TEMPLE UNIVERSITY JAPAN

STUDIES IN APPLIED
LINGUISTICS

TEACHING GRAMMAR IN JAPAN

Number 114, July 2018

 Temple University Japan
Studies in Applied Linguistics

Teaching Grammar in Japan

Editors for Part I:

Isra Wongsarnpigoon and Paul Garside

Editors for Part II:

Allie S. Patterson

Series Editor, David Beglar and Tomoko Nemoto

Number 114, July 2018

© Copyright 2018
Temple University, Japan Campus

ii
 Studies in Applied Linguistics

Temple University, Japan Campus

Graduate College of Education

PROGRAMS

Master of Education Degree

Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages

Doctor of Education Degree

Curriculum, Instruction, and Technology
with specialization in
Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages

FACULTY

David Beglar
Jim Elwood
Donna Fujimoto
Noël Houck
Robert Nelson
Tomoko Nemoto
Steven Ross
James Sick

Correspondence should be addressed to:

Studies in Applied Linguistics

Graduate College of Education
Temple University, Japan Campus
Azabu Building, Minami Azabu 2-8-12
Minato-ku, Tokyo 106-0047
Tel: (03) 5441-9800
Fax: (03) 5441-9811

iii
 Temple University Japan Studies in Applied Linguistics

1 Pronunciation Manual for the Sounds of American English, Fall 1984 (Vol. 1, No. 1)
2 Teaching the Grammatical Structures of English: A Manual for Teacher, Tokyo Ed., Spring 1985 (Vol. II, No. 1)
3 A Teachers’ Manual: Teaching the Grammatical Structures of English, Osaka Ed., Spring 1985 (Vol. II, No. 2)
4 First and Second Language Acquisition: A Survey of the Primary Research, Tokyo, Fall 1985 (Vol. II, No. 3)
5 First and Second Language Acquisition: A Survey of the Primary Research, Osaka, Fall 1985 (Vol. II, No. 4)
6 First and Second Language Acquisition: A Survey of the Primary Research, Osaka, Fall 1985 (Vol. II, No. 5)
7 Techniques in Teaching Pronunciation, Spring 1986 (Vol. III, No. 1)
8 Communicative Activities for Teaching Pronunciation, Fall 1987 (Vol. IV, No. 1)
9 Communicative Activities for Teaching the Grammatical Systems of English, Fall 1987 (Vol. IV, No. 2)
10 Strategic Interaction: Using Scenarios to Teach English as a Foreign Language, Fall 1988 Vol. V(1)
11 Classroom Activities for Teaching Listening and Speaking, Fall 1989 (Vol. VI, No. 1)
12 Communicative Grammar Activities, Spring 1990 (Vol. VII, No. 1)
13 Communicative Activities for Teaching Pronunciation, Fall 1990 (Vol. VII, No. 2)
14 Grammar Consciousness-Raising Tasks, Fall 1991 (Vol. VIII, No. 1)
15 The Communicative Teaching of Pronunciation, Spring 1992 (Vol. IX, No. 1)
16 Activities for Literature in Language Teaching, Spring 1993 (Vol. X, No. 1
17 Grammar Consciousness-Raising Tasks, Fall 1993 (Vol. X, No. 2)
18 Humanistic Techniques in the EFL Classroom, Spring 1994 (Vol. XI, No. 1)
19 Pronunciation Manual for the Sounds of American English, Spring 1994 (Vol. XI, No. 2)
20 Grammar Consciousness-Raising Tasks, Spring 1995
21 Collaborative Projects in Language Learning, Summer 1995
22 Action Research, Summer 1996
23 Approaches to Grammar: Tasks for the Classroom, September 1996
24 Communicative Activities for Teaching Pronunciation, Spring 1997
25 Grammar Activities for the Classroom, April 1998
26 English as a Stressful Language: Teaching Suprasegmental Pronunciation to Japanese Learners, July 1998
27 Phonology: Pronunciation and Beyond, February 1999
28 The Development of Teaching Materials for the EFL Classroom, February 2000
29 Activities for Teaching English Pronunciation, April 2000
30 Developing Teaching Materials for the EFL Classroom, July 2000
31 Teaching Materials for the EFL Classroom, November 2000
32 Consciousness-Raising and Communicative Grammar Activities, February 2001
33 The Development of Teaching Materials for the EFL Classroom, February 2002
34 Approaches to Grammar: Tasks for the Classroom, May 2002
35 The Development of Teaching Materials for the EFL Classroom, March 2003
36 Language Assessment, December 2003
37 The Development of Sound System Teaching Materials for the EFL Classroom, March 2004
38 Language Assessment, December 2003
39 I: Grammar Activities, March 2004; II: Materials for Teaching Pronunciation for the EFL Classroom, April 2004
40 Grammar Activities, May 2004
41 Teaching Vocabulary to Second Language Learners, June 2004
42 Activities for Building Confidence in English Pronunciation February 2006
43 The Next Great Leap: Using CALL in the Classroom, July 2006
44 Activities for Teaching Pronunciation Skills to Japanese Learners of English, November 2006
45 Bilingualism, November 2006
46 The Development of Teaching Materials for the EFL Classroom, April 2007
47 An Anthology of Grammar Activities, April 2007
48 Classroom Activities for Teaching Pronunciation, May 2007
49 The English Sound System Theory and Practice, October 2007
50 Developing Teaching Materials for EFL Classrooms, March 2008
51 Speaking and Listening in the Classroom, August 2008
52 Communicative Pronunciation Activities and Syllabi, July 2009
53 Issues in Second Language Writing: From Theory to Practice, July 2009
54 Content-Based Foreign Language Instruction in Japan, July 2009
55 Developing Materials for English Language Instruction in Japan, October 2009
56 Applying the Pillars of SLA Theory, November 2009
57 Grammar: Communicative and Consciousness-Raising Activities, January 2010
58 Studies in Second Language Acquisition: Theory and Practice, January 2010
59 Vocabulary Acquisition and Teaching, April 2010
60 Grammar: Communicative and Consciousness-Raising Activities, November 2010
61 Echoes from the Past: Foreign Language Education in Japan, November 2010
62 Activities for Pronunciation, February 2011
63 Teaching English Grammar to ESL/EFL Learners, February 2011
64 Developing Learner Pragmatic Competence Through Instructional Intervention, March 2011
65 Communicative Activities for Teaching the English Sound System, March 2011

