Classroom Grammar Teaching for Adult Learners

石怡

Abstract As Wight （1999， p.33） pointed out to “know a language was to know the grammar of it”， hence grammar teaching is usually the main approach in second or foreign language teaching. This paper presents an analysis from three aspects to illustrate why classroom grammar teaching benefits adult learners. However， if grammar is overstated， some negative results will occur. Therefore a balance between grammar teaching and communicative skill teaching is need， as is a balance between accuracy and fluency.

Key words classroom grammar teaching， adult learners

中图分类号：G424文献标识码：A

1.0 Introduction

Of many important questions facing the language teaching professionals， the most basic one must be grammar teaching. As Rutherford （1987） points out， for 2500 years the teaching of grammar had often been synonymous with foreign language teaching. During the last 25 years， the differences among major methodological approaches are mainly put on whether explicit grammar instruction plays an important role in the second or foreign language classroom （Celce-Murcia， 1991， p.352）. With the emergence of the communicative approach， which came into being in the mid-1970s， classroom grammar teaching was emphasized less than before， which made grammar taught directly to learners seemed as a thing which has been past. However， the fact is that experts and linguists hold different views towards classroom grammar teaching; meanwhile， teachers of English as a second or foreign language also hesitate not only to adopt any traditional pedagogy， but also to put creative approaches to use. One frequently-asked question is to what proportion that time should be put on grammar teaching in class. Nevertheless， the most continually used methodological approach in second language classroom—the cognitive code approach carefully sequence grammatical structures and lexical items （Celce-Murcia， 1991， p.461）.

Based on this methodology， this paper will attempt to argue that classroom grammar teaching is largely beneficial， especially to adult learners， although if too much emphasis is put only on grammar， it may have some negative consequences. In order to demonstrate this， first， this essay will illustrate that grammar study is more essential for adults than children. This will be shown through a comparison of different second language learning patterns between children and adults. Second， it will conduct a comparison of classroom grammar teaching and grammar of self-study in order to argue that the former approach is more beneficial. Then， the essay will analyze the consequences brought by too much emphasis put on grammar teaching.

2.0 Benefits to Adults as Opposed to Children

When discussing whether adult learners need more grammar teaching than children or not， two aspects must be taken into consideration.

2.1 Different Learning Patters of Adults and Children

One of the main reasons that grammar teaching benefits adults a lot lies in the differences of learning approaches because of age. Children are born with the gift for bilingualism. If a child is exposed in the bilingual environment， he will surely gain competence in it; however， this is a natural ability which will die away when they grow up （Crystal， 2003， p.15）.  Thus， this leads to differences when considering the strategy of grammar teaching to children and adults.  Children acquire a language mostly by using a holistic style， which means they can “learn best by experiencing， gathering， and restructuring relevant data but doing little or no apparent analysis.”（Celce-Murcia， 1991， p.463） Thus， if the target learners are young children， they need little explicit grammar guides. However， the case is totally different when it comes to adult learners. With the inborn ability dying away， adults gradually gain the capacity of analysis， which becomes an analytic style in language learning， and requires a large amount of formulating and testing work on grammar rules. Therefore， if the students are adult， the teaching should be involved some direct focus on grammatical instructions.

However， there are a large number of arguments which give support to teaching grammar as early as possible. As Brooks （1960） states that “error like sin needs to be avoided at all cost”， which claiming that it is best to teach grammar at the first stage of second language learning. This metaphor argues that once learners adopt the wrong format， they will have difficulty to get rid of that. Thus， it is very significant to provide an environment to learners at the beginning of study and ensure they develop a correct habit of forms. Also， N. Ellis （2005） suggests that the valuable early grammar teaching works as a basis of the following learning. Coincidently， Lightbown （1991） regarded grammar instructions as “hook” for learners to grab on in learning， by which he means grammar is the necessity in the procedure of gaining competence.  All the statements provided here argue that grammar teaching should be carried out from the beginning.

Nevertheless， ample evidence can also be found which supports on the opposite view. An experiment carried by Genesee in the year of 1987 showed that learners in immersion programmes were able to develop a quite high proficiency and fluency in communication without formal instruction （Ellis， 2006， p.90）. “Adult learners supposedly have the cognitive maturity with which to develop conscious knowledge of rules of the SL and/or to apply them by monitoring.” （Long， 1983， p.374）

Although it has been proved that incorrect format is difficult to erase， grammatical errors could indeed be corrected. Examples are easy to find to show adults have a fixed thinking pattern because the absolutely longer years of using of mother tongue than children. Many grammatical errors are caused by negative transfer. Grammatical errors are divided into two groups in an analysis of error gravity – local errors or sentence-level errors and global errors. Local errors are regarded such as an omitted article or a superfluous preposition， while global errors are noted like faulty word order or the use of wrong logical connector （Celce-Murcia， 1991， p.469）. Global errors are claimed relatively crucial contrasted with innocuous local errors （Celce-Murcia， 1991， p.469）， for the reason they lead to misunderstanding and confusion.

