Explicit Grammar Instruction in the EFL classroom

Is Explicit Grammar Instruction Appropriate in the EFL classroom? IntroductionAmong the studies of grammar instruction in second language acquisition (SLA), much attention has been paid to the effectiveness of varied approaches applied in the classroom instruction (Tode, 2007). Huge amounts of research are performed in order to find the most efficient approach to grammar instruction (Macaro and Materman, 2006). Consequently, there is an international debate on the effectiveness of an explicit focus on grammar in second language (L2) teaching and learning among many researchers, such as Schmidt and Froto (1986), Spada (1997), Doughty and Williams (1998), Schachter (1998), Norris and Ortega (2000), Doughty (2001), Ellis (2001), Ellis (2002a, 2008), Macaro and Masterman (2006), Tode (2007), and so on. The present paper aims to explore the feasibility and validity of explicit grammar instruction in the EFL classroom. Firstly, the concept of explicit grammar instruction and arguments about explicit and implicit instructions will be introduced. Then, theories and studies which support the idea of explicit grammar instruction will be presented. After that, converse theories and evidence provided by some researchers will be described. Based on the arguments, a mini-conclusion will be made. Following this, implications of how to perform efficient grammar instructions in the EFL classroom will be discussed according to the theories provided above. Finally, a conclusion will bring this paper to an end. DefinitionsAs Tode (2007) mentions, L2 grammar instruction is classified into two types according to rule awareness: implicit instruction and explicit instruction. Implicit instruction, according to Dekeyser (1995), is applied to make learners acquire the grammatical rules unconsciously by displaying salient examples. Whereas, explicit instruction is carried out in order to generate a conscious learning through teacher’s explanation with meaning-form-related instances and practices (Terrell, 1991; Adair-Hauck, et. al. 2000). According to Paesani (2005) and Tode (2007), explicit instruction can be performed in either deductive or inductive way. Teacher’s direct explanation of rules followed by related exercises is referred to as deductive approach (Paesani, 2005). In contrast, inductive approach is the instructor putting the form in a meaningful context, learners then recognizing the form before explanation (Shaffer, 1989). Since late-nineteenth century a debate in the field of second language learning has been raised with regards to whether grammar should be taught explicitly and whether explicit grammar teaching is effective (Macaro and Masterman, 2006). Despite the questioningproposed by some theorists and researchers of its use in syllabuses, exam requirements, and textbooks, explicit grammar instruction is still advocated by many linguists (Macaro and Masterman, 2006). Furthermore, related to the debate about the role of awareness in language learning is the issue of the degree of explicitness necessary to draw learners’ attention to the targeted linguistic elements (Ellis, 2008). Many recent studies conducted under attentional framework have been carried out within what is known as focus on form instruction (Ellis, 2008). Therefore, except explaining theories on L2 grammar teaching and learning, the following section will describe research studies on explicit grammar instructions in L2 context as well as the exploration of focus on form and focus on meaning.Arguments for explicit grammar instructionFor the learners’ consideration, Hassan (2001) points out that in order to understand how the language works, learners have the need for explicitly focusing on the form in a detailed systematic manner. An explicit method of grammar instruction was strongly proposed by some scholars, such as Rivers (1987), Green and Hecht (1992), Larsen-Freeman (1997), and Nunan (1998), who insist on teaching grammatical rules and structures of the targe language so as to achieve communicative competence. The effectiveness of explicit and implicit grammar classroom instruction in an L2 situation has been an important and interesting point of research in the field of language teaching and learning (Hassan, 2001; Tode, 2007). By making a contrast of the two approaches, some researchers find that explicit grammar instruction is more effective than implicit approach (Schmidt, 2001; Scot; 1989; Radwan, 2004; Yim, 1998). In addition Ellis’s (1993) asserts that learning under implicit conditions is generally slow and requires more input to become effective. As finding a better approach to grammar teaching and learning, many studies are carried out by the linguists. Scott (1989) conducted a study by teaching French grammar in two university-level classes. She uses explicit and implicit method alternatively and tests them with aural and written tasks (Scott, 1989). As a result, though the outcomes of aural tests are not so distinct, the writing scores in explicit learning periods are higher than those in implicit learning period (Scott, 1989). Besides, a study performed by Radwan (2004) shows