Grammar Teaching and Learning- An Input versus Output Approach - Report Example

Proposal for a PhD Thesis in Applied Linguistics Candidate: Proposed title: Grammar teaching and learning- An input versus output approach Supervisors: Background and Rationale In 2002 the College of Languages and Translation was inaugurated as an institution that would teach professional English. This move was a result of the great and ever rapidly growing need for English teachers and translators in education and business domains in the country. The College of Languages and Translation was set up for post-secondary school students who hoped to have better mastery of the English language as a means of furthering their education and improving their career prospects. There were, of course, institutions of higher learning that could develop professionalism and careers, but the College of Languages and Translation provided an institution that focused on languages, providing the best quality education and skills in languages, with the focus on English as a second language. Since its inauguration in 2002, the College of Languages and Translation has made some big milestones in terms of teaching English to, and improving the English language proficiency of students who study, speak and use English as a second language. The CLT has been recognised for imparting the necessary language skills to the students, with trained and professional personnel. It has been improving in different levels and gaining a good reputation in terms of its methods such as use of computers (Nasser & Ra’ed, 2012) and reading aloud (Nasser & Ra’ed, 2011), its programs, curriculum, and outcomes. Like with any institution, this remarkable record, however, has not been flawless, as there have been various arising problems. The biggest problem the college has faced thus far is the critical issue in respect of the level of English in general and in grammar in particular of the students who come from secondary schools and apply to CLT. These students have in common, a big problem in their overall English skills, with the emphasis on grammar. Unfortunately, the bad grammar exists, not just nationally, but is gradually becoming a global menace (Callies et al, 2013). There has, of course, been speculation as to what could have caused so many students to have such bad grammar. Some reports owe the problems to the fact that English is not a first language in Saudi Arabia (Finocchiaro, 1964). There is, therefore, a lot of influence from the other languages (MacWhinney, 1992). Many students tend to confuse and cross-over the rules of their native languages to English (Odlin, 1989), without realising that every different language has its own set of syntax and semantics rules (Kellerman, 1995). Many scholars have been reported to owe the bad grammar, not just in Saudi Arabia, but globally (and, sadly, even in native English-speaking countries like the United States of America and the United Kingdom), to texting. Texting is said to ruin people’s language skills. With the advent of the ‘auto-complete’ function in most smartphones and other devices, students do not have to spell their own words anymore in text messages. While this function may be deemed useful in ‘saving time’, it ruins the students’ English as they are left completely dysfunctional and utterly helpless when it comes to hand-written papers. Social media has also been claimed to be among the leading factors that have caused the deteriorating English skills among the youth. First, on social media, until very recently, nobody seems to care how a person expresses themselves (that is, their grammar); as long as the message they are trying to pass comes through. This has caused many youth to be negligent when it comes to what they may consider very tiny and practically negligible mistakes. What they fail to realise is that they are cultivating a culture which ends up being carried back to the classroom and their future businesses. There is another angle to the question of social media ruining grammar among the youth. It is no secret that the youth nowadays, all over the world, spend a great deal of their time on social media, and there is a new platform coming up every other day to ensure it stays this way. Students spend less and less time on their school work. Reading books has become but a mythical activity enjoyed only by the “boring” and “unpopular” young people. It is common knowledge that language is learned and perfected through practice. Such practice is found by speaking, reading and writing the language. However, with such little time left for books between uploading pictures and watching videos, students do not practice their grammar, making it get worse with each passing day. The students cannot, however, take all the blame. Inasmuch as we would like to blame the youth entirely for their bad grammar, it is clear that the society has also not created a “grammar-friendly” society for the youth, so to speak. It is not only on social media that there is bad grammar. How often have we seen news headlines marred with spelling and grammatical errors? Students are