Content area
Full Text
(ProQuest: ... denotes non-US-ASCII text omitted.)
Thinking Allowed
Postal Address: School of Education, University of Michigan, 610 E. University Avenue, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 USA
1.
Introduction
Grammar instruction has been relatively unaltered by research findings. It remains traditional for the most part, with grammar teaching centered on accuracy of form and rule learning, and with mechanical exercises seen as the way to bring about the learning of grammar (Jean & Simard 2011). This traditional approach and these practices may seem surprising, given the amount of attention that grammar pedagogy has received from researchers. This is not to say that all research should have implications for instruction, or that it should do so in an unmediated manner. After all, a number of researchers themselves have warned against the direct application of research findings to language pedagogy (e.g., Hatch 1978) or even that deriving pedagogical implications should be the purpose for doing research. Besides, researchers and teachers often occupy two different worlds, with different goals and conditions of employment (Larsen-Freeman 2009a; Ellis 2010). Further, it would be a tremendous act of hubris to dismiss or belittle practices that have for centuries contributed to the successful learning of languages or, for that matter, to assume that change must be initiated from outside the classroom. Nevertheless, the intent of much second language acquisition (SLA) research on grammar instruction has been to improve practice; therefore, while it cannot be said that it has had no impact, it can reasonably be asked why it has not had more. Indeed, besides my own limited personal experience that leads me to infer little change in grammar teaching, survey research reveals that grammar is still being taught traditionally in most classrooms in a non-integrative manner. These results reveal that students see value in grammar study (Schulz 1996; Loewen et al. 2009), as do teachers (Burgess & Etherington 2002). Further, both teachers and students see rule learning as important or very important, and teachers also find written grammar exercises useful or very useful (Jean & Simard 2011). Indeed, Jean & Simard (2011: 479) conclude 'traditional teaching still seems to prevail. . .despite efforts to move away from it.' And Wong & VanPatten (2003: 407) remark on 'the ubiquity of drills and pattern practice.'
Common...