Action Research into alternative grammar presentation methods for trainee teachers.

Introduction

For many adult learners of a foreign language, grammar represents a necessary evil. A recent survey of upper intermediate adult learners in the UK (Appendix 1) revealed a strong desire for this to play a prominent part in the lessons. Learners commented that In my view it is very important to practice [sic] grammar, even if its often boring. ..you can be better understood if you use the right grammar and for me, its the main point [sic]why I go to school. Two thirds of those questioned ranked learning or practising grammar as the most helpful activity when learning a language. Although scholars such as Steven Krashen have continued to argue that the effect of direct grammar teaching is peripheral and fragile and that conscious knowledge of grammar is available only as a monitor (Krashen 1992), there is significant evidence to suggest that, with the exception of young children learning in a second language environment, explicit grammar teaching is a prerequisite for most learners to acquire a high proficiency (CelceMurcia 1992). Lightbrown and Spada (1990) in studies of French Canadian children learning English, have shown that learners who had had explicit grammatical instruction were more accurate in their use of certain structures than those who had not and according to Paradis(2004) there is also recent neuro-linguisticevidence for thisin adult learners, where age decreases the procedural memory for language and forces [them] to rely on explicit learning, which results in the use of a cognitive system different from that which supports the native language (Paradis in Nikolov and Mihaljevic Djigunovic 2006) In comparison to this necessity to teach grammar to adult learners, many trainees on CELTA1 courses, find this area the most challenging. Stronger trainees tend to be quickly able to analyse the models they see and present language in a clear context with a communicative The Certificate in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (CELTA) is the initial teacher training course offered by the University of Cambridge (ESOL ) Examinations. It is a widespread and well recognised qualification for native (or near native) speakers of English and is designed for those who wish to teach adults, usually in BANA type institutions overseas.
1
1

focus. For weaker trainees, the difficulties are often an overemphasis on teacher talk, a lack of good context for the language and a prioritisation of form over meaning and communication. I feel that a more explicit focus on a task based approach may support the trainees more effectively by ensuring they contextualise the language well and encouraging a learner centred, inductive approach to grammar. This assignment will consider two different Communicative Approach models of grammar teaching and explore the potential for action research in this area withteachers on CELTA courses. Attitudes into grammar teaching will be examined and further work suggested into how a more explicitly task based approach could be encouraged within the constraints of the course.

A consideration of PPP and TBL

Although CELTA does not advocate a particular method, the model is broadly that of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). Within this, a range of methods and techniques are discussed and demonstrated, but the dominant paradigm for grammar teaching on the course still tends towards Presentation, Practice and Production (PPP). This model has its roots inHornbys use of situations in the mid-1950s to exemplify grammar (Howatt and Widdowson 2004: 297) and was further developed by Byrne (1976). The premise is that a grammatical structure will be presented in a context, practised in a controlled manner with drills, substitutions, gap fill exercises etc, and then further practised in a more communicative manner, using activities such as discussions and role plays. Whilst learners are encouraged to use the language for communicative purposes, especially in the production or freer practice stage, this approach clearly has a strong focus on grammatical structures, and is often seen as a weak form of CLT (Howatt and Widdowson ibid.). Also, althoughPPP does not preclude an inductive approach the reality is that the language is usually deductively delivered in the presentation stage.This method has come under much criticism over a number of years. (Lewis 1993, Woodward 1994, Harmer 1998) largelyfor the assumptions that underlie it, namely that language is a body of knowledge that can be atomised, dissected into small, discrete pieces, which can then be isolated, selected, graded and sequenced (Woodward ibid.). This easily leads inexperienced teachers to the conclusion that language is therefore learnable in small chunks that build towards a whole and that if you get the rules and patterns correct, you can generate correct sentences. (Woodward ibid.). According to