very impressionable, especially when learning a new thing or skill, such as a second language, like English is in Saudi Arabia (Ellis, 1998). Teachers may insist that social media is not the best place to learn English, leaving the students to turn to other sources of information such as newspapers and television. However, these, too, are full of mistakes (Callies et al, 2014), mostly made by failure to proofread on the part of the editors. These poor grammar practices are passed on to the minds of the youth, making bad grammar an even more difficult habit to shake. One root cause that all the above causes boil down to is the theory of associative learning as proposed by Bybee (2005). According to this theory, the more a student or any person really, hears and/or uses a phrase or word, the more engrained it gets in their head (Ellis, 2002; Langacker, 1987; Langacker, 2000). If a student constantly uses bad grammar on, say social media, or constantly reads bad grammar in the papers, they do not recognise them as mistakes any more (De Cock, 2000; Logan, 1990). The learner begins to associate some words with others, even when it may have started out as a simple joke. For instance, the use of “then” instead of “than” (She is more intelligent then Jack), is one such error that began as something trivial and laughable but has spread to the point where it is what some people take as correct English. The mistakes become normal to them and before long, bad grammar is all they know. This research aims at investigating the factor(s) causing that weakness and the best way to address those factors. It seeks to investigate the potential loopholes in the education system and/or society that may be responsible for the rampant deterioration in the English language standards. Through this study, we hope to consider different cases independent of each other, then in relation to each other, in an attempt to pinpoint the root cause of the grammar problem. In identifying these factors, we hope to find ways to stop them, so as to restore good use of grammar. Previous Research For this research topic, a number of vital concerns are researched for a comprehensive report. These are: the factors in the education system and the society in general that may cause students to develop bad grammar, the syllabus level input in schools, the anticipated output versus the actual output and methods to align the output to match the input, or improve the input for better output. The English Grammar Profile is reviewed in response to the question of this study, along with previous theses and the relevant sources of information on the syllabus, that is, actual school books and curriculum. The traditional practice in the teaching of English as a second language is to expect instant output from the students (Lee & VanPatten, 2003). However, this approach has not been very productive. Inasmuch as it may develop the students’ accuracy and fluency, it does not ensure the language is developed internally. With this approach, the students do not develop adequate awareness of the language before output is demanded of them. The result is that the language learned does not stay with the students long after they have left the classroom (Lee & VanPatten, 2003). The input-output methodology of English teaching and learning has been disputed for years. One of the alternative approaches suggested is the processing-oriented method. Here, the teachers’ focus is on the students’ processing the instruction. The first step in this approach would be to teach the students the structure of the language. This is followed by teaching the learners how going against the set structure and rules of the language may affect their language in general. Finally, the students apply their teaching of structure and form, in practice activities. Once they have had enough relevant practice that would show them, first-hand, the structure of the language and the errors that come up when the language is approached otherwise, only then should the instructors demand output (Lee & VanPatten, 2003). There have been debates on whether grammar should be taught to students. One concern is that teaching grammar could be boring, making the students lose interest in the language. Some educators think that grammar is a skill that the students will pick up once they start using the language, and should, therefore, not be a very contentious subject in the classroom. However, this approach is wrong, as explored by Zhang (2009). It is also paramount that the competency of the teachers be evaluated, as the students rely on them for instruction. Therefore, if the teachers have bad grammar, they are where the problem starts. Aims and Objectives The aim of this study is to empirically investigate input and output in relation to English grammar teaching and learning in a regional context. Input refers to the national syllabus for grammar which programmes must follow. Output refers to the samples of work from a cohort of students. Research questions 1. What is the syllabus level input for English grammar for level 2 (senior cycle) English learners in state schools one region of Saudi Arabia? a. How is this manifested in the state syllabus? b. How is this manifested in the state course book? 2. What is the grammatical output in terms of English grammar for level 2 learners in state schools one region of Saudi Arabia? a. What are they English grammar competencies of the same cohort of learners? 