Grammar and Vocabulary Teaching Must be Meaningful

I am extremely interested in researching the best approaches to teach grammar.  Based off research and my own experience, it seems that the traditional approach to teaching grammar is not the most effective.  Chapter 22 of Brown gives tips and advice to help teachers teach grammar and vocabulary as effectively as possible.  Kumar’s readings (chapters 7 & 8) focus on teachers creating language awareness amongst students and also activating intuitive heuristics.  Heuristics can be defined as “the process of discovery on the part of the learner” (Kumar 176).  Fostering critical language awareness and encouraging learner discovery undoubtedly improve grammar instruction.

Raising language awareness goes beyond simply stating the importance of learning a language.  Critical language awareness encourages students to consider the sociopolitical nature of language use.  According to Kumar, “Language is used by some as a tool for social, economic, and political control” (165).  Students need to be aware that politics, language, and culture are intertwined.  Language is not learned in an independent vacuum.  On page 166, Kumar advocates ways to develop critical language awareness in the classroom.  His ideas include: shifting from an emphasis on one right answer to multiple interpretations, encouraging learners to recognize a variety of viewpoints, and helping learners critically reflect. 

Kumar also offers ideas in order to improve grammar instruction.  His main point is that activating intuitive heuristics (process of self-discovery) of learners will lead to more learning.  Kumar argues that some approaches activate a learner’s intuitive heuristics better than others.  Primarily, Kumar believes that inductive teaching leads to more learning than deductive teaching.  Inductive teaching allows students to discover patterns through authentic language and then construct meanings of grammar rules.  In contrast, deductive teaching is the traditional method where teachers present grammar rules and then expect students to follow these rules and explanations.  Kumar argues that inductive teaching is superior because it is typically embedded within meaningful contexts as opposed to the grammar books of deductive learning (Kumar 185).  Allowing students to find patterns of language within texts offers more opportunities for self-discovery than grammatical lectures do.

The 22^nd chapter of Brown analyzes form-focused instruction.  I found it very interesting that there are some parties that do not advocate the explicit teaching of grammar.  How can students completely acquire a language if there is no focus on form?  My answer is that I do not think that they can.  However, grammar needs to be taught in an appropriate and comprehensive context.  Page 421 describes appropriate grammar techniques as those that are: embedded in meaningful, communicative contexts, contribute positively to communicative goals, and are as lively and intrinsically motivating as possible.  The days where language learning occurred from doing grammar exercises are over; grammar needs to be integrated into speaking, writing, listening, and reading activities.  Independent grammar classes will not be effective unless they incorporate the other domains of language.  Grammar should be taught to improve communication, not simply for the sake of knowledge.  Brown reinforces this point by differentiating between global and local errors.  Global errors that impede meaning require more immediate attention than local errors which do not affect the meaning of the sentence (Brown 426). 

I believe that teaching vocabulary is similar to teaching grammar; the vocabulary must be included in a meaningful context.  Connections must be made between vocabulary words that are similar or belong to the same thematic unit (436).   Studies have shown that the rote memorization of vocabulary flash cards is no longer effective.  Before teaching either grammar or vocabulary, we as teachers should question if these topics will improve the communicative competence of our students.  If the topics are not practical or meaningful, then maybe they are not imperative to the curriculum. 

 

Teaching Reading and Writing

This week’s readings focused on teaching reading and writing in English-learning contexts.  In my opinion, the most useful and practical parts of the readings were those that gave explicit strategies for teaching reading and writing to students.  Reading can be taught from a bottom-up or top-down perspective, but I favor a combination of both methods.  I want to use an interactive method that focuses on comprehension and idea development but also has students focus on form (Brown 358).  Of all of the reading strategies depicted on pages 360 & 361, I find the teaching of strategic reading to be most helpful.  Numerous studies have demonstrated that active reading is more beneficial than passive reading.  Students need to look for patterns when reading, use context to aid understanding, and be able to make inferences.  However, it is important to note that how a student should read depends on the context (Brown 362).  For example, one would read a diary entry different than an academic textbook.  One would analyze a map differently than an expository essay.  Teachers also need to keep this in mind when assessing reading comprehension.  The purpose for reading needs to be identified before assessments are created.  A multiple choice assessment may be appropriate for checking student comprehension after reading a textbook chapter but not after reading a journal entry.  

The second chapter of the Brown reading focused on teaching writing.  Brown described the importance of writing as a process rather than a product (391).  From my own experiences, I have found that the writing process is a more beneficial learning tool than the end product.  The process of brainstorming, drafting, editing, and then publishing a work is very cognitively demanding.  Most of the learning takes place from this rigorous process rather than simply putting the words on the paper.  Other teaching principles from the Brown chapter include connecting reading and writing and providing as much authentic writing as possible (Brown 403).  Although this makes perfect sense, many teachers center student writing assessments on vague prompts from textbooks rather than authentic communication opportunities.  For example, good teachers will have students learn to write persuasive letters, summarize articles, and create presentations rather than simply “writing 500 words about topic X”.  As we have described in this class over and over again, learning is much more meaningful when it can be applied to authentic contexts.  

