18.1081, Qs: Perceptions of the Nature of Traditional Grammar Teaching

Tue Apr 10 18:18:23 UTC 2007

LINGUIST List: Vol-18-1081. Tue Apr 10 2007. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.

Subject: 18.1081, Qs: Perceptions of the Nature of Traditional Grammar Teaching

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Eastern Michigan U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>

Reviews: Laura Welcher, Rosetta Project  
       <reviews at linguistlist.org> 

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, 
and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Kevin Burrows <kevin at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually
best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is
then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was
instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we
would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate.

In addition to posting a summary, we'd like to remind people that it
is usually a good idea to personally thank those individuals who have
taken the trouble to respond to the query.

To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at
http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.

===========================Directory==============================  

1)
Date: 10-Apr-2007
From: Ronald Sheen < sheen1 at videotron.ca >
Subject: Perceptions of the Nature of Traditional Grammar Teaching

*******************************************************************************
       Advisors' Challenge 2007: Raise $8000 in 48 hours and the 
             LINGUIST Advisors will donate an extra $2000!  
   If you have not donated, please visit http://linguistlist.org/donate.html
*******************************************************************************
Current Top 5 Schools in LL Grad School Challenge:
1. Stanford University   	                $1870
2. University of Massachusetts at Amherst 	$1717
3. University of Washington 	                $1434
4. University of Toronto  	                 $815
5. Indiana University   	                 $810
To see the full list, go to: http://linguistlist.org/donation/fund-drive2007/allschools.cfm

******************************************************************************* 

-------------------------Message 1 ---------------------------------- 
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 14:13:28
From: Ronald Sheen < sheen1 at videotron.ca >
Subject: Perceptions of the Nature of Traditional Grammar Teaching 

This query is largely addressed at those LL members working in the field of
applied linguistics as it is applied to second and foreign language 
classroom learning.  It seeks feedback on their perceptions of the nature
of contemporary traditional grammar teaching (TGT).  

In responding to this request, it asks respondents to indicate to what
degree they have taken into consideration the following:

a )  TGT as it is presented in the work of materials writers such as Ur
(1996) and Swan and Walter (1990).

b )  TGT as presented in the work of applied linguists such as Long (1988),
Doughty (2001) and Ellis (2006).

c )  The contemporary view of findings of the method comparison research
since the late 60s until to day and its validity.(Long, 1998; Norris and
Ortega, 2000;Doughty, 2001)

d )  The putative incompatibility between TGT and current theories of SLA
(Long and Crookes, 1992; Long and Robinson, 1998)

e )  The possibility that TGT may be informed by general cognitive learning
theory and a skills-learning approach. (Anderson, 1995; DeKeyser, 1998)

f )  The available research findings entailing a focus on form, a focus on
formS and a focus on meaning.

g )  The relevance to these issues of task-based learning and the criticism
thereof of Swan (2005).

h )  The preferences of students in terms of choice of learning approach.
(Carrel et Al., 1996)

i )   The preferences of teachers in terms of teaching approach. (Horan, 2003)

j)  The degree to which contemporary TGT allows for the inclusion of new
ideas such as processing instruction. (VanPatten and Sanz, 1995)

I will, of course, provide a detailed account of your responses in addition
to comments on the above considerations.

Ron Sheen

References:
Anderson, J. (1995). Learning and memory: An integrated approach. New York:
Wiley.

Carrell, P.L., Prince, M.S., & Astika, G.G. (1996). Personality types and
language Learning in an EFL context. Language Learning, 46, 75-99.

DeKeyser, R.M. (1998). "Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on
learning and practising second language grammar" in C. Doughty & J. Wlliams
(Eds.) Focus on Form in Classroom Language Acquisition, (pp. 42-63)
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching grammar:  An SLA
Perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83-107.

Horan, A. (2003). English grammar in schools. In P. Collins & M. Amberber
(Eds), Proceedings of the 2002 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society.

Long, M.H. (1988)  Instructed interlanguage development  In L. Beebe
(Ed.)  Issues in second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives (pp.
115-141), Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Long, M.H., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus
design. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 27-56.

Long, M.H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and
practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom
language acquisition (pp. 16-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Norris, J. M. And L. Ortega. (2000)  Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A
research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis.  Language Learning
50:417-528.

Swan, M. (2005) "Legislating by hypothesis: Focus on form and task-based
learning" Applied Linguistics 26:376:401.

Swan, M. And Walter, M. (1990) The New English Cambridge Couse, CUP. 

VanPatten, B., and Sanz, C. (1995)  From input to output: Processing
instruction and communicative task.  In F. Eckman, D. Highland, P. Lee, J.

Mileham, and R. Weber (eds.), SLA theory and pedagogy (pp. 169-185).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 

Linguistic Field(s): Applied Linguistics

-----------------------------------------------------------

This Year the LINGUIST List hopes to raise $55,000. This money will go to help keep the 
List running by supporting all of our Student Editors for the coming year.

See below for donation instructions, and don't forget to check out our Fund Drive 2007 
LINGUIST List Superhero Adventure for some Fund Drive fun!

http://linguistlist.org/donation/fund-drive2007/ 

There are many ways to donate to LINGUIST!

You can donate right now using our secure credit card form.

Alternatively you can also pledge right now and pay later.

For all information on donating and pledging, including information on how to donate by 
check, money order, or wire transfer, please visit:

http://linguistlist.org/donate.html

The LINGUIST List is under the umbrella of Eastern Michigan University and as such can 
receive donations through the EMU Foundation, which is a registered 501(c) Non Profit 
organization. Our Federal Tax number is 38-6005986. These donations can be offset against 
your federal and sometimes your state tax return (U.S. tax payers only). For more 
information visit the IRS Web-Site, or contact your financial advisor.

Many companies also offer a gift matching program, such that they will match any gift 
you make to a non-profit organization. Normally this entails your contacting your human 
resources department and sending us a form that the EMU Foundation fills in and returns 
to your employer. This is generally a simple administrative procedure that doubles the 
value of your gift to LINGUIST, without costing you an extra penny. Please take a moment 
to check if your company operates such a program.

Thank you very much for your support of LINGUIST!

-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-18-1081	