3. How does the grammatical output in terms of competency vary from the syllabus and course books that learners have followed? Research Methodology The study will have two strands: 1. Collating and analysing English grammar input: This will entail collating all of the grammar items listed on the state syllabus for English and on the state course book for English. 2. Collecting, collating and coding of English grammar output: This will entail the building of a case study of four schools balanced across the variables detailed in table X. Each of the participating classes will undertake the same four tasks, involving extended writing. This data will be collected during the same period, from the same level of student (final year, final term). The output dataset will generate approximately 400 samples of student writing. This will generate a corpus of circa 100,000 words of data. The corpus data will be coded for errors in grammar. Table X: matrix for data collection for student grammar output. School 1 2 3 4 Region ……… ……… ……… ……… Level Senior Cycle Senior Cycle Senior Cycle Senior Cycle Sample period Final year/term: March - June Final year/term: March - June Final year/term: March - June Final year/term: March - June Number of classes 1 1 1 1 Gender of teacher Male Male Female Female Gender of student Male Male Female Female Syllabus …………… State syllabus for English …………… State syllabus for English …………… State syllabus for English …………… State syllabus for English Course material State textbook for English State textbook for English State textbook for English State textbook for English Number of writing task samples 4 4 4 4 Average class size 25 25 25 25 Average length of writing sample (words) 250 250 250 250 Analysis of data The learner corpus of circa 100,000 words will be analysed for grammatical competency using the inventory of grammatical items generated from the analysis of the state syllabus and course book for English Level 2 learners. A list of grammatical competencies will be generated and compared with the state syllabus and course book for English for Level 2 learners. Description Year 1 Conduct analysis of state syllabus and course book for English for Level 2 learners so as to produce an inventory; Conduct a pilot study of writing tasks in semester 1; Conduct full learner grammar data collection in semester 2; Conduct a literature review. Year 2 Conduct a pilot study of error coding of the learner data in semester 1; Finalise and apply error coding system to the corpus of learner data; Conduct small sample analyses of the learner data; Evolve a theoretical framework for the study; Draft methodology chapter. Year 3 Complete analysis to address questions 1,2 and 3: Complete analysis of learner grammar competencies; Compare learner grammar competencies with the inventory of items from the state course book and syllabus. Write up final draft of the thesis. Ethical Considerations Before and during the collection of data, all the participating parties will be issued with written consent forms, which they are free to sign at their discretion. These will include clauses detailing how the information they provide will be used and/ or publicised. Participants, that is, teachers, students and educational institutions, will be assured, through written contracts, that their content will be used only for research purposes, and that the material they provide will be destroyed after the research. There will be, included, provisions for the participants to take action against the researcher, should he be in contravention of the signed agreements. Works Cited Bybee, J. 2005. “From Usage to Grammar: The mind’s response to repetition”. Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America, Oakland. https://www.unm.edu/~jbybee/downloads/Bybee2006FromUsage.pdf Callies, M. & Zaytseva, E. 2013. “The Corpus of Academic Learner English (CALE) – A new resource for the study and assessment of advanced language proficiency”. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin & F. Meunier (Eds.), Twenty Years of Learner Corpus Research: Looking back, Moving ahead. Corpora and Language in Use – Proceedings 1. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain, 49-59. Callies, M., Díez-Bedmar, M. B. & Zaytseva, E. 2014. “Using learner corpora for testing and assessing L2 proficiency”. In P. Leclercq, H. Hilton & A. Edmonds (Eds.), Measuring L2 Proficiency: Perspectives from SLA. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 71–90. De Cock, S. 2000. “Repetitive phrasal chunkiness and advanced EFL speech and writing”.  