Post on 13-Apr-2018
7/26/2019 Grammar Teaching-Practice or Consciousness-Raising_Ellis_sem Comentrios...
1/5
J ac k C Richa rds
Thombury, S. (1998). Comments on direct approaches in L2 instruction.
TESOL Quarter/y
32(1),109-116.
Van Patten, W. ( 1993 ). Grammar-teaching for the acquisition-rich c1assroom.
Foreign Lan
guage Annals
26(4),435-450.
Willis, J. Willis, D. (Eds.), (1996).
Challenge and change inlanguage teaching
Oxford:
Heinemann.
9 M i
ri
S
CHAPTER
Grammar Teaching ; Practice or
Consciousness Raising?
Rod Ellis
INTRODUCTION
Two major questions need to be consider ed with regard to grammar teaching in second
language (L2) pedagogy:
1. Should we teach grammar at ali?
2. lf w e should teach grammar, how should we teach it?
The first question ha s been answered in the negative by some applied linguists. Krashen
(1982), for instance, has argued that formal instruction in grammar wi ll nolcontribute
10
lhe
development of acquired knowledge - lhe knowledge needed 10 participar e in authentic
communication. Prabhu (1987) has tried to show, with some success, that c1assroom learners
can acquire an L2 grammar naturalistically by participating in meaning-focused tasks. Oth-
ers, however, inc1uding myself, have argued that grammar teaching does a id L2acquisition,
although not necessarily in the way teachers often t1nkit does. Myprincipal contenti on i s
that formal grammar teaching has a delayed rather than instant effect.
The focus of this artic1e is the second questionom going to a ssume that we should
teach grammar (see Elli s, 1990, for the reasons why) and tum my attention to how we
should set about doing so. Specifically, I want 10 consider two approaches, which I shall
refer to as practice and consciousness-raising. I shall begin by def ining the se . I w ill
then brief ly consider the case for pract ice and argue that the available evidence sug-
gests that it may no t be a s e ff ec ti ve a s i s generally believed. I wil l then present a num-
ber of arguments in support of consciousness-raising and conc1ude with an exarnple of a
CR- Iask.
167
7/26/2019 Grammar Teaching-Practice or Consciousness-Raising_Ellis_sem Comentrios...
2/5
Rod E l li s
DEFINING PRACTICE ANO CONSCIOUSNESS RAISING
For most teachers, the man idea of grammar teaching is t o help leamers intemalise the
structures taught in such a way that they can be used in everyday communication. To
this end, the learners ar e p rovided wi th opportunities to
practise
the structures, first under
controlled conditions, and then under more normal communicative conditions. Ur (1988,
p. 7 describes th~ practice stage of a grammar lesson in these terms: The practice stage
consists of a s eries of exercises ... whose a im is to cause the leamers to absorb the structure
thoroughly; or to put itanother way, to
transferwhat they know from short term tolong term
memory
It is common to distinguish a number of different types of practice activties>-
. mechanical practice, contextualised practice, and communicative practice. Mechanical prac-
ticeconsists of v arious types of rigidly controlled activities, such assubstitution exercises.
Contextualised practice is still controlled, but involves an attempt to encourage leamers to
relate form to meaning by showing how structures are used in real-life situations. Com-
municative practice entails various kinds of
gap
activities which require the leamers to
engage in authentic communication while at the same time keeping an eye, as it were, on
the structures that are being manipulated in the process (Ur, 1988, p. 9) ..
Irrespect ive of whether the practice is controlled, contextualised, or communicative, it
will have the following characteristics:
I. There is some attempt to
isolate
a specific grammatical feature for focused attention.
2. The learners are required to pr ou e sentences containing the targeted feature.
3. The learners will beprovided with opportunities for repetition of the targeted feature.
4. There is an expectancy that the leamers will perform the grarnrnatical feature
correctly.
In general, therefore, practice activities are s uccess oriented ( Ur, 1988,
p.13).
5. The le arners receivefeedback on whether the ir performance of the grammatical
structure is correct or not. This feedback may be immediate or delayed.
These five characteristics prov ide a def ini ti on of what most methodologists mean by
practice. It should be noticed that each characteristic constitutes an assumption about how
grammar is learnt. By and large, though, these assumptions go unchallenged and have
become pari of the mythology of language teaching.
Consciousness-raising, as I use the term, involves an attempt to equip the leamer with
an understanding of a specific grammatical feature - to develop declarative rather than
procedural knowledge of it. The main characteristics of consciousness-raising activities are
the following:
1. There is an attempt to
isolate
a specific linguistic feature for focused attention.