However， as errors can be given a lable and be illustrated by the causes， it is possible to correct them through grammar teaching. Giving specific concern to errors which have been made and reinterpreting the rules combined with corresponding exercises， errors would be no more a problem. Fortunately， this is the reason why grammar teaching is essential in order to form effective communication with more accuracy and cohesion. Therefore， a conclusion could safely be drawn that delaying grammar teaching is beneficial for adult learners after they have gained a basic competence because of the different learning patterns of adult learners and children. As to the grammatical errors， learners do have the ability to correct them.

2.2 Different Goals and Skills Needs of Adults and Children

The second reason for why grammar is important to adult learners is the goals and the skills that they try to improve through grammar learning. Generally， adults aim to develop more complex skills than children. Children only focus on listening and speaking， while adults stand on a higher level than children because they also pay more attention to reading and writing. Comparing the subjects， speaking and writing need more productive skills than listening and reading （Celce-Murcia， 1991， p.464）. It is obvious that reading and writing request more formal accuracy than listening and speaking， for the academic purposes， which advocating more recognition of words and sentences. On the opposite， the goal of language learning for children is survival communication， to express their emotions along with facial expressions and gestures and to ask for their basic needs from others. To be further explained， children only need several words such as hungry and cold to express their condition， and words like apple， milk and toy to state their demands. There has nothing to do with professional purpose. However， adults require more， for the need to express opinions and to interact with others， or for the exchange of academic thoughts. These demands have gone beyond the basic needs which should be met with the superior skills. Thus， if the learners are concerned to be adults who want to function as an academic， a high degree of prudent accuracy is desperately needed. Fortunately， grammar exactly leads to accuracy and proficiency. Therefore， it can be argued that grammar teaching has more advantages to adults than children considering with the skills and learning goals.

However， it can also be asserted in some circumstances， there is no need for adults to acquire a certain degree of accurate grammar. For example， automobile workers who are sent to another country to work do not need to be a master of grammar. The essentiality is to remember names of different parts of a car and terminologies of automobile building. Also， Celce-Murcia （1991， p.463） pointed out there are no need for some beginners to focus on form， although they may be adults. One example in this category is， supposingly， an Indian woman who just immigrated to England， grammar seems having no connection to her daily life. Commodity names and some basic sentences like “Good morning， thank you” are totally enough.

It is true that grammar is redundant in the cases mentioned in last paragraph. But it is also an undeniable fact that it is far away from their reasonable demands such as getting involved in the society or to exchange thoughts and opinions. Only vocabulary and simple sentences can never meet the needs of a common person. To form an effective communication， a rational degree of grammar is of the essence. In conclusion， grammar is needed for adult learners for both basic life and academic purposes.

3.0 Classroom Grammar Teaching versus Grammar of Self-study

Classroom grammar teaching is the main approach of grammar teaching as it is more systematic， logical and effective. According to Ellis （2006， p.85）， “teaching grammar was beneficial but that to be effective grammar had to be taught in a way that was compatible with the natural processes of acquisition.”， which directly indicates teaching grammar in classroom is a perfect way to learn grammar. Syllabuses of teachers are made cautiously， based on the most suitable methodology combined with the real fact of their classes. And syllabuses are prudently carried out through a systematic way. This serves as a naturalistic way of language acquisition， which enables learners to progress more rapidly and achieve higher proficiency. Also， Long （1983， p.376） argues that a comprehensive approach for language acquisition is in class. Grammar teaching involves any instruction that can draw attention of learners and helps them to understand it and apply it into practice. How to make boring grammar attractive and how to make rules be practical are the problems all teachers of second or foreign languages encounter. However， it is not an unconquerable mission， because many teachers are really doing well and surprisingly， highly achieved second language learners are spread all over the world.

Despite the advantages brought by classroom grammar teaching， there is still having controversy. It is strongly supported that grammar learned by self-study is more advantageous， for the reason self-study can focus on weak points of individuals. Classroom teaching cannot cover all drawbacks of students， and always leaves something to be further discussed. Moreover， learners usually have their own syllabus to conduct grammar study， which has better pertinency for them.

However， it is must be admitted students who carry out grammar study by themselves are those who have an extraordinary self-study ability. Only a minority of students do it well on their own. The majority need to be educated in class， for grammar is such a difficult and confusing subject. Furthermore， grammatical rules contain a lot of exceptions which advocate guidance and emphasis. By self-study， those exceptions may be ignored unconsciously; however， if a teacher takes charge of the teaching procedure， it would receive a quite different result. Teachers have an overview of the whole grammar system and make syllabus for teaching contains importance on which should be emphasized. They are able to pick out the puzzling parts and know where the frequently mistakes show up according to their general knowledge and experience. Classroom teaching is regarded as the most economical and time-saving approach of learning grammar （Brumfit， 1980）.