that students who received explicit instruction outperformed those exposed to implicit instruction, which means meaning-focused instruction alone may not be sufficient for learners’ second language acquisition, and a higher level of awareness correlates positively with language development. Also, Norris and Ortega (2000) conclude in their experiment that form-focused L2 instructions result in positive and durable outcomes, which means explicit types of instruction are more effective than implicit types. In addition, Yim (1998) examined the role of grammar instruction in L2learning by investigating whether L2 learners significantly improved their language skills after formal/explicit grammar instruction and to what extent grammatical knowledge predicted a learner’s next level of overall language profi ciency. Results suggest that the students improve significantly after formal instruction, and that grammatical knowledge is a significant predictor of the students’ readiness for the next course level (Yim, 1998).On the other hand, it is also suggested that certain grammatical forms cannot be acquired solely on the basis of comprehensible input (White, 1987). Likewise, Tode (2007) points out that even in an implicit environment explicit learning mechanisms are required for the reason that successful implicit learning can not be guaranteed because sufficient examples cannot be provided due to the limited class hours in EFL classroom learning contexts. Furthermore though Krashen’s (1981) learning-acquisition theory, which advocates implicit grammar instruction with comprehensible input and without any explicit focus on form, has gained many supports, direct teacher explanation of forms in the EFL classroom is still essential for successful acquisition (Paesani, 2005).As can be seen, many researchers and scholars above appear to see explicit grammar instruction as an important element in second language acquisition. It can also be concluded that explicit focus on form has gained the support from both second language instructors and learners (Burgess and Etherington, 2002; Hyland, 2003). Arguments against explicit grammar instructionAlthough the idea of implementing explicit grammar instructions seems overwhelmingly popular among some linguists, there are voices who claim that explicit approach doesn’t hold a distinct priority in EFL leaning context. As the linguistics and psychology develop in language learning from structurally-dominated methodology to a more communicatively-oriented one, new ideas of implicit instruction and unconscious language acquisition have prevailed general grammar instruction (Tode, 2007). Scholars who support an implicit approach to grammar instruction argue that s tudents will develop ‘naturally’the grammar competence they need to communicate effectively by being exposed to comprehensible, meaningful linguistic input (Hassan, 2001). The power of input and interaction is emphasized on delivering acquisition of the rule system without explicit grammar instruction (Macaro and Masterman, 2006). Krashen (1981) and his colleagues launched a severe criticism against explicit grammar instruction in the second language (L2) classroom claiming that the ‘comprehensible input’ presented in the L2 class will help learners unconsciously internalize the grammatical system of the language the same way as first language learners do. He completely denies the explicit grammar instruction and believes that there is no relationshipbetween grammar study and measures of writing ability (Krashen, 1998). Research studies are conducted to compare explicit grammar instruction with implicit instruction. For instance, in the research study to investigate the durability of the effect of explicit and implicit grammar instructions among EFL learners, Tode (2007) demonstrates that explicit instruction have positive effects only in a short time, which proves Schachter’s (1998, as cited in Tode, 2007) hypothesis that explicitly instructed learners may learn a structure quickly but may also lose that knowledge in a short time.Tode (2007) indicates that the value of explicit instruction should be interpreted carefully in terms of its long-term effect and adjustments are needed to retain its effect. Similar investigation is conducted by Klapper and Rees (2003) on the grammar learning in German over 4-year period. The participants are divided into two groups, one taught German through an explicit focus on forms (FonFs) approach and the other through a focus on form (FonF) approach.By the end of year 2, the FonFS group scored significantly higher in the two types of test. However, at the beginning of year 4, after both groups had studied abroad, the FonF group significantly outperformed the FonFS group in the tests. Therefore, despite the clear advantage of the FonFS group in having received an instructional approach that matched the type of test given, in the long run, the explicit grammar instruction received during the first two years of the course was not the key independent variable (Klapper and Rees, 2003). Moreover, some researchers supporting the effectiveness of explicit grammar instructions have to admit some