1. Method of teaching grammar Communicative competence: grammar for communication's sake

Advantages and disadvantages of Grammar-translation method

Plan

1.Method of teaching grammar

2.Communicative competence: grammar for communication's sake.

3.Positive and negative sides of this method

Introduction

Translation itself was an academic exercise rather than one which would actually help learners to use language, and an overt focus on grammar was to learn about the target language rather than to learn it. But at the height of the communicative approach to language learning in the 1980s and early 1990s it became fashionable in some quarters to deride so-called old-fashioned methods and, in particular, something broadly labeled "Grammar Translation". As with many other methods and approaches, Grammar Translation tended to be referred to in the past tense as if it no longer existed and had died out to be replaced world-wide by the fun and motivation of the communicative classroom. In examination of the principal features of Grammar Translation, however, we will see that not only has it not disappeared but that many of its characteristics have been central to language teaching throughout the ages and are still valid today.

The Grammar Translation method embraces a wide range of approaches but, broadly speaking, foreign language study is seen as a mental discipline, the goal of which may be to read literature in its original form or simply to be a form of intellectual development. The basic approach is to analyze and study the grammatical rules of the language, usually in an order roughly matching the traditional order of the grammar of Latin, and then to practice manipulating grammatical structures through the means of translation both into and from the mother tongue. The method is very much based on the written word and texts are widely in evidence. A typical approach would be to present the rules of a particular item of grammar, illustrate its use by including the item several times in a text, and practice using the item through writing sentences and translating it into the mother tongue. The text is often accompanied by a vocabulary list consisting of new lexical items used in the text together with the mother tongue translation. Accurate use of language items is central to this approach.

Generally speaking, the medium of instruction is the mother tongue, which is used to explain conceptual problems and to discuss the use of a particular grammatical structure. It all sounds rather dull but it can be argued that the Grammar Translation method has over the years had a remarkable success. Millions of people have successfully learnt foreign languages to a high degree of proficiency and, in numerous cases, without any contact whatsoever with native speakers of the language (as was the case in the former Soviet Union, for example).

There are certain types of learner who respond very positively to a grammatical syllabus as it can give them both a set of clear objectives and a clear sense of achievement. Other learners need the security of the mother tongue and the opportunity to relate grammatical structures to mother tongue equivalents. Above all, this type of approach can give learners a basic foundation upon which they can then build their communicative skills. On the one hand they have motivating communicative activities that help to promote their fluency and, on the other, they gradually acquire a sound and accurate basis in the grammar of the language. This combined approach is reflected in many of the EFL course books currently being published and, amongst other things, suggests that the Grammar Translation method, far from being dead, is very much alive and kicking as we enter the 21st century. Therefore without a sound knowledge of the grammatical basis of the language it can be argued that the learner is in possession of nothing more than a selection of communicative phrases which are perfectly adequate for basic communication but which will be found wanting when the learner is required to perform any kind of sophisticated linguistic task.

METHODS OF TEACHING GRAMMAR

Public institutions everywhere have been preaching the concept of grammar for years, yet for some mystical reason, society cannot seem to figure it out. If one is truly honest about the topic, he or she will have to admit that the collective grammar of this country is simply tragic. Into whose lap does this task fall? English teachers. Teaching English grammar to a group of students is a job that should grant super human status to any teacher who manages to do it successfully. There is a steaming buffet of options to pick from when it comes to choosing the best way to teach this age old and ever-relevant area of study. There is the new-age method of teaching grammar, which ironically doesn't actually teach grammar at all, but instead hopes students just sort of "pick it up" as they read different texts; then, there is a method somewhere in the middle, the "discuss some grammatical concept in a mini-lesson format, then analyze that concept as students read and write" method. Each method depends on who is doing the teaching, what kind of students occupy the classroom, and the demands of the school system, and each method has plenty to smile about and sneer upon.

The traditional method of teaching grammar is still very popular among experienced teachers and teachers that have been in the profession for a while. Everyone knows these kinds of teachers. They proclaim this world has gone to the deepest pits of hell in the roughest of hand baskets, and truly the rest of the teachers wonder why they are still teaching at all.