Willis and Willis (2007) it is clear from our experience in classrooms that this simply does not happen. Learners do not achieve mastery of one form before moving on to the next. An alternative to PPP can be found in a task based learning (TBL) approach, which can be considered a strong form of CLT(Howatt and Widdowson op.cit.). This developed in the late 1980s largely from the work ofPrabhu and Krahen.Prabhu, working on the large scale Bangalore Project, argued that that 'form is best learnt when the learner's attention is on meaning' (Prabhu 1982:2 in Brumfit 1984) and thatlanguage is too complex to be reduced to rules which are learnable in a conscious manner. Not only were grammatical generalisations seen to be unhelpful, they could be actively harmful as their inappropriatecategories will distort the learners' own generalizations (Brumfit ibid.).There was much discussion and evaluation of this project, and it came under criticism for its lack of group work and the closed nature of the problems posed (Brumfit ibid.). There has also been debate as to how farPrabhus doctrine of only attending to the content of language and only correcting form as an interested adult might was followed (Berretta 1989). Even given these criticisms, there is little doubt that it sparked change in ELT, away from a belief that explicit grammar teaching was essential and towards a more task based approach. A further development at this time was the work of Steven Krashen. He had started his academic career, with the opinion that explicit grammar instruction was of crucial importance to adult language learning (Krashen and Seliger 1975), but his most influential work was with the publication of TheNatural Approach (Krashen and Terrell 1983). The basis of this was the assumptionthat language acquisition follows a pre-determined path and that, given the right conditions, this natural route can be reactivated for second language acquisition (Thornbury forthcoming :3). Thus, explicit grammar teaching could only help to develop a monitor, but knowledge of grammar could only be learnt by exposure to comprehensible input This work, combined with the task based ideas of Prabhu, paved the way for a wider application of task based learning.The influence of Prahus work, with a complete move away from grammar teaching, can be seen, for example in CLIL programmes, but this approach was too radical a move for most institutions teaching adults. Nunan found that learners themselves expected to be taught grammar and suggests that There is evidence that learners have some rather definite views on what are legitimate classroom activities (Nunan 1987:142).

Jane and David Willis were influenced by both Krashen and especially Prabhu (Willis and Willis 2008) and have been central proponents of a task based approach. However, from the early days they felt that it was necessary to include a grammatical focus in the task cycle. Their approach includes an initial preparation for the task, or pre-task work, then the task itself, during which learners use the language that they have at their disposal to achieve a particular end. This is followed by a preparation for reporting back stage, in which the pair or group have a purpose for producing more accurate language to report their findings to the rest of the class. After the reporting stage, there is then a teacher led focus on a language point arising from the text or task. There are, therefore, two points in the task cycle where language is the focus, student led at the planning stage, and teacher led at the end of the lesson. (Willis and Willis op.cit.)

Action Research.

CELTA is an introductory course, and whilst trainees often come with some previous teaching experience, this is not a requirement. Mann (2005) defines the purpose of initial training as opposed to teacher development, to be to introduce the methodological choices available and to familiarise trainees with the range of terms and concepts that are the common currency of language teachers. and to a large extent the course, being very short in nature, is confined to this. One criticism that is levelled at CELTA (Rinvolucri 1996) is that it encourages a very narrow view of appropriate language teaching methodology, usually centred on a PPP approach and doesnt allow teachers space to develop an individual style. My own experience leads me to feel that whilst there is some justification for such a view, especially for weaker trainees who find support in a more rigid structure, stronger candidates are able to develop a wider range of techniques. Harmer (1998) argues that clear models or default settings enable teachers on short, introductory courses to survive and it is also worth noting that with further experience, especially if they work in a supportive environment and are encouraged to reflect on their practice, teachers tend to develop their own styles. Despite the criticisms levelled at PPP, it has proved remarkably enduring (Thornberry op.cit:6) and is still the main way in which grammar is taught in CELTA. There are several reasons why PPP continues to dominate in spite of its critics and mostly these relate to the structure of the course itself. Assessment in CELTA is continual, and based on a list of

criteria of practice in planning, delivering and reflecting on lessons. With respect to grammar presentation, trainees have to demonstrate their learning by:
y

