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.
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS