Mohammad Al Towaim
MA Applied Linguistics
Grammar Teaching
Contents
Introduction
1
Section 2: The Place of Grammar Teaching
2
1.1 Arguments Against Grammar Teaching
3
1.2 Argument Supporting Grammar Teaching
4
Section 2: P-P-P model
6
2.1 Arguments in support of P-P-P
6
2.2 Some opinions against P-P-P
7
Section 3: Some Ideas Leading to Communicative Grammar Teaching
8
3.1 Outlines leading to communicative grammar teaching
8
3.2 Evaluation questions for communicative grammar teaching
8
3.2 Some communicative activities in grammar teaching
9
Conclusion
12
References
13
Appendix 1
14
Appendix 2
15
Introduction
This paper will begin by considering a controversial topic of concern to many
contemporary researchers: the place of grammar in language teaching, and a range of
views for and against such teaching. It will then review and illustrate the P-P-P model,
one of the more popular approaches to grammar in the pedagogical field. To this end,
the following questions will be addressed:
a) Is there a place for grammar in teaching? What are scholars’ views regarding
the teaching of grammar?
b) What has the P-P-P model contributed to the teaching of grammar, and what
are the arguments for and against it?
My own interest in writing this essay arises from two reasons: firstly, there is an
increasing debate on such issues in Saudi Arabia, which has stimulated my desire to
know what the possible and practicable approaches are to the question. Secondly, it is
hoped that the ideas and activities presented in Section 3 might be useful to make
grammar teaching more communicative.
Section 2: The Place of Grammar Teaching
1
It can be said that nobody argues that a knowledge of grammar will by itself lead to
appropriate usage of any language. However, is it necessary to teach grammar as one
part of the curriculum? There is and has always been much debate regarding its
position within language teaching methodology; indeed this debate can be shown to
have started at least 4,000 years ago, in Greece (Fotos 2005). Its importance may be
ascribed to the fact grammar is one of the most significant aspects of any language.
During recent decades, answers have ranged from one extreme to the other to the
question of whether grammar should be taught or not. These beliefs are radically
different; on one hand, some linguists and teachers, including those who prefer the
grammar-translation method, believe strongly that grammar should be at the heart of
language teaching, while others, according to Nassaji & Fotos (2004), have argued
that grammar is not merely unsupportive, but may be detrimental. Ur (1996: 77) cites
a number of different opinions, as illustrated by the following extracts:
OPINIONS ABOUT THE TEACHING OF GRAMMAR
Extract 1: The important point is that the study of grammar as such is
neither necessary nor sufficient for learning to use a language.
(Newmark 1979).
Extract 2: The student's craving for explicit formulization can usually be
met better by textbooks and grammars that he reads outside class than by
discussion in class (ibid).
Extract 3: The language teacher's view of what constitutes knowledge of
a language is … a knowledge of the syntactic structure of sentences…
The assumption that the language teacher appears to make it is that once
[this] is provided, then the learner will have no difficulty in dealing with
the actual use of language…
There is a good deal of evidence to suggest that this assumption is of
very doubtful validity indeed.
Extract 4: The evidence seems to show beyond doubt that although it is
by communicative use in real 'speech acts' that the new language 'sticks'
in the learner's mind, insight into pattern is an equal partner with
communicative use in what language teachers now see as the dual
process of acquisition/learning. Grammar, approached as a voyage of
discovery into the patterns of language, rather than the learning of
prescriptive rules, is no longer a bogey word (Hawkins 1984).
The remainder of this section examines arguments against and in favour of grammar
0
teaching.
2
1.3 Arguments Against Grammar Teaching
Many researchers, according to Nassaji & Fotos (2004), agree with Krashen, who
depends on studies of the acquisition of English morphology to claim that language
learning is not conscious, but unconscious. He took his evidence from cases where
speakers of different mother tongues learnt English morphemes in a similar sequence.
According to this result, it can be said that the same process lies behind both L1 and
L2 learning. Consequently, if learners do not need formal instruction to obtain L1 but
can acquire it through nature exposure, they also do not require grammar lessons to
learn L2.
In the light of UG, other researchers, as Nassaji & Fotos (2004) say, point out that L2,
like L1, can be acquired by supporting UG principles with input and, as a result,
formal instruction does not affect language learning.
Moreover, the assumption that learners can use their knowledge of grammar in realtime communication is not always true. Batstone (1994) claims that learners may be
unable to apply grammatical knowledge effectively in their own use of language,
because grammar is deployed from one moment to another in communication.
In addition, Lewis (1993) gives some reasons for the claim that the significant role
given to grammar is disappointing, although some grammatical information is useful.
These reasons are:
-
Much of the grammar that is taught is inaccurate or plain wrong.
-
The rules which are taught are frequently incomprehensible to the students
who are taught them.
-
Failure to understand abstract meta-language and rules produces unnecessary
failure.
-
There is no research evidence that explicit knowledge of grammar aids
acquisition of the grammatical system.
-
Most tellingly, grammar is not the basis of language acquisition, and the
balance of linguistic research clearly invalidates any view to the contrary.
1.4 Arguments Supporting Grammar Teaching
It is a fact that the communicative approach constituted a revolution in both
theoretical and applied linguistics, and teaching grammar was not part of it. This
3
revolution, as Figuson 2005 mentions,
gave rise to a phenomenon known as
‘grammar phobia’ . Nevertheless, grammar teaching has enjoyed renewed interest in
recent years; indeed, according to Fotos (1998), it has never left the classroom.
Many researchers support grammar teaching, particularly in L2 teaching. Ur (1988),
for instance, argues that there is a difference between L1 and L2 learning, in terms of
time offered and motivation. Learners of L1, regardless of ‘natural learning’, usually
have more time and obtain more motivation, so they do not need to consciously plan
the learning process. In contrast, L2 learning occurs in situations where time is limited
and the motivation might be less. This assumption leads to two arguments: first, that a
syllabus should consist of systematic gradual steps, which students should not tackle
all at once; and second, that classroom plans should be arranged to strike a balance
between aspects of L2, grammar being one of the significant components of any
language. Such an arrangement is necessary to prepare for effective acquisition,
considering the limitations of time and weak motivation.
In addition to such evidence supporting grammar teaching, Batstone (1994) indicates
that learners’ knowledge of the grammatical system might be improved by focusing
on particular forms of grammar and their meaning, which is what grammar teaching
usually does.
Four other reasons for the reconsideration of grammar are cited and presented by
Nassaji & Fotos (2004):

