Jack C.

Richards
Thombury, S. (1998). Comments on direct approaches in L2 instruction. TESOL Quarter/y,
32(1),109-116.

SMM!

ri

9M'i!!

CHAPTER

Van Patten, W. (1993). Grammar-teaching for the acquisition-rich c1assroom. Foreign Language Annals, 26(4),435-450.
Willis, J., & Willis, D. (Eds.), (1996). Challenge and change in language teaching, Oxford:
Heinemann.

15

Grammar Teaching .; Practice or

Consciousness- Raising?
Rod Ellis

INTRODUCTION

Two major questions need to be considered with regard to grammar teaching in second
language (L2) pedagogy:
1.

Should we teach grammar at ali?

2.

lf we should teach grammar, how should we teach it?

The first question has been answered in the negative by some applied linguists. Krashen
(1982), for instance, has argued that formal instruction in grammar will nol contribute 10 lhe
development of 'acquired' knowledge - lhe knowledge needed 10 participare in authentic
communication. Prabhu (1987) has tried to show, with some success, that c1assroom learners
can acquire an L2 grammar naturalistically by participating in meaning-focused tasks. Others, however, inc1uding myself, have argued that grammar teaching does aid L2 acquisition,
although not necessarily in the way teachers often t1nk it does. My principal contention is
that formal grammar teaching has a delayed rather than instant effect.
The focus of this artic1e is the second questiono I am going to assume that we should
teach grammar (see Ellis, 1990, for the reasons why) and tum my attention to how we
should set about doing so. Specifically, I want 10 consider two approaches, which I shall
refer to as 'practice' and 'consciousness-raising'. I shall begin by defining these. I will
then briefly consider the case for practice and argue that the available evidence suggests that it may not be as effective as is generally believed. I will then present a number of arguments in support of consciousness-raising and conc1ude with an exarnple of a
'CR-Iask'.

167

168

Grammar Teaching - Practice or Consciousness-Raising?

Rod Ellis
DEFINING

PRACTICE

ANO CONSCIOUSNESS-RAISING

For most teachers, the man idea of grammar teaching is to help leamers intemalise the
structures taught in such a way that they can be used in everyday communication. To
this end, the learners are provided with opportunities to practise the structures, first under
controlled conditions, and then under more normal communicative conditions. Ur (1988,
p. 7) describes th~ practice stage of a grammar lesson in these terms: "The practice stage
consists of a series of exercises ... whose aim is to cause the leamers to absorb the structure
thoroughly; or to put it another way, to transferwhat they know from short-term to long-term
memory'.
It is common to distinguish a number of different types of practice activties>. mechanical practice, contextualised practice, and communicative practice. Mechanical practice consists of various types of rigidly controlled activities, such as substitution exercises.
Contextualised practice is still controlled, but involves an attempt to encourage leamers to
relate form to meaning by showing how structures are used in real-life situations. Communicative practice entails various kinds of 'gap' activities which require the leamers to
engage in authentic communication while at the same time 'keeping an eye, as it were, on
the structures that are being manipulated in the process' (Ur, 1988, p. 9) ..
Irrespective of whether the practice is controlled, contextualised, or communicative, it
will have the following characteristics:
I.

There is some attempt to isolate a specific grammatical feature for focused attention.

2.

The learners are required to produce sentences containing 'the targeted feature.

3.

The learners will be provided with opportunities for repetition of the targeted feature.

4.

There is an expectancy that the leamers will perform the grarnrnatical feature
correctly. In general, therefore, practice activities are 'success oriented' (Ur, 1988,
p.13).

5.

The learners receivefeedback on whether their performance of the grammatical

structure is correct or not. This feedback may be immediate or delayed.

These five characteristics provide a definition of what most methodologists mean by

practice. It should be noticed that each characteristic constitutes an assumption about how
grammar is learnt. B y and large, though, these assumptions go unchallenged and have
become pari of the mythology of language teaching.
Consciousness-raising, as I use the term, involves an attempt to equip the leamer with
an understanding of a specific grammatical feature - to develop declarative rather than
procedural knowledge of it. The main characteristics of consciousness-raising activities are
the following:
1.

There is an attempt to isolate a specific linguistic feature for focused attention.

2.

The learners are provided with data which illustrate the targeted feature and they may
also be supplied with an explicit role describing or explaining the feature.

3.

The learners are expected to utilise intellectual effort to understand the targeted
feature.

4.

Misunderstanding or incornplete understanding of the grammatical structure by the

leamers leads to clarification in the form of further data and description or
explanation.

5.

Learners may be required (although this is not obligatory) to~te

describing the grammatical structure.

lhe role

It should be c1ear from this list that the main purpose of consciousness-raising is to
develop explicit knowledge of grammar. I want to emphasise, however, that this is not the same as metalingual knowledge. Itis perfect1y possible to develop an explicit understanding
of how a grammatical structure works without learning much in the way of grarnrnatical
terrninology. Grammar can be explained, and, therefore, understood in everyday language.
It may be, however, that access to some metalanguage will facilitate the development of
explicit knowledge.
A comparison of the characteristics of consciousness-raising with those Iisted for practice shows that lhe main difference is that consciousness-raising does not involve the leamer
in repeated production. This is because the aim of this kind of grarnrnar teaching is not to
enable the learner to perform a structure correctly but simply to help her to 'know about it'.
Here is how Rutherford and Sharwood-Smith (1985) put it: 'CR is considered as a potential
facilitator for the acquisition of linguistic competence and has nothing directly to do with
the use of that competence for the achievernent of specific communicative objectives, or
with the achievement of fiuency'.
Whereas practice is primarily behavioural, consciousness-raising is essentially conceptforrning in orientation.
The two types of grammar work are not mutually exclusive, however. Thus, grammar
teaching can involve a cornbination of practice and consciousness-raising and, indeed,
traditionally does so. Thus, many methodologists recommend that practice work be preceded
by a presentation stage, to ensure that the leamers have a clear idea about what.the targeted
structure consists of. This presentation stage may invol ve an inductive or deductive treatment
of the structure. AIso, practice work can be rounded off with a formal explanation of lhe
structure. Even strict audiolingualists such as Brooks (1960) recognised the value of formal
explanations of pattems as 'summaries' once the practice activities had been completed.
Indeed, it is arguable that no grammar teaching can take place without some consciousnessraising occurring. Even if the practice work is directed at the implicitleaming of the structure
and no formal explanation is provided, leamers (particularly, adults) are likely to try to
construct some kind of explicit representation of the role.
.
Nevertheless, the distinction is a real and important one. Whereas practice work cannot
take place without some degree of consciousness-raising (even if this is incidental), the
obverse is not the case; consciousness-raising can occur without practice. Thus, it is perfectly possible to teach grammar in the sense of helping leamers to understand and explain
grarnrnatical phenomena without having them engage in activities that require repeated
production of the structures concemed. One way this occurs is by presenting leamers with
rules for memorisation - teaching about grarnrnar. This is what occurred in the grammartranslation method. Such an approach lias been discredited on a number of grounds, and
it is not my intention to advocate its reintroduction. There are other ways of raising consciousness that are compatible with contemporary educational principies, however. Before
considering thern, I want to consider the extent to which the faith methodologists have in
practice is justified.

DOES PRACTICE WORK?

A number of ernpirical studies have investigated whether practice contributes to L2 acquisition (cf. Ellis, 1988, for a review). These studies are oftwo kinds: those that seek to relate
the amount of practice achieved by individualleamers with general increases in proficiency
(e.g., Seliger, 1977; Day, 1984) and those that haye examined whether practising a specific
linguistic structure results in its acquisition (e.g., Ellis, 1984).

169

-,
170

Rod EUis

The results of bolh types of research are not encouraging for supporters of practice.
Correlational studies (i.e., lhe first kind just referred to) have produced mixed results. Some
studies have found a relationship hetween amount of practice and gains in proficiency, but
olhers have failed to do so. Even when a study does show a strong relationship, it does not
warrant claiming that practice causes leaming. In order to say somelhing ahout cause and
effect, we have to interpret a correlational relationship. lt is perfectly possible to argue that
it is lhe learners' proficiency that influences practice, ralher than vice versa. Teachers may
direct more practice opportunities at those learners who they think are able to supply correct
answers - thus, lhe more proficient receive more practice. lndeed, one of lhe requirements
of practice - that it be success-oriented - would lead us to predict that this will happen. The
detailed analysis of classroom interactions that result from practice activities supports such
an interpretation.
Studies which have investigated whether practising a specific structure results in its
acquisition provide evidence to suggest that practice does not result in the autonomous
ability to use the structure. In other words, practising a grammatical structure under controlled conditions does not seem to enable the learner to use the structure freely. I carried
out a study (Ellis, 1984) to see whether practising 'when' questions enabled learners to
acquire this structure. lt did not. Ellis and Ralhbone (1987) investigated whether practising
a difficult word-order rule with learners of L2 Gerrnan resulted in its acquisition. Again, it
did not. There are also doubts that learners are able to transfer knowledge from controlled
to communicative practice. Once learners move into a meaning-focused activity, they seem
to fali back on their own resources and ignore lhe linguistic material they have practised
previously in forrn"-focused activity.
, There are, of course, problems with such studies as these, and it would be unwise to
c1aim lhat they conclusively demonstrate lhat practice does not work. It may be lhat the
practice was of lhe wrong kind, that it was poorly executed, or lhat lhere was not enough of
it. It may be that practice only works with some kinds of learners. Nevertheless, lhe studies
cast doubts on lhe clairns methodologists make about practice.
There are also strong theoretical grounds for questioning lhe effectiveness of practice.
Pienemann (1985) has proposed that some structures are developmental in lhe sense lhat they
are acquired in a defined sequence.1t is impossible for lhe learner to acquire a developmental
structure until the psycholinguistic processing operations associated wilh easier structures
in lhe acquisitional sequence have been acquired.
According to Pienemann's teachability hypothesis, a structure cannot be successfully
taught (in the sense that it will be used correctly and spontaneously in communication) unless
lhe learner is developmentally ready to acquire it. ln other words, the teaching syllabus has to
match the learner's developmental syllabus. For practice to work, then, lhe teacher will have
to find out what stage of development lhe learners have reached. Allhough it is technically
possible for lhe teacher to do this, it is impractical in most teaching situations.
Of course, it does not follow from lhese arguments that practice is wilhout any value
at all. Practice probably doe; help where pronunciation is concerned - it gives learners
opportunities to get their tongues around new words and phrases, A1so, practice may be
quite effective in helping leamers to remember new lexical material, including forrnulaic
chunks such as 'How do you do?', 'Can I have a ... 1', and 'I don't understand'. Some
learners - extroverts who enjoy speaking in the classroom, for example - may respond
positively to practice activities. For lhese reasons, practice will always have a place in lhe
c1assroom. It needs to be recognised, however, that practice will often not lead to immediate
procedural knowledge of grammatical rules, irrespective of its quantity and quality.
To sum up, there are strong grounds - empirical and lheoretical- which lead us to doubt
tbe efficacy of practice. 'Practice' is essentially a pedagogical construct. It assumes that
lhe acquisition of grammatical structures involves a gradual automatisation of production,

Grammar Teaching

- Practice

or Consciousness-Raising?

from controlled to automatic, and it ignores the very real constraints lhat exist on the ability
of lhe teacher to influence what goes on inside lhe leamer's head. Practice may have limited
psycltolinguistic validity.

THE CASE FOR CONSCIOUSNESS-RAISING

We have seen that lhe goal of practice activities is to develop lhe kind of automatic control of
grammatical structures that will enable learners to use them productively and spontaneously.
We have also seen that lhere are reasons to believe that this may not be achievable. The
problem lies in assurning that we can teach grammar for use in communication. If we
lower our sights and instead aim to develop lhe learner's awareness of what is correct but
wilhout any expectancy that we can bring lhe learner to the point where she can use lhis
knowledge in normal communication, lhen lhe main lheoretical objections raised against
practice disappear. Consciousness-raising is predicated on this lesser goal.
Practice is directed at lhe acquisition of implicit knowledge of a grammatical
structure - lhe kind of tacit knowledge needed to use lhe structure effortlessly for communication. Consciousness-raising is directed at lhe formation of explicit knowledge - the
kind ofintellectual knowledge which we are able to galher about any subject, ifwe so choose.
Of course, lhe construction of explicit representations of grammatical structures is of lirnited
use in itself. It may help lhe leamer to perforrn successfully in certain kinds of discrele-item
language lests. 11may also help to rnprove her perforrnance in planning her discourse, as
when we monitor our output in order to improve it for public perusal. BUI, crucially, it
will not be of much use in lhe normal, everyday uses of language. Explicit knowledge is
not much use when it comes to communicating. For lhis, we need implicit knowledge.
We need to ask, lherefore, whelher lhe more limited goal of consciousness-raslng to teach explicit knowledge - has any value. Ultirnately, consciousness-raising can only be
justified if it can be shown lhat it contributes to th leamer's ability to communicate. I want to
argue that, although consciousness-raising does nOIcontribute directly to lhe acquisition of
implicit knowledge, it does so indirectly, ln ~lher words, consciousness-raising facilitates
tbe acquisition of lhe grammatical knowledge needed for communication.
The acquisition of implicit knowledge involves three processes:
I.

noticing (the learner becomes conscious of lhe presence of a linguistic feature in lhe
input, whereas previously she bad ignored it)

2.

comparing (the learner compares lhe linguistic feature noticed in the input wilh her
own mental gramnlar, registering 10 what extent lhere is a 'gap' between lhe input and
her grammar)

3.

integrating (lhe learner integrates a representation of lhe new linguistic feature into
her mental grammar)

The first two processes involve conscious attention to language; lhe third process takes
place at a very 'deep' levei, of which tbe learner is generally not aware. Noticing and
comparing can take place at any time; lhey are not developmental1y regulated. But integration
of new linguistic material into the store of implicit knowledge is subject to tbe kinds of
psycholinguistic constraints discussed earlier.
How, lhen, does consciousness-raising contribute to lhe acquisition of implicit knowledge? I would like to suggest that it does so in two major ways:
1.

It contributes 10 lhe processes of noticing and comparing and, therefore, prepares th;
grounds for the integration of new linguistic material. However, it will not bring 'about

171

Rod Ellis

Grammar Teaching - Practice or Consciousness-Raising?

integration. This process is controlled by the learner and will talce place only when
the learner is developmentally ready.
2.

It results in explicit knowledge, Thus, even if the learner is unable to integrate the
new feature as implicit knowledge, she can construct an altemative explicit
representation which can be stored separately and subsequently accessed when the
learner is developmentally primed to handle it. Furthermore, explicit knowledge
serves to help the learner to continue to notice the feature in the input, thereby
facilitating its subsequent acquisition.

Consciousness-raising, then, is unlikely to result in immediate acquisition. More likely,

it will have a delayed effect:
There are a1so educational reasons that can be advanced for grammar teaclng as
consciousness-raising. The incJusion of foreign languages in the school curriculum is not
motivated entirely by the desire to foster communication between spealcers of different
languages, although this has become the most prominent aim in recent years. This inclusion
has, and always has had, a more general goal- that of fostering intellectual development.
'Grammar' embodies a corpus ofknowledge the study ofwlch can be expected to contribute
to students' cognitive skills. It constitutes a serious content and, as such, contrasts with the
trivial content of many modern textbooks.
It is not my intention, however, to advocale a return to 'teaching about grammar', or,
at least, not in the form that this was carried out in the past. The arguments that I have
presented in favour of consciousness-raising do not justify giving lectures on grammar.
Such a transmission-oriented approach runs contrary to progressive educational principies.
What I have in mind is a task-based approach that emphasises discovery learning by asking
learners to solve problems about grammar. The following is an example of this approach.

AN EXAMPLE

OF A CONSCIOUSNESS-RAISING

TABLE 1.

AN EXAMPLE OF A CR PROBJ.EM-SOLVING TASK

1. Here is some information about when three people joined the

company they now work for and how long they have ?~en working there,
Name

Date Joined

Length of Time

MsRegan

1945

45 yrs

Mr Bush

1970

20 yrs

Ms Thatcher

1989

Mr Balcer

1990 (Feb)

9mths
10 days

2.

Study these sentences about these people. When is 'for' used and
when is 'since' used?
a. Ms Regan has been working for her company for most of her life.
b. Mr Bush has been working for his company since 1970.
c. Ms Thatcher has been working for her company for 9 months.
d. -Mr Balcer has been working for his company since February.

3.

Which
a. Ms
b. Mr
c. Ms
d. Mr

4.

Try and malce up a rule to explain when 'for' and 'since' are used.