2. The learners are provided with data which i llustrate the targeted feature and they may
also be supplied with an
explicit role
describing or explaining the feature.
3. The learners are expected to utilise
intellectual effort
to understand the targeted
feature.
4. Misunderstanding or incornplete understanding of the grammatical structure by the
leamers leads to
clarification
in t he form of further data and description or
explanation.
5. Learners may be require d (although this is not obligatory) t o~te lherole
describing the grammatical structure.
G ram m ar T eac hing Practic e or Con sciousness Raising?
169
It should be c1ear from this list that the main purpose of consciousness-raising is to
develop explicit knowledge of grammar. I want to emphasise, however, that this is not the -
same as
metalingual k nowledge.
It is perfect1ypossible to develop an explicit understanding
of how a grammatical structure works without learning much in the way of grarnrnatical
terrninology. Grammar can be explained, and, therefore, understood in everyday language.
It may be, however , that access to some me talanguage will facilitate the development of
explicit knowledge.
A comparison of the characteristics of consciousness-raising with thoseIisted for prac-
tice shows that lhe main difference is thatconsciousness-rai sing does not involve the leamer
in repeated production. This is because the aim ofth is k ind of grarnrnar teaching is not to
enable the learner to perform a structure correctly but simply to help her to know about
it .
Here is how Rutherford andSharwood-Smith (1985) put it: CR is considered as a potential
facilitator for the acquisi tion ofl inguistic competence and has nothing direct ly to do with
the use o f t hat competence fo r the achievernent of specific communicative objectives, or
with the achievement of fiuency .
Wherea s practice is primarily behavioural, consciousness-raising isessentially concept-
forrning in orientation.
The two types of grammar work are not mutuall y exclusive, however. Thus, grammar
teaching can involve a cornbination of practice and consciousness-raising and, indeed,
traditionally does so. Thus, many methodologists recommend thatp ractice work be preceded
by a presentation stage, toensure that the leamers have a clear idea aboutwhat.the targeted
structure consists of. This presentation stage may involve an inductive or deductive treatment
of the structure. AIso, practice wo rk can be rounded off with a f ormal explanation of l he
structure. Even strict audiolingualists such as Brooks (1960) recognised the value of formal
explanations of pattems as summaries once the practice activities had been completed.
Indeed, it is arguable tha tno grammar teaching can takeplace without some consciousness-
raising occurring. Evenif the practice work is directed at t he implicitleaming of the structure
and no formal explanation is provided, leamers (particularly, adults) are l ikely to try to
construct some kind of explicit representation of the role. .
Nevertheless, the distinction is a real and important one. Whereas practice work cannot
take place wi thout some degree o f consciousness-raising (even if this is inc idental), the
obverse is not the case; consciousness-raising can occur without practice. Thus, it is per-
fectly possible to teach grammar in the sense of helping leamers to understand and explain
grarnrnatical phenomena without having them engage in activities that require repeated
production of the structures concemed. One way this occurs is by presenting leamers with
rules for memorisation - teaching about grarnrnar. This is what occurred in the grammar-
translation method. Such an approach lias been discredited on a number of grounds, and
it is not my intention to advocate its reintroduction. There are other ways of raising con-
sciousness that are compatible with contemporary educational principies, however . Before
considering thern, I want to consider the extent to which the faith methodologists have in
practice is justified.
DOES PRACTICE WORK?
A number ofernpirical studies have investigated whether practi ce contributes to L2 acqui-
sition (cf. Ellis, 1988, for a review). These studies are oftwo kinds: those that seek to relate
the
amount
of practice achieved byindividualleamers with general increases in
proficiency
(e.g., Seliger, 1977; Day, 1984) andthose tha thaye examined whether practising a specific
linguistic structure results in its acquisition (e.g., Ellis, 1984).
7/26/2019 Grammar Teaching-Practice or Consciousness-Raising_Ellis_sem Comentrios...
3/5
R od E Ui s
The results of bolh types of research are not encouraging for supporters of practice.
Correlational studi es ( i.e., lhe first kindjust referred to) have produced mixed results. Some
studies have found a relationship hetween amount of practice and gains in proficiency, but
olhers have failed to d o so. Even when a study does show a strong relationship, it does not
warrant claiming that practice
causes
leaming. In order to say somelhing ahout cause and
effect, we have to interpret a c orrelational relationship. lt i sperfectly possi ble to argue that
it is lhe learners proficiency that influences practice, ralher than vice versa. Teachers may
direct more practice opportunities at those learners who they think are able to supply correct
answers - thus, lhe more proficient receive more p ractice. lndeed, one of lhe requirements
of practice - that it be success-oriented - would lead us topredict that this will happen. The
detailed analysis of classroom interactions that result from practice activities supports such
an interpretation.
