Dear Duncan,

I have worked for English institutes which used specific methodology for teaching grammar. Many of them insisted on the idea that "grammar" shouldn't be taught, it should come naturally. Therefore, during the past 10 years I have been trying to find the best way to deal with grammar, since I disagree with the fact that it should be avoided. I believe grammar is the backbone of a language and it should be taught clearly through a communicative approach. I like to work with functional grammar. By teaching the function of the structure (such as talking about routine while practicing or introducing the simple present) I get the student to actually produce relevantly using the structure. There's no use in simply learning the simple present without actually knowing what it can be used for. So I use a great variety of communicative activities for controlled, less controlled and free practice in order to get the student to feel comfortable with the language he/she is producing. Answering your question, I believe grammar taught through a communicative approach seems to be much more effective  and relevant for acquiring fluency and even accuracy. Let me know about your thoughts on the matter according to the study you are performing.

Best wishes 

Carla D'Elia - English Teacher

HI, there

I think that  inducing your students towards grammar communicatively is what we teachers acknowledge as being ideal in the classroom. But sometimes I wonder, based on students' reactions, if they have the same opinion. 

By advocating a communicative approach, we are all familiar with the PPP method and the practice steps that CarlaDelia has well cleared out. What I still feel, nonetheless, is that, for a good part of the students, some form of clear grammar instruction becomes necessary at some point or other in the learning of a language. And, when I have given in to the old teacher fronted type of teaching and openly talked about a specific grammar point, students seemed relieved to be 'rescued' from the blurred zone that full comprehensiveness entails.

The steps that I usually take include the functional setting of the grammar topic, followed by an inductive approach to the important features and additional examples extracted from the dialogue or excerpt the students were working with or provided by the students themselves. Then, there is more and less controlled practice so that they can ideally move on to using the structure on their own. What I normally do in between is, at a point usually after some practice, I recap with them the key paradigms on the board, drill them again on its usage and break free from the pattern by letting them experiment with the new structure through game-like activities.These, by the way, constitute my never-ending stock for form focused practice. 

As to form focused instruction, that is sometimes necessary and to which I shamelessly admit having resorted to, I found that note-like explicit information about meaning, use and form helps the visually favored portion of our classes and the examples that I mentioned above,  if given orally, favor those auditory prone. As for the kinesthetic types, I again elect games as my path towards reaching out and eventually catering to all learning types in this part of the lesson. 

That's what I think about grammar instruction. Was it of some help?

Best,

Mirela Ramacciotti

Niranga Abeyakoon

    In my experience as a English language teacher, the approach that you should implement depends on the level of the learner and on the purpose for which they learn or practice the language. For example,

              If the learners are in the elementary level (E1/E2/E3 etc.), the communicative approach is more effective than the teacher- "chalk-talk" mathod. Because it gives them the opportunity to explore the language focus in a more practical way. But for the learners who are in the habit of processing the language in a more organised manner; the form, meaning & use should be introduced  either through student hand-outs or during the lesson, depending on the availability of time. Guided discovery or TTT (Test-Teach-Test) can be incorperated with the communicative appraoch to make them learn grammer in a more effective way.I have tried these two methods and they really work. 

               If the learners are preparing themselves for an exam, like in IELTS,(Although grammar is not tested directly) there are learners who need a bit of help in organising and revising in what they already know. In that case, the teacher can use the board and teach grammar (in a more discrusive way without doing a lecture) which would help them clarify and organise what they already learnt earlier. In the exam preperatory classes, I use this method to discuss grammar structures and sometimes I implemnt TTT appropriately including homework for further practice. This has resulted something positive in them. Also it has made them more competent and confident in practicing the four skills related to the test. 

  To sum up, the teacher has to think about the learner needs/purpose and thier habbits of learning and the learning type in order to decide on a best approach. People say that grammar teaching is out of date and inappropriate to use in a class room, but sometimes there are learners who prefer to learn in that way as well.

I Hope my views  in Grammar teaching and Communicative approach helped you in some way.

Regards,

Niranga 

Hi!

I don't think this is a question any longer. Researches have proved that some form of grammar teaching is beneficial for ESL/EFL learners, though going back to the traditional metalingual explication of grammar rules to learners who do not know even a smattering of English is an abhorent idea in my opinion. An interesting contemporary option is 'Consciousness-Raising', advocated by people like William Rutherford and Rod Ellis.

Regards,

Anindya Syam Choudhury