The author advises us to embedding grammatical techniques into general language courses, rather than singling grammar out.
Grammar is a component of communicative competence like phonology, discourse, the lexicon, etc. Sometimes when “grammar only class” is effective that kind of class might be implemented
Therefore the courses help the students to pursue relevant language goal , grammar becomes a best contributor.
We as a teacher try to avoide “grammar only” classes if possible. because it is often boring and it’s not a main goal. I’m sure Grammar is one of the important components when students learn a language. Grammar has to be acquired in the situation that is integrated into the total curriculum, contextualized in meaningful language use or is planed for specific problems students are experiencing.
Teaching only grammar for elementary school students is not appropriate because they cannot understand according to their congnitive developmental stage. According to Piaget they are in concrete operational stage. In this stage children have a difficulty understanding abstract ideas like grammar. Thus, even though a teacher try to teach a only grammar, it will not possible or very hard. Therefore in the case of elementary school students, a teacher had better teach or introduce grammartical elements in the context or ebeded in the context. However, for the elder students or adults might be possible to teach grammar since they are old enough to understand abstract ideas like grammar. However there is still an advice that it’s better not to teach grammar soely. When grammar is taught in the context or practical situation, the rate of use can get increased. By the way, in some situation, especially for adults, it’s much more effective to explain the grammar rules clearly instead of enumerating grammartical exemples sometimes.
As you mentioned, I also agree on the idea that grammar rules should be taught in context or practical situation, especially to students in beginning level. And I’m also in favor of your thought that it’s much more effective to explain to adults the grammar rules clearly instead of enumerating grammatical exemples at random whenever a specific grammatical point shows up. As an advocator of the two approaches to teaching English grammar, I’d like to suggest that context or real situation approach to grammar should be utilized in most of the classes and then from time to time, if necessary, grammar-oriented classes should be carried out in detail whether the level of students is high or relatively low.
Several professors in the graduate school department where I got my MA in teaching prided themselves on being “anti-grammmar” when it comes to teaching. It was one of the general themes of the program at that university.
I would not go to the extreme that they do when they say we should “never” focus directly on grammar instruction, but I do believe grammar instruction should be limited in favor of other methods that use an inductive approach.
I believe that for beginners and elementary school students, and I also believe that for adults:
It is easy to get lost or to even confuse yourself when you try to explain a grammar rule in depth. Even a native speaker can easily get lost. I would bet money that most of you would say the same about trying to explain Korean grammar in details to Koreans. I’ve seen plenty of American teachers get lost in defining grammar in ESOL or straight English Language Arts classes.
I think providing examples is better and perhaps using a visual diagram. For advanced students, I’d advise spending much more time reading, reading, reading as a way to gain correct grammar usage than I would advise them to buy a grammar book and study it.
Studying grammar by itself is not bad. It is helpful. But, is it the most valuable use of the limit amount of time EFL teachers have with their students?
I don’t think so.
I think the inductive methods that involve lots of reading and speaking-listening are more effective in the long run.
Maybe in the senior year, or in preparation for a test like the TOIEC or TOEFL, a heavy focus on grammar for a couple of months is OK as test preparation, but if a student is going to be studying Korean for many years, like they do in Korean public schools these days, I think the best way to prepare them for those standardized test is to —- build up their communicative language skills:
If the students become better and better at active communication (in speaking and writing), they should make a high score on any of those tests mentioned above.
To illustrate my point – look at Latin:
I took Latin in high school, because it was a foreign language option that did not require me to learn how to speak or write in it.
Latin is a “dead language” now. So, even high school teachers who have been teaching it for 20 years or whatever — can’t use it to communicate.
Korea is not an ESL country. It is an EFL country, but there is plenty of exposure to English as a language of communication for Korean students to use the inductive grammar learning methods that involve communicative activities and lots of reading.