There are a few young, fresh, braves who enter the teaching field and follow the example set by their teachers in high school-- the traditional, grammar book, worksheet, right or wrong example. Regardless of whether they look at the student population and see the wasting away of society or a field of young and potential-filled flowers, these teachers see grammar as something that should be taught in isolation. It should be given its own time, its own unit, and its own space in the curriculum. Not incorrectly, they see their chosen field of study as something so highly important that it cannot be ignored nor tainted with other subjects; the students must learn it because, well, that's what students do: they learn grammar. .

Well, there may be one fact these traditionalists are overlooking when it comes to teaching grammar. Why is it that students, when taught grammar the traditional, isolated way, have to be re-taught the same grammatical concepts year after year? It seems to the common observer that they're simply not learning it. They remember the concepts for the worksheet and the test but soon forget and have to learn the next year There is certainly something awry in this system. Are teachers wasting their time trying to fill young minds with grammatical facts? If they're not, then why do so many adults who have graduated high school and gone through years of repetitive grammar instruction display horrific grammatical skills.

Based on this information, many have decided to abandon the practice of teaching grammar all-together. They have brushed it off as worthless and have instead chosen to cross their fingers in hopes that if students read enough and write enough, they will start to naturally see the patterns of the English language. For some students this may work. In fact, it may work for many students. However, teachers may collide into a problem with this system. In every state, teachers have a curriculum to follow, a list of "to-do's" These curriculum lists usually contain a set of pure grammatical skills that the students must learn, and unless the teacher wants to rebel against the curriculum that teacher must teach those things, the endless dilemmas of the English teachers would arise.For those teachers who are neither traditional nor rebellious, there is a middle road of grammar instruction. This type of instruction combines grammar with reading and writing as an everyday experience in the classroom. This method is very much dependent on the teacher's creativity and his or her ability to weave grammar into every other area of the English classroom. It is by no means the easiest way to teach grammar, but as research has shown, it may be the most effective. It is definitely the method that takes the most time and creativity on the part of the teacher, but for a dedicated professional, these are both secondary concerns to the level of learning the students achieve.There are teachers who make the traditional method work; somehow they have found a way to get bits of information to implant themselves into student minds like tiny eggs of precious information. There are teachers who don't handle grammar at all, but they make their students read enough and write enough that somehow they pass their state tests and grow up with a basic knowledge of the concepts; and there are teachers who creatively combine grammar to other classroom activities.

Learning and teaching grammar requires some creativity in order to make learning grammar a communicative process (The way to learn is to do. Learn by doing. Doing is learning) So this would depend the grammar structure you are targeting, the learners' level, and what "learning grammar" means to the learner. Traditional method book exercises and worksheets are, also, helpful. A multi-faceted approach is practical. Grammar should be part of an integrated approach. Of course, there is any number of ways to consider an integrated approach. And, also, grammar items should not be taught in isolation. They can be, but in rigidly adhering to doing just one thing at a time. A target structure or target structures indicate direction and focus but other things may come up along the way and there's no sense, of course, in ignoring them. Speaking is primary, and learning to use grammar should be integrated with speaking practice. Combine functions of language with grammar instruction. Still grammar requires some separate attention and focus apart from everything else in order to ensure a solid understanding. What is "modern" outside of an integrative approach which has a strong focus on grammar as a base and facilitating conversation in learning vocabulary, tenses, and sentence structure?

Most grammatical errors of non-native speakers of English would not be found among native speakers of English. Non-native speakers of English require explicit instruction in grammar forms, the meaning of those forms, and how and when to use the forms. Native speakers of English don't require this A point of instruction that may be common to both non-native speakers of English and native speakers of English would be utilizing the variety of grammatical form, combined with lexical choices, to produce better writing or to be a more articulate speaker. However, even for this purpose, the needs of native speakers and non-native speaker would not always be in alignment.

Review of literature

Sentence combining is the strategy of joining short sentences into longer, more complex sentences. As students engage in sentence-combining activities, they learn how to vary sentence structure in order to change meaning and style. Numerous studies (Mellon, 1969; O'Hare, 1973; Cooper, 1975; Shaughnessy, 1977; Hillocks, 1986; Strong, 1986) show that the use of sentence combining is an effective method for improving students' writing. The value of sentence combining is most evident as students recognize the effect of sentence variety (beginnings, lengths, complexities) in their own writing.Hillocks (1986) states that "sentence combining practice provides writers with systematic knowledge of syntactic possibilities, the access to which allows them to sort through alternatives in their heads as well as on paper and to choose those which are most apt" (150). Research also shows that sentence combining is more effective than freewriting in enhancing the quality of student writing (Hillocks, 1986).Hillocks and Smith (1991) show that systematic practice in sentence combining can increase students' knowledge of syntactic structures as well as improve the quality of their sentences, particularly when stylistic effects are discussed as well. Sentence-combining exercises can be either written or oral, structured or unstructured. Structured sentence-combining exercises give students more guidance in ways to create the new sentences; unstructured sentence-combining exercises allow for more variation, but they still require students to create logical, meaningful sentences. Hillocks (1986) reports that in many studies, sentence-combining exercises produce significant increases in students' sentence-writing maturity. Given Noguchi's (1991) analysis that grammar choices affect writing style, sentence combining is an effective method for helping students develop fluency and variety in their own writing style. Students can explore sentence variety, length, parallelism, and other syntactic devices by comparing their sentences with sentences from other writers. They also discover the decisions writers make in revising for style and effect. The National Council of Teachers of English and the International Reading Association (1996) published Standards for the English Language Arts, which defines "what students should know and be able to do with language"

Aim of coursework

To study the grammar translation approach of teaching English.

To study the grammar translation approach of learning English.

To focus on error correction and confidence building in communication

Communicative competence: grammar for communication's sake.

Two short narratives about recent experiences or events were distributed to each one to half of the class

The instructor taught the regular -ed form, using verbs that occur in the texts as examples. And taught the pronunciation and doubling rules of those forms occurring in the texts.

The irregular verbs that occur in the texts were also taught.

Students read the narratives, ask questions about points they don't understand.

Students worked in pairs in which one member has read Story A and the other Story B. Students were interviewed one after another; using the information from the interview, they then wrote up and orally repeated the story they have read.

At all proficiency levels, learners produced language that was not exactly the language used by native speakers. Some of the differences (45.83%) were grammatical, while others involved vocabulary selection and mistakes in the selection of language appropriate for different contexts.

For implementation of the program like effective English teaching skill in grammar translation method, the participation of the people of the locality is essential. All the agencies conducting program insisted on the constitution of local committees. It was observed that local committees are functioning in 35.42 % a case which is not adequate. These committees provide necessary help to the program centers for its implementation. Study of the working of the local committees show that their influence is mainly in three ways-mobilizing the public support, encouraging the learners and acting as mediator in cases of disputes.

Another factor examined in the study is the visit of the district level instructors to different blocks of the districts. Actually the block level officials have to monitor the program. In addition to the block level instructors, one district level resource person for every 10 program centre was engaged.66.94%of the block level officials opined that the district level officials are regular in their visit to inquire about the problems in teaching and learning effective English teaching skill.

The objective of the program is to achieve functional skills of English language communication to create awareness among the students about the essential requirement of English language communication in the modern world. One aspect studied was the attitude the communication in English language in everyday life and after the completion of the program90.46% instructors observed specific changes in the attitude of the learners towards English language communication skills. After the completion of the program, majority of the learners were aware of the various development schemes implemented by the government .80.35%of the learners were aware of it .Only 19.65% of the learners were unaware of it which was studied by taking their perception relating to the language, their minimum qualification, their social and cultural background, education of their parents and the family they belong to. It has been revealed that 73.28% of the learners were aware of essentiality of the communication in English language, 86.45% were with minimum qualification knowing the minimums of the language, 64.29% were of a sound social and cultural background, 69.82% learners belonged to educated families.

The results revealed that majority of the teachers could identify the different methods used in teaching grammatical structures in English language (Z = 8.6023). The findings further revealed that the teachers were very conversant with the traditional methods (Informative and Cognitive code-learning methods), while the Grammar Translation Teaching method was yet to gain high usage among the teachers (Z = 3.028, 5.574, 1.634 and .929). The findings are indication of the need for retraining programmes for English language teachers in secondary schools.

The Grammar Translation Method is the oldest method of teaching in India. It is as old as the international of English in the country. A number of methods and techniques have been evolved for the teaching of English and also other foreign languages in the recent past, yet this method is still in use in many part of India. It maintains the mother tongue of the learner as the reference particularly in the process of learning the second/foreign languages. The main principles on which the Grammar Translation Method is based are the following:

(i) Translation interprets the words and phrases of the foreign languages in the best possible manner.