Analysing language with attention to form, meaning and phonology and use correct terminology

y y

Anticipating potential difficulties with language, materials and learners. Focusing on language items in the classroom by clarifying relevant aspects of meaning, form and phonology for learners to an appropriate depth. (University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations 2009)

Their teaching practice takes place with volunteer learners in two hour blocks, this most usually being divided into 40 minute slots taught by different trainees. Although all trainees observe each other and have designated time within the course to plan together, each trainees lessons are often stand-alone in nature as the teachers find it more practical to plan alone. This is particularly true at the point at which they are planning more independently of their tutors, after week 3 of a 10 week course. PPP then becomes the most obvious model, since it is possible to exemplify the criteria stated above at the beginning of the lesson and provide some amount of practice in a relatively short amount of time. More able trainees succeed within the current system and are able to deliver grammar inductively from well-developed contexts, comprehending the need for communicative tasks. For less able trainees, grammar teaching is usually the most challenging part of the course and this is often the area in which they fail. The limitations of the course structure have already been discussed, but in addition to this, there are factors relating to the trainees which are pertinent to a discussion of the role of grammar on the course. Although the course also attracts non-native speakers of English, it is designed primarily for native speakers. Teaching in the education system in the UK since the 1950s has placed emphasis on the use of the language, rather than explicit training in form, meaning that the majority of trainees come to the course with fluent, faultless English, but with little conscious knowledge of the nomenclature and systems of the language. For this reason, grammar teaching is the area in which they often feel insecure and they find this area of the course most stressful. I feel that a task based approach may be helpful as a model to CELTA trainees. The benefits, especially for weaker trainees may be to encourage a more learner centred approach, with an increase in real communication, a more inductive approach to grammar and possibly most

fundamentally, to ensure that there is a very explicit understanding that communicative competenceand not accuracy is the goal for most learners. In order to assess the current situation, I largely used my own reflections on the current course and on the feedback that trainees gave about their lessons in addition to reflections on previous courses. Towards the end of the course, I also gave trainees a short questionnaire (Appendix 2) to discover more about their attitudes to grammar teaching, and lastly, discussed with them as a group the answers they had given to elicit more detailed ideas. The results of the survey were reassuring, in that the trainees attitudes to grammar were far less rigid and one-dimensional than might be expected by critics of the course.Only three of the trainees chose a description of PPP as a preferred option and the majority felt that the best way to teach grammar was in an inductive way based on a reading or listening text. One, possibly more insightful, stated that they usually use PPP but feel that a more inductive approach is more helpful. All but one felt that teaching grammar was less important than speaking and listening in class or learning vocabulary. Many of them also stated that they enjoyed teaching grammar although they found it challenging. The group discussion was less successful in that it was largely the stronger trainees who participated. However, some interesting points were raised. Many compared the communicative approach very positively with language teaching they had experienced at school and there was considerable discussion about teaching methods and approaches being dependent on learners needs. Here, there was an interesting difference in opinion between those trainees who are successful language learners themselves, and those who have not achieved a high level of proficiency in another language. The former expressed a preference for quite explicit explanation of language and have a strong desire to get it right. The latter, however, felt that they would be more content with less accuracy, but the ability to communicate. A further point of discussion was that trainees often feel that they have failed if learners are not able to use the target language accurately by the end of their lesson. This observation was confirmed by several of the trainees, in particular, a very strong candidate, who has a background in teaching modern foreign languages in high school. This common misconception is one which is usually addressed informally in feedback. However, there is perhaps a place for a more systematic inclusion of this issue.Dave Willis (2008) suggests that one of the greatest difficulties for teachers with TBL is of letting go and accepting that language learning is a developmental process and it is all really down to the learner. He describes teachers as conscientious and says that they like to be in control and they like to move things along in predictable ways
6

