grammar teaching-practice or consciousness-raising_ellis_sem comentários

7/26/2019 Grammar Teaching-Practice or Consciousness-Raising_Ellis_sem Comentrios...

1/5

J ac k C Richa rds

Thombury, S. (1998). Comments on direct approaches in L2 instruction.

TESOL Quarter/y

32(1),109-116.

Van Patten, W. ( 1993 ). Grammar-teaching for the acquisition-rich c1assroom.

Foreign Lan

guage Annals

26(4),435-450.

Willis, J. Willis, D. (Eds.), (1996).

Challenge and change inlanguage teaching

Oxford:

Heinemann.

9 M i

ri

S

CHAPTER

Grammar Teaching ; Practice or

Consciousness Raising?

Rod Ellis

INTRODUCTION

Two major questions need to be consider ed with regard to grammar teaching in second

language (L2) pedagogy:

1. Should we teach grammar at ali?

2. lf w e should teach grammar, how should we teach it?

The first question ha s been answered in the negative by some applied linguists. Krashen

(1982), for instance, has argued that formal instruction in grammar wi ll nolcontribute

10

lhe

development of acquired knowledge - lhe knowledge needed 10 participar e in authentic

communication. Prabhu (1987) has tried to show, with some success, that c1assroom learners

can acquire an L2 grammar naturalistically by participating in meaning-focused tasks. Oth-

ers, however, inc1uding myself, have argued that grammar teaching does a id L2acquisition,

although not necessarily in the way teachers often t1nkit does. Myprincipal contenti on i s

that formal grammar teaching has a delayed rather than instant effect.

The focus of this artic1e is the second questionom going to a ssume that we should

teach grammar (see Elli s, 1990, for the reasons why) and tum my attention to how we

should set about doing so. Specifically, I want 10 consider two approaches, which I shall

refer to as practice and consciousness-raising. I shall begin by def ining the se . I w ill

then brief ly consider the case for pract ice and argue that the available evidence sug-

gests that it may no t be a s e ff ec ti ve a s i s generally believed. I wil l then present a num-

ber of arguments in support of consciousness-raising and conc1ude with an exarnple of a

CR- Iask.

167


2/5

Rod E l li s

DEFINING PRACTICE ANO CONSCIOUSNESS RAISING

For most teachers, the man idea of grammar teaching is t o help leamers intemalise the

structures taught in such a way that they can be used in everyday communication. To

this end, the learners ar e p rovided wi th opportunities to

practise

the structures, first under

controlled conditions, and then under more normal communicative conditions. Ur (1988,

p. 7 describes th~ practice stage of a grammar lesson in these terms: The practice stage

consists of a s eries of exercises ... whose a im is to cause the leamers to absorb the structure

thoroughly; or to put itanother way, to

transferwhat they know from short term tolong term

memory

It is common to distinguish a number of different types of practice activties>-

. mechanical practice, contextualised practice, and communicative practice. Mechanical prac-

ticeconsists of v arious types of rigidly controlled activities, such assubstitution exercises.

Contextualised practice is still controlled, but involves an attempt to encourage leamers to

relate form to meaning by showing how structures are used in real-life situations. Com-

municative practice entails various kinds of

gap

activities which require the leamers to

engage in authentic communication while at the same time keeping an eye, as it were, on

the structures that are being manipulated in the process (Ur, 1988, p. 9) ..

Irrespect ive of whether the practice is controlled, contextualised, or communicative, it

will have the following characteristics:

I. There is some attempt to

isolate

a specific grammatical feature for focused attention.

2. The learners are required to pr ou e sentences containing the targeted feature.

3. The learners will beprovided with opportunities for repetition of the targeted feature.

4. There is an expectancy that the leamers will perform the grarnrnatical feature

correctly.

In general, therefore, practice activities are s uccess oriented ( Ur, 1988,

p.13).

5. The le arners receivefeedback on whether the ir performance of the grammatical

structure is correct or not. This feedback may be immediate or delayed.

These five characteristics prov ide a def ini ti on of what most methodologists mean by

practice. It should be noticed that each characteristic constitutes an assumption about how

grammar is learnt. By and large, though, these assumptions go unchallenged and have

become pari of the mythology of language teaching.

Consciousness-raising, as I use the term, involves an attempt to equip the leamer with

an understanding of a specific grammatical feature - to develop declarative rather than

procedural knowledge of it. The main characteristics of consciousness-raising activities are

the following:

1. There is an attempt to

isolate

a specific linguistic feature for focused attention.

