Curtin University

SEAMEO Regional Training Centre (SEAMEO RETRAC)

MASTER OF ARTS
(Applied Linguistics)

Intake 11

COURSE ASSIGNMENT
Module:
LANGUAGE TEACHING AND
LEARNING STYLES 683
Assignment 1

Full Name

: TRAN BAO

Student I.D

: 16945964

PHUNG
Lecturer
Dobinson

: Prof. Toni

Is this a resubmission?
No
Yes
Declaration
I certify that the attached material is my original work. No other
persons work or ideas have been used without acknowledgement.
Except where I have clearly stated that I have used some of this
material elsewhere, I have not presented this for assessment in
another course or unit at this or any other institution. I have
retained a copy of this assignment. I have read and understand the
Curtin University document Academic Integrity at Curtin: Student
guidelines for avoiding plagiarism.
Name/signat Tran Bao Phung
ure

Date: Jul. 12
2013

1
Running head: LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING STYLES ASSIGNMENT ONE

The Assignment One of Language Teaching and Learning Styles:

Journal Search and State of the Art Article on Grammar Teaching
Phung B. Tran
Curtin University
SEAMEO Regional Training Centre (SEAMEO RETRAC)

THE ASSIGNMENT ONE OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING STYLES 2

The Assignment One of Language Teaching and Learning Styles:
Journal Search and State of the Art Article on Grammar Teaching
Introduction
Grammar teaching is perhaps the most controversial issue of English teaching. In the
past, it was placed in the highest position; Rutherford (1987) pointed out that for more than
2000 years the teaching of grammar had often been synonyms with foreign language
teaching. It was not the same story in 1980s that there was an anti-grammar movement and
teaching grammar began to be neglected. However, in the recent years there has been a
resurgence of interest in the role of teaching grammar. Historically speaking, the changes in
human belief of which proficiency was necessary for learners have caused to these
modifications to the method of grammar teaching throughout the years. Actually, these
approaches are recycled or mixed together for a better method which is suitable for the
language teaching and learning at a certain period. For a general view, this article will
review some historical and dramatic changes of grammar teaching. In the second part of the
paper, the most recent developments in teaching grammar are also mentioned.
The historical review of Grammar Teaching
Teaching Grammar is the main focus of Grammar Translation Method (GTM)
Some hundred years ago, Latin was the most dominant foreign languages in
European countries. At that time, it was taught in the so-called Classical Method, which
mainly focused on reading comprehension and grammatical rules. Because there was an
increase of teaching other foreign languages at schools in the eighteenth and the nineteenth
centuries, this Latin teaching method, with different name Grammar Translation Method,
was employed for other languages. The method was first used in Prussia (Germany), which
gave it the name Prussian Method. No matter what these methods are called, they are the
same language teaching approach. In general, Grammar Translation Method, perhaps, is the
most influential method of teaching Grammar of a foreign language; nowadays it is
modified and still applied in some parts of the world.

THE ASSIGNMENT ONE OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING STYLES 3

In their book, Jack Richards and Theodore Rodgers describe Grammar is taught
deductively in GTM (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). By the word deductively, the writers
mean that grammar points are explicitly explained to learners in their native language; then
learners try to memorize the rules and practice with translation exercises. Although GTM is
linguistically theory-less, the predominance of teaching grammar by the method has led to
some controversial debates. In his book, Brown H.D. criticizes It (GTM) does virtually
nothing to enhance a students communicative ability in the language (Brown, 1994).
Sharing the same idea, Na Kong mentions in his paper that students taught with GTM lack
of oral expressive ability and suffer from long-term deafmutism to a foreign language
(Kong, 2001). However, teaching grammar in learners native language is also highly
evaluated by some scholars. According to Austin, teaching grammar in GTM is preferable
because it is easier for the teachers to know how much the learners understand (Austin,
2003). Na Kong also has to admit that GTM helps learners to develop clear grammatical
concepts (Kong, 2001). To learners, it seems that translation will help to avoid errors
because they are fully aware of the influence of one language over the other (Duff, 1989).
Although The Grammar Translation has been rejected as a legitimate language
teaching method by modern scholars (Richards & Rodgers, 2001), grammar is still
commonly (even popularly) taught in GTM in some countries. To explain the phenomenon,
the reason is usually proposed is that GMT remains suitable for the purpose of teaching and
learning English in those places ((Richards & Rodgers, 2001). Brown in his book (1994)
adds other reasons such as the method requires few specialized skills from the teachers, or
grammar rules and translation tests are easy to construct and score.
In mid-nineteenth century, the increase of oral communication in foreign language
among Europeans raised a question whether GTM was still an adequate method for teaching
foreign languages. However, it was until the end of the century that there was such a Reform
Movement reacting to the restrictions of GTM. This movement has given a birth to some

THE ASSIGNMENT ONE OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING STYLES 4

innovative language teaching methods, of which The Direct Method and Audio-lingual
Method are the most widely known.
Classical Grammar Teaching starts to be challenged in Direct Method (DM) and
Audio-lingual Method (ALM)
Grammar teachings in Direct Method and Audio-lingual have some similarities to
each other. In his book of ELT, Harmer thinks ALM is the further development of DM
especially in The United States (Harmer, 2007). No matter whether they are the same or not,
these methods have changed dramatically the classical grammar teaching method. First,
grammar is no longer the only focus of teaching foreign languages. In Direct Method,
vocabulary is emphasized over grammar (Larsen-Freeman, 2000, p.29), whereas that of
ALM is speech (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). Second, grammar teaching in both methods is
orally conducted in the target language, not in learners first languages, because the role of
translation starts not to be highly evaluated in foreign language teaching. Third, grammar is
taught in inductive procedures. It means, The students are presented with examples and
they figure out the rule or generalization from the examples (Larsen-Freeman, 2000, p.29).
Therefore, the learners will play the role of active discoverer of grammar, rather than being
provided with explicit rules and memorizing them.
As mentioned above, DM and ALM were created to react to the limitations of DTM.
Teaching grammar by DTM is no use enhancing speaking and listening skills, whereas these
oral-based methods of teaching grammar were thought to develop communication skills of
learners. Richards and Rodgers think the oral communication skills are gradually built up
through question-and-answer exchanges between teacher and learners when the grammar
rules are introduced in DM. They also mention teaching grammar by ALM is related to
development of oral fluency (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). Another advantage of teaching in
DM or ALM over that by DTM is the connection with the target language. In his paper of
Teaching Grammar by Direct Method (1912), Krause suggests that Grammar should be
taught in conjunction with the foreign language, thus making a direct appeal (Krause,

THE ASSIGNMENT ONE OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING STYLES 5

1912). Krause also supposes grammars will be more specific or become a concrete reality
to the learners if they are provided with a generalization of the laws of a language rather
than a symposium of mechanical, meaningless rigmarole rules, and of exceptions to rules
(Krause, 1912). The teaching grammar is no longer a single teaching of grammatical rules,
but a real aspect of teaching a foreign language in these oral-based methods.
When it comes to the differences in grammar teaching of both methods, the
employment of pattern drills makes the clear-cut between them. The practitioners of ALM
believe language is a set of habits and grammar can be learnt through imitations. Therefore,
pattern drills used for minimizing or preventing learners errors form the basis of ALM
classroom practices and no explicit grammar rules are provided to the learners. However, the
use of pattern drills also caused some problems in teaching grammar. Frey (1968) and
Margolis (1982), in their separated papers, have the same idea that teaching grammar
heavily based pattern drills easily leads to classroom monotony and boredom (Frey, 1968
and Margolis, 1982). According to Frey, there are four types of drills. However, not all of
these types are adequate for teaching grammar (Frey, 1968). Margolis also points out that
pattern drills is just helpful for learners to think about the mechanics of manipulating
grammatical structures, not to think in the language (Margolis, 1982).
As the further development of Direct Method, Audio-lingual method reached its
highest peak in 1960s when it was employed to teach both EFL and ESL in The United
States. However, it was soon attacked by some scholars that the learners taught by ALM
failed to achieve the communication skills in a foreign language, although they performed
well in drills of this oral-based method. Educators started to search for other replacing
communicative methods in 1970s and 1980s. This communicative movement has displaced
grammar teaching away from the core component of teaching foreign languages and given
birth to a variety of different methods. However, the mainstream language teaching in both
The United Kingdom and The United States opted for Communicative Language Teaching.

THE ASSIGNMENT ONE OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING STYLES 6

Teaching Grammar is moved from the central position in Classic Communicative
Language Teaching (CLT)
With the influences of other linguistic theories, Communicative Language Teaching
(I would rather call it communicative approach) has developed into a broad approach of
teaching or a principle of teaching, no longer a single method. Teaching grammar, therefore,
is conducted differently in each method. However, the original CLT or strong CTL method
(Howatt, 1984) is considered a milestone of teaching grammar, in which there is an absence
of grammar teaching, because teachers want to pay more attention on communicative
competence. Take David Wilkins as an example. In 1976, he published a book called
Notional Syllabuses (Wilkins, 1976), which had a significant impacts on CLT. The focuses
of the book are language notions and communicative functions, rather than grammar rules.
Although all direct approaches to instruct grammar is thought not to helpful
(Krashen, 1982), the role of grammar as a part of communication is not forgotten by the
earliest of proponents of CLT. The practitioners believe that linguistic form emerges on its
own, as a result of learns engaging in communicative activities (e.g. role-plays, problemsolving tasks, or information-gap activities). That means the learners get the grammar rules
from activities without any explanation from the teacher. This lack of grammar instruction
has led to some main debates on the method. According to Harmer (2003), CLT is criticized
for losing of accuracy in pursuit of fluency (Harmer, 2003). Widdowson (1999) thinks it
impossible for learners on their own to draw knowledge of language system just from
communicative activities. Sharing the same idea, Chang in his paper criticizes that the
method encourages some grammatical inaccuracy (Chang, 2011). The question whether
grammar should be explicitly taught in CLT is still very controversial now.
From the very classical teaching method to the strong CLT, it is clearly seen that
there has been great move in teaching grammar: from being heavily based on deductive
instructions to being free from explicit grammar teaching. One of the most obvious reasons
for this breakthrough is the change in teachers belief of which language skill is the most

THE ASSIGNMENT ONE OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING STYLES 7

needed for leaners. In the past, input language skills were highly evaluated, but now
communicative skill is given more privileges. However, when communicative competence
is paid too much more attentions than linguistic competence (grammar), it is interesting to
encounter the step-by-step comeback of grammar teaching in the recent years.
The Current State of the Art in Grammar Teaching
As mentioned above, the CLT, with the influences of other linguistic theories, has
developed into so many different directions. At the same time, there has been resurgence of
the grammar. Grammar has re-gained a certain place in language teaching: together with
communicative activities, grammar teaching is being integrated into a wider program of
modern language teaching. This re-emergence of grammar teaching will be summarized
below.
Grammar should be taught (in CLT methods).
A few decades ago, teaching grammar was devalued and strongly criticized.
However, there have been a considerable number of recent researches trying to prove the
benefits of this aspect of language teaching. These studies usually are the comparisons
between the language acquisition of instructed leaners and that of naturalistic learners. Cited
in Elliss paper (2006), some researches (e.g. Pica (1983) and White, Spada, Lightbown and
Ranta, (1991)) draw the conclusion that the grammatical competence of the instructed
learners is higher than that of naturalistic learners. In the analysis of more than forty other
studies, Norris and Ortega (2000) reveal the general effectiveness of grammar teaching. To
reading skill, some experiments (Shiotsu and Weir (2007) are conducted on comprehension
explained by vocabulary knowledge and grammatical knowledge. It is interesting that
grammatical knowledge is more important than vocabulary size.
When it comes to the criticism that teaching grammar is no use enhancing oral
communicative skills, a recent study conducted in Japan by Mochizuki and Ortega (2008) is
strong evidence posing the idea that grammar can be taught without hurting fluency. In the
investigation, the learners provided with external guidance on grammar complete their oral