iv
 66 Consciousness-Raising and Communicative Grammar Tasks for EFL/ESL Learners, March 2011
67 Vocabulary Teaching and Research, May 2011
68 Approaches for Teaching Vocabulary to Japanese EFL Learners, June 2011
69 Foreign Language Pedagogy in the Japanese Context, August 2011
70 Grammar Instruction for Japanese Learners of English, September 2011
71 Grammar Topics: Explanations and Teaching Activities, November 2011
72 Content-Based Instruction: Bringing Second Language Acquisition to the Foreign Language Classroom, November 2011
73 Issues in Teaching English as a Foreign Language in Japan, December 2011
74 Teaching the Sound System of English to Japanese Learners, May 2012
75 Vocabulary Instruction for Japanese Learners of English, June 2012
76 Classroom Research in Teaching the Sound System of English, June 2012
77 Teaching English as a Foreign Language in Japan, August 2012
78 Issues in Teaching, Learning, and Researching L2 Writing, August 2012
79 Developing Reading Skills and Strategies in a “Communicative” EFL Environment, August 2012
80 From Theory to Practice: Designing Courses Based on Beliefs about Language and Language Learning, January 2013
81 Studies in the Teaching of English Grammar, May 2013
82 Studies in Curriculum Development, May 2013
83 Teaching Materials for the Four Skills, June 2013
84 Teaching the Sound System of English, August 2013
85 Teaching Aspects of English Grammar, August 2013
86 Approaches to Teaching English to EFL Learners, August 2013
87 Qualitative Studies on Language Learners and Educators in Japanese Contexts, October 2013
88 Developing Pedagogical Materials for EFL Learners, October 2013
89 Communicative Vocabulary Teaching in Japanese Contexts, November 2013
90 Teaching the Sound System of English, May 2014
91 Developing and Validating Assessment Tasks, June 2014
92 Content-Based Instruction in the Japanese Context, July 2014
93 Applying Findings in Educational and Cognitive Psychology to the Teaching of Foreign Languages, August 2014
94 Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition, August 2014
95 Grammar Instruction in the Japanese Context, September 2014
96 Teaching Foreign Language Skills, January 2015
97 Teaching and Learning the English Sound System, February 2015
98 Teaching and Learning the English Grammar, March 2015
99 Approaches to Teaching English to Young Learners, August 2015
100 Current Issues in Bilingualism and Dual Language Education, September 2015
101 Developing Pedagogical Materials for Japanese Learners of English, September 2015
102 Approaches to Teaching English in the Japanese Context, October 2015
103 Teaching and Researching Listening and Speaking, December 2015
104 Developing Pedagogical Materials for the Japanese EFL Context, April 2016
105 Activities for Teaching Pronunciation to Japanese Learners of English, April 2016
106 Approaches to Teaching English: Post-High School Education, July 2016
107 Approaches to Teaching Grammar, July 2016
108 Approaches to Teaching in Japanese Contexts, September 2016
109 Approaches and Methods: Teaching the Four Primary Skills, September 2016
110 Principle Grammar Instruction for Native Japanese Speakers, September 2016
111 Psychology of Learning and Materials for Learning, February 2018
112 Listening, Speaking, and Validity, February 2018
113 Approaches to Gammar Instruction, March 2018
114 Teaching Grammar in Japan, July 2018

v
 Grammar Practice Versus Consciousness-Raising Tasks
for Teaching Subjunctive Verb Mood

Robert Anthony Olexa

The use of presentation, practice, and production (PPP) as a pedagogical strategy has received wide
criticism from second language acquisition (SLA) researchers. Yet, as shown by Nitta and Gardner
(2005) a PPP approach still dominates suggested language teaching practice. PPP is still widely used in
Japanese public schools, colleges, and private conversation schools. An advertisement for Berlitz, one
of the top conversation schools in Japan, states, “You learn a new language the way you learned your
first, by listening, repeating and speaking” (Berlitz, 2014). Some colleges have outsourced the same
business, using the same strategy, to run their English program. The current training manual for
assistant language teachers in the Japan Exchange and Teaching (JET) program, reads “Practice is the
key to language acquisition, and is what makes the difference between a lecture and a lesson” (CLAIR,
2013). Recent training programs provided by the Ministry of Education Culture Sports and Technology
(MEXT), for Japanese English teachers, state that teachers will learn how to utilize the PPP strategy for
facilitating communicative English lessons, (MEXT, 2014).
In the early 1990s some researchers hailed the decline of PPP in favor of alternative teaching
strategies that presented more of a task-based approach (Carless, 2009). A number of papers have
reviewed and critiqued both sides of this debate which is often referred to as PPP vs. task-based
learning and teaching (TBLT) A number of articles analyze the claims on both sides with a view to
supporting one or the other (Carless, 2009; Criado, 2013; Sato, 2010). Considering the dominance of
PPP and the extensive use of grammar practice (GP) in Japanese language education, the claims against
it are worth evaluating. If grammar practice is an inefficient means of acquiring language, it follows
that alternatives should be adopted.
At the center of negative criticism of PPP is a focus on the grammar practice step. Rod Ellis, one
of the original critics of grammar practice, claims that it has little psycholinguistic value and that there
are strong grounds on which to doubt its effectiveness (Ellis, 1993). As an alternative to grammar
practice and a supplement to communicative activities, Ellis proposed consciousness-raising tasks
(Ellis, 2002).
This case study investigates Ellis’s theoretical claims about the value of using consciousness-
raising tasks over grammar practice. Ellis suggested that the effects of TBLT are often delayed (Ellis,
2002). A month long case study is too short to evaluate these long-term effects and participant numbers
are too small to avoid the possibility of individual learner differences affecting the data. However, the
study is easily replicable and should provide some insight into the experiences of Japanese learners in
the practical applications of each of these pedagogical outlooks.