limitations in their research. As mentioned before, Norris and Orteg a’s (2000) experiment proves that explicit instruction is more efficient than implicit instruction. However, they also state that their conclusion is not definitive in terms of the durability issue due to the limitation of time, number, and the lack of post-test (Norris and Ortega, 2000). Similar research is carried out by Benati (2001), who investigated the acquisition of the future tense in Italian by three groups of university students. The first group was taught via focus on positive evidence of the inflected form in the input, the second via paradigms to explain the rules followed by output based practice, and the third, a control, received non-systematic exposure to the target feature. As a result, both the treatment groups outperformed the control group in tests of implicit knowledge, explicit knowledge and oral production. However, in none of the tests did the ‘explicit group’ outperfor m the ‘input processing group’, suggesting no advantage for the explicit explanation of rules (Benati, 2001).From the two sections above, it is not difficult to see that although ample research evidence has conveyed the effectiveness and efficiency of explicit grammar instruction in L2 situation,adequate theories and studies have also proved that explicit teaching of grammatical features is not sufficiently conclusive to be able to influence second language acquisition (Macaro and Masterman, 2006). Furthermore, the relationship between explicit and implicit grammar teaching seems to have been dissociated in the language classroom instruction, which Macaro and Masterman (2006) believe dangerous to EFL language teaching and learning.ImplicationsResearch studies conducted on grammar instructions have revealed the advantages and disadvantages of the explicit language teaching and learning. On the basis of the superiorities and drawbacks, some implications are proposed as follows to guide grammar learning in EFL classroom. Firstly, evidence from many studies suggests that if learners are taught rules explicitly, they will perform better in grammar tests (Macaro and Masterman, 2006). There is also tentative evidence that learners will perform better in highly structured production tasks but little evidence so far that they will perform better in less structured production tasks (Macaro and Masterman, 2006). Based on this concept, it can be suggested that highly structured production tasks be given to language learners in classroom instruction (Macaro and Masterman, 2006). Secondly, while the present study shows that explicit instruction is favoured over implicit instruction or no instruction when the instructional period is short, it does not rule out that longer instructional treatments might produce different results. According to this, a suggestion is proposed that measurement device comprise controlled tasks such as grammaticality judgment and guided sentence production (Burgess and Etherington, 2002). Thirdly, as Macaro and Masterman (2006) mentions, explicit instruction is not an opposing method of implicit approach. Instead, it is a continuum of options in grammar teaching of second language acquisition (Macaro and Masternman, 2006). Moreover, the evidence from research tends to support an interaction between these constructs rather than a complete dissociation (Macaro and Masternman, 2006). Therefore, although the concepts of implicit and explicit instruction seem to have a big contrast, the two strands do not actually deny each other when performed in the real classroom teaching context (Ellis, 2002a). Fourthly,controversies and debates in grammar teaching have led to the emergence of a new classroom option for language teachers: Focus on Form, which is opposed to Focus on Meaning or Focus on FormS (Burgess and Etherington, 2002). Moreover, Attention in form-focused instruction, or consciousness-raising, can help the learner notice aspects of linguistic form or form–function mapping (Schmidt, 2001). Therefore, Burgess and Etherington (2006) suggest drawing learners’ attention to the formalfeatures of the target language as they arise incidentally in lessons whose main focus is on meaning or communication. Finally, as meaningful text-based explicit grammar instruction dominates the secondary EFL classes, a combination of explicit grammar instruction and communicative language teaching will become a new trend in EFL classroom (Hassan, 2001).ConclusionThis paper has explored from many aspects the effectiveness of explicit grammar instruction in EFL learning contexts. Theories on language teaching and learning have been discussed in terms of grammar instructions. Besides, debates and arguments focusing on form and on meaning are also introduced. In addition, research studies related to explicit grammar instructions in L2 classroom are illustrated. Among these studies explicit and implicit approaches are tested with English, German, and French as foreign languages in different classroom setting, such as university level, college level, and high school level. Comparisons and analogies are made to test the effectiveness of explicit grammar instruction