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.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
Taiwan no longer wants to merely manufacture the chips that power artificial intelligence (AI). It aims to build the software, platforms and services that run on them. Ten major AI infrastructure projects, a national cloud computing center in Tainan, the sovereign language model Trustworthy AI Dialogue Engine, five targeted industry verticals — from precision medicine to smart agriculture — and the goal of ranking among the world’s top five in computing power by 2040: The roadmap from “Silicon Island” to “Smart Island” is drawn. The question is whether the western plains, where population, industry and farmland are concentrated, have the water and
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
RSS