaching worldwide.

2.4.2.1 The negative views on the Communicative Approach

However, it faces several criticisms:

3. Learning Challenges: Learners may not easily pick up grammar

rules through CA’s focus on communication alone (Widdowson,
1999). Some argue that CA’s emphasis on fluency over accuracy
might not suit cultures that value precise language use (Thornbury,
2003).
4. Teaching Difficulties: Teachers need to be highly skilled to
manage when to guide students or let them work independently.
They also have to create or adapt their own teaching materials
instead of relying on textbooks (Ma Yinchu & Huang Jinyan, 1992).
5. Professional and Traditional Issues: CA’s methods can clash
with traditional teaching practices, leading to resistance from older
teachers (Harmer, 2003).
6. Grammar Concerns: CA may lead to grammatical errors since it
focuses more on communication than on teaching grammar rules.
Errors can also become fixed because direct correction is often
avoided
3. Can Teaching Grammar Work
II THE ROLE OF GRAMMAR TEACHING – REVISITED

Schmidt’s noticing hypothesis argues that simply being exposed to a

language isn't enough for learners to grasp its rules. Instead, they must
actively notice and understand specific language features to learn them
effectively. For example, without deliberate attention, learners might
overlook complex grammatical structures like progressive tenses or
articles, leading to mistakes.
Research supports the idea that grammar instruction can be beneficial but
depends on the complexity of the language structures being taught.
Simple grammatical rules, such as plural forms, are easier for learners to
acquire with direct instruction. In contrast, more complex structures, like
verb tenses with intricate form-function relationships, may not see as
much benefit from instruction and can lead to errors if not taught
carefully.

Studies of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) show that while this

approach helps improve language fluency, it often lacks a focus on
grammatical accuracy. For instance, immersion programs and CLT-based
methods have led to better spoken fluency but have struggled with
grammatical precision. These findings suggest that while CLT is effective
for communication, integrating formal grammar instruction can enhance
grammatical accuracy.

Ellis and other researchers have advocated for reintroducing structured

grammar teaching alongside communicative methods. They argue that
formal grammar instruction helps learners notice and understand
language rules more clearly, which accelerates learning and improves
long-term accuracy. This approach resolves previous debates on whether
to teach grammar by affirming that grammar instruction is essential. The
current challenge is to determine the most effective ways to incorporate it
into language teaching.

In summary, effective language teaching should blend communicative

practice with targeted grammar instruction. This combination helps
learners become both fluent and accurate in their language use.

III FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION FOR EFFECTIVE GRAMMAR

TEACHING
Ellis29 defines “form-focused instruction” as “any planned or
incidental instructional activity that is intended to induce language
learners to pay attention to linguistic forms” (pp. 1–2). It is
important here to distinguish between three relevant instructional
approaches that share the use of the word “focus”: (1) focus on
forms, (2) focus on meaning and (3) focus on form. First, focus on
forms, which is very similar to traditional grammar teaching, is a
non-communicative approach that focuses on the teaching of
language forms in isolation. It involves the presentation and practice
of pre-selected forms based on a linguistic syllabus without relating
the forms to real-world meaning. This approach does not reconcile
with CLT as it disregards the development of fluency and
communicative interaction. Second, focus on meaning stands at the
other end of the instructional scale. Focus is placed more on
comprehension and fluency over production and accuracy. This is a
 communicative approach to language teaching/learning, which
spends little or no time on the teaching of formal language features.
Despite its conformity to basic CLT principles, this approach does
not reconcile with research findings that support Schmidt’s noticing
hypothesis. Learners following a strict meaning-focused instruction
fail to achieve high levels of accuracy.30 Midway on the scale comes
focus on form (without adding a plural ‘s’ to form), which the author
of the present article considers the most effective approach to teach
grammar, and which will also be referred to as form-focused
instruction (FFI) in the paper. The emerging term emphasizes
relating forms to their communicative functions, noticing forms
during communicative interaction and retrieving forms in
communicative contexts. In this form of instruction, learners “attend
to language as object during a generally meaning-oriented activity.
That is, learners need to attend to a task if acquisition is to occur,
but their orientation can best be to both form and meaning, not to
either form or meaning alone31). Doughty32 makes the distinction
between traditional grammar teaching and form-focused instruction
even clearer by explaining that “the factor that distinguishes focus
on form from other pedagogical approaches is the requirement that
focus on form involves learner’s briefly and perhaps simultaneously
attending to form, meaning and use during one cognitive event”.
Ellis33 presents four instructional options (or macro-options) for
form-focused instruction to intervene in interlanguage development.
Holding on to a computational metaphor, Ellis compares L2 learners
to “intelligent machines that process input in a mental black box.
This contains wired-in or previously acquired mechanisms that
enable learners to internalize knowledge for use in output tasks”.
The model, thus, allows instructional intervention at the input stage,
processing stage, production stage or feedback stage. These four
points are referred to in Ellis’s work33 as (1) structured input, (2)
explicit instruction, (3) production practice and (4) negative
feedback.