Studies which have investigated whether practising a spec if ic structure results in its
acquisition provide evidence to suggest that practice does not resu lt i n t he autonomous
ability to use the structure. In other words, practising a grammatical structure under con-
trolled conditions does not seem to enable the learner to use the structure freely. I carried
out a study (Ellis, 1984) to see whether practising when q uestions enabled learners to
acquire this structure. lt did not. Ellis and Ralhbone (1987) investigated whether practising
a difficult word-order rule with learners of L2 Gerrnan resulted in its acquisition. Again, it
did not. There are also doubts that learne rs are able to transfer knowledge from controlled
to communicative practice. Once learners move into a meaning-focused activity, they seem
to fali back on their own resources and ignore lhe linguistic material they have practised
previously in forrn- focused activity.
, There are, of course, p roblems with such studies as these , and it would be unwise to
c1aim lhat they conclusively demonstrate lhat practice does not work. It may be lhat the
practice was of lhe wrong kind, tha t i twas poorly execut ed , or lhat lhere was not enough of
it. It may be that practice only works with some kinds of learners. Nevertheless, lhe studies
cast doubts on lhe clairns methodologists make about practice.
There are a ls o strong theoretical grounds for questioning lhe effectiveness of practice.
Pienemann (1985) has proposed thatsome structures are
developmental
in lhe sense lhat they
areacquired in adefined sequence.1t is impossible for lhe l earner to acquire a developmental
structure until the psycholinguistic processing operations a ssociated wilh easier structures
in lhe acquisitional sequence have been acquired.
According to Pienemanns
teachability hypothesis
a structure cannot be successfully
taught (in the sense that it will be used correctly and spontaneously in communication) unless
lhe learner is developmentally ready to acquire it. ln other words, the teaching syllabus has to
match the learner s developmental syllabus. For practice to work, then, lhe teacher will have
to find out what stage of development lhe learners have reached. Allhough it is technically
possible for lhe teacher to do this, it is impractic al i nmost teaching situations.
Of course, it does not follow from lhese arguments that practice is wilhout any value
at all. Practice probably doe; help where pronunciation is concerned - it gives learners
opportunities to get their tongues around new words and phrases , A1so, practice may be
quite e ffec tive in helping l eame rs t o remember new lexical material, including forrnulaic
chunks such as How do you do? , Can I have a ... 1 , and I dont understand . Some
learner s - ex trover ts who enjoy speaking in the classroom, for example - may respond
positively to practice activities. For lhese reasons, practice will always have a place in lhe
c1assroom. It needs to be recognised, however, that practice will often not lead to immediate
procedural knowledge of grammatical rules, irrespective of its quantity andquality.
Tosum up, there are strong grounds - empirical and lheoretical- which lead us todoubt
tbe efficacy of practice. Pract ice is essentially a
pedagogical
construct. It assumes that
lhe acquisition of grammatical structures involves a gradual automatisation of production,
G ra mm ar T ea ch in g Pract ice or Consciousness Raising?
171
from controlled to automatic, and i t ignores the very real constraints lhat exist on the ability
of lhe teacher to influence what goeson inside lhe leamers head. Practice mayhavelimited
psycltolinguistic validity.
THE CASE FOR CONSCIOUSNESS RAISING
We have seen that lhegoal of practiceactivities is to develop lhe kind of automatic control of
grammatical structures that will enable learners to use them productively and spontaneously.
We have also seen that l here are reasons to believe that this may not be achievable. The
problem lies in as surning that we can teach grammar for use in communication. If we
lower our sights and instead aim to develop lhe learner awa reness of what is correct but
wilhout any expectancy that wecan bring lhe learner to t he point where she can use lhis
knowledge in normal communication, lhen lhe main lheoretical objections raised against
pract ice disappear. Consciousness-raising is predicated on this lesser goal.
Practice is directed at lhe acquisition of
implicit
knowledge of a grammatical
structure - lhe kind of tacit knowledge needed to use lhe structure e ffortlessly fo r com-
munication. Consciousness-raising is directed atlhe formation of explicit knowledge - the
kind ofintellectual knowledge which we are able to galher about a ny subject, ifwe so choose.