Literature Review
Ellis (2002) asked two questions, “Should we teach grammar, at all?” and “If we should teach
grammar, how we should teach it?” These questions are clearly rhetorical for Ellis who answered them
with a criticism of grammar practice. He offered up an alternative which he refers to as consciousness
raising. To provide the background for this case study it is important to understand Ellis’s criticisms of
grammar practice as well as advocating for consciousness-raising tasks in a broader context. First, they
are discussed within the historical context of SLA literature, a period in the early 1990s referred to in
the as TBLT vs PPP debate (Carless, 2009), then on theoretical grounds, and finally how these ideas
might play out practically.

The TBLT vs PPP Debate

TBLT and PPP have rarely been seen as mutually beneficial strategies for language teaching (Sato,
2010). Ellis’ consciousness-raising tasks fall under the broader umbrella of TBLT, whereas grammar
practice activities fall under PPP. However, there is some debate as to whether PPP is an approach or a
pedagogical strategy (Criado, 2013). According to Richards and Rodgers (2013), an approach to
language teaching involves a philosophy of the nature of language and the nature of language learning.
Negative critics of grammar practice view PPP and grammar practice as approaches.
Ellis (1993) stated, “It seems to me that there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that we can do PPP
until we’re blue in the face, but it doesn’t necessarily result in what the PPP was designed to do”. Ellis
was one of a number of critics in the early 1990’s who was skeptical of PPP. Other notable criticism

64
comes from Scrivener (1994) who proposed his alternative to PPP, for use in teacher training. He refers
to it as ARC, which stands for authentic use, restricted use activities, and clarification and focus.
Scrivener gives a list of reasons to be critical of PPP and a shortlist of SLA researchers who have also
questioned PPP. He argues that PPP is not based on any coherent theory of learning (unless we assume
it is behaviorist), it is based on a highly questionable sentence level theory of language, and it confines
teachers leaving no room for growth or exploration. In the same volume, Willis (1994) suggested task-
based learning and teaching replace PPP as the dominant model for teacher training.
Many of these criticisms were published nearly a decade after the rise of Communicative
Language Teaching (CLT). Johnson and Littlewood (1984) saw CLT as a matter of skill acquisition
and the automatization of grammatical rules, vocabulary, and social conventions. Positive criticism of
PPP argues that the benefits of practice are aligned with skill acquisition theory (SAT) (Dekeyser &
Solkalski, 1996; Sato, 2010). Those who see grammar practice as beneficial to learners view it as a
means and for proceduralizing declarative knowledge. From this perspective PPP seems to be in line
with CLT. However, grammar practice was also a major, if not the foremost component of the
predecessor to CLT, situational language teaching. The changes between SLT and CLT were
theoretically a departure from structuralist views of language towards more authentic interactive and
ideally communicative learning. Where practice had a strong role in situational language teaching, it
was refined in CLT and some forms of TBLT were seen as a part of fine tuning the principles of CLT
(Richards & Rodgers, 2014, p. 86). It follows that these criticisms of PPP in favor of TBLT could have
been a result of the attempts of foreign language teachers to push the field forward.

Theoretical Basis of Consciousness-Raising Tasks and Grammar Practice

Ellis (2002) contextualized the need for consciousness-raising against the backdrop of Krashen (1983)
and Prabhu (1987). Krashen is known for popularizing a naturalistic approach to language teaching.
Prabhu is known for TBLT. Ellis (2006) described Krashen’s approach to grammar teaching as non-
interface, where explicit and implicit knowledge are completely separate. He described his own
position as a weak-interface position and claimed that explicit knowledge can become implicit if
learners are ready to be taught a form and they notice that form. PPP and grammar practice reflect the
interface position, assuming that explicit practice of the form directly proceduralizes it. Goldschneider
and Dekeyser (2005) show in their meta-analysis of the effects of instruction on order of acquisition
that certain factors (perceptual salience, semantic complexity, morpho-phonological regularity,
syntactic category, and frequency) are strong predictors as to how instruction can affect acquisition. It
seems that Ellis is trying to present a middle-ground for grammar teaching, calling for those who might
have abandoned grammar teaching to rethink its usefulness but in a different context then practice.
Ellis’s ideas about grammar practice were met with criticisms. Hopkins and Nettle (1994) argued
that Ellis makes false assumptions about grammar teaching and that the alternatives he proposes to
grammar teaching are already embedded in contemporary practices. Addressing Ellis’s weak-interface
position, it is difficult to differentiate between consciousness raising and grammar practice if learners
can be primed by meaningful grammar practice and also notice the form in a PPP lesson.

Practical Application
Evaluating grammar practice vs. consciousness-raising tasks in terms of how they can be applied
practically, Ellis, Basturkmen, and Loewen (2002) refered to Long’s distinction between focus-on-form
(FoF) and focus-on-forms (FoFs). Though the distinction is a fairly ambiguous one, Ellis stated that
FoF is a meaning centered approach to grammar teaching done through a communicative activity,
where the focus is brought about by the meaning. He gave PPP as a good example of a FoFs approach,
saying that the forms are often pre-selected with a focus on acquiring them through practice. This
criticism of PPP is based around the aspect that it breaks up language into unnatural non-contextual
chunks. Ellis presents two different syllabi, showing how a FoFs approach typically relies on a
structural syllabus where FoF relies on a task-based syllabus.
In the context of a single lesson, absent of a syllabus it might be difficult to make a distinction
between FoF and FoFs. In practical use either of these approaches could include different degrees of
grammar practice or a focus on meaning depending on the orientation of the teacher and the attitude
and prior experiences of the student. If we are to look at either PPP or consciousness-raising tasks as a
method, we would expect it to exhibit a consistent and discernable quality reflecting its theoretical
value in practice. However, Long (2001) argued that a method is an “unverifiable construct” and
discusses a study by (Swaffer, Arens, & Morgan as cited in Long, 2001) where teachers who were
explicitly trained in different methods, left no clear distinction between them in practice. For this Long