(ii) The phraseology and the idiom of the target language can best be assimilated in the process of interpretation. 

(iii) The structures of the foreign languages are best learnt when compared and contrast with those of mother tongue.

In this method, while teaching the text book the teacher translates every word, phrase from English into the mother tongue of learners. Further, students are required to translate sentences from their mother tongue into English. These exercises in translation are based on various items covering the grammar of the target language. The method emphasizes the study of grammar through deduction that is through the study of the rules of grammar. A contrastive study of the target language with the mother tongue gives an insight into the structure not only of the foreign language but also of the mother tongue.

Advantages:

1. The phraseology of the target language is quickly explained. Translation is the easiest way of explaining meanings or words and phrases from one language into another. Any other method of explaining vocabulary items in the second language is found time consuming. A lot of time is wasted if the meanings of lexical items are explained through definitions and illustrations in the second language. Further, learners acquire some short of accuracy in understanding synonyms in the source language and the target language.

2. Teacher’s labour is saved. Since the textbooks are taught through the medium of the mother tongue, the teacher may ask comprehension questions on the text taught in the mother tongue. Pupils will not have much difficulty in responding to questions on the mother tongue. So, the teacher can easily assess whether the students have learnt what he has taught them. Communication between the teacher and the learnersdoes not cause linguistic problems. Even teachers who are not fluent in English can teach English through this method. That is perhaps the reason why this method has been practiced so widely and has survived so long.

Disadvantages:

1. It is an unnatural method. The natural order of learning a language is listening, speaking, reading and writing. That is the way how the child learns his mother tongue in natural surroundings. But in the Grammar Translation Method the teaching of the second language starts with the teaching of reading. Thus, the learning process is reversed. This poses problems.

2. Speech is neglected. The Grammar Translation Method lays emphasis on reading and writing. It neglects speech. Thus, the students who are taught English through this method fail to express themselves adequately in spoken English. Even at the undergraduate stage they feel shy of communicating through English. It has been observed that in a class, which is taught English through this method, learners listen to the mother tongue more than that to the second/foreign language. Since language learning involves habit formation such students fail to acquire habit of speaking English. Thus, they have to pay a heavy price for being taught through this method.

3. Exact translation is not possible. Translation is, indeed, a difficult task and exact translation from one language to another is not always possible. A language is the result of various customs, traditions, and modes of behaviour of a speech community and these traditions differ from community to community. There are several lexical items in one language, which have no synonyms/equivalents in another language. For instance, the meaning of the English word ‘table’ does not fit in such expression as the ‘table of contents’, ‘table of figures’, ‘multiplication table’, ‘time table’ and ‘table the resolution’, etc. English prepositions are also difficult to translate. Consider sentences such as ‘We see with our eyes’, ‘Bombay is far from Delhi’, ‘He died of cholera’, He succeeded through hard work’. In these sentences ‘with’, ‘from’, ‘of’, ‘through’ can be translated into the Hindi preposition ‘se’ and vice versa. Each language has its own structure, idiom and usage, which do not have their exact counterparts in another language. Thus, translation should be considered an index of one’s proficiency in a language.

4. It does not give pattern practice. A person can learn a language only when he internalizes its patterns to the extent that they form his habit. But the Grammar Translation Method does not provide any such practice to the learner of a language. It rather attempts to teach language through rules and not by use. Researchers in linguistics have proved that to speak any language, whether native or foreign entirely by rule is quite impossible. Language learning means acquiring certain skills, which can be learnt through practice and not by just memorizing rules. The persons who have learnt a foreign or second language through this method find it difficult to give up the habit of first thinking in their mother tongue and than translating their ideas into the second language. They, therefore, fail to get proficiency in the second language approximating that in the first language. The method, therefore, suffers from certain weaknesses for which there is no remedy

The Advantages of the Grammar-Translation Method:

The following are the advantages of the Translation Method for teaching of English as second language:

1.    It is an easy method:

·         In this method the child proceeds from the known to unknown. He already knows his mother tongue and now he learns the English equivalents.

2.    It helps in building vocabulary:

·         Translation method helps in the rapid expansion of vocabulary of the students as it avoids difficult definitions or lengthy explanations. The vocabulary is economically and effectively acquired. Students get the exact meanings of words.

3.    It saves teacher’s labor:

·         The teacher finds it very easy to prepare his lesson. He has not to think of the ways and means to explain new words. It doesn’t require the teacher to make use of audio-visual aids.

4.    Comprehension is easily tested:

·         Students’ comprehension of English, especially at the early stages can be easily tested by asking them to answer questions in the mother tongue.

5.    Grammar is easily taught:

·         Grammar of the foreign language is easily taught by comparing it with the grammar of the mother tongue.

The Disadvantages of the Grammar-Translation Method:

·         The disadvantages of the translation method are as under:

1.     It is an unnatural method:

·         In the translation method, the teacher starts teaching English to the students by teaching them reading first. But while learning his mother tongue the child learns first to understand spoken English and then speaking. The natural order of learning a language is listening, speaking, reading and writing. Translation method doesn’t follow this method.

2.     It neglects speech:

·         Translation method neglects speech no much attention is paid to oral work or drill work in this method. Besides this there is little ear-training as the teacher speaks the mother tongue most of the time.

3.     It neglects pattern practice:

·         There is no pattern practice in the translation method. The result is that students aren’t able to speak English correctly.

4.     It ignores habit formation:

·         Because of its neglect of speech and pattern practice. Translation method ignores habit formation. ‘The child never acquires the habit to think in English. Instead first he thinks in his mother tongue and translates his thoughts into English.

5.     Exact translation is not possible:

·         Language is the result of the history, tradition, culture and the life of the people speaking them. That is why they can’t translate exactly from one language to another.

6.     Idiomatic expressions are difficult to translate:

·         The idiomatic expressions are hard to translate aptly.one is likely to translate literally and absurdly.

7.     It teaches English by rules:

·         Translation method tries to teach English by rules rather than by use.

8.     It makes the student a passive listener:

·         In the translation method the student isn’t an active participant in the teaching learning process. He is passive listener.

9.     It is uninteresting:

·         Translation method is dull and mechanical. It is bookish. No aids are used to make lessons interesting. It reduces the learning of a living language to that of a dead language.

The advantages of the Grammar-Translation Method:

In Grammar-Translation Method, the first language is maintained as the reference system in the learning of the second language. Translation from one language to another plays a certain part in language learning. in the Grammar-Translation Method, comparison between two languages helps students to have a better understanding of the meaning of abstract words and complicated sentences. Systematic study of grammatical rules plays an important role in fostering students’ ability of reading comprehension and producing grammatically correct sentences. It has special importance for students in teachers’ colleges for whom a good mastery of the grammar system of the target language. Understanding and manipulating the morphology and syntax will develop students’ ability of analyzing and solving problems.The focus on understanding literary texts provides the situation in which reading and writing abilities are well trained.The Grammar-Translation makes few demands on teachers although it often creates frustration for students.

Disadvantages of the Grammar-Translation Method

Overemphasis on translation can never emancipate the learners from dependence on the first language.The Grammar-Translation puts too much emphasis on reading and writing and neglects listening and speaking. Knowing a large number of grammatical rules cannot ensure that students can use them appropriately in real communicative situation.In the Grammar-Translation Method, the texts are mostly taken form literary works. The language learned often doesn’t meet the practical needs of the learners.Memorizing grammar rules and bilingual word lists does not motivate students to actively communicate in the target language.

Criticism of the term

The overall concept of grammar-translationhas been criticized due to a lack of verifiable sources that supported the existence of such a method in the nineteenth century, or earlier.

Principles and goals

There are two main goals to grammar–translation classes. One is to develop students' reading ability to a level where they can read literature in the target language. The other is to develop students' general mental discipline. The users of foreign language wanted simply to note things of their interest in the literature of foreign languages. Therefore, this method focuses on reading and writing and has developed techniques which facilitate more or less the learning of reading and writing only. As a result, speaking and listening are overlooked.

Method

Grammar–translation classes are usually conducted in the students' native language. Grammar rules are learned deductively; students learn grammar rules by rote, and then practice the rules by doing grammar drills and translating sentences to and from the target language. More attention is paid to the form of the sentences being translated than to their content. When students reach more advanced levels of achievement, they may translate entire texts from the target language. Tests often consist of the translation of classical texts.

There is not usually any listening or speaking practice, and very little attention is placed on pronunciation or any communicative aspectsof the language. The skill exercised is reading, and then only in the context of translation.

Materials

The mainstay of classroom materials for the grammar–translation method is the textbook. Textbooks in the 19th century attempted to codify the grammar of the target language into discrete rules for students to learn and memorize. A chapter in a typical grammar–translation textbook would begin with a bilingual vocabulary list, after which there would be grammar rules for students to study and sentences for them to translate. Some typical sentences from 19th-century textbooks are as follows:

The philosopher pulled the lower jaw of the hen.

My sons have bought the mirrors of the Duke.

The cat of my aunt is more treacherous than the dog of your uncle.

Reception

The method by definition has a very limited scope. Because speaking or any kind of spontaneous creative output was missing from the curriculum, students would often fail at speaking or even letter writing in the target language . A noteworthy quote describing the effect of this method comes from Bahlsen, who was a student of Plötz, a major proponent of this method in the 19th century. In commenting about writing letters or speaking he said he would be overcome with "a veritable forest of paragraphs, and an impenetrable thicket of grammatical rules".

According to Richards and Rodgers, the grammar–translation has been rejected as a legitimate language teaching method by modern scholars:

[T]hough it may be true to say that the Grammar-Translation Method is still widely practiced, it has no advocates. It is a method for which there is no theory. There is no literature that offers a rationale or justification for it or that attempts to relate it to issues in linguistics, psychology, or educational theory.

Influence

The grammar–translation method was the standard way languages were taught in schools from the 17th to the 19th century. Despite attempts at reform from Roger Ascham, Montaigne, Comenius and John Locke, no other methods gained any significant popularity during this time.

Later, theorists such as Viëtor, Passy, Berlitz, and Jespersen began to talk about what a new kind of foreign language instruction needed, shedding light on what the grammar–translation was missing. They supported teaching the language, not about the language, and teaching in the target language, emphasizing speech as well as text. Through grammar–translation, students lacked an active role in the classroom, often correcting their own work and strictly following the textbook.

Despite all of these drawbacks, the grammar–translation method is still the most used method all over the world in language teaching. This is not surprising as most language proficiency books and tests are in the format of grammar–translation method; and hence the use of the method continues

At the height of the Communicative Approach to language learning in the 1980s and early 1990s it became fashionable in some quarters to deride so-called "old-fashioned" methods and, in particular, something broadly labelled "Grammar Translation". There were numerous reasons for this but principally it was felt that translation itself was an academic exercise rather than one which would actually help learners to use language, and an overt focus on grammar was to learn about the target language rather than to learn it.

As with many other methods and approaches, Grammar Translation tended to be referred to in the past tense as if it no longer existed and had died out to be replaced world-wide by the fun and motivation of the communicative classroom. If we examine the principal features of Grammar Translation, however, we will see that not only has it not disappeared but that many of its characteristics have been central to language teaching throughout the ages and are still valid today.

The Grammar Translation method embraces a wide range of approaches but, broadly speaking, foreign language study is seen as a mental discipline, the goal of which may be to read literature in its original form or simply to be a form of intellectual development. The basic approach is to analyze and study the grammatical rules of the language, usually in an order roughly matching the traditional order of the grammar of Latin, and then to practise manipulating grammatical structures through the means of translation both into and from the mother tongue.

The method is very much based on the written word and texts are widely in evidence. A typical approach would be to present the rules of a particular item of grammar, illustrate its use by including the item several times in a text, and practise using the item through writing sentences and translating it into the mother tongue. The text is often accompanied by a vocabulary list consisting of new lexical items used in the text together with the mother tongue translation. Accurate use of language items is central to this approach.

Generally speaking, the medium of instruction is the mother tongue, which is used to explain conceptual problems and to discuss the use of a particular grammatical structure. It all sounds rather dull but it can be argued that the Grammar Translation method has over the years had a remarkable success. Millions of people have successfully learnt foreign languages to a high degree of proficiency and, in numerous cases, without any contact whatsoever with native speakers of the language (as was the case in the former Soviet Union, for example).

There are certain types of learner who respond very positively to a grammatical syllabus as it can give them both a set of clear objectives and a clear sense of achievement. Other learners need the security of the mother tongue and the opportunity to relate grammatical structures to mother tongue equivalents. Above all, this type of approach can give learners a basic foundation upon which they can then build their communicative skills.

Applied wholesale of course, it can also be boring for many learners and a quick look at foreign language course books from the 1950s and 1960s, for example, will soon reveal the non-communicative nature of the language used. Using the more enlightened principles of the Communicative Approach, however, and combining these with the systematic approach of Grammar Translation, may well be the perfect combination for many learners. On the one hand they have motivating communicative activities that help to promote their fluency and, on the other, they gradually acquire a sound and accurate basis in the grammar of the language. This combined approach is reflected in many of the EFL course books currently being published and, amongst other things, suggests that the Grammar Translation method, far from being dead, is very much alive and kicking as we enter the 21st century.

Without a sound knowledge of the grammatical basis of the language it can be argued that the learner is in possession of nothing more than a selection of communicative phrases which are perfectly adequate for basic communication but which will be found wanting when the learner is required to perform any akind of sophisticated linguistic task.

Recommendation

In responding to student communication, teachers need to be careful not to focus on error correction to the detriment of communication and confidence building. Teachers need to let students know when they are making errors so that they can work on improving. Teachers also need to build students' confidence in their ability to use the language by focusing on the content of their communication rather than the grammatical form. Teachers can use error correction to support language acquisition, and avoid using it in ways that undermine students' desire to communicate in the language, by taking cues from context. When students are doing structured output activities that focus on development of new language skills, use error correction to guide them. When students are engaged in communicative activities, errors should be corrected only if they interfere with comprehensibility and be responded by using correct forms, but without stressing them.

The goal of grammar instruction is to enable students to carry out their communication purposes. This goal has three implications: Students need overt instruction that connects grammar points with larger communication contexts. Students do not need to master every aspect of each grammar point, only those that are relevant to the immediate communication task. Error correction is not always the instructor's first responsibility.

Which method works the best is up to the individual teacher, but one thing is certain: it is the English teacher's job to make sure this information is cleverly presented. Therefore grammar is one of those issues that do not have an easy solution. It is tricky and it is tough, kind of like all important things in life. It is not for the faint of heart or the creatively shallow.

Modern methods of teaching English grammar

Meaningful planning

Where possible, learning in English is linked with subjects within the creative curriculum we follow: the International Primary curriculum (IPC). Well in advance of teaching, teachers should collaborate and share their ideas for planning through a mind mapping process. Meaningful, creative activities must be planned for, ensuring that all staff members know exactly what the children will be learning and why.

Focused on strategies

The teaching of reading is not easy. As children's fluency in reading increases, it's hard to know what reading skills need to be taught, and when. Specific reading strategies are to be modeled explicitly to the class; this provides children with a holistic bank of skills to draw upon. This could include scanning a text, making an inference, predicting or creating a mental image. Our teachers use 'think aloud' statements to model to the children how these skills are used, and how they can help them become better readers. These strategies are then shared as a class, and then assessed in follow up guided reading activities.

Inspirational learning environment

The classroom environments should inspire adults and children alike. Not only is the children's work displayed creatively, but there is a range of learning prompts to inspire and support all pupils. The study suggests to encourage our children to discover new texts, genres and authors, so our reading areas are inviting, well resourced and highly organized. Pupils can choose from an exciting array of reading material: newspapers, classic texts, reference books as well as the children's own published stories are just some examples of what book corners might offer.

Drama to engage and inspire

The use of drama is a powerful tool. Taking the lead from our drama specialist, all teaching staff should use a range of techniques to promote the exploration of characters, situations and historical events. This process expands the pupils' imaginations, and provides them with the ideas they need to give their writing that extra spark and flair.

Rigorous teaching of spelling and phonics

In the infants, phonics is streamed, so all children can benefit from tailored teaching, making maximum progress as a result. All phonics and spelling activities should be fun, multi sensory and as physical possible, the aim being to meet all learning styles in the class. In the juniors, we must try to make homework lists as personalized to the child as possible to ensure that the spelling patterns stick in a meaningful way.

Grammar concepts taught creatively

Grammar cannot be taught as a standalone activity. Children begin to understand grammar concepts, and start to apply them in their own writing, when they start to read with a writer's mind. Punctuation rules and techniques should be drawn from shared texts; texts which the children have already been immersed in and have a good understanding of. Exploring these and embedding them creatively is how the learning takes place.

Self assessment

What child doesn't love marking somebody else's work? With a clear marking key, success criteria and purpose in mind, children set about assessing either their own, or a partner's piece of writing. Modeled through the teacher's own formative marking, pupils know what the expectations are. They are well trained in searching for successful examples of the learning intention, articulating their responses to the work, checking the writing matches any targets and giving constructive feedback. Seeing the children learn from each other in this way is hugely positive; the teacher can know that he has done his job well.

Conclusion

Grammar instruction is most naturally integrated during the revising, editing, and proofreading phases of the writing process. After students have written their first drafts and feel comfortable with the ideas and organization of their writing, teachers may wish to employ various strategies to help students see grammatical concepts as language choices that can enhance their writing purpose. Students will soon grow more receptive to revising, editing, and proofreading their writing. In writing conferences, teachers can help students revise for effective word choices. As the teacher and student discuss the real audience(s) for the writing, the teacher can ask the student to consider how formal or informal the writing should be, and remind the student that all people adjust the level of formality in oral conversation, depending on the listeners and the speaking context. The teacher can then help the student identify words in his or her writing that change the level of formality of the writing. To help students revise boring, monotonous sentences, teachers might ask students to read their writing aloud to partners. Both the partner and the writer can discuss ways to vary the sentence beginnings. After the writer revises the sentences, the partner can read the sentences aloud. Then both can discuss the effectiveness of the revision. Teachers can help students edit from passive voice to active voice by presenting a mini lesson. In editing groups, students can exchange papers and look for verbs that often signal the passive voice, such as was and been. When students find these verbs, they read the sentence aloud to their partners and discuss whether the voice is passive and, if so, whether an active voice verb might strengthen the sentence. The student writer can then decide which voice is most effective and appropriate for the writing purpose and audience. Teachers can help students become better proofreaders through peer editing groups. Based on the writing abilities of their students, teachers can assign different proofreading tasks to specific individuals in each group. One person in the group might proofread for spelling errors, another person for agreement errors, another person for fragments and run-ons, and another person for punctuation errors. As students develop increasing skill in proofreading, they become responsible for more proofreading areas. Collaborating with classmates in editing, students improve their own grammar skills as well as understand the importance of grammar as a tool for effective communication. As teachers integrate grammar instruction with writing instruction, they should use the grammar terms that make sense to the students. By incorporating grammar terms naturally into the processes of revising, editing, and proofreading, teachers help students understand and apply grammar purposefully to their own writing. Strategies such as writing conferences, partnership writing, grammar mini lessons, and peer response groups are all valuable methods for integrating grammar into writing instruction.

References

1. Braddock, R., Lloyd-Jones, R., & Schoer, L. (1963). Research in Written Composition. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

2. Calkins, L. M. (1980). "When Children Want to Punctuate." Language Arts.

3. Cooper, C. (1975). "Research Roundup: Oral and Written Composition." English Journal.

4. DiStefano, P. & Killion, J. (1984). "Assessing Writing Skills Through a Process Approach." English Education.

5. Harris, R. J. (1962). "An Experimental Inquiry into the Functions and Value of Formal Grammar in the Teaching of Written English to Children Aged Twelve to Fourteen." Ph.D. dissertation. University of London.

6. Hillocks, G., Jr. (1986). "Research on Written Composition: New Directions for Teaching." Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills and the National Conference on Research in English.

7. Hillocks, G., Jr. & Smith, M. (1991). "Grammar and Usage." In J. Flood, J. M. Jensen, D. Lapp & J. R. Squire (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teaching the English Language Arts. New York: Macmillan .

8. Mellon, J. C. (1969). "Transformational Sentence-Combining: A Method for Enhancing the Development of Syntactic Fluency in English Composition." NCTE Research Report No. 10. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

9. National Council of Teachers of English and the International Reading Association. (1996). Standards for the English Language Arts. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

10. Noguchi, R. R. (1991). Grammar and the Teaching of Writing: Limits and Possibilities. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

11. O’Hare, F. (1973). Sentence-Combining: Improving Student Writing Without Formal Grammar Instruction. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

12. Shaughnessy, M. P. (1977). Errors and Expectations: A Guide for the Teacher of Basic Writing. New York: Oxford University Press.

13. Chastain, Kenneth. The Development of Modern Language Skills: Theory to Practice. Philadelphia: Center for Curriculum Development,1971.

14. Rippa, S. Alexander 1971. Education in a Free Society, 2nd. Edition. New York: David McKay Company, 1971.

15. Richards, Jack C.; Rodgers, Theodore S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.