Ferris’s article focuses on correcting—or not correcting—students’ writing errors.  The main point of the article is that teachers should not waste their time or students’ time by correcting every single grammatical mistake in a written composition.  Error correcting should be limited to correcting major mistakes or mistakes that follow a common pattern.  There are multiple reasons for this logic.  First, a one page paper filled with red circles, slashes, and comments could destroy the confidence of an ESL student that worked hard by putting her thoughts on paper in a foreign language.  Second, most L2 errors are not due to laziness or failure to proofread; most errors are structural errors caused by interference from the native language (Ferris 93).  While writing in Spanish, I have often made mistakes by trying to write something word for word how I would in English.  This tendency to translate often results in unnatural writing.  According to Ferris, the best way to change these tendencies is not to explicitly mark down mistakes but to continue exposing students to authentic examples of good writing.  After excessive exposure to native-like writing, students will be able to produce similar structures.  The combination of teaching strong writing practices (such as the self-editing strategies listed on page 96) and reading authentic texts is more likely to produce better writing than correcting every single comma splice and spelling mistake.     

Teaching Speaking and Listening

             The four readings this week focused on using classroom conservations, both formal and informal, to facilitate learning.  The Cary article more specifically emphasized how teachers can support students’ first languages even if the teachers do not speak this language themselves.  An obvious answer is for teachers to establish classrooms that value and celebrate all languages.  English is often portrayed as superior to other languages and a teacher’s affirmation that all languages are valued equally is a great way to demonstrate support for students’ native languages (Cary 131).  Other suggestions include encouraging students to continue developing their skills in their native languages and for teachers to learn a few phrases or significant cultural items from students’ first languages.  However, in my opinion, Cary’s most interesting idea was his strong advocacy to include the parents of non-native speakers in classroom learning.  Cary emphasized offering primary language support by having bilingual parents and community members volunteer in the classroom to provide additional support to non-native speakers.  Cary’s research suggests that continued development of students’ first languages will ultimately lead to better English proficiency.    

             

           Chapter 18 of Brown described how to teach listening skills in the language classroom while chapter 19 emphasized developing students’ speaking skills.  In chapter 18, Brown advocates the explicit teaching of listening comprehension skills and strategies.  Although students don’t think about listening as consciously as they think about grammar, listening needs to be guided and develop as much as—if not more—any other language topic.  This listening needs to be meaningful though.  Students are not going to improve their listening skills from listening to the same pop music song every day; they need to practice listening (and speaking) in authentic contexts.  According to Brown, authentic language and real-world tasks enable students to see the relevance of classroom activity to their long-term communicative goals (Brown 311).  It is also important that listening comprehension is assessed in a variety of ways.  For example, listening can be tested by having learners physically respond to language, they can answer open-ended questions, or they can identify the important points of a listening passage.  

            In the next chapter, Brown also describes principles for teaching speaking skills.  One of his most interesting principles is to focus on both fluency and accuracy, depending on your objective (331).  In my opinion, in a comprehensive language class, both fluency and accuracy are of equal importance.  A student that is always grammatically correct and accurate but rarely if ever offers extended speech is not ideal.  Similarly, a student that speaks often but makes a large amount of errors cannot be labeled as an advanced speaker.  Teachers need to emphasize a balance between accuracy and proficiency.  Ways to do this include using language in meaningful contexts and also capitalizing on the natural link between speaking and listening (331).  Students need to practice their English in more contexts than simple greetings or social outings; they need to be able to use language to negotiate meaning or solve information gaps.  Kumar elaborates on how teachers can facilitate the negotiation of meaning amongst students.  

          Kumar calls for giving students a reasonable degree of control over their management of learning (Kumar 115).  If students have some options in regards to what they talk about and how they talk about it, their learning and interactions will be more meaningful.  One way students can do this is through topicalization, which is the “process by which learners take up something the teacher or another learner says and attempt to make it into next topic” (Kumar 119).  Kumar indicates techniques such as topicalization will result in more negotiation of meaning because students will have more interest and knowledge about the topics being discussed.  However, is this really the best approach to language learning?  What if I give my students the freedom to choose discussion topics and they consistently pick topics such as Miley Cyrus, Jersey Shore, and the Chicago Bears?  If topics do not involve language and scenarios that can help students become better communicators in authentic settings, then they may not be beneficial topics to use class time on.  I believe that the best approach is for teachers to identify a variety of topics or scenarios that can be discussed and allow students to select topics from this list.  Using this approach, students still get some say in their own learning, but the teacher also ensures that this learning will be meaningful.     