Ellis defines “form-focused instruction” as teaching activities aimed at

making learners pay attention to language forms. This concept can be
broken down into three instructional approaches:

7. Focus on Forms: This traditional method involves teaching specific

language forms in isolation without linking them to real-world
communication. It prioritizes grammar over fluency and does not
align well with Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), which
values communication practice.
8. Focus on Meaning: This approach emphasizes understanding and
fluency rather than accuracy. It aligns with CLT principles but often
leads to lower grammatical accuracy, as it doesn’t address the
formal aspects of language systematically.
 9. Focus on Form: This method strikes a balance between the two
approaches. It integrates language forms within communicative
activities, helping learners notice and understand forms while
engaging in meaning-oriented tasks. This approach aims to address
both form and meaning simultaneously during instruction.

Ellis also outlines four key options for implementing form-focused

instruction:

10. Structured Input: Provides learners with targeted input that

highlights specific grammatical forms.
11. Explicit Instruction: Offers direct explanations and practice
of grammatical rules.
12. Production Practice: Encourages learners to use the forms
in their language production.
13. Negative Feedback: Involves correcting errors to help
learners understand and avoid mistakes.

This balanced approach to grammar instruction helps learners integrate

grammatical knowledge with communicative skills, enhancing both
accuracy and fluency in language learning.

4. Changing approaches to teaching grammar

Why Change in English Grammar Teaching?

Many English language teachers around the world are shifting from
traditional grammar teaching to more communicative approaches. Here’s
why this change is happening, based on feedback from English teachers
studying in the UK:

 New Textbooks: New series of textbooks have been introduced,

requiring teachers to adapt.
 Practical Use: Teachers noticed that while students can complete
grammar exercises, they struggle to use grammar effectively in real
communication.
 Engagement: Teachers want to make grammar more engaging for
students, as traditional rules can be boring.
 Real-Life Experience: Some teachers felt that despite their strong
grammar skills in school, they struggled with real-life English use
when abroad.
 International Needs: In some countries, improving English
proficiency is crucial for international business and tourism.
  Training and Policy: Changes are also driven by educational
policies and training in new methods.

Levels of Change

14. Materials and Syllabus: Changes might include new

textbooks or curricula.
15. Teaching Behavior: Adopting new teaching methodologies,
such as interactive activities.
16. Knowledge and Beliefs: Shifting philosophies and
understanding of grammar instruction.

Implementing Change

To effectively bring about change, all three levels must work together.
Here’s how this can be achieved:

17. Materials: Teachers explore and critique various teaching

materials and syllabuses.
18. Teaching Behavior: Teachers practice new methods, such as
having students discover rules themselves, and reflect on their
experiences.
19. Knowledge and Beliefs: Teachers study research on
grammar teaching, discuss theories, and reflect on their personal
experiences to align their beliefs with new approaches.