65
argued that we abandon a wider focus on grammar practice for a narrower one that closely considers
classroom procedures in syllabus, teaching activities and tasks. Considering Long’s argument this case
study should provide some examples of how these concepts are experienced by teachers and learners in
practical applications.
Sato (2010) reviewed the PPP vs. TBLT debate in the context of the Japanese EFL classroom and
concludes that dismissal of PPP might be premature. He concluded that PPP might be more appropriate
for the Japanese classroom, especially the production practice, because Japanese students do not
receive ample time to use the language in their daily lives. He noted the importance that learners make
meaning-form connections during practice in order to form procedural knowledge (Yamaoka as cited
by Sato, 2010). This is another alignment of practice with Dekeyser’s skill acquisition theory in which
imitation, repetition, and pattern practice are essential to skill development. Sato also acknowledged
that many of the dismissals of PPP are based around an idea of mechanical meaningless practice,
arguing that grammar practice in a PPP context can be meaningful.
In summary, researchers have pit two theoretical approaches to grammar teaching against each
other. As outlined by Ellis’s weak interface approach, less explicit approaches might be more useful to
learners. However other factors of instruction have been shown empirically to affect acquisition
(Goldschneider & Dekeyser, 2005). Approaches to grammar teaching have been argued on the basis of
whether or not they are inductive, deductive, implicit or explicit, meaningful, or mechanical. In this
case study, I will actualize the theoretical basis for grammar practice and consciousness-raising tasks in
the lessons. Therefore, the case study should provide insight into the value of the practical application
of CLT or grammar practice as framed by Ellis (2002).
The selection of the subjunctive for this case study should also yield some interesting
observations in regards to teachability, because it is a marked form. Some research shows that language
acquisition follows developmental sequences of acquisition (Goldschneider & Dekeyser, 2005), that
learners tend to acquire unmarked forms, and that learners might not be able to acquire what they are
not yet ready to be taught (Pienemann, as cited by Long, 2001).

Teaching the Subjunctive Mood

The subjunctive is a marked form for English learners. However, it is not wholly unfamiliar to Japanese
EFL students. In the case study the consciousness-raising task student wrote that they remembered it
from middle school as, If I were a bird, I would… This example is as ubiquitous to some as the This is
a pen example from the English classroom in Japan. These examples are easily remembered as
formulaic sequences by many Japanese students who still have difficulty producing the forms in natural
speech. Bastien and Vinz (2014) noted that it can be difficult for teachers to even decide whether or not
they should include it in their syllabus. Therefore, it is important to know how to teach it. By
understanding the functional significance of the form and also by understanding the benefits of varied
approaches to teaching the form we can as teachers, improve the quality of our teaching and in turn the
learning experience for our students as well.
In deciding how to approach the subjunctive in teaching, it is important to note form, meaning,
and use (Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 2016). In regards to form, it is a sentential feature of
language. There are three different forms of the subjunctive used in contemporary English: the
mandative subjunctive, were-subjunctive, and formulaic subjunctive (Bastien & Vinz, 2014).
The mandative subjunctive is formed using a verb of varying strength in the main clause followed
by a -that complement. An important piece of information to be made salient for the learner is that
these verbs of varying strength express the speaker’s attitude towards the state of affairs they would
like to be put into action (Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 2016). The consecutive verb in the
subordinate clause is often left in plain dictionary form. An example sentence is, I insist that you stay
here until the storm let’s up.
The were-subjunctive is indicated by the conjunction if, and then the consecutive verb were in
the main clause and would in the compliment. The form can be elusive at times for instance in the case
of the sentence, If I had a million dollars, I’d buy you a house. A generative analysis of this sentence
might reveal what was omitted, If I (were to have) had a million dollars. Often times native speakers
also replace were with was. However, this is often noted as incorrect because it represents the
indicative mood, certainty and not probability.
The formulaic subjunctive consists of fossilized phrases that remain in the English language. Five
hundred years ago the English language had a much more developed subjunctive form. What we use
now is only remnant of these forms (Bastien & Vinz, 2014). These phrases always take the plain
dictionary tense of the verb. For instance, God bless us, everyone and Heaven help us.

66
 In regards to meaning, the subjunctive is used to express counterfactual propositions. In other
words, it is used to express alternative outcomes whether desired or not. Gopnik (2009) used an
interesting example to illustrate counterfactuals.
Mr. Tee and Mr. Crane are both in a Taxi to the airport, desperate to catch their respective planes,
which are both scheduled to take off at 6:00pm. But traffic is impossibly snarled and the minutes
tick by. Finally, at 6:30pm they arrive at the airport. It turns out that Mr. Tee’s plane left at 6:00 as
planned, but Mr. Crane’s plane was delayed until 6:25 and he sees it take off as he arrives. Who is
more upset? (Chapter 1, Section 2, para. 2)
This example shows the effect that counterfactuals can have on our mental states. It is likely the reader
shares tacit knowledge of this kind of situation through similar experience. One of the ways that an
English speaker can make this tacit knowledge explicit is through the use of the subjunctive. For
example: If either of the men were to have taken separate taxis they might have made it to the airport
on time. There are of course other grammatical forms that are useful in discussing counterfactuals such
as the past modals often taught in the foreign language classroom, such as shoulda, woulda, and
coulda. However, these deal with the past and things we can know factually. This is similar to the way
in which we use present tense to discuss the future. For instance, the flight will leave at 6:00pm. The
subjunctive on the other hand is unique in its use for speculation and articulation of an unknown future.
This might be why it presents a challenge to foreign language teachers as well as learners.
Further discussing use, the subjunctive requires an understanding of rules as well as an exemplar
based component that needs to be understood through discourse. In this case study, I used examples
from movies and music videos to add context to the input for the learners.