2. The learners are provided with data which i llustrate the targeted feature and they may

also be supplied with an

explicit role

describing or explaining the feature.

3. The learners are expected to utilise

intellectual effort

to understand the targeted

feature.

4. Misunderstanding or incornplete understanding of the grammatical structure by the

leamers leads to

clarification

in t he form of further data and description or

explanation.

5. Learners may be require d (although this is not obligatory) t o~te lherole

describing the grammatical structure.

G ram m ar T eac hing Practic e or Con sciousness Raising?

169

It should be c1ear from this list that the main purpose of consciousness-raising is to

develop explicit knowledge of grammar. I want to emphasise, however, that this is not the -

same as

metalingual k nowledge.

It is perfect1ypossible to develop an explicit understanding

of how a grammatical structure works without learning much in the way of grarnrnatical

terrninology. Grammar can be explained, and, therefore, understood in everyday language.

It may be, however , that access to some me talanguage will facilitate the development of

explicit knowledge.

A comparison of the characteristics of consciousness-raising with thoseIisted for prac-

tice shows that lhe main difference is thatconsciousness-rai sing does not involve the leamer

in repeated production. This is because the aim ofth is k ind of grarnrnar teaching is not to

enable the learner to perform a structure correctly but simply to help her to know about

it .

Here is how Rutherford andSharwood-Smith (1985) put it: CR is considered as a potential

facilitator for the acquisi tion ofl inguistic competence and has nothing direct ly to do with

the use o f t hat competence fo r the achievernent of specific communicative objectives, or

with the achievement of fiuency .

Wherea s practice is primarily behavioural, consciousness-raising isessentially concept-

forrning in orientation.

The two types of grammar work are not mutuall y exclusive, however. Thus, grammar

teaching can involve a cornbination of practice and consciousness-raising and, indeed,

traditionally does so. Thus, many methodologists recommend thatp ractice work be preceded

by a presentation stage, toensure that the leamers have a clear idea aboutwhat.the targeted

structure consists of. This presentation stage may involve an inductive or deductive treatment

of the structure. AIso, practice wo rk can be rounded off with a f ormal explanation of l he

structure. Even strict audiolingualists such as Brooks (1960) recognised the value of formal

explanations of pattems as summaries once the practice activities had been completed.

Indeed, it is arguable tha tno grammar teaching can takeplace without some consciousness-

raising occurring. Evenif the practice work is directed at t he implicitleaming of the structure

and no formal explanation is provided, leamers (particularly, adults) are l ikely to try to

construct some kind of explicit representation of the role. .

Nevertheless, the distinction is a real and important one. Whereas practice work cannot

take place wi thout some degree o f consciousness-raising (even if this is inc idental), the

obverse is not the case; consciousness-raising can occur without practice. Thus, it is per-

fectly possible to teach grammar in the sense of helping leamers to understand and explain

grarnrnatical phenomena without having them engage in activities that require repeated

production of the structures concemed. One way this occurs is by presenting leamers with

rules for memorisation - teaching about grarnrnar. This is what occurred in the grammar-

translation method. Such an approach lias been discredited on a number of grounds, and

it is not my intention to advocate its reintroduction. There are other ways of raising con-

sciousness that are compatible with contemporary educational principies, however . Before

considering thern, I want to consider the extent to which the faith methodologists have in

practice is justified.

DOES PRACTICE WORK?

A number ofernpirical studies have investigated whether practi ce contributes to L2 acqui-

sition (cf. Ellis, 1988, for a review). These studies are oftwo kinds: those that seek to relate

the

amount

of practice achieved byindividualleamers with general increases in

proficiency

(e.g., Seliger, 1977; Day, 1984) andthose tha thaye examined whether practising a specific

linguistic structure results in its acquisition (e.g., Ellis, 1984).


3/5

R od E Ui s

The results of bolh types of research are not encouraging for supporters of practice.

Correlational studi es ( i.e., lhe first kindjust referred to) have produced mixed results. Some

studies have found a relationship hetween amount of practice and gains in proficiency, but

olhers have failed to d o so. Even when a study does show a strong relationship, it does not

warrant claiming that practice

causes

leaming. In order to say somelhing ahout cause and

effect, we have to interpret a c orrelational relationship. lt i sperfectly possi ble to argue that

it is lhe learners proficiency that influences practice, ralher than vice versa. Teachers may

direct more practice opportunities at those learners who they think are able to supply correct

answers - thus, lhe more proficient receive more p ractice. lndeed, one of lhe requirements

of practice - that it be success-oriented - would lead us topredict that this will happen. The

detailed analysis of classroom interactions that result from practice activities supports such

an interpretation.

