To Teach or Not Teach Grammar

By Mgt. Marlene Parada

To teach or not to teach grammar is one of the most controversial issues in

language teaching and learning. In the beginning of the twentieth century a common
thought was that if a person knew the grammatical rules of the language, this person
would also be able to communicate fluently. Then, later this idea was debated
because knowledge of the grammatical aspects of the language was only part of the
process of communication. Thus, teaching grammar became less important, seemed
less meaningful or was forgotten in some cases. Then again in recent years this
mindset has changed. Grammar teaching and learning has acquired a renewed
importance. Several articles indicate that there is nothing written conclusively about
these cases and that to be considered a competent user of a language, the grammar
rules are not only necessary, but also are to be used in real communication. This
issue emphasizes the differences between grammar rules and their usage.

When defining grammar, Asselin, M. (2002) states that there are three
different meanings of grammar that can be confused at times. The first meaning of
grammar would be “the unconscious knowledge of a language that allows people to
communicate in a language” (52). This method is learned informally, and in this way
grammar is acquired without the study of rules. The second type of grammar is the
conscious knowledge of the rules with its different parts of speech, concepts,
terminology and analytical techniques for talking about the language. The third
definition of grammar corresponds to the linguistic propriety and consists of a set of
rules or norms related to the correct and incorrect usage. This third grammar is also
known as proper English or Standard English used by the English elite or upper
class and can be traced back in history a hundred years ago in England.
Nevertheless, the insane idea of a superior grammar ignores important principles of
language. The first is that languages and dialects have grammar. Ungrammatical
languages do not exist and languages have a dynamic nature. Thus, the close
relation between language and culture explains the natural changing nature of
language (52 – 53).

According to Swan (2002) the fact that grammar exists is a poor reason for
just teaching grammar. That is, teachers have to teach it because it is there, but not
all grammar points are relevant to a particular class. Grammar points selected
should be relevant to students’ needs, rather than merely going through the syllabus
point by point. Grammar is tidy and testable. Other skills such as vocabulary,
pronunciation and writing can be vast and untidy. Grammar, on the other hand, can
be presented as a limited series of tidy items that students can learn, apply and
accomplish one by one (148).
 Why Teach or Not Teach Grammar 2

Learning grammar is simpler than learning a language. Nevertheless,

according to Weaver (cited in Van Horn [2001]) “Teaching formal, isolated grammar
to average or heterogeneous classes, perhaps even to highly motivated students,
makes no appreciable difference in their ability to write, to edit or to score better on
standardized tests”(53).

Thus, in learning a language, the study and learning of grammar is not

sufficient. Vavra (1996) mentions a research done by Mellon and O’Hare in the
1970’s in which “the study of grammar was disdained because it supported the idea
that students could learn grammar simply by writing and that resulted in the students’
grammar improvement because they wrote longer clauses, not necessarily more
correct” (69).

Weaver, McNally and Moerman (2001) state that research studies and their
own personal experience demonstrate that “most students do not benefit from
grammar study in isolation since the main purpose of teaching grammar is to help
students improve their writing it should be taught in context”. Thus, teaching
grammar in isolation is not practical for students’ improvement. The practical part
that they suggest should be taken into account is the importance of incorporating
useful grammar concepts and terms using literature as a base for correct sentences
and paragraphs. Therefore, it will help students not only with their writing but also
with other aspects of literature such as style, voice and editing of the American
English language. The main goal is to see students use and incorporate conscious
and correct grammatical constructions into their writing and become better writers
with fewer errors (31 – 32).

Teachers need to think about what improves students writing and what makes
them do well. All the authors cited in this paper agree that it is not students’ natural
ability to know grammar concepts or to determine or recognize the parts of the
sentence. They do mention the importance of what really makes them do better is
students’ ability to recognize or create images. Therefore helping them communicate
better with their readers. According to Weaver, McNally and Moerman (2001)
students that understand the abovementioned “will have better writing skills, better
detailing in informational and persuasive writing. We teachers need to monitor, tutor
and asses students’ writing in order to help them improve it and this will help them
write better and more effectively” (32).

Weaver, McNally and Moerman (2001) also agree with many of the grammar
experts to resume teaching grammar but not to teach grammar as they did in the
past with a grammar books and isolated from context. What they agree on is the
need to explore and teach some of the important grammar structures, in a broader
way, not in detailed as of structural knowledge but knowing the origins of grammar,
history and dialects. It is important to study the language theories and how it
develops. How a child acquires language and how language has become an
empowering tool are other important aspects. A teacher can also include teaching
 Why Teach or Not Teach Grammar 3

grammar to help students develop their writing skills, but this should not be the most
important reason. Since what is thought by parents, administrators and public in
general as grammar is not a developer of students’ writing skills in isolation,
grammar should be taught as part of a helping aid for writing or in an elective
course. Thus, to teach or not to teach grammar comes down to why, when, what and
how to teach certain aspects of the grammar in order to improve students writing
(17-27).