THE ASSIGNMENT ONE OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING STYLES 8

task more easily than unguided learners do. The researchers extrapolate that teaching
grammar can help learners to improve their communicative competence. Furthermore, Na
Kong (2011) in his paper recommends that educators should combine CLT method and
traditional GTM to serve the purpose of teaching and learning English. From these above
studies, it can be concluded the interest of teaching grammar seems to increase among
educators (including CLT practitioners), not mentioning whether there is the real
effectiveness of teaching grammar.
This fact can be seen clearly in the most popular CLT ELT textbooks in Vietnam.
Grammar teaching is integrated with communicative activities in the textbooks. Take World
Link series by Susan Stempleski, James Morgan, and Nancy Douglas as an example.
Focusing on developing English fluency, the series is considered a CLT textbook, however
grammar section also have a place in the book (although the writers prefer calling it
language link).
What grammar to teach: grammar and functions
It seems that all modern educators have agreements with together on the role of
grammar in ELT. This fact also brings us another question what grammar should we
teach? In the past, grammar was science-like; learning grammar, to some extent, used to be
very academic. The goal of teaching grammar was to make learner know-it-all-grammar. It
is interesting to encounter the recent decrease in quantities of grammar points that a learner
should master. According to Celse-Murcia and Hilles (1988), teachers should not teach
English grammar as an end in itself, but with reference to meaning, social functions,
discourse or both. Considerable number of modern syllabuses focuses more on language
functions and grammars than grammar points without any reference (Ellis, 2006). In modern
communicative textbooks, it is usual to see that grammar sections attached and related to
communication sections. In short, the relationship between functions and grammar is being
emphasized in modern grammar teaching. This can be easily explained by the influence of
CLT method. To serve the goal of CLT, teaching grammar should pay to more attention to

THE ASSIGNMENT ONE OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING STYLES 9

those structures or grammatical points, which are useful to convey a certain meaning or
function in real communications, rather than teaching the whole of grammar book. However,
the classical grammar teaching is still very influential.
How to teach grammar
As mentioned above, teaching grammar is greatly influenced by communicative
approaches, which makes it develop into different directions. Until now, there is no
predominant method of teaching grammar over the others. However, in some dimensions,
there are noteworthy emergences of some beliefs.
Teaching Grammar Explicitly or Implicitly. A few decades ago, if explicit
knowledge of grammar was strongly criticized, it now is given a deserving place in teaching
grammar. In Elliss paper (2006), explicit knowledge is thought to have a certain value such
as improving grammatical accuracy. However, there are not enough evidences to prove that
either explicit teaching or implicit teaching is better. The question is still very controversial
now. Moreover, there is no clear trend that teachers should apply teaching explicitly or
implicitly.
Teaching grammar deductively or inductively. The same occurs in the question
whether should we teach grammar rules deductively or inductively. Ellis finds that there are
some researches on this issue; however, the results go to different directions (Ellis, 2006).
Some researchers (e.g. Herron and Tomosello (1992)) support for the effectiveness of
inductive instructions; others (e.g. Robinson (1996), Erlam (2003)) find an advantage of
deductive method. According to Rosa and ONeill (1999), there is no significant difference
in the effectiveness of two methods. According to Ellis (2006), each of these methods has its
own values: simple rules may best be taught deductively, while more complex rules may
best be taught inductively (Ellis, 2006, p.98). Sharing the idea, Gollin (1998) suppose in
some cases, deductive method of teaching grammar is more appropriate.
From above ideas, we have seen that what modern grammar teaching looks like.
Teaching grammar is being more emphasized than decades ago and more related to the

THE ASSIGNMENT ONE OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING STYLES 10

communicative competence of learners. However, the method of teaching is still very
controversial. It is dependent on many factors such as learners, teachers, and the purpose of
learning or even the duration of learning.
Possible new directions
Throughout the years, grammar teaching has been changed dramatically from being
isolated from oral communicative competence to being heavily based on language functions.
Teaching grammar is focusing more on the learners needs. It is very likely that grammar
teaching still keeps this trend. Grammar teaching may be customized for each type of
learners. It means that teachers should not teach all the grammar, but the grammatical points
that are problematic to certain English speakers. For example, when teaching Vietnamese
students, teachers can pay more attention to relative clauses because in Vietnamese there is
no equivalent structure. However, French learners do not need that emphasis. When it comes
to teaching method, teachers can adapt their teaching so that it is appropriate for their
learners.
Conclusion
As a matter of fact, all things are changing. There is no exception for teaching
grammar. When a method is proposed, then it is soon criticized. If the method denies
adapting itself to be compatible with the criticisms, it will be off the main stream. If the
method is adapted, it soon developed into the innovative method. The same process will be
repeated. Actually, there is no the best method, even no better method, just most appropriate
method than others. Therefore, the changes of teaching grammar will be a circle of methods.
Once day, some scholars will raise their voice that we shouldnt teach grammar.

