(teach) how helpful is grammar instruction?

[karenstanleyma-3]

There are weaknesses in all types of research, but we can still learn a fair amount from it.

With this in mind, Norris and Ortega published a meta-analysis of L2 instruction of form (ie, grammar) in Vol 50 No 2 of Language Learning (2002).

Norris and Ortega felt they could substantiate trends more accurately if they did a cumulative analysis of short-term instruction in which the research methodology lent itself to being combined into a larger analysis.  (Their article is about 90 pages long, so I have had to do a bit of condensing here.)

Note in the quotes below, when they say "L2 instruction" they refer to studies that looked at teaching form (ie, grammar).  Their conclusions, based on 49 different research studies conducted between 1980 and 1998:

"In general, focused L2 instruction results in large gains over the course of an intervention.  Specifically, L2 instruction of particular language forms induces substantial target-oriented change."

"The effects of L2 instruction seem durable.  This can be concluded from the cumulative empirical observation that, although such effects tend to marginally decrease over time...it is the case that average effect sizes for delayed post-tests remain relatively large."

"On average, instruction that incorporates explicit (including deductive and inductive) techniques leads to more substantial effects than implicit instruction."

Again, the research is not perfect, but there is enough here to give solid indications that effects of grammar instruction are not just minimal.

And let me repeat:  Instruction of grammar alone is *never* enough.  However, it can help improve the speed of acquisition and help students achieve an ultimately higher level of accuracy in production.

Karen
http://karen.stanley.people.cpcc.edu
Charlotte, North Carolina, USA

[John Truscott]

Karen described the meta-analysis that Norris and Ortega (2000) did on the effects of grammar instruction, concluding that it found instruction very helpful. I'd like to offer a different view on what N&O found.

The key phrase in all this is the vague 'effects of instruction'. To understand N&O's findings (and form-focus research in general), you have to ask 'the effects of instruction on what?' For most of the studies that N&O used, the 'what' was performance on formal grammar tests. To no one's surprise, these studies found instruction very helpful. And this is why their overall results look so impressive: studies that relied on formal grammar tests made up the great bulk of their sample. When you focus on the six other studies, which asked how instruction affects more realistic, communicative use of language, the results are not impressive at all. And I've argued elsewhere that these unimpressive results probably overstated the effectiveness of instruction, substantially.

This is not about whether the research had weaknesses, as all research does. It's about what questions were and weren't addressed in that research. If the question you're interested in is whether instruction improves learners' ability to use 'explicit declarative knowledge under controlled conditions' (N&O, p. 486), then N&O provide a clear positive answer. If you're interested in how instruction affects practical ability to use the language, the findings point to a very different answer.

John Truscott

[karenstanleyma-3]

John wrote:
> If the question you're interested in is whether instruction improves learners' ability to use 'explicit declarative knowledge under controlled conditions' (N&O, p. 486), then N&O provide a clear positive answer. If you're interested in how instruction affects practical ability to use the language, the findings point to a very different answer.
>

Instruction is often simply the beginning point.  If you accept Richard Schmidt's "noticing hypothesis" that a learner must first notice something about the language (or in this case, grammar) before it can begin to be absorbed into the learner's system and eventually into productive language, then there may be many instances in which instruction forms part of this initial noticing and understanding.

The fact is, if learners can produce a form on a grammar test, then there is a greater possibility of their using it later.  It doesn't mean that such learners will be able to IMMEDIATELY use it correctly in all circumstances or even many circumstances where learners' attentional resources are being called on for other more immediate and more pressing tasks.

I believe that practice with a structure after you have learned about it is also CRUCIALLY important for learners.

A small experiment to help students practice with a structure they had learned about was reported in the Asian EFL Journal:

http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/site_map_2007.php
(Select Article 15)

My highly abbreviated summary:

Students were first tested to make sure they had knowledge of clauses expressing unreal conditions in the future.  (They did not include students unfamiliar with the structure in their research tasks.)

Students were then given explanations of a writing task and example compositions using this structure, followed by the assignment of an appropriate topic (Examples of such topics:  What would happen if there were no water?  What would happen if you didn't go to college?).  They were asked to include 5 unreal future clauses in their own compositions.  Following the initial composition writing, different groups were given different treatments. Then, three weeks later, they were asked to write on another topic (again using five such clauses).

