Book contents
- Practice in Second Language Learning
- Practice in Second Language Learning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Introduction
- Part I Theoretical Perspectives
- Part II Receptive Practice
- 3 Practice with Formulaic Sequences: Can It Promote the Incidental Learning of Grammar?
- 4 A Text-based Approach to Grammar Practice
- 5 The Teaching and Learning of Lexical Chunks: A Comparison of Receptive and Productive Practice
- Part III Productive Practice
- Index
- References
4 - A Text-based Approach to Grammar Practice
from Part II - Receptive Practice
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2018
By
Edited by
Book contents
- Practice in Second Language Learning
- Practice in Second Language Learning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Introduction
- Part I Theoretical Perspectives
- Part II Receptive Practice
- 3 Practice with Formulaic Sequences: Can It Promote the Incidental Learning of Grammar?
- 4 A Text-based Approach to Grammar Practice
- 5 The Teaching and Learning of Lexical Chunks: A Comparison of Receptive and Productive Practice
- Part III Productive Practice
- Index
- References
Summary
In this chapter I present the case for basing part of our grammar teaching and therefore practice on the texts we use in class. The rationale for this approach draws partly on Willis (2003) and Tomlinson (2013) in proposing that much constructive language work can be done through texts for the following reasons: Grammar presented in this way is literally contextualised; the selection of grammar items to teach can seem less arbitrary to learners than the fixed a priori grammar syllabus; this kind of approach leads to a focus on a variety of lexico-grammatical features rather than the ‘big beasts’ of the conventional grammar syllabus e.g. tenses, conditionals and passives. In other words, a text-based approach gives learners practice with the many features of language they need to become more successful users of the language. I also discuss potential problems with this approach, chief among which are whether inexperienced teachers can apply it and whether it leads to an unbalanced syllabus. Finally, I describe the results of an evaluation of the materials carried out by practitioners working in a variety of contexts. The chapter concludes that a text-based approach to grammar practice is a plausible option for teachers to adopt.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Practice in Second Language Learning , pp. 79 - 108Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Biber, D. and Reppen, R. 2002. ‘What does frequency have to do with grammar teaching?’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(2): 199–208.Google Scholar
Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. 2006. The Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. 2007. ‘Study abroad as foreign language practice’, in DeKeyser, R. M. (ed.), Practice in a Second Language. New York: Cambridge University Press, 208–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. 2006. ‘Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective’, TESOL Quarterly 40(1): 83–107.Google Scholar
Howatt, A. 2004. A History of English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Johns, T. and Davies, F. 1983. ‘Text as a vehicle for information: The classroom use of written texts in teaching reading in a foreign language’, Reading in a Foreign Language 1(1): 1–19.Google Scholar
Jones, C. 2007. ‘Spoken grammar: Is “noticing” the best option?’, Modern English Teacher 16(4): 155–160.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. and Terrell, T. D. 1983. The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. London: Prentice Hall Europe.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. 1993. The Lexical Approach: The State of ELT and the Way Forward. Hove: LTP.Google Scholar
Mares, C. 2003. ‘Writing a coursebook’, in Tomlinson, B. (ed.), Developing Materials for Language Teaching. London: Continuum, 130–140.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M. 1998. The Spoken Language and Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Oppenheim, A. 1992. Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Riggenbach, H. 1990. ‘Discourse analysis and spoken language instruction’, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 11: 152–163.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. 1990. ‘The role of consciousness in second language learning’, Applied Linguistics 11: 129–158.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. and Frota, S. 1986. ‘Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese’, in Day, R. (ed.), Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 237–326.Google Scholar
Sheen, R. 2003. ‘Focus on form: A myth in the making’, ELT Journal 57(3): 225–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stranks, J. 2013. ‘Materials for teaching grammar’, in Tomlinson, B. (ed.), Developing Materials for Language Teaching. London: Bloomsbury, 337–351.Google Scholar
Swan, M. 2005. ‘Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction’, Applied Linguistics 26(3): 376–401.Google Scholar
Swan, M. 2006. ‘Teaching grammar: Does grammar teaching work?’, Modern English Teacher 15(2): 5–13.Google Scholar
Thornbury, S. 1997. ‘Reformulation and reconstruction: Tasks that promote “noticing”’, ELT Journal 51(4): 326–334.Google Scholar
Thornbury, S. and Underhill, A. 2001. Uncovering Grammar. Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann.Google Scholar
Timmis, I. 2003. ‘Corpora, classroom and context: The place of spoken grammar in ELT’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
Timmis, I. 2008. ‘The lexical approach is dead: Long live the lexical dimension!’, Modern English Teacher 17(3): 5–10.Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by