Ofcourse, lhe construction ofexplicit representations of g rammatical structures i sof l irnited
use in itself. It may help lhe leamer to perforrn successfully in certain kindsof discrele-item
language lests. 11may also he lp to rnprove her perforrnance in planning her discourse , as
when we monitor our output in order to improve it for public perusal. BUI, crucially, it
will not be of much use in lhe normal, everyday uses o f language. Explicit knowledge is
not much use when it come s to communicating. For l his , we need implicit knowledge.
We need to ask , lherefore, whelher lhe more limited goal of consciousness-raslng -
to teach explici t knowledge - has any value. Ultirnately, consciousness-raising can only be
justified if it can be shown lhat i t contributes to th leamers ability to communicate. Iwant to
argue that, although consciousness-raising does nOIcontribute di rectly to lhe acquisition of
implicit knowledge, it does so indirectly, ln ~lher words , consciousness-raising facilitates
tbe acquisition of lhe grammatical knowledge needed for communication.
The acquisition of implicit knowledge involves three processes:
I. noticing (the learner becomes conscious of lhe presence of a l inguistic feature in lhe
input, whereas previously she bad ignored it)
2. comparing (the learner compares lhe linguistic feature noticed in t he input wilh her
own mental gramnlar, registering
10
what exten t l here is a gap between lhe input and
her grammar)
3. integrating (lhe learner integrates a representation of lhe new linguistic feature into
her mental grammar)
The first two processes involve conscious attention to language ; lhe third process takes
place at a very deep levei, of which tbe learner is genera lly not aware. Noticing and
comparing cantake place atany time; lhey arenot developmental1y regulated. But integration
of new linguistic material into the store of implicit knowledge is subject to tbe kinds of
psycholinguistic constraints discussed earlier.
How, lhen, does consciousness-raising contribut e t o lhe acquisition of implicit knowl-
edge? I would l ike tosuggest that it does soin two major ways:
1. It contributes 10 lhe processes of noticing and comparing and, therefore, prepares th;
grounds for the integra tion of new linguistic material. However, it will not bring about
7/26/2019 Grammar Teaching-Practice or Consciousness-Raising_Ellis_sem Comentrios...
4/5
R od Ellis
integration. This process is controlle d by the l ea rner a nd will talceplace only when
the learner is developmentally ready.
2. It results in explicit knowledge, Thus, even if the learner isunable to integrate the
new feature as implicit knowledge, she can construct an altemative explicit
representation which can be stored separately and subsequent ly accessed when the
learner is developmentally primed tohandle it. Furthermore, explicit knowledge
serves to help the learner to continue tonotice the fea ture in the input, thereby
facilitat ing i ts subsequent acquisition.
Consciousness-raising, then, is unlikely toresult in immediate acquisition. More likely,
it will have a delayed effect:
There are a1 so educational reasons that can be advanced for grammar teaclng as
consciousness-raising. The incJusion of foreign languages in the school curriculum is not
motivated ent irely by the desire to foster communication between spealcers of different
languages, although this has become the most prominent aim in recent years. This inclusion
has, and always has had , a mo re general goal- that of fostering intellectual development.
Grammar embo dies acorpus ofknowledge the study ofwlch can be expected to contribute
to students c ognitive skill s. It constitutes a serious content and, as such, contrasts with the
trivial con tent of many modern textbooks.
I t is not my intention, however, to advoca le a ret urn to teaching about grammar, or,
a t l east, not in the form that this was carried out in the past. The arguments that I have
presen ted in favour of consciousness-raising do not justify giving le ctures on grammar.
Such a transmission-oriented approach runs contrary to progressive educational principies.
Wha t I have in mind is a task-based approach that emphasises discovery learning by asking
learners to solve problems about grammar. The following is anexample of this approach.
AN EXAMPLE OF A CONSCIOUSNESS RAISING TASK
Consciousness-raising tasks can be inductive or deductive. In t he case of the former, the
learner is provided wi th dat a anda sked toconstruct an explicit rule todescribe the gram-
matical feature which the data illustrate. In thecase of t he latter, the learne r i s supplied with
a rulewhich is then used to carry out some task. Wedo not know, as yet, which typeresults
in the more efficient learning of explicit knowledge - probably both will prove useful.
