Will Newman

TSL 612
Position Paper
Position Paper on the Teaching of Grammar in Second/Foreign Language Classes
Throughout my experience in the MATL, I feel that my work and thoughts
have focused primarily on the communicative aspects of language use and on a
predominately communicative approach to language teaching. It was not until I took
this course that I felt that I was truly encouraged to look at grammar teaching, even
very explicit grammar instruction, as an integral component of a foreign language
class. While as language teachers we never want to return to the days of simply
memorizing verb forms and vocabulary items, I believe that it is important to focus
on grammatical form at times. In general, I would say that my approach to language
teaching, and grammar teaching in particular, is that each lesson and situation is
unique and may require a slightly different instructional technique. Furthermore,
each class and student is unique and may benefit from a different approach to
language and grammar instruction and practice.
I think that a discussion of the role of grammar teaching in the foreign
language class should begin with a discussion of the general organization of the
class. Is the class or text book organized thematically or with respect to grammar?
The way in which a schedule is organized can have a great effect on the way in which
a teacher approaches grammar instruction. We learned at the beginning of this
course that many syllabi are organized with a focus on either grammatical forms or

on meaning (Doughty and Williams, 1998). Often, these syllabi focus on one
approach exclusively, at the expense of the other approach. In general, language
teachers should try to focus on both meaning and form. In this sense we should
adopt a more FonF approach to teaching grammar (Doughty and Williams, 1998).
In my brief experience as a language teacher, I have worked primarily with a
Spanish language textbook, Dicho y Hecho, that organizes content primarily with
regard to theme or language use. Within each thematically based chapter, however,
there are sections devoted to specific grammatical constructions. I like this
approach to organizing a language class. As a teacher I can look at each thematically
oriented chapter individually, with the confidence of knowing that by following the
general order of the book I will be able to introduce my students to all of the
necessary grammar that they will need for the next level of classes. In a purely
communicative approach, I might have to wait and hope that students would pick up
the grammar incidentally. I would have very little control over their grammar input
and many students would very likely miss grammatical points that they would need
in the future.
I like that I can approach each chapter of Dicho y Hecho with a good idea of
what my students should learn and be able to do at the end of the chapter. While I
follow the order of the book as a whole, I feel free to rearrange individual elements
of each chapter to fit my approach to teaching. I can do this because I know that the
book will progress logically with regard to grammar.
Furthermore, I feel free to approach each grammatical point in a different
way. I generally approach each point by thinking about how it is used in natural

speech, as well as how it could be used in classroom discourse. In general, I strive to

be as communicative as possible. I want my students to interact with each other and
hopefully express their own thoughts and opinions. As a general approach to my
class, I like discussion activities. I like for my students to talk, discuss, argue, and
compete. However, while this approach can be applied to many themes and topics,
grammar points often require a different approach. Some grammar points can be
acquired through very communicative activities, like role playing scenarios and
survey activities, while others are better suited to more traditional FonF activities.
In general, I have found that many verb forms are well suited to a more
communicative approach to grammar teaching. Many times I can simply
demonstrate the use of a verb form (a specific tense for example) by giving examples
and modeling language use with students. I can then have the students complete a
discussion or communicative task that logically requires the use of that tense. For
example, I can have my students practice using the past tense by talking about what
they did last weekend. Logically, this activity requires the use of the past tense.
However, it also gives the students a high degree of freedom and flexibility with
regard to what they say and how they chose to express themselves. In this way, this
is a very communicative form of activity that also involves a focus on form.
In both my personal experience and in developing activities for this project, I
have found that many types of pronouns, particularly object pronouns, do not lend
themselves easily to communicative activities. I believe that this is likely due to the
fact that, while object pronouns are an important element of natural English use,
they are really not necessary for effective communication. A speaker can repeat the

nouns indefinitely without losing comprehensibility. They would simply sound

annoying and redundant. Because of this, I believe that it may be beneficial to
approach object pronouns with a more explicitly form-focused approach.
I also like to design activities that incorporate two different approaches to
teaching. For example, the first component of an activity may involve filling in
pronouns in blanks in a dialogue. Afterwards the students can act out the dialogue.
While this is not a particularly meaningful activity, it does involve a focus on form
and gives students a chance to practice pronunciation and fluency. In general I have
found that my students enjoy this type of activity. I believe that they enjoy it
because the first component, filling in the blanks, is a very familiar type of activity.
The second component can be fun, because the dialogues are often humorous and
the students get a chance to be loud in class.
I think that it is important to think about how students view activities. I have
often noted that my students seem to prefer more explicit grammar explanations
and activities. In fact, this preference for a more traditional approach to grammar
instruction has been verified by research. Jean and Simard (2011) found that
students view grammar teaching and even mechanical grammar drills as necessary
and beneficial elements of foreign language classes. The students actually viewed
grammar instruction more favorable than the teachers did. While I do not believe
that language teachers should sacrifice theoretically sound teaching practices simply
because students tend to prefer a different type of activity, I do think that we should
take students views of activities into account when planning lessons. If more
traditional grammar exercises help students to believe that they are progressing in