In C. Mair & M. Hundt (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Amsterdam, NL: Rodopi, 51–68. Ellis, N.C. 1998. “Emergentism, connectionism and language learning”. Language Learning, 48, (4), 631–664. Ellis, N.C. 2002. “Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24 (2), 143–188. Finocchiaro, Mary Bonomo. English as a second language. Regents Publishing Company, 1964. Kellerman, E. 1995. “Crosslinguistic influence: Transfer to nowhere?” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 125–150. Langacker, R.W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Vol. 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Langacker, R.W. 2000. A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based Models of Language. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 1–63. Lee, J., & Van Patten, B. (2003). Making Communicative Language Happen. New York: McGraw Hill. Logan, G. D. 1990. “Repetition priming and automaticity: Common Underlying Mechanisms?” Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1–35. MacWhinney, B. 1992. “Transfer and competition in second language learning”. In R. J. Harris (Ed.) Cognitive Processing in Bilinguals. Amsterdam: North Holland, 371–390. Nasser S., Ra’ed A. “The effect of computer-assisted instruction on Saudi University students’ learning of English”. January, 2012, www.researchgate.net/institution/King_Saud_University/department/College_of_Languages_and_Translation Nasser S., Ra’ed A. “The effect of teacher’s storytelling aloud on the reading comprehension of Saudi elementary stage students. July, 2011, www.researchgate.net/institution/King_Saud_University/department/College_of_Languages_and_Translation Odlin, T. 1989. Language Transfer. New York: Cambridge University Press. Zhang, Jianyun. "Necessity of grammar teaching." International Education Studies 2.2 (2009): 184. Sample Bibliography Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (Tech. Rep. No. 9, pp. 259–302). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. Candlin, Christopher N. The communicative teaching of English: principles and an exercise typology. Longman Publishing Group, 1981. Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and pedagogy. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. Ellis, Rod. "Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective." Tesol Quarterly (2006): 83-107. Erlam, R. (2009). The elicited oral imitation test as a measure of implicit knowledge. In Ellis et al, (Eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching (pp. 65-93). Bristol: Short Run Press Ltd. Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Harmer, Jeremy. "The practice of English language teaching." London/New York (1991). Hedge, Tricia. Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Vol. 106. Oxford,, UK: Oxford University Press, 2001. Hulstijn, J. (2003). Incidental and intentional learning. In C. Doughty & M Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 349-381). Oxford: Blackwell. Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541–577. Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., & Fearnow, S. (1999). Testing the output hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 421–452. Johnson, Jenny, and Monica Poulter. "Teachers’ language competence: Issues of appropriation and appropriacy." Assessing Language Teachers' Professional Skills and Knowledge 42 (2015): 179. Lee, S.-K., & Huang, H. (2008). Visual input enhancement and grammar learning: A meta-analytic review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 307-331. Li, Huiyin. "On Guidelines for College English Teaching and Challenges for College English Teachers." English Language Teaching 9.1 (2015): 77. Long, M. H. (2000). Second language acquisition theories. In M. Byram (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of language teaching (pp. 527-34). London: Routledge. Morgan, Marie. "Developing and assessing English language teacher trainers." Assessing Language Teachers' Professional Skills and Knowledge 42 (2015): 142. Morgan-Short, K. & Bowden, H. W. (2006). Processing instruction and meaningful output-based instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 31-65. Nunan, David. Second Language Teaching & Learning. Heinle & Heinle Publishers, 7625 Empire Dr., Florence, KY 41042-2978, 1999. Rubin, Joan, ed. Learner strategies in language learning. Macmillan College, 1987. Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158. Schmidt, R. W. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Stanny, Claudia, Melissa Gonzalez, and Britt McGowan. "Assessing the culture of teaching and learning through a syllabus review." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 40.7 (2015): 898-913. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391. Tafani, Vilma, and Natalie Kuhlman. "Standards-based Learning and Teaching: A Crucial Issue in World Education." Anglisticum 3.8 (2015). VanPatten, B. (1993). Grammar teaching for the acquisition-rich classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 26, 435–450. VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. VanPatten, B. (2003). From input to output: A teacher’s guide to second language acquisition. New York: McGraw-Hill. VanPatten, Bill. Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Greenwood Publishing Group, 1996. Read More