Teaching Grammar

In language teaching there is always an argument over naturalistic teaching and focus on form. There are pros and cons to both approaches and that is what Brown talks about in his chapter. Specifically, he discusses how to teach grammar. Grammar has long been a touchy subject when it comes to naturalistic acquisition due to its rote quality. However, it’s important to note that grammar can be taught in an exciting and positive way. After all, it is essential to learning language, whether the learner acquires it naturally or explicitly. There are some ways to make grammar accessible to students. The teacher should make sure that grammar is within the context of meaningful communication, that it contributes positively to communicative goals, that it promotes accuracy, that it doesn’t overwhelm students with the linguistic terminology, and that it is as intrinsically motivation as possible (Brown 421). This ties in with the idea that Kumar presents of general and critical language awareness. Teachers need to be aware of language when teaching it to their students. He talks about how they need to engage the students in language awareness, making things like grammar and syntax interesting and motivating. Even though explicit language and grammar instruction has been frowned upon, Kumar makes a point for it in this chapter. During class time, questions may arise that students want the answer to, and sometimes they deal directly with grammar or vocabulary. Self discovery is an important tool that students can use when learning grammar. Kumar states, “The logic of preferring reasoning over rules appears to be fairly simple” (178). This promotes the idea that grammar should definitely be taught, but not in a formalized lesson plan. Grammar and vocabulary points will come up in class and then the teacher can use those opportunities to teach about it. These instances are more beneficial due to context.

                When it comes to teaching grammar, it is difficult to know how to approach the subject. Generally it is said that an inductive approach is much more beneficial to the students. Because it’s more naturalistic and communicative, most students learn very well with this approach. It helps them learn while they’re speaking instead of explicitly teaching rote mannerisms. However, I’m not sure I completely agree with this statement. I see the benefits of this, and I myself learn well with this method in certain contexts. But a deductive approach isn’t necessarily bad for all students. I believe that beginners should have some sort of structure given to them of the grammar of the language they are learning. This structure helps them begin to structure their own discourse and in turn become more fluent. I think that using inductive methods in intermediate or advanced stages is very beneficial because at that point students already have a clear understanding of what they are learning and inductive teaching is much better. If students are making clear mistakes when you are teaching them inductively, should you switch to a more explicit method? Although inductivity is seen as better, couldn’t there be some instances where deductive methods are better? How does a teacher know when to use each approach?