Studies which have investigated whether practising a spec if ic structure results in its

acquisition provide evidence to suggest that practice does not resu lt i n t he autonomous

ability to use the structure. In other words, practising a grammatical structure under con-

trolled conditions does not seem to enable the learner to use the structure freely. I carried

out a study (Ellis, 1984) to see whether practising when q uestions enabled learners to

acquire this structure. lt did not. Ellis and Ralhbone (1987) investigated whether practising

a difficult word-order rule with learners of L2 Gerrnan resulted in its acquisition. Again, it

did not. There are also doubts that learne rs are able to transfer knowledge from controlled

to communicative practice. Once learners move into a meaning-focused activity, they seem

to fali back on their own resources and ignore lhe linguistic material they have practised

previously in forrn- focused activity.

, There are, of course, p roblems with such studies as these , and it would be unwise to

c1aim lhat they conclusively demonstrate lhat practice does not work. It may be lhat the

practice was of lhe wrong kind, tha t i twas poorly execut ed , or lhat lhere was not enough of

it. It may be that practice only works with some kinds of learners. Nevertheless, lhe studies

cast doubts on lhe clairns methodologists make about practice.

There are a ls o strong theoretical grounds for questioning lhe effectiveness of practice.

Pienemann (1985) has proposed thatsome structures are

developmental

in lhe sense lhat they

areacquired in adefined sequence.1t is impossible for lhe l earner to acquire a developmental

structure until the psycholinguistic processing operations a ssociated wilh easier structures

in lhe acquisitional sequence have been acquired.

According to Pienemanns

teachability hypothesis

a structure cannot be successfully

taught (in the sense that it will be used correctly and spontaneously in communication) unless

lhe learner is developmentally ready to acquire it. ln other words, the teaching syllabus has to

match the learner s developmental syllabus. For practice to work, then, lhe teacher will have

to find out what stage of development lhe learners have reached. Allhough it is technically

possible for lhe teacher to do this, it is impractic al i nmost teaching situations.

Of course, it does not follow from lhese arguments that practice is wilhout any value

at all. Practice probably doe; help where pronunciation is concerned - it gives learners

opportunities to get their tongues around new words and phrases , A1so, practice may be

quite e ffec tive in helping l eame rs t o remember new lexical material, including forrnulaic

chunks such as How do you do? , Can I have a ... 1 , and I dont understand . Some

learner s - ex trover ts who enjoy speaking in the classroom, for example - may respond

positively to practice activities. For lhese reasons, practice will always have a place in lhe

c1assroom. It needs to be recognised, however, that practice will often not lead to immediate

procedural knowledge of grammatical rules, irrespective of its quantity andquality.

Tosum up, there are strong grounds - empirical and lheoretical- which lead us todoubt

tbe efficacy of practice. Pract ice is essentially a

pedagogical

construct. It assumes that

lhe acquisition of grammatical structures involves a gradual automatisation of production,

G ra mm ar T ea ch in g Pract ice or Consciousness Raising?

171

from controlled to automatic, and i t ignores the very real constraints lhat exist on the ability

of lhe teacher to influence what goeson inside lhe leamers head. Practice mayhavelimited

psycltolinguistic validity.

THE CASE FOR CONSCIOUSNESS RAISING

We have seen that lhegoal of practiceactivities is to develop lhe kind of automatic control of

grammatical structures that will enable learners to use them productively and spontaneously.

We have also seen that l here are reasons to believe that this may not be achievable. The

problem lies in as surning that we can teach grammar for use in communication. If we

lower our sights and instead aim to develop lhe learner awa reness of what is correct but

wilhout any expectancy that wecan bring lhe learner to t he point where she can use lhis

knowledge in normal communication, lhen lhe main lheoretical objections raised against

pract ice disappear. Consciousness-raising is predicated on this lesser goal.

Practice is directed at lhe acquisition of

implicit

knowledge of a grammatical

structure - lhe kind of tacit knowledge needed to use lhe structure e ffortlessly fo r com-

munication. Consciousness-raising is directed atlhe formation of explicit knowledge - the

kind ofintellectual knowledge which we are able to galher about a ny subject, ifwe so choose.

