Trapped in Grammar

Stefan Rathert

Stefan Rathert, a native German, has been living in Turkey since 2000 He works as an English teacher at Kahramanmaras Sütçü Imam University, www.ksu.edu.tr. Author of article 'Translation in the English classroom' HLT Nov 06. E-mail: srathert@ksu.edu.tr

Menu

Introduction
Expectations
Roles
Conclusions
References

Imagine you are going to take a guitar course at your local adult education centre. Here is an extract from the introductory speech your course instructor gives in the first lesson:

… In this course you'll learn everything about guitars. We'll use the highly interesting book "The Theory of the Guitar" and you see it's a 438 page book [the teacher is showing the book to the students], so we'll have an intensive programme. I've always worked efficiently in the classroom, so it's my job to lecture and yours to take notes. I'm sure that you don't expect me to work with you practically; carrying guitars into the classroom would be a waste of time, wouldn't it? You'll be able to present your knowledge in our exam at the end of the term. As a preparation I'll give you quizzes every other week. By the way, the exam will be a 100-question multiple choice exam. Oh yes, you might want to ask questions in lessons. I mean I really don't want to bore you, and you'd like to be active now and then. 10 minutes per week for you to ask questions is fine, isn't it?

Very probably you will withdraw from the guitar course because this is not what you expected when you signed up for it. It will be like learning to cook without standing in the kitchen. Our guitar teacher will impart a lot of knowledge the students acquire for the sake of acquiring. As it is unlikely that the participants in our guitar course will learn to play the guitar, someone who never comes in contact with water will very probably not learn to swim. Provided that it is meaningful to expose learners to the subject of their studies why is then in many countries a foreign language teaching method applied that attends to avoiding students' direct contact with language? Before I briefly describe this form of language teaching and learning, I should point out that such a 'theoretical' approach (which, for example, our guitar teacher adopts) is not necessarily made in bad faith, but in fact based on a lack of knowledge about methods that are learner-centered, focus on communicative aims, and account for principles of human acquisition of knowledge; the non-use of such methods is very often a sign of cultural traditions, sociocultural backgrounds or strong held beliefs about how teaching and learning have to be like in the classroom, and they are not restricted to the language teaching/learning; in consequence, teachers - as well as students - have difficulties to leave paths that have always been followed.

Seran Dogancay-Aktuna (2005) has described the difficulty of adopting ELT methodologies to cultures of learning that seem not appropriate to them. She pointed out that exporting methodologies can (and often does) remain unsuccessful when the learners' sociocultural backgrounds are not taken under consideration or their assumptions and attitudes are rather categorized stereotypically than ascertained impartially. Moreover, teachers themselves need to become aware of their own cultural background, and especially their experiences they made when they were students in order to understand how these things have had impacts on their teaching.

This should be taken into account when I try to describe some elements of an ELT reality that I have seen in the Turkish context since I came here in 2000 and that has some similarities with the guitar teaching reality above. I am convinced that English teachers and students in other counties are being faced with similar problems, and will find some aspects, indeed, familiar. It is not intended to blame students or teachers in Turkey because a tradition of ELT that equates learning English with learning grammar and does not provide students with the role of autonomous learners is being continued, and it can be unbelievably difficult to break norms set by tradition. Especially to introduce the idea of learner autonomy can be (mis-) understood as an attack against own traditions and as "a displaced act of cultural imperialism" (from a letter from Turkey to Humanising Language Teaching 4, July 2005: http://old.hltmag.co.uk/jul05/lett.htm). The problem with the grammar-centered teaching/learning approach is just that it is extremely unsuccessful, and students as well as teachers become dissatisfied and demotivated. Of course, the following description is not valid for all language schools and institutions in the whole country, and all the elements are unlikely to be seen in one class, and, what is more, the 'traditional teaching' is being discussed and called into question.

Since we deal with phenomena that are deeply rooted in the attitudes and assumptions of the concerned persons, I shall focus on the (expected and real) roles of teachers and students. Which brings me to the sources for my remarks: apart from my own observations, it was the views of colleagues and students I canvassed in a lot of chats and discussions which have been incorporated in this article.

I will describe aspects of this form of ELT first from the viewpoint of teachers and then of students, which are often the two different sides of the same medal.