Table I provides a s impl e example o f an induct iv e t ask des igned to raise learners
awareness about lhe grammatical differences between for and since. This problem has
been designed with a number ofpoints in mind. First, the intention is to fo cus on a known
source of difficulty; learners frequently fail to distinguish for and s ince. Second, the data
provided must be adequa te to enable the learners todiscover the rule that governs the usage
of these prepositions in t ime expressions. In l he case of this task, the data incJude both
grammatical and ungrammatical sentences. Third, the task requires mnimal production on
the part of the learners; instead, emphasis is placed on developing an idea o f when the
two forms are used. Fourth, there is an opportunity to apply the rul e i n t he construc tion of
personalised statements. This is not intended to practise the rule but to promote its storage
as explicit knowledge; production, therefore, is restricted to two sentences and there is
no insistence on autornatic processing. Such tasks as these can be designed with varying
formats. They can make use of situational infnnation, diagram, charts, tables, and soon.
They can also be used in both lockstep teaching (i.e., when the teacher works through a
problem with the whole cla ss ) or small-group work.
G r am m a r T e ac h in g P r ac tic e o r C o ns ci ou sn e ssRa ising?
171
T AB L E 1 A N E XA MP LE O F A C R P RO BJ EM SOLV ING TASK
1. Here i s some information about when three people joined the
company they now work for and how long theyhave ?~en working there,
Nam e ate oined
L en gth o f T ime
MsRegan 1945 45 yrs
Mr Bush
1970
20 yrs
Ms Thatcher
1989
9mths
Mr Balcer
1990 (Feb) 10 days
2. Study these sentences about these people. When is for used and
when i s since used?
a. Ms Regan has been working for her company
for
most ofher l ife.
b. Mr Bush has been working for hiscompany since
197
c. MsThat cher has been working forher company for 9 months.
d. -Mr Balcer has been working for his company since February.
3. Which ofthe following sentences are ungrammatical? Why?
a. Ms Regan has been working for her company for 1945.
b. Mr Bush has been working for his company for 20 years.
c. Ms Thatcher has been working for her company since 1989.
d. MrBalcer has been working for his company since 10 days.
4. Try and malce u p a rule to explain when for and s ince are used.
5. Malce up one sentence about when you started to learn English and one
sentence about how long you have been studying English. Use for and
since .
CONCLUSION
ln this paper I have argued the case for grammar teaching as consciousness-raising. In one
respect, this does not constitute a radical departure from what teachers have a1ways done.
Many teachers have felt the need to provide formal explanations of grammatical points.
But i n another respect, it d oes represent.a real alternative in that it removes from grammar
teaching the need to provide learners with repeate d opportunities.to produce the target
structure. So much effort has gone into devising ingenious ways of eliciting and shaping
learners responses, more often to little or no avail as learners do not acquire the structures
they have practised. Consciousness-raising constitutes an approach to grarnrnar teaching
which is cornpatible with current thinking about how learners acquire L2 grarnrnar. It also
constitutes an approach that accords with progressive views about educat ion as a process
ofdiscovery through problem-solving tasks.
There are, of course , l imitations to consciousness-raising. It may not be appropriate
for young l earners. Some learners (e.g., those who like to learn by doing rather than
s tudying) may dislike it. It can only be used with beginners if the learners first language
is used as the medium for solving the tasks. However, the alternative in such situations
is not practice. Rather, it is to provide opportunities for meaning-focused language use,
for communicating in the L2, initially perhaps in lhe form of l istening tasks. Alllearners,
even those who are suited to a consciousness-raising approach, will need plenty of such
7/26/2019 Grammar Teaching-Practice or Consciousness-Raising_Ellis_sem Comentrios...
5/5
Rod Ellis
opportunities. Consciousness-raising is not an a1ternative to communication activities, but
a supplement.
References
Brooks, N. (1960). Language and language leaming. New York: Harcourt, Brace
World.
Day, R. R. (1984). Student participation in the ESL classroom.
Language Leaming
4
69-89.
Ellis, R. (1984). The role of instruction in second language acquisition. In D: Singleton
D. Little (Eds.), Language leaming in
orm l
and informal contexts.lRAAL.
Ellis, R. (1988). The role ofpractice in c1assroom language le~ing. Teanga 8,1-25.
Ellis, R. (1990). lnstructed second language acquisition Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Ellis, R.,
Rathbone, M. (1987). The acquisuion of German in a classroom contexto
London: EaJing College of Higher Education.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principies and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Pienemann, M. (1985). LearnabiJity and syllabus construction. In K. Hyltenstam
M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition. Clevedon,
Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Prabhu, N. (1987): Second language pedagogy Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rutherford, W., Sharwood-Smith, M. (1985). Consciousness-raising and universal
grammar.
Applied Linguistics
6,214-281.
Seliger, H. (1977). Does practice make perfect? A study of interaction patterns and
L2 competence. Language Leaming 27,263-275.
Ur, P. (1988). Grammar practice activities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.