but that what is of prime importance for the learner is to express meaning with the language they have, and only then focus on particular forms. It takes time for language to develop. The first treatment of a new form or forms will not lead to mastery. It may aid development in that the learner will be more likely to notice the new form in future once it has been highlighted. But the form will not become a part of the learners spontaneous repertoire until they have had time to assimilate it. (Willis and Willis op.cit.:18) Evidence from lesson observation shows that weaker trainees find very clear models helpful. Books such as Grammar and How to teach English Grammar(Scrivener 2003, 2010) which offer a very structuredPPP approach often allow trainees to deliver a clearly focused grammar lesson, even if limited in the amount of meaningful communication achieved. This leads me to believe that clear models are of great support and use. However, one of the main challenges to implementing a TBL model will be that of time management. This is often difficultfor inexperienced teachers, and with a more task based approach, leaving the language focus to the end of a short slot, may often mean that it is omitted due to time constraints. For this reason, it will be imperative that trainees plan more closely together in order to teach different parts of the task cycle within a two hour lesson. This may also have positive effects in terms of more able trainees supporting weaker peers. There are three changes I plan to implement. The first is that on the second day of the course, the trainees observe the tutor deliver a two hour lesson and there is then feedback on this. The lesson delivered will be more explicitly task based, (appendix 3) and the trainees will be given questions to discuss in feedback to elicit the salient points about the method. (appendix 4). This will focus explicitly on the stages of a TBL lesson and also aim to raise trainees awareness of issues of communicative competence and the organic nature of the language learning process.Secondly, trainees are usually given a course book and teaching points that help to clarify the unit they will teach. Instead of using the book for the first two lessons, they will be given clear instructions to guide them through the lessons in a more task based style. They will be asked to fill in the same questions for these first lessons that they teach, in order toagain raise the issues of a focus on authentic communication and an inductive approach to grammar. Finally, in the input session on language presentation early in the course, which currently exemplifies a PPP model, a TBL lesson will be demonstrated.

The effect of these changes will be evaluatedby observation of the initial TBL lessons taught, and the feedback given, and by any change seen in the manner that trainees approach further lessons in which they plan more independently. The most interesting aspect of this will be the extent to which the weaker trainees are empowered to deliver more learner centred grammar focused lessons. Trainees perceptions will be explored in the regular after class feedback sessions and at the end of the course, they will be given the questionnaire in appendix 2. At this point, there will be a further extended discussion on language presentation methods, conducted in the teaching practice group of 6 trainees rather than as a larger group, in order to assess views of the trainees who have found language teaching more challenging. The results of the research will be discussed amongst the teacher training team at our regular meetings and the approach will be adopted if it is considered to be more helpful.

References
Beretta, A. 1989. Attention to form or meaning? Error treatment in the Bangalore ProjectTESOL Quarterly 23/2: 283-303 Brumfit, C. J. 1984. The Bangalore procedural syllabus. English Language Teaching Journal, 38: 233-241 Byrne, D. 1976.Teaching Oral English. Harlow; Longman. Celce-Murcia, M. 1992. Formal grammar instruction; an educator comments. TESOL Quarterly26/2: 406-409 Harmer, J. 1998. Default settings. What models do for trainees. IATEFL TT SIG Newsletter 21: 16-19 Howatt, A.P.R. and H.G Widdowson. 2004. A History of English Language Teaching (Second edition). Harlow; Pearson. Krashen, S. 1992.Another educator comments. TESOL Quarterly 26/ 2: 409-411 Krashen,S. and H. W. Seliger.1975. The essential contributions of formal instruction in adult second language.TESOL Quarterly 9/2: 173-183 Krashen, S.D. and T.D.Terrell. 1983.The Natural Approach. Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Oxford: Pergamon Lewis, M. 1996. Implications of a Lexical View of Language.In Willis, D and J. Willis (eds)
8

Lightbown, P and N. Spada. 1990. Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching; effects on second language learning studies. Second Language Acquisition 12/4: 429-448 Mann, S. 2005. The language teachers development. Language Teaching. 38: 103118 Nikolov,M and J. Mihaljevic Djigunovic. 2006Recent research on age, second language acquisition and early foreign language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 26: 234-260. USA.Cambridge University Press Nunan, D. 1987. Communicative language teaching: Making it work. ELT Journal 41/2: 136-145 Paradis, M. 2004. A Neurolinguistic Theory of Bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Prabhu, N. S.1982. The Communicational Teaching Project, South India. Mimeo, Madras: The BritishCouncil. Rinvolucri, M. 1996. Letter to Craig Thaine. The Teacher Traine.r 10/2 Scrivener, J. 2010. Teaching English Grammar: What to Teach and How to Teach it. London: Macmillan. Scrivener, J. 2003. Grammar: Oxford Basics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.. Thornbury, S.(forthcoming) in J. Simpson (ed).Routledge Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Abingdon: Routledge. Willis, D and J. Willis(eds). 1996.Challenge and Change in Language Teaching . Oxford: Heinemann Willis, D and J. Willis.2007.Doing Task Based Learning. Oxford:Oxford University Press. Willis. D and J. Willis. 2008. Interview with Dave and Jane Willis for Warwick University Vodcasts for Staying in Touch. Accessed on http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/al/ postgrad/ma/elt_sm/in-touch/vodcasts/ 2nd December 2010 Woodward, T. 1994. Changing the basis of pre-service TEFL training in the UK. IATEFL TT SIG Newsletter 13: 3-5 University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations. 2009.Certificate in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (CELTA) Candidate Record Book CELTA 5.

Appendix 1
9

1.Which activities do you think are the most helpful when you are learning English? Put these things in order from most helpful (1) to least helpful (6) Learning and practising vocabulary in class Speaking and listening in class Learning or practising grammar in class Reading on your own outside class Reading and writing in class Speaking to people outside class [ [ [ [ [ [

]
] ] ] ] ]

2. What else is helpful?

3. When you are learning grammar in class, which do you prefer: y The teacher chooses a grammar point and teaches this first before you have practice. y You read or listen to a text, and then the teacher asks you to look at some of the language used in it, and discover how the grammar works by looking at examples. y You do some speaking or writing and then the teacher does some grammar teaching based on some of the mistakes that you have made. y You do some speaking or writing and then the teacher teaches a grammar point that she has chosen that you could use in the task.

4. Please write on the back how you feel about learning grammar.

Appendix 2
10

1. Which activities do you think are the most helpful to learners when you are teaching English? Put these things in order from most helpful (1) to least helpful (6) Learning and practising vocabulary in class Speaking and listening in class Learning or practising grammar in class Reading on your own outside class Reading and writing in class Speaking to people outside class [ [ [ [ [ [

]
] ] ] ] ]

2. What else is helpful?

3. When you are teaching grammar in class, or have watched other teachers teach on the course which approach do you like best/ think is most helpful for adult learners? Which do you think you will use in your own classes? y You choose a grammar point and teach this first before you give the learners practice. y You use a reading or listening text, and then ask the learners to look at some of the language used in it, and discover how the grammar works by looking at examples. y You give the learners a speaking or writing task and then do some grammar teaching based on some of the mistakes that they make. y You give the learners a speaking or writing task and then teach a grammar point that you have chosen and planned that could be helpful in the task. 4. Please write on the back briefly how you feel about teaching grammar.

Appendix 3
11

SOLIHULL COLLEGE CELTA TEACHING PRACTICE LESSON PLAN FORM

NAME: Joanne Gakonga WEEK AND DAY LEVEL: Up Int LENGTH: 2 hrs

LESSON FOCUS: Reading / Vocab/ Tense review/ speaking AIMS:

To practice reading an authentic text for gist and specific information To teach/ revise collocations connected with bringing up children To revise past tenses (past simple, continuous and perfect) active and passive. To give oral practice in giving opinions, agreeing and disagreeing.

ASSUMPTIONS:

MATERIALS: Text (from Onestopenglish.com) Vocab cards Grammar handout. Family cards for discussion

This language will be quite challenging for the learners, but they will be able to cope with the text and the speaking. They will be familiar with the tenses to be reviewed, but may confuse when each is used.

TOPIC AREA:

Russian orphan living on the streets with dogs.