Methods
Participants
The study began with four participants who were separated into two groups. Due to availability of the
students there was one student doing consciousness-raising tasks and the other three were doing
grammar practice. One student from the consciousness-raising task group dropped out after the pretest
citing conflicts with her work schedule. The results of her pretest and preliminary interview are omitted
from this study.
The participants were all Japanese nationals. The group consisted of two females, and one male.
The female in the consciousness-raising task group is 29 years old and is referred to in the study by the
pseudonym Mitsuko. The two students in the grammar practice group are a married couple both 28
years old. They are referred to as Hana and Ken. All of the participants are college graduates who have
had formal English education at public schools in Japan. They are all working professionals. Mitsuko
spent two years abroad on working holiday in Australia from the age 25. Hana lived in Canada for a
year and a half starting at age 25. Ken went to Hawaii for 10 days as an exchange student in Junior
High School. Mitsuko and Hana have had around 18 years of English study, while Ken lists his
experience as only 6 years.
Based on the American Council of the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) proficiency
guidelines for English (2012) and judging from casual conversation, Mitsuko and Hana exhibited a
similar speaking proficiency ranging from intermediate-high to advanced-low. The proficiency
guidelines characterize speech in this range as being able to converse with confidence and handling
uncomplicated tasks and social situations. However, when pushed towards advanced tasks breakdown
sometimes occurs and “evidence of the first language is also present in use of false cognates”.
Throughout the case-study, they asked questions in English and spoke in English. They also chose to
answer the questions on the interview forms writing in English although it was optional. Ken exhibited
a novice-high level. Reflecting the ACTFL guidelines at this proficiency level, he had trouble
sustaining conversation but could ask formulaic questions and also respond to direct questions. Ken
also preferred to write in Japanese on the interview forms. He was able to participate in all of the lesson
tasks and activities, but openly expressed difficulty throughout the lessons.

Procedures
As described by Ellis (2002), consciousness-raising tasks can be presented in a variety of formats and
aim towards developing students’ explicit knowledge of a grammar point. The teacher guides the
student in solving problems about grammar to help them fill a gap in their knowledge. The treatment
for the consciousness-raising task student consisted of a five-part lesson intended to be delivered in a
45-minute session.

67
 Table 1. Lesson Schedule
Consciousness-Raising Task Group Grammar Practice Group
5/16 Pretest and Interview 5/23 Pretest and Interview
5/25 Treatment 1 5/31 Treatment 1
5/30 Treatment 2 6/21 Treatment 2
6/6 Treatment 3 6/21 Treatment 3, Posttest, Interview
6/13 Posttest and Interview
The lessons focused on a discussion of subjunctive mood using video samples. The samples were the
same in both lessons. For the consciousness-raising task group, I made explicit attempts to raise the
student’s awareness of the subjunctive. These attempts were modeled after examples developed from
Ellis’ approach to grammar teaching. Noonan (2004) posited that because the communicative approach
has excluded explicit grammar teaching, students develop communicative ability but lack grammatical
competency. He focused on the importance of getting students to notice grammar and refered to Ellis’
suggestions for teaching using consciousness-raising tasks. Noonan outlined a five-part lesson plan
based on Ellis’s suggestions. I replicated this lesson plan in its entirety for the first lesson and altered it
following the format for the other two. The lessons were carried out explicitly. This means I tried to
elaborate on the grammar point, and used metalanguage. This elaboration and metalanguage often
referred to the parts of speech (nouns, verbs), sentential features (clauses), and textual features talking
about how the subjunctive might be used in discourse. The learning also required induction on the
student’s part as they were asked to create a rule and then compare it to the actual one from a textbook.
Consciousness-raising tasks require little production in comparison with grammar practice, which
serves to develop procedural knowledge of the grammar point (Nitta & Gardner, 2005). A typical
grammar practice activity consists of the grammar point being modeled for the learner by the teacher or
in this case, video. Then the learner is required to produce the grammar point. Through grammar
practice learners are expected to acquire the implicit forms through controlled practice leading to
automatization of the grammar point in use. The grammar practice group underwent 45-minute
treatments. Whereas the target for the consciousness-raising task group was the same, the
consciousness-raising task lessons tended to often be longer, sometimes extending to over an hour. The
efficiency of the grammar practice lessons might have been related to their format. The lessons were
presented in a PPP format using grammar controlled practice and production activities. Metalanguage
was avoided in preference of active use of the grammatical feature. I did not ask questions to the
learners, avoided information gap activities, and when students asked questions incidentally, I referred
to grammatical features using more abstract then technical terms. For instance, I would say word
instead of using the part of speech. I also actively gave recasts to the students during the grammar
practice lessons to center the focus on the accurate practice of the forms.
For the lesson content, I collected content examples from the sites Subzin.com to source authentic
uses of subjunctive verb mood from movies or music videos. I used genius.com to source accurate
lyrics for the students. The same content was used for both treatment groups. For some of the
explanations of content, I used the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs
(Spears, 2005).
Table 2. Difference in Teaching Strategy
Consciousness-Raising Task Treatment Grammar Practice Treatment
Explicit-Inductive Implicit-Deductive
Used metalanguage (verbs, clauses) Avoid metalanguage (words, thoughts)
Student creates their own rule (inductive) Grammar Practice (repeat after me)
Asked students questions (focus on meaning) Focus on accuracy with recasts
Focus on Form Focus on Forms
Table 2 outlines the intended differences between each of the two teaching strategies used in this case
study. The differences between grammar practice and consciousness-raising tasks as discussed by Ellis
(2002) are largely theoretical carrying pedagogical implication. Therefore, it is important to extend
these distinctions to pedagogy as Noonan (2004) attempted to do and also to test each of the ideas in
action to view the potential benefits or drawbacks when applied to foreign language teaching.

Instruments
At the first meeting both groups were given 15 minutes to complete a pretest designed to assess their
knowledge of the subjunctive verb mood. The test has five short sections consisting of examples of the
mandative subjunctive, were-subjunctive, and formulaic subjunctive. There were 20 questions with the
last two asking for free written production. The sections were the subject of the subsequent treatments.