5.

Malce up one sentence about when you started to learn English and one
sentence about how long you have been studying English. Use 'for' and
'since'.

of the following sentences are ungrammatical? Why?

Regan has been working for her company for 1945.
Bush has been working for his company for 20 years.
Thatcher has been working for her company since 1989.
Balcer has been working for his company since 10 days.

TASK

Consciousness-raising tasks can be inductive or deductive. In the case of the former, the
learner is provided with data and asked to construct an explicit rule to describe the grammatical feature which the data illustrate. In the case of the latter, the learner is supplied with
a rule which is then used to carry out some task. We do not know, as yet, which type results
in the more efficient learning of explicit knowledge - probably both will prove useful.
Table I provides a simple example of an inductive task designed to raise learners'
awareness about lhe grammatical differences between 'for' and 'since'. This problem has
been designed with a number of points in mind. First, the intention is to f'ocus on a known
source of difficulty; learners frequently fail to distinguish 'for' and 'since'. Second, the data
provided must be adequate to enable the learners to discover the rule that governs the usage
of these prepositions in time expressions. In lhe case of this task, the data incJude both
grammatical and ungrammatical sentences. Third, the task requires mnimal production on
the part of the learners; instead, emphasis is placed on developing an 'idea' of when the
two forms are used. Fourth, there is an opportunity to apply the rule in the construction of
personalised statements. This is not intended to 'practise' the rule but to promote its storage
as explicit knowledge; production, therefore, is restricted to two sentences and there is
no insistence on autornatic processing. Such tasks as these can be designed with varying
formats. They can make use of situational infnnation, diagram, charts, tables, and so on.
They can also be used in both lockstep teaching (i.e., when the teacher works through a
problem with the whole class) or small-group work.

CONCLUSION

ln this paper I have argued the case for grammar teaching as consciousness-raising. In one
respect, this does not constitute a radical departure from what teachers have a1ways done.
Many teachers have felt the need to provide formal explanations of grammatical points.
But in another respect, it does represent.a real alternative in that it removes from grammar
teaching the need to provide learners with repeated opportunities.to produce the target
structure. So much effort has gone into devising ingenious ways of eliciting and shaping
learners' responses, more often to little or no avail as learners do not acquire the structures
they have practised. Consciousness-raising constitutes an approach to grarnrnar teaching
which is cornpatible with current thinking about how learners acquire L2 grarnrnar. It also
constitutes an approach that accords with progressive views about education as a process
of discovery through problem-solving tasks.
There are, of course, limitations to consciousness-raising. It may not be appropriate
for young learners. Some learners (e.g., those who like to learn by 'doing' rather than
'studying') may dislike it. It can only be used with beginners if the learners' first language
is used as the medium for solving the tasks. However, the alternative in such situations
is not practice. Rather, it is to provide opportunities for meaning-focused language use,
for communicating in the L2, initially perhaps in lhe form of listening tasks. Alllearners,
even those who are suited to a consciousness-raising approach, will need plenty of such

171

Rod Ellis
opportunities. Consciousness-raising
a supplement.

is not an a1ternative to communication activities, but

.References
Brooks, N. (1960). Language and language leaming. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Day, R. R. (1984). Student participation in the ESL classroom. Language Leaming, 34,
69-89.
Ellis, R. (1984). The role of instruction in second language acquisition. In D: Singleton &
D. Little (Eds.), Language leaming in formal and informal contexts.lRAAL.
Ellis, R. (1988). The role ofpractice in c1assroom language le~ing.

Teanga 8,1-25.

Ellis, R. (1990). lnstructed second language acquisition, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Ellis, R., & Rathbone, M. (1987). The acquisuion of German in a classroom contexto
London: EaJing College of Higher Education.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principies and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Pienemann, M. (1985). LearnabiJity and syllabus construction. In K. Hyltenstam &
M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition. Clevedon,
Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Prabhu, N. (1987): Second language pedagogy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rutherford, W., & Sharwood-Smith, M. (1985). Consciousness-raising
grammar. Applied Linguistics, 6,2'14-281.

and universal

Seliger, H. (1977). Does practice make perfect? A study of interaction patterns and
L2 competence. Language Leaming, 27,263-275.
Ur, P. (1988). Grammar practice activities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.