There are problems in the hypothesis that language can be learned without
consciousness. Moreover, they cite Schmidt’s view (1990, 1993, 2001) that a
conscious attention to form, or what he calls ‘noticing’, is required in order to
understand well all components of L2. This point of view is supported by most
SLA researchers (e.g., Ellis 2001, 2002; DeKeyser 2001; Ellis, Basturkmen &
Loewen 2001).

Depending on evidence from German learners of English, as Pienmann (1984,
1988, 1990) claims, there are some structures which gain an advantage from
4
being taught. This suggestion, known as the teachability hypothesis, leads to
another claim, in which Lightbown (2000) has pointed out that if grammar
teaching corresponds with learners’ readiness, it might be possible to influence
sequences of development and to move to the next developmental step of
linguistic proficiency. Such considerations are taken into account in recent
studies regarding the place of grammar in second language acquisition (Ellis
2000).

Communicative language teaching alone might be defective in some
situations. For instance, some linguists (e.g., Swain & Lapkin 1989) have
conducted research into teaching outcomes in French immersion programmes,
and found that in spite of substantial long-term exposure to meaningful input,
learners could not attain accuracy in the use of some grammatical forms.
Therefore, certain grammatical forms need a particular kind of focus, in order
to achieve a high level of accuracy in L2.