THE ASSIGNMENT ONE OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING STYLES 11

Reference
Austin, J. D. (2003). The Grammar Translation Method of Language Teaching:

London:

Longman.
Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching. (3rd ed.). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Celce-Murcia, M. (1997). Direct approaches in L2 instruction: a turning point in
communicative language teaching. TESOL quarterly, 31(1), 141-152.
Celce-Murcia, M. & Hilles, S.(1988). Techniques and resources in teaching grammar.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chang, S. (2011). A contrastive study of grammar translation method and communicative
approach in teaching English grammar. English Language Teaching, 4(2), 13-24.
Retrieved from www.ccsenet.org/elt
Duff, A. (1989). Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL
Quarterly, 40(1), 83-107. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40264512.
Frey, J. H. (1968). Audiolingual teaching and the pattern drill. The Modern Language
Journal, 52(6), 349-355. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/stable/322055
Gollin, J. (1998). Key concepts in ELT: Deductive vs. inductive language learning. ELT
Journal, 52(1), 88-89. Retrieved from
http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/content/52/1/88.citation
Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching. (4 ed., p. 64). Pearson
Education Limited.
Howatt, A. P. R. (1984). A history of English language teaching. Oxford; New York: Oxford
University Press.
Hudson, R. (1999). Grammar teaching is dead not!. In R. Wheeler (Ed.), Language alive in
the classroom Praeger.

THE ASSIGNMENT ONE OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING STYLES 12

Kong, N. (2011). Establishing a comprehensive English teaching pattern combining the
communicative teaching method and the grammar-translation method. English
Language Teaching, 4(1), 76-78. Retrieved from www.ccsenet.org/elt
Krashen, D. S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Krause, A. C. (1912). The teaching of grammar by the direct method. Monatshefte fr
deutsche Sprache und Pdagogik, 13(6), 178-184. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching. (2nd ed.).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Margolis , S. F. (1982). Encouraging spontaneous speech in the audiolingual
classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 15(2), 127-131. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au
Mochizuki, N., & Ortega, L. (2008). Balancing communication and grammar in beginninglevel foreign language classrooms: A study of guided planning and
relativization. Language Teaching Research, 12(1), 11-37. Retrieved from
http://ltr.sagepub.com/content/12/1/11
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and
quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.
Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching
2nd. (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rutherford, W. E. (1987). Second language grammar: Learning and teaching. New York:
Longman.

THE ASSIGNMENT ONE OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING STYLES 13

Savignon, S. (1993). Communicative language teaching: state of the art. In S. Silverstein, S.
Silberstein & J. E. Alastis (Eds.), State of the art TESOL essays: Celebrating 25
years of the discipline. Teachers of English to speakers of other languages.
Shiotsu, T. & Weir, C. (2007). The relative significance of syntactic knowledge and
vocabulary breadth in the prediction of reading comprehension test
performance. Language Testing. 24 (1) 99-128.
Widdowson, H. (1999). Aspects of Language Teaching. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign
Language Education Press.
Wilkins, D. A. (1976). Notional syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wong, C. C. Y., & Barrea-Marlys, M. (2012). The role of grammar in communicative
language teaching: An exploration of second language teachers perceptions and
classroom practices. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 9(1), 61-75.
Retrieved from http://e-flt.nus.edu.sg/
Wong, C. H. H., Wong, M. C. E., & Tang, S. L. T. (n.d.). Examining the effectiveness of
adopting an inductive approach to the teaching of english grammar. 177-200.
Retrieved from
http://www.edb.org.hk/HKTC/download/eras/1011/ERAS1011_R09.pdf