The Goal of all Good Teachers: Maximizing Student Learning

All of these readings focus on how teachers can maximize their students’ learning.  This topic is very practical and displays an abundance of strategies that we can use with our future English-learning students.  In his passage, Kumar establishes that teaching does not directly lead to learning (Kumar 44).  As described in other weeks, language education specialists no longer see teachers as “depositors of knowledge.”  Learning is seen as an interactive process between the teacher and the students, and also the students amongst each other.  Kumar repeatedly pointed out the benefits of answering individual questions in front of the whole class.  This is beneficial because in classes with students of similar proficiency levels, the answer to the question typically benefits more students than simply the individual who asked the question.  Kumar emphasized that these interactions are at the heart of language learning as opposed to rigid lesson plans.  Provocative teacher questioning and then interactive discourse is what maximizes learning opportunities.  

Brown’s readings support Kumar’s points and also expand on how teachers can create more autonomous learners.  Chapter 4 describes the 12 principles that guide language teaching.   According to Brown, a teacher that follows these principles will have an “enlightened” teaching strategy, which is an approach that accurately connects theory and practice (Brown 63).  The 12 principles are divided into 3 categories: cognitive principles, socioaffective principles, and linguistic principles.  Many of these principles focus on making students more independent learners, particularly principle 6 (autonomy).  This chapter, particularly the part about creating autonomous learners, reminded me of the old proverb, “Give a man a fish and he has food for a day.  Teach a man to fish and he has food for a lifetime.”  I agree with this philosophy and believe that perhaps the best teachers are the ones that create the most independent learners.  Isn’t it ironic that perhaps the best teachers are the least needed amongst their students?  

In Chapter 16, Brown further elaborates on ways to encourage students to use sound language learning strategies.  Four ways to introduce students to these research-tested language learning strategies are: interactive techniques, compensatory techniques, administering strategy inventories, and impromptu teach-initiated advice.  I like the idea of administering a strategy inventory and having students select which strategies appeal to them and could be regularly used to further enhance their learning.   While I wholeheartedly believe that it is essential that students are exposed to as many strategies as possible, I do not believe the use of certain strategies should be required or even pushed.  Students should be exposed to a variety of helpful language learning strategies and then incorporate the strategies that best help them learn.  If we want to respect learners’ individual differences, can we really force all learners to use the same strategies?   

The Importance of Knowing Your Audience (in this case CONTEXT)

The readings this week offered an indirect comparison of three different approaches to language teaching: communicative language teaching, task-based instruction, and a context-based approach.  Each approach has its respective strengths and weaknesses that are analyzed in at least one of the articles.  Skehan’s article described the origins and foundations of task-based instruction.  This approach arose from the realization that input alone was not sufficient for language learning (Skehan 2).  In order to expand beyond input, proponents of this theory designed language learning based on accomplishing tasks, which are activities that require learners to use language, with an emphasis on meaning, to attain objectives (Skehan 3).  Although evaluation of task-based learning is authentic and guides students to become better language speakers, many questions still exists.  For example, how do task-based theorists account for different learners interpreting and therefore responding to tasks differently?  Task-based teaching should give students the flexibility to interpret tasks in ways that fit their learning needs.

The Hu article describes the communicative language approach, which emphasizes communicative competence rather than linguistic knowledge as the primary goal of language teaching and learning (Hu 95). Grammatical, discourse, functional, sociolinguistic, and strategic are the components of communicative competence that are emphasized during the CLT method.  Similar to task-based instruction, CLT is considered to be a pedagogically strong approach because of its focus on learners and authentic communication.  This is much more practical than linguistic and grammatical knowledge.  However, the foundations of Chinese education are based on teachers giving students this traditional knowledge (Hu 97).  CLT is a major change from the traditional Chinese culture, which is why CLT is less prevalent in China than other areas of the world Hu argues. 

The inability of language teachers to effectively integrate the CLT method into Chinese culture would support the major points of Bax’s article.  Bax’s thesis is that CLT (and any method) should be of secondary importance in the language classroom.  Bax advocates that all language teachers should evaluate the context and their individual learners before deciding on a method or language approach (Bax 281).  In my opinion, Bax’s argument is logical because not all cultures are compatible with the CLT method.  Hu’s article demonstrates that because of social and cultural reasons, the CLT method is not the best method for language instruction in China. 

After reading all three articles, one of the central themes is the importance of a teacher analyzing and then knowing his or her sociocultural context before making instructional decisions.  In fact, how can teachers decide on an approach without knowing the needs, strengths, and weaknesses of their students?  Obviously, teachers need to be knowledgeable of various methods and approaches, but Bax has merit in his advocacy that context is most important to language learning.