Students who had had their errors underlined in the initial composition and had then been asked to revise their compositions were the most successful in using those types of sentences/clauses the second time around.

Obviously, this is simply one small attempt to have students take grammar that they know and practice using it to communicate meaningful information.  Is it perfect?  Of course not.  However, it does take students who already know the structure and help them put it to use.

Practicing what you know theoretically is an important element in almost everything we learn.  When I learned to type, I was given information about where the letters were on the keyboard and where to place my fingers on the keys for the maximum effect.  I understood it very well, but I certainly couldn't have turned around after one careful guided practice session in a class and been able to touch type quickly and accurately.

Subsequent to typing instruction, I had to practice for an extended period before I got to the point that I could touch type. At that early point, I could have typed more quickly using just 2 fingers and being able to look at the keys.  However, while people who do NOT get that type of instruction and practice may be eventually able to type reasonably quickly using (most often) two fingers and with a need to look at they keys, they rarely (if ever) can type as quickly with the same degree of accuracy that I can now.

Again, you can't expect instruction to do EVERYTHING.  But you can look at grammar instruction as a helpful tool in allowing students to acquire certain forms more quickly, and to eventually use them with a higher degree of accuracy.

Karen

[John Pullen]

For the vast majority of the foreign teachers in China, teaching oral English will be the primary activity.  This class at the university level can be set up so that a teacher meets with students several times a week over a semester, but usually is established so that students meet just one or two class periods a week.  Some situations allow the university to place a teacher in classes all at the same year of study and the same major, but others regroup students into elective courses where all majors and levels show up.
 
Secondly, the classes are normally established with anywhere from 30 to 90 students.  Lets suppose you are lucky and have a class of 30 students.  If you can work easily with small groups, say 5 students to a group, you can establish a situation where each person might have about 7 minutes of speaking, leaving organizational time and teacher interruptions.  More than likely some students will practice speaking 12 to 14 minutes while others will have about 2 to 4 minutes. 
 
Very rarely does the teacher see a group of students for more than two semesters and therefore all planning must encompass the idea that what ever can be taught must be done in a very short period of time and infrequent contact.  Compound this situation with the fact that a teacher might have been assigned 7 to 14 different groups of students each semester.
 
Occassionally some grammar points and clarification can be introduced or interjected, but the vast amount of time must be spent on activities to foster as much speaking and interaction as possible.  As the level of competence in a language increases then grammar has to be presented and discussed, but does it need to be the foreign language teacher? 
 
I think the planning and execution of an oral English class must be considered as a part of a larger team approach and not that the Foreign teacher will be the only player.  The Chinese English teachers do spend many hours of instruction on grammar, not all of which is done correctly.  They also spend many hours making sure that students can provide the correct answer for test questions where most Foreign teachers would have trouble finding one specific answer.  Many times I've been asked by Chinese teachers of English to clarify what answer would be best when they have debated for hours whether or not the test preparer's answers are correct.  I've been told that even though I might indicate that more than one answer would be appropriate, they know the test makers will require just the CORRECT answer to be selected.
 
So for most new members to get down to work in an oral English class, I think we should stress ideas that foster larger periods of time of student talking.  Grammar instruction is appropriate as the teacher sees a common issue or a frequent missuse, but spending too much time in teacher talk takes aware time for student interactions.
 
If this discussion is predominately interested in applying the grammar instruction to writing classes, then I can see more time spent in grammar issues when large numbers of students have common problems.
 
My opinion is that grammar instruction is helpful and some situations needs to be more evident than in others.  However, the vast amount of time in a classroom with a Foreign teacher needs to be on other activities, especially pushing for all communication to be done in English.  Getting students to think in the language rather than translating needs much more time each day.


john    
Life's a journey not a destination, help others along the way.




     

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[JimMahler]

John Pullen's analysis is (as always) quite perceptive. Might I suggest a clarification of terminology?

The term "grammar instruction" brings to mind images of nuns with rulers. It may be what Chinese teachers do but, as John points out, it is not what we foreign teachers do. Perhaps the term "grammar reminders" might be suitable for us -- a sentence or two a week at most, just to jog memories.

Jim Mahler
---- John Pullen <gaodachang@...> wrote:
> For the vast majority of the foreign teachers in China, teaching oral English will be the primary activity....