During a period of more than 20 years, a large body of evidence has appeared
to demonstrate the fact that grammar teaching has a positive impact. Such
evidence is taken from the laboratory, extensive reviews of studies and
classroom-based research (Nassaji & Fotos 2004:127)
It seems that these different arguments will continue as long as linguists disagree as to
whether language learning is a conscious or unconscious process, and while cognitive
psychologist argue over the role of explicit versus implicit language learning (Nassaji
& Fotos 2004).
However, there is a growing conviction that the significant question is not whether the
teaching and learning of grammar is needed or not, but whether it helps or not (Ur
1996), and if so, how? Fotos (2005) suggests that a combination of these opinions
may be suitable to promote effective learning.
5
Section 2: The P-P-P Model
Among the various approaches to grammar teaching, the P-P-P model, according to
Hedge (2000), is very popular with many teachers. It first appeared in the 1970s and is
considered to be easy to understand and apply.
P-P-P, otherwise known as ‘the 3Ps’, stands for Presentation, Practice and
Production. Each of these three elements is explained below.
i.
Presentation is the first stage, where the teacher is supposed to present new
items in clear contexts. Considering what the learners already know, the
teacher attempts to introduce forms and their meanings in a variety of suitable
ways (e.g. pictures, dialogs or situations), taking into account whether an
inductive or a deductive model is more likely to be used. Thus, due to the
nature of this stage, correction plays an important role.
ii.
Practice. Learners are gradually led, individually or as a group, to use
grammatical items correctly. By the use of grammar games, gap exercises or
some other appropriate means, the teacher guides the students towards greater
familiarity with the new concept, in which the controlled practice activities
are applied.
iii.
Production. At this stage, learners are supposed to be more fluent. They are
moved from a focus on form to paying more attention to meaning (Ur 1996),
by providing suitable practice. The teacher’s role is limited, unless the
situation requires his/her facilitation.
2.1 Arguments in support of P-P-P
On the grounds of the features described above, this approach has a positive function.
For instance, Ur (1988) considers the 3Ps as part of her framework. Further support
comes from Batstone (1994), who claims that this approach has its strengths, among
which are the following:
6
- It allows teachers to work within a clear framework.
- It permits learners to gain motivation by giving them a strong sense of direction.
- It attracts learners’ attention to specific aspects of the language system, in which
the class does not need more real-time language use.
- P-P-P provides an opportunity to obtain a high level of ultimate achievement,
since this approach promotes the learning of explicit grammatical forms.
- It offers a flexibility of use, since the teacher is able to focus on either forms or
meaning in the light of the learners’ needs and the situation of the class. He can,
moreover, choose between association and discovery activities, depending on
the circumstances.
2.3 Some opinions against P-P-P
As with any approach, P-P-P has its weaknesses. The following are some of the
criticisms that have been made of it:
- Batstone (1994) claims that although learners may study and practice grammar
items, this does not mean, necessarily, that they are able to apply their
knowledge in real-time communication.
- He also cites many researchers (e.g. Ellis 1984, Kadia 1989) as finding that P-PP seems to miss its impact in terms of spontaneous language use, because it
focuses on selected and separate items.
- Considering learners with high marks in grammar exercises, Ur (1996) mentions
that some of them make many mistakes in their free speech, due to their
dependence on the device of conscious monitoring.
7
Section 3: Some Ideas Leading to Communicative Grammar Teaching
3.1 Outlines leading to communicative grammar teaching
Before considering grammar teaching techniques, it might be useful to review the key
features making grammar teaching more communicative. The first and perhaps the
most important stage preparatory to such teaching is a good plan. Mitchell (2000)
outlines such a plan, adapted from current international research:

grammar teaching should be planned and systematically driven by a strategic
vision of eventual desired outcomes (a lesson from general ‘school
effectiveness’ research;

grammar teaching should nonetheless be ‘rough tuned’, offering learners at
slightly different stages a range of opportunities to add increments to their
grammar understanding (‘teachability’ research);

grammar teaching may involve acceptance of classroom code-switching and
mother tongue use, at least with beginners (instructional medium research);

grammar teaching should be ‘little and often’, with much redundancy and
revisiting of issues (‘language flood’ research);

text based problem-solving grammar may be needed to develop learners’
active, articulated knowledge of grammar (socioculutural research);