68
 Part 1 tests the participants understanding of verb meaning in the main clause. They must select
the appropriate verb for the sentence based on the strength expressed (Larsen-Freeman & Celce-
Murcia, 2016, p. 692). Parts 2 through 4 all use a cloze format requiring participants to complete the
sentences by writing in an appropriate verb. Part 2 tests the participants’ knowledge of verb conjugation
in the relative clauses. The participants also had to have appropriate lexical knowledge as verb
selections were not provided. However, alternative answers were accepted as long as the conjugation
was correct. Part 3 is used to test the students understanding of the subtle difference between
subjunctive mood and indicative mood. This also further tests their understanding of how the verbs are
correctly conjugated. Part four tests the students understanding of subjunctive verb mood when used in
formulaic phrases. Though formulaic phrases are often considered to be memorized as unanalyzable
wholes by L2 learners, the phrases were provided with only the verb missing. Finally, part five requires
the participant to write a wish or a command to give students a free production opportunity to use
subjunctive verb mood in a creative sentence. Students were allowed to answer this freely without any
requirements obligating them to produce subjunctive mood.
After the treatments were completed, a posttest was administered to test the participants’
knowledge of subjunctive verb mood. The posttest included the same five categories as listed before.
However, the example sentences used were different. Participants were also given a short test after
every treatment to check their comprehension of each lesson. I took notes during and after each lesson
attempting to summarize the notable and noticeable interactions. The participants were all given an
interview after the lessons were finished to gain some perspective of their experience of the lessons.

Results and Discussion

The results of this study were evaluated on three points: the observed benefits of each strategy, the
observed drawbacks, and they were compared to Ellis’s (2002) original assumptions made in his
comparison of grammar practice and consciousness-raising tasks.
Table 3. Pretest and Posttest Answers Correct/Total
Consciousness-
Raising Task Grammar Practice Group
Mitsuko Hana Ken
Study Pretest 13/20 10/20 3/20
Treatment 1 Posttest 10/10 10/10 10/10
Treatment 2 Posttest 8/10 10/10 8/10
Treatment 3 Posttest 6/7 7/7 1/7
Study Posttest 14/20 16/20 1/20

Table 3 shows that Ken scored much lower than either Mitsuko or Hana on both the pretest and
posttest. Ken’s scores also dropped from the pretest to the posttest. Ken indicated that the tests were
quite difficult for him. On the posttest interview Ken indicated that this was the first time he had ever
taken a test where all of the problems and sentences were only in English. He also said that there was a
lot of English that he could not pick up. This indicates that comprehensibility was a possible problem
for the study pre and posttests. However, he did equally as well as Hana and Mitsuko on the lesson
posttests for Lesson 2 and 3, indicating other factors, such as overall English proficiency might have
resulted in his low scoring.
Mitsuko and Hana showed similar results throughout the study. Whereas Ken’s score decreased
on the posttest, Mitsuko showed a 5% improvement and Hana showed a 30% improvement overall. It
is difficult to say exactly what contributed to the improvements with such a small sample size.
However, comparing the test results with interview answers we can make some observations as to the
potential benefits and drawbacks of each approach to grammar teaching.

The Observed Benefits

The student who showed the most improvement on the posttest and score throughout the studies was
Hana in the grammar practice group at 30%. There is reason to be skeptical of the results. Due to
scheduling conflicts, the posttest was completed on the same date as the third lesson, meaning that the
information might have been fresher for Hana than for Mitsuko. However, on the posttest Mitsuko
made the largest amount of errors on the mandative subjunctive, even though a similar amount of time
had passed since the first lesson where it was introduced. Slightly more time had passed for Hana (29
days) than Mitsuko (28 days), which might provide some evidence for a benefit of grammar practice
over consciousness-raising tasks, if the intended result is an improvement in test scores. Ellis’s (1993)

69
original criticism of grammar practice was that it was ineffective in producing results. The implications
of these results show the necessity of refining the type of results that we are looking for and how far we
can extend test results to actual competencies.
One notable benefit for both the grammar practice and consciousness-raising task students could
be observed from the answers given in the post-study interviews. All three students wrote they felt that
the lessons were enjoyable and that their English would benefit from taking the time to do these
lessons. Having four years teaching experience using a PPP/grammar practice type of approach, it was
difficult to adjust my teaching style to fit the perceived differences between the grammar teaching
strategies. For instance, I would not usually attempt to avoid metalanguage if I felt that the student
wanted a structural explanation of a target grammar point. However, for the sake of the study I wanted
to try and maintain the differences that Ellis (2002) claims make consciousness-raising tasks different
from grammar practice. In order to do so, I tried to strictly follow the guidelines outlined in Table 2.
Because of the differences, I assumed that there would be a preference for one strategy over the other.
However, this was not the case. This result might also be a case of observer’s dilemma. The students
knew I would see the feedback and did not want to critique the teaching. Or the students need to be
presented alternatives to have a preference towards one teaching style or the other. Because, they were
taught with the same strategy throughout the study, there was nothing to compare it to other than their
previous experiences up until this point. It was unclear as to what kind of awareness the students have
of the approaches that were being used in their lessons. This is a line of inquiry for future researchers.
Level of enjoyment being highly subjective, one thing we can objectively take away from the
interview responses was the students ability to recall the grammar points. In questions 4 and 5 of the
post-study interview the students are asked to recall and explain the grammar point. Mitsuko gives the
most elaborate and accurate description of the grammar point. She wrote in Japanese translated into
English here:
It’s subjunctive mood, so it’s not grammar about what’s happening in reality. It’s about desire and
what will probably happen, really it’s about impossible desire. Also I think it was a grammar point
that concerns, your own desires and what you want to make happen, or to express to another
person what you want to make them do.
Hana and Ken are also able to recall vague aspects of what they could identify as the grammar point.
Hana answered in Japanese and English translated here: (the grammar point focused on) how to request
something, how to say about possibility, and idioms. Ken also wrote in Japanese translated here: (the
grammar point focused on) fixed use, expressions, and word intensity. In terms of explicit teaching, if
the goal is to help the students gain explicit knowledge of a grammar point then consciousness-raising
tasks seem to be more effective than grammar practice, even in a short period of time. All three
students switched to Japanese when asked to explain the grammar point, which suggests that they are
using their L1 as well to build an explicit understanding of the grammar point.
Also notable is the number of opportunities for explicit self-correction that questioning,
comparing, and the information gap activity in the consciousness-raising task provided. The variety in
the types of corrections was diverse over the course of three lessons. Three types of correction could be
observed in the consciousness-raising task. The first was self-correction, where through questioning
about the grammar or explicit knowledge the student was able to self-correct. The second is teacher
correction in which the teacher leads the correction alerting the student to a mistake that they had
made. The third was student-teacher negotiation language related episode where the student asked the
question to the teacher and both the student and the teacher could talk about language learning. Over
the course of three lessons 15 incidents of self-correction, 11 incidents of teacher-correction, and two
instances of teacher-student negotiation were recorded. Compare this with the grammar practice
activity in which error correction was only offered in the form of recasts, a form of error-correction that
is teacher led. There were 57 opportunities for recasts in the grammar practice lessons. Though there
were nearly double the amount of corrections offered in the grammar practice group, it’s difficult to
value quantity over quality. Though there were more opportunities for correction in the grammar
practice group there was a wider variety of error correction and focus on meaning in consciousness-
raising task lessons. This presumably resulted in Mitsuko’s self-reflection that she would also like to
improve her pronunciation, and use of conjunctions, prepositions, and speaking skill. Her post-study
interview responses indicated that she seemed to have been made more aware of a gap in her grammar
knowledge due to the consciousness-raising task lessons. It’s difficult to say that grammar practice does
not have value for consciousness raising. Both Ken and Hana had abstract conceptions of the grammar
point although it was taught implicitly. Most notably Ken writes that he was made aware of the depth
of English.

70
 In terms of production, there has been some criticism of the production stage in the PPP teaching
strategy, which is often part of grammar practice. When the students are asked to produce a grammar
point freely, it often results in overuse disregarding meaning or avoidance leading us to question
whether or not the production is just more controlled practice (Willis, 1994). Both the grammar
practice and consciousness-raising task lessons in this case study had a production stage and although it
seems that the students were not able to produce the grammar point freely early on in the study. They
were able to produce it orally with some degree of accuracy and write it in some capacity after it had
been made more salient for them. Whether they have acquired it and could use it in authentic
conversation is a different question altogether. Mitsuko’s posttest answers that allowed for free written
production show she was able to produce two of the three examples studied. She wrote, “If I were a cat
I would sleep all day long” and “May heaven help us all if Japan and China had a war.” This was also
reflected in her speaking, though production seemed heavily monitored with pauses.

Observed Drawbacks
The major disadvantage of the consciousness-raising task treatment in this study was time on task. The
questioning and elaboration required more learning involvement in each task. However, we often went
over the 45-minute time period allotted for the lesson, sometimes stretching into an hour. The grammar
practice lessons always tended to finish on time, each part presentation, practice, and production timing
in at around 15 minutes apiece.
Before the study, all of the participants expressed a lack of explicit knowledge regarding the
grammar point. They also felt it is difficult to use. This shows that the subjunctive is what Ellis (1993)
refers to as a “problematic grammar feature” and therefore an appropriate focus for consciousness-
raising tasks. The difficulty was also reflected in the post-study test. Mitsuko rated the lesson a 10 out
of 10 for difficulty and would frequently express that she had felt the lesson was difficult sometimes
resorting to Japanese to ask questions. It is difficult to say what contributed to the difficulty for
Mitsuko, it might have been the grammar point and not the procedures. Hana rated the grammar
practice lesson a 5 out of 10 for difficulty. What Hana found difficult about the lesson was that it did
not give enough time for a focus on meaning. This would not be a problem if she had understood the
point, but added to the difficulty if she could not.
A major drawback for grammar practice could be observed by looking at Ken’s test scores.
Though it was clear that he was able to keep up with the lessons and reported to have enjoyed them, his
post-study test scores showed a drop and he had difficulty even completing the test. His wife, Hana,
was able to support him by providing translations for items in Japanese. However, Ken might have
benefited more from an explicit FoF approach such as the consciousness-raising task activity than
grammar practice, especially if part of the focus was on meaning. This also speaks to Long’s (2001)
argument about teachability, in that Ken was not yet ready in terms of developmental linguistic stages
to make this kind of practice useful. Having a broader number of participants and a better
understanding of their ability might give a clearer picture of the factors that contribute to difficulty in
future studies.

Comparing the Results to Ellis’s Claims

Without conducting a delayed posttest, it is difficult to verify Ellis’s (1993) claims that consciousness-
raising tasks have long-term benefits for acquisition and that grammar practice does not have these
benefits. However, this case study provided support for two propositions. Regarding evidence for the
benefits of consciousness-raising tasks, Mitsuko was able to elaborate on the subjunctive and describe
it with more complexity than Hana or Ken. Mitsuko also noted that through the lesson she was able to
make incidental observations about gaps in her grammar knowledge. These observations applied to
forms other than the subjunctive as well. She wrote that until now she had not really cared about her
English grammar or seen it as an issue. In examining grammar practice and CLT within the broader
context of the PPP vs. TBLT debate, the findings fail to support the arguments against PPP laid out by
scholars in the 1990s (Ellis, 1993; Scrivener, 1994; Willis, 1994). In the short term, both Hana and
Mitsuko showed improvement on their post study tests. Although Ken's scores dropped, all students
showed that they found subjective value in the lesson regardless of the approach. This seems to point to
the result that both grammar practice and consciousness-raising tasks have benefits. One possible
conclusion to be drawn from this is the ways in which criticism of existing methods can lead to
innovation in teaching. To some extent, TBLT and Ellis’ consciousness-raising tasks were created as a
direct result of the criticisms of PPP and grammar practice activities.

