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.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS