Tag Archives: rule

GRAMMAR

My own road to master the English grammar was different.

Grammar – an oasis or a desert? For me it first was neither since I did not need it. I had learnt most of my English grammar from songs. Later on at the university I had to learn the rules as well to be able to teach them at school. While studying other languages I started to admire the beauty of grammar in other languages, too. So, these days grammar is an oasis for me. Move the arrows and make your choice!

In the early years of CLT many linguists and some teachers started to feel teaching grammar was not important and even ignored it. Fortunately, this attitude turned out to be impossible in practice and we kept on teaching grammar – but not exactly like we had done before.

There were three drastic and permanent changes in practising new grammatical structures thanks to comminicative language teaching:

  • Firstly, CLT teachers realized that we must make use of 3 kinds/levels of exercises in practising grammar: 1) mechanical, 2) semi-communicative and 3) communicative exercises and tasks. Up to that point exercises had nearly always been mechanical.
  • Secondly, having learnt the rules and having done a couple of written mechanical exercises, we moved on doing ‘authentic’ oral activities in pairs and groups. In brief, the focus was in doing oral grammatical exercises at 3 levels, instead of written ones. I will explain ‘how’ in the next articles.
  • Thirdly, CLT teachers realized that differentiation was needed in mixed-ability classes since some students did mainly only mechanical exercises while the best ones were able to move straight on to using the new structures in free speech or activities.

Three methods in teaching grammatical rules

Grammatical structures and rules can be taught using ‘the inductive or deductive method’ or they can be learnt without any rules just by being exposed to the new language a lot; pretty much the way mother tongues are learnt.

  • Most teachers know the term inductive method’ of teaching grammar, which means the formulation of the rules on the basis on examples.
  • It is contrasted with the ‘deductive method’ which means the teacher explains the rules in detail and then lets the students practise and apply the rules. This is the easy way out in teaching grammar. The teacher thinks ‘I taught you the rules and it is up to you to learn them. Practise and we need to move on.’
  • The third ‘method’ is the lexical approach to teaching grammar which means learning grammatical structures as ‘chunks’ ; i.e. word combinations, words, set phrases or set structures. With minimum reference to any rules it is very similar to the learning of mother tongue. The Dodson method is based on chunks as well but it makes heavy use of the mother tongue.

I will deal with the communicative teaching of grammar, the inductive and deductive methods as well as the lexical approach and the Dodson method in much more detail in separate articles.

Few people like grammar. Grammar is just a tool, not the aim of language teaching. And it is not always a must. Like me, the English grammar can be learnt from games, songs or any other source without official teaching, without the learner realizing it!

My own history on learning and teaching the English grammar

Now I am going to have a look at my own experiences as the learner and teacher of grammar. My road to the English grammar was different.

A lot of input in a foreign language can lead to subconscious learning of grammar without knowledge of the rules.

I used to have an ambivalent attitude to grammar. When I went to the university in the early 1970s and had been accepted to study English, I knew very few rules of the English language. Still, even if I only wrote one essay in all my school years, I mastered the written language rather well. How come? It was at that time it dawned on me that I must have learnt the rules subconsciously while singing in English and spending a lot of my time listening to songs and writing down the lyrics. So I am a living example that one does not need to study any rules of a foreign language to learn it, provided we are exposed to the language for a long time, usually thanks to our hobby that involves the use of the foreign language.

So, I must have learnt the grammatical elements as chunks, lexical units of various length, and then generalized the models to cover different situations as well.

A teacher has to know the grammatical rules to be able to justify his/her marking of essays, exams and oral presentations.

Consequently, I was in deep trouble when I started teaching English before I had taken my official grammar tests at the university. For instance, I was amazed about the difficulty of making questions in English just three hours before I had to teach the rules to my evening class. When to use ‘do, does, did’ and when to leave them out and under what circumstances! What are auxuliaries and what is their roles in questions? It was all Hebrew to me! I was sweating like a little pig before the lesson. Luckily I did not know most of the adult students were teachers themselves and six of them were heads of their school.

Of course, I had to learn all the rules of English rather quickly and I actually enjoyed explaining the students why particular structures were considered wrong or inappropriate. Even more so, I enjoyed presenting grammar rules so that minimum number of grammatical terms needed to be used and the learning was logical, proceeded step by step and included a lot of oral practising.

However, I realized my road to mastering the English grammar is not a common one and therefore I have always used the inductive method in introducing most of the new grammatical points.

In some rare cases I have been applying the deductive method or the lexical approach to teaching grammar. They all work well but the success in using them depends on the proficiency level of the class. In other words, what kind of learners they are and how good their English is.

Let’s face it. If you go to the city centre and shout out ‘I know the English grammar in and out!’ no-one will be impressed.

But if you speak beautiful English with correct grammar in your utterances, some people might be impressed.

The following matters will be discussed in my next articles.

GrammarCommunicative grammar, tasks and differentiation
The inductive and deductive method in teaching grammar
Grammar in the ‘good old days’
Teaching grammar the old style and CLT style, comparison
Teaching young beginners grammar, the lexical approach
The Dodson bilingual method

THE INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE METHOD in teaching grammar

Look at the photo above. Which one is better for learning? The teacher telling the secret of the mystery car OR the students studying the car and finding it out themselves?

The answer is at the very end of this article. Think carefully because it will reveal your attitude towards teaching grammar as well.

I know. Having studied English for many years at the university you are not supposed to lecture and shine with your knowledge in front of your class (= the deductive method). Let’s have a look at our options.

Why the inductive method? Because it forces the students to think hard. The more they crack their brains, the better they learn.

Earlier on we defined the two most common methods in teaching grammar:

“Most teachers know the term ’inductive method’ of teaching grammar, which means the formulation of the rules on the basis on examples. It is contrasted with the ’deductive method’ which means the teacher explaining the rules in detail and then letting the students practise and apply the rules. This is the easy way out in teaching grammar. The teacher thinks ’I taught you the rules and it is up to you to learn them. We need to move on.’ “

I will start by discussing ‘the inductive method’. In my opinion it is the one we can and should use in teaching nearly all grammatical points. The inductive method activates the students’ brains much better than the ‘deductive one’.

The advantages of using the inductive method

  • First of all, students remember the rule better if they themselves have worked it out from the sample sentences given to them.
  • Secondly, students become very motivated to solve the problem; it is a minor detective operation.
  • Thirdly, every student is given time to try to figure out the rule if the process is slow, and proceeds step by step.
  • The teacher can exercise his/her expertise in the matter by presenting the relevant questions when the rule is being formulated.
  • In most cases the process can be carried out in English but in some classes it may be better to use the mother tongue to make sure everyone understands the rule.

How does the process advance in using the inductive method?

For the method to be effective it is advisable to more or less follow the steps given below and allow differentiation in the exercise types at Stage 5 if necessary.

Stage 1: Pre-task 1 Play a board game where the students throw a dice (or roll a pencil with 1-6 dots on it) and can move onwards if they remember the 3 forms of about 20 verbs, regular and irregular ones. N.B. Always make sure the foundation for the next task is solid: Some irregular verbs must be mastered for Stage 2.

Stage 2: Pre-task 2 Have a ‘Find someone who …’ task in order to make the students use the structure to be learnt many times. The structure to be learnt is The 2nd conditional.

What would you have done, if the school had been closed today?

ActionName if ‘YES’
I would have gone swimming.
I and my friend would have played computer games.Peter
Me and my dad would have eaten lunch together.Jill
I would have written our home essay.
I would have slept a couple of hours more at home.Shirley

Stage 3: Look at the examples below and work out the rule for the main clause and for the if-clause.

The main clauseThe if-clause
I would have gone downtownif the boss had given me the task.
My mum would have taken dad’s carif it had been in the garage,
What do these two clauses have in common? (= KEY QUESTION!!)
(would have + verb)
How would you translate the clauses? ‘olisin mennyt’ ‘olisi ottanut’
What do these two if-clause have in common? (the pluperfect tense)
How would you translate the clauses? ‘olisi antanut’ ‘olisi ollut’

Stage 4: Let’s formulate the rule for the 2nd conditional

The road to the formulation of the rule is clear if the students spot which pattern the sample clauses have in common.

The main clauseThe if-clause
would have + 3rd form of the verbthe pluperfect tense = had + 3rd form of the verb
‘olisi tehnyt’‘olisi tehnyt’

Now the Finnish students would notice that the Finnish language does not make any difference between the main and if-clauses and for them that is the point to bear in mind. In addition to the rules, of course. In other languages the situation may be different. In any case, comparison with the mother tongue is often very useful.

Stage 5: The if-clause can be in front of or after the main clause but do not reveal it to the students. Let them fall into the ‘trap’ when they do the first exercises and they will remember the application of the rule better.

Practice session; just like we have learnt before there should be 3 kinds of tasks for the sake of differentiation. The students will do i), ii) or iii) or all of them. See the samples below as a reminder!

i) A mechanical task (a gap filling exercise, isolated sentences with no context)

I don’t understand why you said nothing. I ___________________________ (tell) him the truth, if he __________________________ (ask) me anything about it.

Why did they not let us know they were not coming? If they _____________________ (call) us, we _________________________ (leave) the party immediately.

ii) Semi-communicative exercise (a realistic context but no freedom to write creatively and use the 2nd conditional forms)

There was a robbery at a local grocery store last week and three students are discussing what they would have done if they had been in the shop at that time.

Malcolm: I ______________________________ (hide) behind the shelves and if it _____________________________ (be) possible, I _________________________(call) the police quietly.

Anne: If I __________________________ (see) the robber, I _______________________ (write down) what they looked like and how they spoke.

Cary: I ______________________________ (try) to be quiet and I ______________________________ (take) photos from my hiding place. It _____________________________ (be) very dangerous, if the robber _______________________ (see) me doing it.

iii) A real communicative task (a realistic situation/context and freedom to be creative about the content)

There was a boat accident on a lake near your school yesterday and you are talking about it with your class mates. Write at least four things you would have done if you had been there and had seen what was going on. Include at least two if-clauses in your story.

How does the process advance in the deductive method?

The decuctive method is very easy to use but in my opinion should not be used too much since the students do not need to crack their brains very much when the teacher is explaining the rules.

There are, however, a couple of cases when the use of the deductive method is justifiable:

  • The rules might be too complicated for the students to work out. (For example, changing ‘direct speech’ into ‘indirect speech’ includes far too many little details to be taken into account.
  • Working out the rules might take far too much time.
  • The class is not accustomed or able to formulate the rules, not even when it is done in the mother tongue.

If we look at the stages above, in the worst case a teacher in favour of the deductive method might skip Stages 1 – 3 altogether, explain the rules at Stage 4 and offer mere mechanical exercises in Stage 5.

All in all, hopefully you have now a better idea how modern CLT teachers deal with grammar and treat it as an essential part of foreign language learning.

The ‘car’ is not a real car at all but a piece of art in New York made mostly of recycled tyres.