Teaching grammar

Recently I visited a Government school to meet one of the English masters. One of the students (presumably of GCE O-level class) said to me, “Sir, why didn’t you come to see him tomorrow?” Another student joined him and said, “I hasn’t seen him for the whole day.”

I always believe that this type of students may have a good vocabulary because they read books written in English and taught in their classes. They had the input. But they failed to deliver a logical output for lack of grammatical knowledge. I think, without imparting sufficient knowledge of grammar learning and teaching Communicative English fruitfully will never be possible.

Some English teachers might disagree with me. In fact, while disagreeing with my view, an English teacher in a leading school in Colombo voiced her opinion: “As English teachers we should teach basic principles of grammar to make a good foundation for learning English, both spoken and written.

It is like that a young kid has to learn grammar first and foremost, and then learn language. Is it sensible? What should we do in learning the mother tongue? Definitely, we do not do so.

The child learns the language naturally imitating mum and dad. Therefore, should we not follow the natural way of learning a language - the sophisticated English language? “Sir, why didn’t you come to teach me tomorrow?” it is a minor fault, it can be corrected without making the child knowing his/her fault, the teacher could say, “I didn’t come to teach you yesterday because.......” That’s a very normal process of correcting and helping the child to learn a language spontaneously”.

Another English teacher has this much to say: “Learn language first. I think as teachers we should not keep anything in front of them that acts as an obstacle (that is grammar) in his/her learning process. Child psychologists agree with that. Why cannot the teachers be a little friendlier with boys and girls ignoring their minor shortcomings?”

In our country, just like these two ladies, grammar is often misunderstood in the language teaching field. The misconception lies in the view that grammar is a collection of arbitrary rules about static structures in the language.

Further questionable claims are that the structures do not have to be taught, learners will acquire them on their own, or if the structures are taught, the lessons that ensue will be boring. Consequently, communicative and proficiency-based teaching approaches sometimes unduly limit grammar instruction.

It is true that some learners acquire second language grammar naturally without instruction. However, this is not true for all learners. A more important question may be whether it is possible with instruction to help learners who cannot achieve accuracy in English on their own.

It is also true that learning particular grammatical distinctions requires a great deal of time even for the most skilled learners. Thus, another important question is whether it is possible to accelerate students’ natural learning of grammar through instruction.

Research findings can be brought to bear on this question from a variety of sources. It has been demonstrated that subjects who received grammar instruction progressed to the next stage after a two-week period, a passage normally taking several months in untutored development.

Is grammar boring? This myth is derived from the impression that grammar can only be taught through repetition and other rote drills. Teaching grammar does not mean asking students to repeat models in a mindless way, and it does not mean memorising rules.

Such activities, of course, can be boring and do not necessarily teach grammar. This does not mean there is no place for drills, but drills should be used in a meaningful and purposeful way.

For example, to practice past-tense yes/no sentences in English, the teacher may ask her students to close their eyes while she changes five things about herself. She takes off one shoe, takes off her watch, puts on her glasses and takes off her ring.

Students are then asked to pose questions to figure out the changes she has made. Students may ask, “Did you take off a shoe?” or “Did you put on your glasses?” This kind of activity can be fun and, more importantly, engages students in a way that requires them to think and not just provide mechanical responses.

Teaching grammar in a way that engages students may require creativity, but the teaching need not and should not be boring.

If the goals of language instruction include teaching students to use grammar accurately, meaningfully and appropriately, then a compelling case can be made for teaching grammar.

Instead of viewing grammar as a static system of arbitrary rules, it should be seen as a rational, dynamic system that comprises structures characterised by the three dimensions of form, meaning, and use. This is my view.