5. Research Findings on Teaching Grammar for Academic

Writing

To meet the demands of academic writing, students need specific

language abilities and preparatory work, focusing on:

20. Language Abilities:

o Grammar: Mastery of standard written English grammar.
o Complex Sentences: Ability to construct and understand
complex sentence structures.
o Academic Vocabulary: Knowledge of advanced vocabulary
relevant to academic contexts.
o Punctuation: Correct use of punctuation conventions.
21. Preparatory Work:
o Direct Instruction: Explicit teaching of academic English,
emphasizing grammar accuracy and editing skills.
o Integration: Grammar instruction should be connected to
lexical and discourse features. For example, verb tenses in
academic writing are context-dependent, such as using the
 present tense for citations but different tenses for case
studies.

Key Grammar Structures:

22. Essential Constructions:

o Structures crucial for academic writing include a wide range of
tenses, subordinate clauses, passive voice, gerunds,
infinitives, articles, and conditionals. These elements are
necessary for effective academic communication.
23. Less Useful Constructions:
o Some grammar structures, such as the past perfect
progressive or certain types of noun clauses, are less
frequently used in academic writing and may not be the best
use of instructional time.

Research Findings:

 Common Structures: Research shows that certain grammatical

features are crucial for academic writing and should be prioritized in
teaching. For example, simple past and present tenses, gerunds,
infinitives, and passive voice are essential in both speaking and
writing.
 Conversational Features: L2 writers often mix informal language
features from conversational English into their academic writing.
This issue emphasizes the need for effective register differentiation
skills.
 Teaching Focus: With limited class time, it is important to focus on
teaching grammar structures that are relevant to academic writing
and avoid spending time on less useful or outdated features.

Conclusion: Effective grammar instruction for academic writing should

prioritize structures that are essential and relevant to academic contexts,
based on current research. This approach ensures that teaching is both
effective and aligned with the demands of academic writing.

Grammar Constructions Rare in Academic Writing

Certain grammar features are rarely used in academic writing but are still
commonly included in grammar instruction and textbooks. Understanding
which features are less relevant can help educators prioritize teaching
efforts and avoid less useful content.
24. Verbs and the Verb Phrase:
o Rarely Used Tenses:
 Future Perfect: e.g., will have sung
 Future Perfect Progressive: e.g., will have been
singing
 Past Perfect: e.g., had sung
 Past Perfect Progressive: e.g., had been singing
o These constructions are seldom used in academic texts,
constituting only about 0.5% of all verb tenses.
25. The Passive Voice:
o Complex Tenses:
 Future Perfect Passive: e.g., will have been sung
 Past Perfect Progressive: e.g., had been being sung
o These passive constructions are rarely seen in contemporary
academic English and are often misused or avoided by L2
writers.
26. The Subjunctive Mood:
o Rare Use:
 Examples: It is essential that he go, The teacher insisted
that we be on time
o The subjunctive mood is considered outdated and is rarely
used in modern academic writing.
27. Modal Verbs:
o Less Common Uses:
 Must: Often implies authority or strict prohibition, not
frequently used in academic texts.
 May: Typically used as a hedging device rather than for
permission.
 Could/Might: Indicate weak possibilities and do not
project confidence.
28. Inversions with Negatives:
o Rare in Statements:
 Examples: Little did she know…, Rarely do we see…
o Inversions with negative adverbs are uncommon in formal
academic writing, where objectivity and detachment are
preferred.
29. Conversational Constructions:
o Avoid in Academic Writing:
 Indefinite Pronouns: e.g., someone, anything
 Contractions: e.g., don’t, can’t
 Emphatics and Intensifiers: e.g., absolutely, fantastic
 Casual Hedges: e.g., anyway, like, sort of
Considerations for Teaching:

 Focus on Essential Features: Prioritize teaching grammar

constructions that are frequently used in academic writing rather
than those that are rare or outdated.
 Avoid Outdated Features: Skip teaching constructions that are
not relevant or commonly used in modern academic texts.
 Emphasize Practical Use: Ensure that grammar instruction aligns
with the actual needs of academic writing, enhancing both
relevance and effectiveness.

Additional Areas for Development:

 Academic Vocabulary: Focus on nouns and verbs that are critical

in academic discourse.
 Sentence Boundaries and Structure: Teach how to construct
sentences and phrases effectively.
 Verb Tenses: Emphasize tenses that are commonly used in
academic writing.
 Passive Voice Functions: Address the appropriate use of passive
voice in academic contexts.
 Hedges and Cohesion Devices: Teach how to
use hedging terms and cohesion devices to
improve textual coherence.

By focusing on these essential and practical aspects,

teachers can better prepare students for successful
academic writing.

6. Revisiting the Debate of Grammar

Teaching: A Young Scholar’s Perspective
1. Timing of Grammar Instruction:

There are two main perspectives on when to introduce grammar

instruction in language learning:

 Early Introduction: Some argue that grammar should be

introduced early in the language learning process. N. Ellis (2005)
supports this view, suggesting that early explicit grammar
 instruction provides a foundational understanding of linguistic
forms, which can then be developed through implicit learning. This
early focus on grammar is thought to support later language
acquisition by giving learners a solid base.
 Delayed Introduction: Others believe that grammar teaching
should be postponed until learners have some proficiency in the
language. According to Ellis (2006a), grammar instruction is more
effective when learners already have some ability to use the
language. This perspective aligns with the "Natural Order
Hypothesis" by Krashen (1981), which posits that grammar
instruction does not significantly impact the development of implicit
language knowledge. Ellis (2006a) suggests that learners can
acquire substantial grammar knowledge incidentally during their
early years, and that explicit grammar instruction might be better
suited for intermediate learners.

2. Approaches to Teaching Grammar:

There are several approaches to teaching grammar, each with its

proponents and critics:

 Traditional Grammar Teaching (TGT): This approach

emphasizes explicit explanations and practice of grammar rules. It
involves a structured presentation of grammar followed by drill-like
exercises. Ellis (2006a) criticizes TGT for being too narrow, focusing
solely on accuracy and not considering communicative aspects of
language use. However, Sheen (2006) argues that TGT's emphasis
on presentation and practice has been beneficial for many learners
and remains a valuable approach.
 Focus on Form: This approach integrates grammar instruction
within communicative tasks rather than treating grammar as a
separate topic. Huang (2010) describes it as addressing linguistic
forms within a communicative context, allowing learners to practice
grammar through meaningful use of the language. This approach is
seen as more natural and relevant to real-world language use.
 Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT): TBLT emphasizes
meaningful communication and problem-solving tasks. Skehan
(1998) defines a task as an activity where meaning is primary and
there is a problem to solve. Huang (2010) suggests that well-
designed tasks can align with instructional principles, providing
opportunities for interaction and focusing on understanding and
communication, while also allowing for a closer examination of
specific language features at the end of the task.
3. Type of Grammar to Teach:

 Form-Meaning Connection: Ellis (2006a) highlights the

importance of teaching grammar with a focus on form-meaning
relationships. Understanding how grammatical forms relate to their
meanings helps learners grasp the functional use of grammar in
context and identify common errors.
 Minimalist vs. Comprehensive Approaches:
o Minimalist Position: Krashen (1982) advocates for teaching
only simple and portable grammatical rules, such as the 3rd
person -s and past tense -ed, which are easier for learners to
monitor and use.
o Comprehensive Position: This approach suggests teaching
the entire grammar of the target language. However, Ellis
(2006a) argues that both minimalist and comprehensive
positions may be unwarranted. He proposes two more
nuanced approaches:
 Teach Forms Differing from the Learners' First
Language: Focus on grammatical forms that are
significantly different from those in the learners' native
language and are thus more challenging.
 Teach Marked Forms: Prioritize teaching marked
forms, which are less common and more complex,
rather than unmarked, simpler forms.
30. Teaching Grammar Through Short Stories
31. The role of teaching grammar in
colleges