Ofcourse, lhe construction ofexplicit representations of g rammatical structures i sof l irnited

use in itself. It may help lhe leamer to perforrn successfully in certain kindsof discrele-item

language lests. 11may also he lp to rnprove her perforrnance in planning her discourse , as

when we monitor our output in order to improve it for public perusal. BUI, crucially, it

will not be of much use in lhe normal, everyday uses o f language. Explicit knowledge is

not much use when it come s to communicating. For l his , we need implicit knowledge.

We need to ask , lherefore, whelher lhe more limited goal of consciousness-raslng -

to teach explici t knowledge - has any value. Ultirnately, consciousness-raising can only be

justified if it can be shown lhat i t contributes to th leamers ability to communicate. Iwant to

argue that, although consciousness-raising does nOIcontribute di rectly to lhe acquisition of

implicit knowledge, it does so indirectly, ln ~lher words , consciousness-raising facilitates

tbe acquisition of lhe grammatical knowledge needed for communication.

The acquisition of implicit knowledge involves three processes:

I. noticing (the learner becomes conscious of lhe presence of a l inguistic feature in lhe

input, whereas previously she bad ignored it)

2. comparing (the learner compares lhe linguistic feature noticed in t he input wilh her

own mental gramnlar, registering

10

what exten t l here is a gap between lhe input and

her grammar)

3. integrating (lhe learner integrates a representation of lhe new linguistic feature into

her mental grammar)

The first two processes involve conscious attention to language ; lhe third process takes

place at a very deep levei, of which tbe learner is genera lly not aware. Noticing and

comparing cantake place atany time; lhey arenot developmental1y regulated. But integration

of new linguistic material into the store of implicit knowledge is subject to tbe kinds of

psycholinguistic constraints discussed earlier.

How, lhen, does consciousness-raising contribut e t o lhe acquisition of implicit knowl-

edge? I would l ike tosuggest that it does soin two major ways:

1. It contributes 10 lhe processes of noticing and comparing and, therefore, prepares th;

grounds for the integra tion of new linguistic material. However, it will not bring about


4/5

R od Ellis

integration. This process is controlle d by the l ea rner a nd will talceplace only when

the learner is developmentally ready.

2. It results in explicit knowledge, Thus, even if the learner isunable to integrate the

new feature as implicit knowledge, she can construct an altemative explicit

representation which can be stored separately and subsequent ly accessed when the

learner is developmentally primed tohandle it. Furthermore, explicit knowledge

serves to help the learner to continue tonotice the fea ture in the input, thereby

facilitat ing i ts subsequent acquisition.

Consciousness-raising, then, is unlikely toresult in immediate acquisition. More likely,

it will have a delayed effect:

There are a1 so educational reasons that can be advanced for grammar teaclng as

consciousness-raising. The incJusion of foreign languages in the school curriculum is not

motivated ent irely by the desire to foster communication between spealcers of different

languages, although this has become the most prominent aim in recent years. This inclusion

has, and always has had , a mo re general goal- that of fostering intellectual development.

Grammar embo dies acorpus ofknowledge the study ofwlch can be expected to contribute

to students c ognitive skill s. It constitutes a serious content and, as such, contrasts with the

trivial con tent of many modern textbooks.

I t is not my intention, however, to advoca le a ret urn to teaching about grammar, or,

a t l east, not in the form that this was carried out in the past. The arguments that I have

presen ted in favour of consciousness-raising do not justify giving le ctures on grammar.

Such a transmission-oriented approach runs contrary to progressive educational principies.

Wha t I have in mind is a task-based approach that emphasises discovery learning by asking

learners to solve problems about grammar. The following is anexample of this approach.

AN EXAMPLE OF A CONSCIOUSNESS RAISING TASK

Consciousness-raising tasks can be inductive or deductive. In t he case of the former, the

learner is provided wi th dat a anda sked toconstruct an explicit rule todescribe the gram-

matical feature which the data illustrate. In thecase of t he latter, the learne r i s supplied with

a rulewhich is then used to carry out some task. Wedo not know, as yet, which typeresults

in the more efficient learning of explicit knowledge - probably both will prove useful.

Table I provides a s impl e example o f an induct iv e t ask des igned to raise learners

awareness about lhe grammatical differences between for and since. This problem has

been designed with a number ofpoints in mind. First, the intention is to fo cus on a known

source of difficulty; learners frequently fail to distinguish for and s ince. Second, the data

provided must be adequa te to enable the learners todiscover the rule that governs the usage

of these prepositions in t ime expressions. In l he case of this task, the data incJude both

grammatical and ungrammatical sentences. Third, the task requires mnimal production on

the part of the learners; instead, emphasis is placed on developing an idea o f when the

two forms are used. Fourth, there is an opportunity to apply the rul e i n t he construc tion of

personalised statements. This is not intended to practise the rule but to promote its storage

as explicit knowledge; production, therefore, is restricted to two sentences and there is

no insistence on autornatic processing. Such tasks as these can be designed with varying

formats. They can make use of situational infnnation, diagram, charts, tables, and soon.