ANTICIPATED PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS (non linguistic)

This is the first time I have met this group, and they may be of a lower level or more mixed than I anticipate. If this is the case, I will cut back on the language that I teach, and spend more time on the speaking activity. In the speaking activity, the more able/ confident learners may dominate. I will give each a role card to ensure they all have to speak

PERSONAL AIMS FOR THE LESSON:

To show the trainees a good model of receptive and productive skills, vocab and lang presentation.
LANGUAGE ANALYSIS What is the target language?

12

Collocations associated with childhood Passive voice in the past

What is the meaning of the language?/What problems with meaning do you anticipate students may have?

How will you help to clarify these?

Concept check questions

Collocations some of these will be known. More difficult ones include A stable environment A good role model financial security Passive construction Used when the agent is not known or less important than the object. Also used to show formal register (eg in newspapers.

If your environment is stable, does it change a lot? (no) Do you copy this person? (yes) Is this rich/ (no) Does it mean having enough money? (yes)

explain and clarify

What is the form?/ What problems with form do you anticipate students may have?

How will you help to clarify these?

Active Subject + verb + object Passive Object + Verb BE in appropriate tense + pp (+by agent optional)

Use discovery approach clarify on board.

What problems with pronunciation do you anticipate students may have?

How will you help to clarify these?

model and drill

environment silent n doting long vowel sound

STAGE AND AIMS

FOCUS

PROCEDURE

TIME

13

IntroductionTo find out the learners names and introduce myself Warmer To activate schemata about the subject of bringing up children. Pre-task preparation to teach vocabulary to aid in the task.

T-L L-T T-L

Write up names on w/b. Throw a ball around to learn names. Give them answers about me elicit the questions. Teacher elicits ideas about what children need.

6.20

6.40

L-L

T gives out collocations on papers Ls match them in pairs . Class feedback- T clarifies and concept checks. Ls play pelmonism with the cards. T gives out sheet of collocations- Ls rank them from most to least important. They must agree and give reasons in a group of 3. Ls asked to report back their findings on top three needs and reasons. They are given time to prepare this. T monitors and helps with language.

6.45

Task to give learners an opportunity to use the language L-L they know to accomplish a result. Reporting - to give learners a reason to clarify and polish their language.

7.00

L-L

7.15

T Pre-reading task.To pre-teach vocab and predict content of text L

T explains they will read a story about a Russian orphan. T elicits vocab eg adopted/ captured/ 7.30 rehabilitated etc. Clarifies and concept checks. Ls rank these in the order they think they will appear in the story. Ls read text and check their predictions peer check, class feedback. Ls read again and write 3-5 questions about the text. T monitors. Ls swap questions and answer them. Ls asked to prepare a TV news report of this story, including interviews etc. Ls asked to present news reports. They are given time to prepare this. T monitors and helps with language.

Reading for gist

7.35

Reading for specific information.

Task to give learners an opportunity to use the language L-L they know to accomplish a result. Reporting - to give learners a reason to clarify and polish their language. Language focus to inductively review verbs in the passive form L

7.40

7.45

8.00
T gives out sheet with verbs blanked out ls in pairs put verbs in correct form check with original text and explain to each other why. Class feedback and lang presentation by T.

8.10
Ls retell each other story using passive forms where appropriate.

14

Appendix 4
Feedback on first observed lesson.
As you are watching this lesson, focus on the following: 1. In each 30 minute slot of the lesson, what are the activities you see? 6.20 6.50pm

6.50 7.20pm

7.20 7.50pm

7.50 8.20pm

2.

What does the teacher do to prepare the learners for the task they have to do early in the lesson?

3. What is the task? What do the learners have to do in order to complete it? 4. Listen to the pair or group nearest you. Are they able to communicate effectively? Is their language accurate? 5. List some of the mistakes you hear them make. Which do you think are the most important?

6. Which language does the teacher focus on? How do the learners understand the meaning? How do they learn how to form the language?

7. By the end of the lesson are they able to use the language accurately? Is this a realistic aim?

15