Teachers
- equate teaching English with teaching grammar; the syllabus to be covered is more or less a grammar-syllabus
- have the idea of having to cover the 'whole' English grammar. I have, for example, often seen that when if-clauses are introduced, conditional 1, 2, 3 and mixed types are introduced immediately (to students at elementary/pre-intermediate level!). It is also very common to give students long lists retrieved from the Internet with e.g. phrasal verbs or the 1000 most important English words, not rarely at the beginning of the course (see also the next point). All in all teaching becomes rather a static presentation of facts than a dynamic process that students have to go through
- do not adapt the lesson topics (which are mainly grammar topics) to the level of the students: grammar points actually suitable for higher levels are taught to lower ones
- do not check the grammar topics for frequency or for their importance to the students; the only criterion is completeness
- focus in their course planning rather on the lesson subjects than on their students, and therefore do not think of how to arrange teaching situations that facilitate learning: they interpret their role as that of a 'knowledge-imparter' and not as that of a mediator between subject and students
- prefer 'ex-cathedra teaching'; they expect themselves to 'chalk and talk' in the classroom and their students to be receptive; indeed they follow a tradition that allots the active part to the teacher and the passive part to the student (which can be symbolised by the 'Nuremburg Funnel' that fills the learners' heads with knowledge). By the way, as a result teachers often do not know their students' names
- often do not consider different learning styles: their instruction mainly suits learners with distinctly verbal-linguistic and/or logical-mathematical intelligence; analytical learners are clearly favoured over practical learners. This has also to do with the absence of different methods in the classroom (see also the previous points): e.g. teachers do not use pair or group work because they are regarded time wasting or see the need to change the pace of the lesson. All in all, variety in teaching, which helps students maintain their concentration and achieve progress in learning, is not regarded necessary
- introduce new grammar deductively; there is often a two-stage sequence in the lesson: 1. the teacher gives a grammar rule and explains it using a lot of examples, mostly on single-sentence basis; 2. the students do exercises. It's a shortened version of the PPP model: presentation - practice (but no production). The (nearly) exclusive application of the deductive approach and the sequencing has to do with the (wrong) belief that new language cannot be discovered and that a piece of language is totally unintelligible to students when it contains unknown grammar; therefore it is often inconceivable that grammar can be taught from examples
- use language material, e.g. reading texts in course books, to illustrate how grammar is used; content is, if dealt with at all, secondary; texts are often translated to check if the students have understand them (cf. the next point). Reading strategies and critical thinking skills are unlikely to be taught
- mainly speak L1 in the classroom so that the target language is crowded out. We could almost say that they have to avoid the target language because it is impossible to present such a huge amount of grammar within a short span of time by using L2. English teachers who do not let English sound in class often say that their students would not be able to follow if they spoke English; consequently, tape recordings are not used. What is more, teachers often use L1 terminology to describe L2 grammar: instead of Present Simple, for example, a lot of Turkish teachers say genis zaman, a tense that roughly (but often not!) corresponds to the Present Simple. This is certainly dangerous because translating grammatical terms into the students' language leads to the wrong understanding that different languages have the same linguistic usage
- do not spend a lot of time on vocabulary presentation and recycling; this is probably connected to the conviction that vocabulary work must not be expanded at the expense of grammar and to - wrong - ideas about language acquisition (see the last point)
- prefer gap-fill and multiple choice exercises to unguided ones; tasks developing or requiring communicative competence are not set. Exams are dominated by gap-fill and multiple choice questions and, interestingly enough, there is a marked preference to ask difficult or infrequent grammar points (e.g. mixed conditionals, Future Progressive) or to use phrasing that is unlikely to occur in the real world; in this context a little anecdote: a German teacher at my department once asked me to prepare a short text (100 words) containing nearly all the tenses German has!
- do not hold, in some ways, themselves responsible for their students' learning progress. This is perhaps one of the most interesting and most significant attitudes I have come across: teachers quite often say when complaining about their students who simply do not want to understand: "But they must know it. I have covered all the topics!" It seems to be a widespread belief that grammar, vocabulary or whatever subject matter has to be understood immediately by the student after it has been presented once by the teacher.

As a result, teachers are often under stress because they have the feeling that they cannot manage to cover the whole grammar in their course (which is certainly true), and they are dissatisfied because there is no significant progess of the students visible as a result of missing internalization of new language.

We should now have a look at the students, their expectations and how they behave in grammar-centered and non-communicative ELT situations:

Students
- equate learning English with learning grammar
- have the idea of having to learn the 'whole' English grammar. Students quite often ask me if they will have learned all the tenses of English by the end of the course
- think that language consists of rules to be learnt; they spent a lot of time learning rules, not rarely in L1, and they are often able to reproduce the rules in L1, but unable to apply them in L2 examples
- are often poor in vocabulary. This has a lot of reasons and is connected with the whole 'concept' of grammar-centered ELT. Some obvious reasons for little knowledge of vocabulary are: vocabulary is presented on single-sentence basis without further context; activities that integrate new vocabulary into the learner's mental lexicon are not done; exercises are mainly done on single-sentence basis; tasks developing or requiring communicative competence that help internalize vocabulary are not set; reading texts are rather analyzed grammatically than dealt with as regards content. Generally speaking, weak knowledge of vocabulary is closely connected with the fact that English is not used actively in the classroom. The fact that students quite often fail exams is that they simply do not have access to language because of a lack of vocabulary knowledge
- think that they cannot understand language when they do not understand every single word; this is connected to the fact that often everything is translated, and that skill work (that inter alia allows students to understand language even if they do not understand everything) is not done
- regard lessons in which new grammar is not introduced as meaningless
- have to 'stockpile' knowledge; as it is clear from the previous points, students learn grammar that they actually do not need immediately (cf. the if-clause example above), but they will need much later (or never)
- do not want to communicate effectively in the skills of listening, writing and speaking particularly because they see no need to do so (the so called 'wash back effect'): exams are often exclusively in the form of multiple-choice and gap-filling questions
- are unable to communicate in real life situations, eg when they come in contact with foreigners because such situations are hardly ever simulated in the classroom
- become 'black-and-white thinker': especially multiple-choice questions with a strong focus on grammar, which are a useful form of testing among others, can lead to an understanding that using language means choosing the correct option: Students (and teachers) do not seem to be aware of the variety of language in expressing the same idea in different ways. What is more, it remains unclear to the students that language can be used to exert a specific effect on the reader/listener. In conclusion, grammar-centered ELT is not really appropriate to make students think critically about intentions of pieces of language
- are expected to be receptive, not productive in the classroom: it is their job to learn grammar by rote, not to create language
- give in to the avalanche of stuff they are presented. Students quite often tell me that they are given too much grammar within a short span of time and that a new grammar topic is introduced without having understood the previous one: learners cannot deeply understand grammar points because teachers do not arrange for them to internalize newly learned structures

The last point is an important key to understand why students are frustrated and foreign language lessons are not popular. The ELT concept described above is a concept that is against all principles of language acquisition and does surely not engender a friendly and creative classroom atmosphere. We know that learners do not learn effectively in a situation that is an immensly frustrating experience for them. It is frustrating because language remains somehow theoretical and difficult to access for the students. However, the last point also implies a path that can be followed to generate a more satisfactory situation for both students and teachers. It is important to expose students to language itself and not only to its theory. It is important to arrange many different situations in which students can use language, and it is important to sharpen all four skills using a wide variety of methodology because it is - in the true sense of the word - inhuman to ignore the fact that there are four skills and that different learners have different styles of learning (multiple intelligences). The objection that a communicative approach in ELT is too time consuming is not well-founded: it is, indeed, time consuming but with good results while mainly grammar-centered ELT is time-saving with poor results.

Should we now abandon the idea of teaching grammar in ELT? I think we should not if we make sure that firstly grammar is a vehicle that enables students to communicate effectively and not an end in itself, and secondly the way of grammar teaching assigns students an active role and respects the fact that learning is a process and not something static. Language is a complex system and it seems that grammar instruction helps us to manage it. Teaching grammar suits the demands of analytical learners and seems necessary to achieve progression after a certain language level has been reached. Finally, we should respect the students' expectations that learning becomes more efficient when it is backed up by some systematic focus on grammar.

It is therefore important to reflect on how grammar teaching can be done effectively and satisfying for both students and teachers, and there is a wide range of publications dealing with this subject. It is also possible in a learning culture that follows a grammar-focused, decontextualised ELT to adopt a communicative approach that defines grammar as a vehicle by means of which meaning is generated, and, I speak from my own experience, learners are appreciative after a certain time of familiarisation for being freed from the grammar trap.

Dogancay-Aktuna, S (2005) Intercultural Communication in English Language Teacher Education, English Language Teaching Journal 59 (2), pp 99-107
Duman, T (2005) Why impose "autonomy" against students' culture? (Readers' Letters), Humanising Language Teaching 7 (4) [http://old.hltmag.co.uk/jul05/lett.htm]

Please check the Secondary Teaching course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the Expert Teacher course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the Skills of Teacher Training course at Pilgrims website.