their learning, perhaps teachers should include more activities of this type. A good
balance of communicative activities and traditional grammar exercises may help to
improve morale and motivation in the classroom.
Shrum and Glisan (2010) describe three common approaches to introducing
grammar: inductive, dialogic, and deductive (p. 220). They suggest that a dialogic
approach, in which the teacher and students work together to co-construct the
grammar explanation, is the most preferable of the three approaches (p. 220). I
understand their logic for favoring a dialogic approach. It is in many ways a
compromise between the inductive and deductive approaches. Students should be
encouraged to think about the grammar analytically and look for the rules that
govern the use of a particular word or construction. On the other hand, teachers
must work to ensure that students come to a correct and usable conclusion about
each grammar point. The dialogic approach allows for both of these things to
happen. However, I wonder about the feasibility of a dialogic approach given the
time constraints on many foreign language classes. In some instances, a brief
explanation by the teacher could bring the students to the same conclusion as the
dialogic approach in a fraction of the time that it took for the students and teacher
to co-construct the grammar explanation. In general, I think that there may be a
place for both dialogic and deductive approaches in language classes. Teachers
simply need to think about each grammar point and make a decision about how they
want to approach it. I do not know that I would ever want to use a purely inductive
approach to teaching grammar. I would be worried that my students would become
confused. It is perfectly normal for students to make mistakes and we want our

students to think analytically about the language, but I would be worried about
leaving them to their own devices to construct grammar rules without the guidance
of the teacher or at least a more competent speaker.
Another important point regarding the teaching of grammar deals with the
appropriate depth of grammatical discussion. Do we simply want our students to be
able to use the grammar or should they also understand it? What should they
understand about it? I think that the answer to this question will be different for
each grammar point and for each student or class. I think that for many students,
teachers should be satisfied with correct and effective usage of the grammatical
constructions. Communication is, after all, the primary goal of language use and
language learning.
However, I think that some students may enjoy delving deeper into certain
elements of grammar. I know that I was one of these students and have found that
many of my students enjoy this type of grammar discussion. I think that a good
candidate for more in depth grammar instruction and analysis may be adjective
order. Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999) explain that adjectives are generally
placed in a set order when used to describe the same noun: determiner, subjective
or evaluative adjective, measurement adjective, material adjective, head noun (p.
393). I believe that many students find this sort of information interesting,
particularly when the grammar point has a parallel in their native language, as
adjective order generally does.
Many students enjoy learning new things about their native language. This
sort of intensive discussion of grammar can be a good way to teach students about

the similarities and differences between the target language and their native
language. I recently did a similar lesson in my Spanish 102 classes. While
introducing the Spanish demonstrative adjectives, I found that some of my students
were having trouble conceptualizing the difference between este, ese, and aquel.
They wanted to know where the line was that determined which demonstrative to
use. I took the opportunity to explain that in English the line between this and that
is very much ambiguous. It is not strictly related to physical proximity. Each word
carries a slightly different meaning. Any time a person is speaking, they have to
make decisions about which words to use. They choose the exact meaning and
nuance that they want to express. In this case, they can express any number of
nuances beyond simple physical proximity by choosing to use either this or that.
Many of my students seemed to thoroughly enjoy our discussion of this and that. I
also think that it helped many of them to better understand the Spanish
demonstratives.
This point leads to the final point that I want to make. What is the role of the
students native language in the teaching of grammar? And how much should the
native language be used in teaching grammar? With regard to this first question, I
think that it is important to discuss L1 grammar in second and foreign language
classes. That is not to say that we should focus on direct translations between the L1
and L2. I just think that foreign language classes provide students with a unique
opportunity to think about grammar and language use from a more descriptive
perspective. Classes that students take in their L1s grammar are typically very
prescriptive in nature. Students are not often encouraged to think critically and

analytically about grammar. They simply need to memorize and use the correct
grammar rules. In foreign language and second language classes we have more
freedom to talk and think about grammar. Indeed comparisons between L1 and L2
are an important component of the ACTFL standards.
With regard to the use of the L1 in teaching grammar, I have mixed feelings.
We always want to use the target language as much as possible. Teachers should
take every opportunity to provide the students with comprehensible input, this
includes classroom time spent on grammatical explanations. However, we also want
our students to understand what we are saying. Many aspects of grammar
explanations are complicated and nuanced. In some instances it may be
unreasonable to expect students to understand a grammar explanation in the target
language. Ultimately it is the teachers responsibility to make decisions about when
and how to use the students L1 in the classroom. For me, L1 use may vary
depending on the grammar point in question.
In conclusion, I feel that in language teaching, and grammar teaching in
particular, there is no one perfect approach or method. While we want to always
keep meaning and communicative competence in mind, some topics and grammar
lessons may require a different approach or the use of different methods. As a
teacher, I think that it is necessary to approach each lesson with an open mind.
Teachers must balance the need for comprehensible input in the target language
with the need for greater comprehension of grammar explanations. I feel that my
approach to teaching grammar will always be a work in progress and will vary with
each new lesson.

Sources
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1999). Focus on form in classroom second
language acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Jean, G., & Simard, D. (2011). Grammar Teaching and Learning in L2: Necessary,
but Boring? Foreign Language Annals, 44(3), 467-494.
Murcia, M., & Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher's course
(2nd ed.). Boston: Heinle, Cengage Learning.
Shrum, J., & Glisan, E. (2010). Teacher's handbook: Contextualized language
instruction (4th ed.). Boston: Heinle.