Rose (1996) mentions that how, when and what to teach comes together with
how to convince our students of the importance of learning basic rules. It is
important to let them know that this basic knowledge will assist them in not only their
written language but also in their spoken language. Students will not be motivated
to learn a group of boring rules. But as teachers we must let them know that
grammar will help them present themselves in front of the world as people with
correct communicative skills. As an example, a student that is able to communicate
correctly in written and oral form will have a better opportunity to acquire a better job
than the other student that makes a lot of grammatical errors. We must remember
that most bosses expect their employees to use correct grammar in reports and
even correct the mistakes their own boss commits when writing reports or during
office work (96 – 97).

Swan (2002) also supports the previous idea by highlighting two good
important principles for teaching carefully selected points of grammar. They are
comprehensibility and acceptability. Knowing how to build and use language
structures makes communicating possible, successful and comprehensible. Correct
use of grammar enhances integration and acceptance of the speaker in a specific
situation. Thus, what to teach will be dependent on the circumstances and on the
learner’s aims. Only the grammar that will enlighten these factors should be taught
and taught well, to have a better chance of teaching and learning English instead of
just teaching grammar (152).

What can we do as language teachers? Vavra (1996) also agrees with Rose
(1996) on the answer to this question. One of the most highlighted issues is that
colleges have not really prepared their outgoing professionals to teach grammar.
Even teachers are asking themselves why should I teach grammar. Thus, it remains
an argument among language teachers with or without wide experience. Teachers
find themselves in this controversy because they might find pressure from third
parties, such as parents, or the public in general who believe that teaching grammar
would help students improve their writing or help them avoid making errors in their
writing activities. Teaching common and simple errors such as run on sentences and
comma splices is a simple task compared to the task of teaching teachers how to
analyze sentence structures. Most teachers find this analysis more difficult. Thus,
this brings us to the need for colleges to prepare future teachers to teach grammar.
First, future teachers in colleges can demand better instruction on how to teach
grammar and so that they might be more successful teaching grammar in schools.
 Why Teach or Not Teach Grammar 4

Secondly, teachers can start teaching grammar to students through the recognition
of their sentence structures in their writings (36 – 37).

In essence, the experts quoted earlier support the idea of teaching selective
points of grammar. Knowing how to build and use language structures makes
communicating possible, successful and comprehensible. Correct use of grammar
enhances integration and acceptance of the speaker in a specific situation. Thus,
what to teach will be dependent on the circumstances and on the learner’s aims.
Only the grammar that will enlighten these factors should be taught and taught well,
to have a better chance of teaching and learning English instead of just teaching
grammar. Grammar is used every single day. Students need a better understanding
of it to solve the usage problems for themselves. The feeling of confidence that
comes from being able to apply this background knowledge in a given situation in
the real world is what teachers hope students will achievement.

After reading these articles and based on my experience in the classroom I

agree with their finding. Thus, it remains an argument among language teachers
with or without wide experience. Teachers find themselves in this controversy
because they might find pressure from third parties, such as parents, or public in
general that thinks that teaching grammar would help students improve their writing
or help them avoid making as errors in their writing activities.

In conclusion, teaching writing is better than engaging students in repetitive

and drilling grammar exercises of any context. The drills practiced over time do not
guarantee that students will be able to transfer their grammar exercises into their
writing. It does not help students to be better writers or to write in a more
imaginative or persuasive way.
 Why Teach or Not Teach Grammar 5

References

Asselin, M (2002). Teaching grammar. Teacher Librarian. 29 (5), 52-53

Rose, C.A. (1996). The great debate: teaching grammar and usage. English Journal.

85, 96-97

Swan, M. (2002). Seven bad reasons for teaching grammar - and two good ones.

J.C. Richards & W.A. Renandya, Methodology in Language Teaching: An

anthology of current practice, 147-152. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press.

Van Horn, L. (2001). Teaching grammar in context. Voices From The Middle. 8 (3),

69.

Vavra, E.A. (1996). On not teaching grammar. English Journal. 85, 96 – 97.

Weaver, C., McNally, C., Moerman, S. (2001) To grammar or not to grammar: That is

not the question! Voices From The Middle. 8 (3), 17 – 33.