in various situations. Finally, a conclusion is drawn that sole explicit teaching of grammatical rules and structures is not sufficient to EFL language learning. Furthermore, although vast research show a disposition of explicit grammar instruction, a problem rises from the analyses that explicit instruction can not persist to facilitate grammar learning in the long-term performances. Despite that suggestions have been made by the researchers to remedy the flaws, there has been no effective research to prove the feasibility of the proposed ideas. Therefore, how to make best of the explicit instruction in L2 grammar need further studying and exploring.Reference listAdair-Hauck, B., Donato, R., & P. Cumo-Johanssen. (2000). Using a Story-based Approach to Teach Grammar. In Shrum, J. L. and E. Glisan.Teacher’s Handbook:Contextualized Language Instruction. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Pp. 146-171. Benati, A. (2001). A Comparative Study of the Effects of Processing Instruction and Output-Based Instruction on the Acquisition of the Italian Future Tense. Language Teaching Research 5(2), 95–127.Burgess, J. and S. Etherington. (2002). Focus on Grammatical Form: Explicit or Implicit?System 30, 433–458.DeKeyser, R.M. (1995). Learning Second Language Grammar Rules: an Experiment with a Miniature Linguistic System. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17, 379–410. Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction pp. 206–257.Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In Doughty, C.and J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp.114–138.Ellis, N. C. (2008). The Dynamics of Second Language Emergence: Cycles of Language Use, Language Change, and Language Acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 92,232-249.Ellis, N.C. (2002a). Frequency Effects in Language Processing: a Review with Implications for Theories of Implicit and Explicit Language Acquisition. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition 24, 143–88.Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. In Ellis, R., (Ed.), Form focused instruction and second language learning, Malden, MA: Blackwell. Pp.1–46. Green, S. and K. Hecht. (1992). Implicit and Explicit Grammar: an Empirical Study. Applied Linguistics,13(2), 168-83.Hassan, B. A. (2001). New Trends in Teaching Grammar in the Secondary School: a Review Article..au/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content _storage_01/0000019b/80/17/28/cd.pdf (accessed 02/11/2008)Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: student engagement with teacher feedback. System 31(2), 217– 230.Krahen, S. (1992). Formal Grammar Instruction: Another Educator Comments. TESOL Quarterly, 26(2): 409-411.Klapper, J. and J. Rees. (2003). Reviewing the Case for Explicit Grammar Instruction in the University Foreign Language Learning Context. Language Teaching Research 7(3):285–314.Larsen-Freeman, D. (1991). Consensus and Divergence on the Content, Role, and Process of Reading Grammar. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.) Georgetown University Round Table onLanguage and Linguistics. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press. Pp. 260-272.Macaro, E. and L. Masterman. (2006). Does Intensive Explicit Grammar Instruction Make all the Difference? Language Teaching Research, 10(3),297-327.Norris, J.M. and L. Ortega. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: a research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.Nuna, D. (1998). Teaching Grammar in Context. ELT Journal, 52(2), 101-109.Paesani, K. (2005).Literary Texts and Grammar Instruction: Revisiting the Inductive Presentation. Foreign Language Annals, 38(1),15-24.Radwan, A. A. (2004). The Effectiveness of Explicit Attention to Form in Language Learning. System, 33, 69-87.Rivers, W. M. (1987). Interactive language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressSchachter, J. (1998). Recent research in language learning studies: Promises and problems.Language Learning 48, 557–583.Schmidt, R.W. and S.N. Frota. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: a case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In Day, R.D. (Ed). Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition, Rowley, MA: Newbury House, Pp. 237–326.Shaffer, C. (1989). A Comparison of Inductive and Deductive Approaches to Teaching Foreign Languages. The Modern Language Journal, 73(4), 395-403.Spada, N. (1997). Form-Focused Instruction and Second Language Teaching: A review of Classroom and Laboratory Research. Language Teaching, 30, 73–87.Tode, T. (2007). Durability Problems with Explicit Instruction in an EFL Context: the Learning of the English Copula be Before and After the Introduction of the Auxiliary be. Language Teaching Research, 11(1), 11-30.Terrell, T. (1991). The Role of Grammar Instruction in a Communicative Approach. Modern Language Journal,75, 52–63.White, L. (1991). Adverb Placement in Second Language Acquisition: Some Effects of Positive and Negative Evidence in the Classroom. Second Language Research, 7,133-61.Yim, Y. K. (1998). The Role of Grammar Instruction in an ESL Program. Eric Document No, ED432137.。