They can also be used in both lockstep teaching (i.e., when the teacher works through a

problem with the whole cla ss ) or small-group work.

G r am m a r T e ac h in g P r ac tic e o r C o ns ci ou sn e ssRa ising?

171

T AB L E 1 A N E XA MP LE O F A C R P RO BJ EM SOLV ING TASK

1. Here i s some information about when three people joined the

company they now work for and how long theyhave ?~en working there,

Nam e ate oined

L en gth o f T ime

MsRegan 1945 45 yrs

Mr Bush

1970

20 yrs

Ms Thatcher

1989

9mths

Mr Balcer

1990 (Feb) 10 days

2. Study these sentences about these people. When is for used and

when i s since used?

a. Ms Regan has been working for her company

for

most ofher l ife.

b. Mr Bush has been working for hiscompany since

197

c. MsThat cher has been working forher company for 9 months.

d. -Mr Balcer has been working for his company since February.

3. Which ofthe following sentences are ungrammatical? Why?

a. Ms Regan has been working for her company for 1945.

b. Mr Bush has been working for his company for 20 years.

c. Ms Thatcher has been working for her company since 1989.

d. MrBalcer has been working for his company since 10 days.

4. Try and malce u p a rule to explain when for and s ince are used.

5. Malce up one sentence about when you started to learn English and one

sentence about how long you have been studying English. Use for and

since .

CONCLUSION

ln this paper I have argued the case for grammar teaching as consciousness-raising. In one

respect, this does not constitute a radical departure from what teachers have a1ways done.

Many teachers have felt the need to provide formal explanations of grammatical points.

But i n another respect, it d oes represent.a real alternative in that it removes from grammar

teaching the need to provide learners with repeate d opportunities.to produce the target

structure. So much effort has gone into devising ingenious ways of eliciting and shaping

learners responses, more often to little or no avail as learners do not acquire the structures

they have practised. Consciousness-raising constitutes an approach to grarnrnar teaching

which is cornpatible with current thinking about how learners acquire L2 grarnrnar. It also

constitutes an approach that accords with progressive views about educat ion as a process

ofdiscovery through problem-solving tasks.

There are, of course , l imitations to consciousness-raising. It may not be appropriate

for young l earners. Some learners (e.g., those who like to learn by doing rather than

s tudying) may dislike it. It can only be used with beginners if the learners first language

is used as the medium for solving the tasks. However, the alternative in such situations

is not practice. Rather, it is to provide opportunities for meaning-focused language use,

for communicating in the L2, initially perhaps in lhe form of l istening tasks. Alllearners,

even those who are suited to a consciousness-raising approach, will need plenty of such


5/5

Rod Ellis

opportunities. Consciousness-raising is not an a1ternative to communication activities, but

a supplement.

References

Brooks, N. (1960). Language and language leaming. New York: Harcourt, Brace

World.

Day, R. R. (1984). Student participation in the ESL classroom.

Language Leaming

4

69-89.

Ellis, R. (1984). The role of instruction in second language acquisition. In D: Singleton

D. Little (Eds.), Language leaming in

orm l

and informal contexts.lRAAL.

Ellis, R. (1988). The role ofpractice in c1assroom language le~ing. Teanga 8,1-25.

Ellis, R. (1990). lnstructed second language acquisition Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Ellis, R.,

Rathbone, M. (1987). The acquisuion of German in a classroom contexto

London: EaJing College of Higher Education.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principies and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford:

Pergamon.

Pienemann, M. (1985). LearnabiJity and syllabus construction. In K. Hyltenstam

M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition. Clevedon,

Avon: Multilingual Matters.

Prabhu, N. (1987): Second language pedagogy Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rutherford, W., Sharwood-Smith, M. (1985). Consciousness-raising and universal

grammar.

Applied Linguistics

6,214-281.

Seliger, H. (1977). Does practice make perfect? A study of interaction patterns and

L2 competence. Language Leaming 27,263-275.

Ur, P. (1988). Grammar practice activities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

grammar teaching-practice or consciousness-raising_ellis_sem comentários

Documents