active corrective feedback and elicitation will promote learners’ active control
of grammar (research on corrective feedback, recasts, etc.);

grammar teaching needs to be supported and embedded in meaning-oriented
activities and tasks, which give immediate opportunities for practice and use
(task-based learning research).
(Mitchell 2000:297)
3.2 Evaluation questions for communicative grammar teaching
(Purcell 1997) poses some evaluation questions for communicative grammar teaching,
as follows:
i.
Activities and contexts which are relevant to learners’ needs
If you are teaching language for business purposes, are the tasks you set and
the vocabulary you teach relevant, or are they more appropriate for people
visiting the country as tourists?
8
ii.
Language used in meaningful and realistic ways
Do you use information-gap activities? Is there a purpose to using the target
language, or is it used artificially, merely to practice a particular structure?
iii.
Authentic listening and reading material
Do you have a collection of menus, timetables, bus tickets, advertisements,
etc. that you have gathered, sitting unused in a box? Could you devise roleplays using them?
iv.
Personalised tasks
Do learners use mostly the first and second persons of the verb when they
speak the target language? Devise a survey or questionnaire to encourage
learners to talk about themselves. How many grammatical structures could be
practiced using the simple technique of ‘find someone who…’?
(Purcell 1997:7)
3.2 Some communicative activities in grammar teaching
In the light of the considerations above, Rinvolucri (1984) offers a range of grammar
games. He advises that these games and activities should not be used merely as
‘reward activities’, but that they should be applied as a central part of the learning
process. (Appendix 1 offers an example of a grammar game.)
Other linguists have also recommended many activities which might be helpful to
make grammar teaching more communicative, funny and interesting. Ur (1988)
makes an influential suggestion. She considers three aspects of such activities: (a) the
task, (b) interest and (c) learner activation; these are summarized below.
The task
The main aim of the task is to activate the learners to get them to engage with the
material to be practiced. There are two essential features of good tasks: a clear
objective, which can be defined as ‘getting the language right’, accompanied by active
language use. Such tasks should have clear, simple linguistic and non-linguistic
objectives. To make it easier, a palpable aim will serve as a suitable association, since
learners know where they are going, and what the next stage is, by using a list to be
9
written, a story to be narrated, a picture to be drawn or marked, or a solution to be
found.
Interest
There are various ways to attract learners’ attention and promote motivation, some of
which are summarized below.
(a) Topic: A common cause for the absence of interest in grammar teaching is the
lack of variety of subjects used. Textbooks should cover a wide range of
topics in order to make the lessons more interesting for learners. Such topics
could involve controversial subjects, personal viewpoints or feelings, fiction,
etc.
(b) Visual focus: By using pictures, slides, posters and even the teacher’s facial
expression, aural and visual cues could serve to make activities more
interesting.
(c) Open-endedness: It is sometimes a good idea to make the end of the exercise
open, so as to allow learners to choose the actual content words to use, in
either written or spoken activities. (See Appendix 2.)
(d) Play-acting: This kind of activity is not merely useful in motivating learners,
but also allows them to use varieties of language which are not usually
considered appropriate in the classic classroom.
Learner activation
Most teachers face a problem when they want to strike a balance among their learners.
All learners usually have equal opportunities in writing and silent reading, whereas
they do not have the same chance to speak. There are different ways to activate
learners to be more communicative in such cases. These ideas include the following:
(a) Student-teacher exchanges: As a teacher, I have found that this kind of activity
is an entertaining, interesting and useful way to make grammar teaching more
communicative. It has advantages, since it permits both teachers’ rules and
learners’ options. Another advantage is that learners, in general, are likely to
listen to each other much more.
(b) Brainstorming: This technique is appropriate to motivate learners to produce
utterances at their level of competence. By posing a question with a range of
10
possible answers, for instance, teachers can help learners to be more
communicative in class.
(c) Free group discussion: It is clear from its name that this technique involves
giving a subject to the learners, then permitting them to talk freely. Learners
may prefer to speak away from what the teacher wants them to do. However,
such cases could be avoided by designing tasks in ways that lead them towards
the lesson aims. (See Appendix 2.)
11
Conclusion
We have looked at the place of grammar teaching in contemporary language teaching
methodology. The pedagogical approach known as P-P-P was considered, with a brief
review of arguments for and against it. Finally, the most important section for me, as a
teacher of Arabic as a second language, contains some ideas and activities leading to
communicative grammar teaching.
I have found this information very useful, and I hope that such ideas and activities
will help me to make grammar teaching more interesting for my students. However,
the whole topic “shows how much shifting and change has already occurred and
suggests that we can expect other shifts more or less continuously” (Byrd 2005:545);
many questions remain unanswered.
12
References
Batstone, R. 1994 Grammar. Oxford: OUP
Byrd, P. 2005 'Instructed Grammar', in Hinkel, E (ed.) Handbook of Research in Second
Language Teaching and Learning, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. p. 545
Ferguson, G. 2005 ‘Lecture on Teaching of Grammar’ (Handout). University of Sheffield.
Fotos, J 2005 ‘Communication Language Teaching: Strategies and Goals’, in Hinkel, E (ed.)
Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning, London: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates. p. 653
Fotos, S. 1998 Shifting the focus from forms to form in the EFL classroom. ELT Journal, 52,
301-307
Hedge, T. 2000 Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford: OUP.
Lewis, M. 1993 The Lexical Approach. Hove: Language Learning Publications.
Mitchell, R. 2000 Applied Linguistics and Evidence-based Classroom Practice: The Case of
Foreign Language Grammar Pedagogy. Applied Linguistics 23,3, 281-303.
Nassaji, H. and Fotos, S. 2004 Current Developments in Research on the Teaching of
Grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24: 126-145.
Purcell, S. 1997 Teaching Grammar Communicatively. Centre for Information on
Language Teaching and Research.
Rinvolucri, M. 1984. Grammar Games. Cambridge: CUP.
Rutherford, W. 1987 Second Language Grammar: Learning and Teaching. London:
Longman.
Ur, P. 1988 Grammar Practice Activities. Cambridge: CUP.
Ur, P. 1996 A Course in Language Teaching. Cambridge: CUP.
13
Appendix 1
Adapted from Ur (1988, p 52)
What do you do when…?
Position of frequency adverbs; free composition of sentences, oral or written.
Procedure: ask students a cue question like 'what do you do when you are depressed?'
and ask them to jot down a few ideas, using one of the frequency adverbs always,
usually, often, sometimes each time:
I some times go out and buy some new clothes.
I usually just sit and listen to music.
Then share ideas with each other; or try to find other students who have similar
reactions.
Variations: alternative situations that can provide cues are: other moods (when you
are happy, annoyed, bored, nervous) or events (when you have a free day, quarrel
with a friend, have an exam the next day, find yourself short of money).
14
Appendix 2
Adapted from Rinvolucri (1984, p 121)
Back-writing game
GRAMMAR: irregular plurals
LEVEL: Intermediate
TIME: 10 minute
MATERIALS: Cards with irregular singulars and plurals on them
In class
1. Have the students stand up and take a partner. Tell them to imagine that their
partner's back is a white board that someone has written on with an indelible
pen. They must try to rub it clean. A rubs B's back. Ask them to change round.
B rubs A's back.
2. Ask A to write an irregular plural he or she can remember on B's back. B then
writes the singular form on A's back (e.g. A writes OXEN and B writes OX).
Tell the students to write slowly and in capitals (with their fingers).
3.
Start handing students cards with nouns on, some in the plural, some in the
singular. In this way feed new material into the exercise and the back-writing
becomes a learning as well as revision process.
4. Finish the exercise by asking a student to come to the board and, with the help
of the others, list all the singulars and plurals that have been worked on round
the room.
Grammar note:
Back-writing is useful for vocabulary revision and work on any language elements
that match each other, e.g. infinitive – past participle / names of countries – names of
language; and for work on collocations, e.g. one student back-writes SEA and the
other replies with DEEP BLUE.
15