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 gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS