About three months ago, a colleague told me that she just spent two hours teaching students the different usages of the English word "as."
I then asked her if she thought, after her dedicated efforts, her students could then use the word accurately in day-to-day conversations. Her answer, interestingly, was that she didn't think so, because it all depended on how much exposure to English the students would get outside the classroom.
I began to wonder if it is worth spending so much time teaching English grammar to students because a number of empirical studies have demonstrated that the critical factor for students' proper use of English grammar is more the result of real-life exposure than learning in the classroom. Only if grammatical structures are used in an authentic context do they have meaning.
For this reason, EFL (English as a Foreign Language) teachers have to create situations in which the students feel a need to utilize grammar in order to communicate properly in English. In other words, the students learn grammar more effectively when grammar is contextualized -- not singled out as a separate "skill" or "course."
From the 1950s through the 1980s, the manner in which grammar was taught in countries like Taiwan was not put into question, owing to a grammar-centric teaching of the language.
During this period, teaching English and teaching grammar were virtually synonymous. Questions on whether and how to teach grammar arose during the mid-1980s, as communicative language teaching, which emphasized the use of English as a means to communicate, came into fashion.
Today, only a few researchers and teachers advocate "no grammar at all" in the teaching of English, while most experts think that appropriate attention to grammar can speed up learning.
Research has shown that variables such as age, proficiency level, language skills, needs and goals can help teachers determine the role of grammar in teaching.
Note that grammar is important to some extent in all variables, depending on the continuum of each. In terms of abstraction capabilities and levels of cognition, the focus on grammar is more important to adults, whereas it is less important to young children and somewhere in between to teenagers.
Thus, to teach or not to teach English grammar may not be a question anymore; how to teach it is now the real issue and this is where teaching professionals can't seem to agree.
One of the most frequently asked questions is: should English grammar be taught explicitly or implicitly? Many of those who were born before the early 1980s in Taiwan had to experience the explicit (or deductive) method of grammar instruction, with direct teacher explanations followed by related exercises tailored to reflect entrance exams.
By contrast, implicit (or inductive) teaching occurs when students are exposed to various language forms and are left to discover grammar rules on their own. Advocates of this approach argue that students can acquire English naturally if they are provided with an adequate amount of comprehensible input.
Most students prefer the explicit approach because it requires less mental effort.
Many researchers think that in most contexts, the implicit approach is more appropriate because it goes with natural language acquisition. For this reason, one of the most important homework assignments for EFL learners is to get English input outside the classroom.
It is language use -- not the conscious focus on grammar -- that accounts for effective communication and interaction between human beings.
Shih-Fan Kao is an assistant professor at Jin-wen University of Science and Technology.
The White House’s decision to take a 9.9 percent stake in Intel Corp is looking like very shrewd business indeed. Since the government bought in at US$20.47 a share last August, the US chipmaker’s surging stock price has delivered the US a US$43 billion return. One of the reasons the investment has so far proved so sound is that the White House has made sure of it. According to The Wall Street Journal, Howard personally pushed deals on Intel’s behalf with some of the most lucrative clients imaginable. They include Nvidia Corp, the company at the heart of the AI
A single photograph can cut through a lot of noise, but it can also be used to misrepresent the truth. At the very least, it can concentrate the mind on something that requires further investigation. On Monday last week, Ma Ying-jeou Foundation CEO Tai Hsia-ling (戴遐齡) and former National Security Council secretary-general King Pu-tsung (金溥聰) held a news conference in which they showed a photograph of former foundation CEO Hsiao Hsu-tsen (蕭旭岑), now Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) deputy chairman. In the image Hsiao is seated next to Xiamen Taiwan Businessmen Association chairman Han Ying-huan (韓螢煥). The two men were holding
I first met Professor Ray Jiing (井迎瑞) as a film and documentary student at Shih Hsin University’s (SHU) Department of Radio Television and Film in 1988. The following year, he went on to become the director of the Chinese Taipei Film Archive — forerunner of the Taiwan Film and Audiovisual Institute (TFAI). Over his eight-year tenure, Jiing rescued and restored over 200 classic Taiwanese films. In 1997, he established the Graduate Institute of Studies in Documentary and Film Archiving at Tainan National University of the Arts (TNNUA), and I joined the program in his third cohort of students. Beyond a
President William Lai Ching-te’s (賴清德) May 20 second-anniversary address was not just a routine policy review; it was damage control. US President Donald Trump’s remarks — that he did not want to see anyone move toward independence and that the delivery of a major Taiwan arms package could depend on the progress of US-China relations — unsettled Taiwan’s public and created an opening for opposition parties to question whether Taiwan was being treated as a bargaining chip in Washington’s dealings with Beijing. Lai’s speech was designed to close that opening. The address covered the expected ground: sovereignty, cross-strait relations, defense spending,
RSS