4.0 Consequences of Too Much Emphasis on Grammar Teaching

Some commentators have argued that over-emphasis on grammar teaching can in fact weaken communicative skills. Looking back to the historical background of grammar teaching in second language， the latest methodology is the communicative approach， which weighs communication as the most important goal. This methodology insists that “a language course should not be organized around grammar but around subject matter， tasks/projects， or semantic notions and/or pragmatic functions” （Celce-Murcia， 1991， p.462）. The communicative approach does achieve an outstanding progress in learners communication， such as frequently speaking and naturally expression. However， with the rising ability of communication， the level of accuracy and proficiency decreases for the appearance of frequent grammatical errors. This is one of the greatest challenges needed to be solved at present. According to Celce-Murcia （1991， p.462）， grammar should be emphasized on so that learners can achieve a highly effective level for communication， both in accuracy and in fluency. This strongly values the importance of grammar teaching.

Moreover， there are some experts beginning to give new perceptions towards English teaching. Taking China as an example， even some progressive comments have been made， like Xiaoqing Liao argues that “CLT is best for China.” （Liao， 2004， p.270） However， in a quite large area， too much emphasis is put only on grammar. Syllabuses of English courses are always designed on the basis of grammar. Each class has a specific grammar chapter， and after class， learners get corresponding grammatical assignments from teachers in order to consolidate what they have learned in class. As if Chinese learners have done nothing except grammar. Thus， they can deliberately recite grammatical structure and rules and remember an enormous number of vocabularies according to the lexical system taught by their teachers. Then， here comes the negative impact. With rapid speed to read and relatively high logical writing， learners in China suffer from a disastrous problem of communication which is a vicious circle. Because of the low level of grammar， learners make more errors when they speak. Thus， learners lose confidence which they supposed to have， and take fewer risks to speak. And then， their communicative skill goes down gradually. The system insists on grammar from the start and as a consequence it impedes the progress of students communicative ability. It can be argued that it is because of the Chinese examination system and marking criteria emphasize the importance of grammar a lot （Wright， 1999， p.33）， which means the correct grammar use still occupies and will play a significant role in the public examination system for a long time.

Although grammar is essential when learning a language， if it is overstated， learners would receive negative consequences in return. Just like in China， whether those odd grammatical questions can really help acquisition of second language or not is still in continuous debate. There should be a balance between grammar teaching and communicative ability teaching. Therefore， Chinese government introduced Communicative Language Teaching， and maintained that CLT would benefit Chinese English learners （Liao， 2004， p.270）. Nevertheless， there are also some persuasive arguments against the adoption CLT. Some of them focus on the suitable methodology for respective countries. They insist that the methodology must assist teachers in accordance with English teaching， not only to pursue the latest and the most fashionable approach （Liao， 2004， p.271）. Also， Hu （2005） pointed out that CLT is suspicious and has not born enough credits. Therefore， the traditional grammar-teaching methodology has been revalued.  It is the traditional way of teaching English as a second or foreign language. Hence， it is relatively mature than other methodologies. Moreover， teachers are more familiar with it， thus they dont need to be re-trained or re-qualified. That would save a large number of human labor， material and financial resources. Although the system of English teaching requires some revolution， it is no doubt that the well-established grammar teaching is the most rational and effective solution at present.

5.0 Conclusion

In conclusion， it can be clearly seen that classroom grammar teaching is largely beneficial to adult learners， despite the fact that there do exist some negative results if grammar is over-emphasized in teaching. Indeed， classroom grammar teaching benefits adults more than children， for the different learning pattern， learning goals and skills. Also， the advantages of classroom grammar teaching are more significant than self-study for the reasons of systematicness， logic and efficient. Furthermore， grammar teaching is the main approach and a traditional way in teaching English as a second or foreign language. The values of grammar teaching are definitely obvious although some reform is needed. On the other hand， how to balance grammar teaching with teaching of communicative skills， and how to balance the accuracy with fluency are some of the problems which demand further investigations.

References

[1] Brooks， N. （1960）. Language and language learning. New York： Harcourt Brace & World.

[2] Celce-Murcia， M. （1991）. “Grammar pedagogy in second and foreign language teaching”. TESOL Quarterly， 25， pp.459-480.

[3] Cordor， S. P. （1967）. “The significance of learners errors”， International Review of Applied Linguistics， 5， pp.161-169.

[4] Ellis， N. C. （2005）. “At the interface： How explicit knowledge affects implicit language learning”， Studies in Second Language Acquisition， 27， pp.305-352

[5] Ellis， R. （2006）. “Current issues in the teaching of grammar： An SLA perspective”， TESOL Quarterly， 40 （1）， pp. 83-107.

[6] Hu G. （2005）. “CLT is best for China—an untenable absolutist claim”， ELT Journal， 59， pp.65-68.

[7] Liao， X. （2004）. “The need for Communicative Language Teaching in China”， ELT Journal， 58， pp.270-273.

[8] Long， M. H. （1983）. “Does second language instruction make a difference？ A review of the research”， TESOL Quarterly， 17， pp.359-382.

[9] Macaro， E. and L. Maste （2006）. “Does intensive explicit grammar instruction make all the difference？”， Language Teaching Research， 10， pp.297-327.

[10] Wright， M. （1991）. “Grammar in the languages classroom： findings from research”， Language Learning Journal， 19， pp.33-39.