71
Conclusion
As Long (2001) pointed out, the purported benefits of an approach or a method rarely maintain their
purity when they are carried out in the classroom. In this study, I attempted to preserve theoretical
differences in approaches to grammar teaching as I taught. Doing this clearly underestimates the
students’ expectations and the nature of interaction. Though I tried to teach the grammar practice
lessons by using the grammar implicitly, the students managed to ask questions and wanted explicit
explanations from the teacher. Although I avoided using metalanguage, the students tried to induce
their own idea of the rules. On the other hand, in the consciousness-raising task lessons the student
made efforts to practice the grammar point and sought out correction.
Ellis, Basturkmen, and Loewen (2002) make the case that communicative lessons should be dual
purpose. On one hand, they should improve fluency and competence. On the other, they should work to
increase linguistic competency. In some respects, grammar practice can be seen to fit a model that
supports the automatization of language and contribute to competency and fluency. Consciousness
raising tasks seems to fit the model for working towards building linguistic competency. Instead of
viewing one as better than the other, as seemed to be the case in much of the early literature pitting
grammar practice against tasks, each should be seen in respect to how it benefits a learner’s
competency. Ellis (2002) does note that consciousness-raising tasks are meant as a supplement to
communicative activities and not to replace them.
As research has shown (Long, 2001; Norris & Ortega, 2001) grammar taught explicitly with
interaction and cooperation from the learner can greatly contribute to overall acquisition.
Consciousness-raising tasks seem to fit this descriptor, whereas grammar practice, often criticized for
its exclusion of metalanguage and lack of interaction, does not. Considering the dominance of grammar
practice approaches, what these findings suggest is at odds with the current paradigm in second
language teaching. It is difficult to extend the findings in this case study to overall acquisition.
However, consciousness-raising tasks as an explicit approach and grammar practice in its supposed
implicit approach both had short-term benefits for the students. In part, it might be useful for teachers
to look to either grammar practice or consciousness-raising tasks as teaching resources, rather than
theoretically opposed strategies.
Considering the dynamic nature of teaching and learning it is unlikely we will ever be able to
perfect grammar teaching. However, continuing to critique and research existing strategies will
certainly contribute to innovation in the field of SLA to the benefit of teachers and learners alike.

References
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). (2012). ACTFL proficiency
guidelines-speaking. Yonkers, NY Retrieved from
http://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/public/ACTFLProficiencyGuidelines2012_FINAL.p
df
Berlitz [Berlitz US] (2014, February 6). The Berlitz method effective language learning [video file].
Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeatpPIWlBM
Bastien, R., & Vinz, S. (2014). If I were an ESL student, would I need to learn the subjunctive? An
analysis of teaching the subjunctive mood. Linguistic Portfolios, 3(4) 27-32.
Carless, D. (2009). Revisiting the TBLT vs P-P-P debate: Voices from Hong Kong. Asian Journal of
English Language Teaching, 19, 49-66.
Council of Local Authorities for International Relations (CLAIR) (2013). The JET program: ALT
handbook [pdf online].
Criado, R. (2013). A critical review of the Presentation-Practice-Production model (PPP) in foreign
language teaching. In R. Monroy (Ed.), Homenaje a Francisco Gutiérrez Díez Homenaje a (pp.
97-115). Murcia, Spain: Edit.um
Dekeyser, R. M., & Sokalski, K. J. (1996). The differential role of comprehension and production
practice. Language Learning, 46(4), 613-642.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2002). Doing focus-on-form. System, 30(4), 419-432.
doi:10.1016/s0346-251x(02)00047-7
Ellis, R. (1993). Talking shop: Second language acquisition research: How does it help teachers? An
interview with Rod Ellis. ELT Journal, 47(1), 3-11. doi:10.1093/elt/47.1.3
Ellis, R. (1998). Teaching and research: Options in grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly,32(1), 39-60.
doi:10.2307/3587901

72
Ellis, R. (2002). Grammar teaching–Practice or consciousness-raising? In J. C. Richards & W. A.
Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 167-
174). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2006). Current Issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly,
40(1), 83-107. doi:10.2307/40264512
Genius (2016). [website] Retrieved from http://www.genius.com/
Gopnik, A. (2009). The philosophical baby: What children’s minds tell us about truth, love, and the
meaning of life. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Goldschneider, J. M., & Dekeyser, R. M. (2005). Explaining the “natural order of L2 morpheme
acquisition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 55(1),
27-77. doi:10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00295.x
Hopkins, D., & Nettle, M. (1994). Second language acquisition research: A response to Rod Ellis. ELT
Journal, 48(2), 157-161.
Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom.
Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D & Celce-Murcia, M. (2016). The grammar book: Form, meaning, and use for
English language teachers (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.
Long, M. (2001). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In C. Candlin &
N. Mercer (Eds.), English language teaching in its social context. London: Routledge.
MEXT (2014). Nihonjin wakate eigo kyoin Beikoku haken jigyo kenshu seika katsuyo jirei 4
(chuggako) [Case 4: The practical outcome of the young English teacher training course project
in America] Retrieved from http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/haken/1345566.htm
Nitta, R., & Gardner, S. (2005). Consciousness-raising and practice in ELT coursebooks. ELT Journal,
59(1), 3-13. doi:10.1093/elt/cci001
Noonan, F. (2004). Teaching ESL students to notice grammar, The Internet TESL Journal, 10(7).
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2001). Does type of instruction make a difference? Substantive findings
from a meta-analytic review. Language Learning, 51, 157-213. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
1770.2001.tb00017.x
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching (3rd ed.).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sato, R. (2010). Reconsidering the effectiveness and suitability of PPP in the Japanese EFL classroom
JALT Journal, 32(2).
Scrivener, J. (1994). PPP and after. The Teacher Trainer, 8(1), 15-16.
Spears, R. A. (2005). McGraw-Hill's dictionary of American idioms and phrasal verbs. Chicago, IL:
McGraw-Hill.
Subzin. (2014). Subzin.com Retrieved from http://www.subzin.com/
Wheeler, K. (2016). The secrets of subjunctive mood [pdf] Retrieved from
https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/documents/Subjunctive.pdf
Willis, J (1994). Task based language learning as an alternative to PPP. The Teacher Trainer, 8(1), 17-
20.

73