7/29/2019 Grammar Debate
1/19
Grammar Debate
EE5308E
Lecturer: Dr. Jennifer Tan
7/29/2019 Grammar Debate
2/19
Consciousness-raisingActivities in Some LebaneseEnglish Language
Classrooms: TeacherPerceptions and LearnerEngagement
Language Awareness Vol. 14, No. 2&3, 2005
7/29/2019 Grammar Debate
3/19
Introduction
1. Objectives of the action research study
2. Introduction (CR)
3. Research Questions
4. Research Methodology and Findings
a. Procedures (CR activities)
b. Findings (classroom implementations; studentsattitudes and engagement; teachers own views on CR)
5. Results and Discussion of Findings (RQs)
6. Conclusion (Limitations, possible implications andsuggestions for further research)
7/29/2019 Grammar Debate
4/19
Objectives
To evaluate the appropriateness of consciousness-raising(CR) approach to grammar learning/teaching
To discuss the limitations of CR approach to grammarlearning/teaching
7/29/2019 Grammar Debate
5/19
Introduction (CR)
James (1992) made a distinction between the raising ofawareness and consciousness (Awareness VsConsciousness)
RC (involves creationof new knowledge)
RA (person can be
made aware of whatthey already know)
7/29/2019 Grammar Debate
6/19
Introduction (ctd)
According to Ellis (1994: 643):
...in consciousness-raising activities the learners are notexpected to produce the target structure, only to understand itby formulating some kind of cognitive representation of how itworks
Means = an understanding of how grammar rule works,production-for-practice exercises NOT part of CR
Hedge(2000)considers a CR approach to be compatiblewith the culture of the communicative classroom ; more
inductive nature as CR approach associates with learner-centred classroom
CR activities = involves learners in talking about languagethus providing a communicative dimension
7/29/2019 Grammar Debate
7/19
Research Questions
How do the teachers perceiveCR activities?
How do the students perceive
CR activities?
7/29/2019 Grammar Debate
8/19
Methodology
Action research (AR) study using the qualitative approach:
(Lebanese Sec Sch) 4 EL teachers implemented a series of 5/6CR activities with each lasting 15-30 min, over a period of 4-week period in secondary levels 7, 8 and 9 of the English-medium stream, nearly 200 students carried out the CRactivities
Background of students: highly communicative in EL as theirschool is an English-medium stream.
Background of teachers: university graduates and receivesome in-service training at school
AR teachers involvement to implement the CR activities,keep a diary of doing so, and write a brief report at the end ofit
7/29/2019 Grammar Debate
9/19
Methodology (ctd)
Process:
1. training of teachers in the use of CR activities and in
AR2. teachers implement CR activities over a period of 4week, keep a diary and write a final report
3. individual teacher interviews, and interview withEnglish language coordinator (ELC)
4. ELC conducts class discussions to collect studentimpressions
7/29/2019 Grammar Debate
10/19
CR Activites
A given text with a set of exercises (1 to 5)
Students were induced to notice certain grammaticalfeatures in a text by marking them e.g. underlining,putting slashes
Aim: conscious reflection on understanding the grammarrules in the specific contexts for a particular purpose (e.g.how clauses function form a sentence)
Most salient features of CR activities: induced noticing andtalking about grammar element BUT no production-for-practice/PPP; against the conventional wisdom that
practice makes perfect in favour of CR tasks (Ellis, 1993)
http://consciousness-raising%202.pdf/http://consciousness-raising%202.pdf/http://consciousness-raising%202.pdf/7/29/2019 Grammar Debate
11/19
Findings
Classroom implementations
Language use
All the work was carried out in EL (school policy)
Work mode
Similar pattern: students did exercise first, shared solutions in pairs,class discussion (varied forms depending on the teacher)
Student autonomy
Teacher 3: interventions as interfering
Timing
Teacher 4: Timing was really an obstacle supported by Teacher 3
Relationship to the curriculum
CR activities didnt fit into their syllabus at that time
7/29/2019 Grammar Debate
12/19
Findings (ctd) Students attitudes and engagement
Overall mood Mostly positive response; however some were disappointed and bored to work on
the same text except for T3s class
Metalanguage and concept
Unfamiliarity caused students to feel confused and upset
Level of concentration
Teachers agreed that students had been concentrating on solving the exercises
Training effect
The further they got on with the exercises, the more engaged they were in theexercises
Increased interest partly due to greater cognitive challenge but familiarity alsoplayed a role; accumulated grammatical consciousness, increased level ofdifficulty and familiarity with exercise type
A learning process
When students sharing and explaining their answers; the increasing speed withwhich students were working and correcting their work
Culture of learning (conceptual approach to grammar, noticing)
While noticing (Schmidt, 1990) does not gurantee intake (Leeser, 2003,cited in VanPatten, 2004) CR assumes it to be a first step
7/29/2019 Grammar Debate
13/19
Findings (ctd)
The teachers own views of the CR
Absence of a production element VS integration of skills
Created an artificial situation as production-for-practice
exercises were excluded
Challenges
Student questions are unpredictable
Student queries demand a high level of language awarenessfrom the teacher
Personal interests and preferences Played a part in the degree of accepting CR activities
7/29/2019 Grammar Debate
14/19
Results and Discussions
Expectations and beliefs of individual teachers can have an
effect on how students perceive of and interact withapproaches and materials (Carless, 2003 and Karavas-Doukas, 1995, cited in Carless, 2003)
RQs:
How do the students perceive the CR activities?
Enjoyed sharing and discussing responses
Reacted well to analytical nature of CR tasks
Engaging actively and focusing on the CRtasks+ve
Bored with the same text
Occasionally anxious or confused bysome terminology and
classifications of grammar
-ve
7/29/2019 Grammar Debate
15/19
Results and Discussion (ctd) How did the teachers perceive the CR
activities?
Self selection process (volunteer toparticipate)
Open to changes
Ability to deal with students questions
Appreciate the analytical, inductive nature oftasks
Encourage active student engagement andenthusiasm+ve
Critical of the lack of integration ofskills
Some difficulty in theterminology/classifications in thematerials
Demands more in-depth languageanalysis
-ve
7/29/2019 Grammar Debate
16/19
Limitations
absence of students voice (time constraint)
CR implementation demands high-level of the teacherslanguage awareness to students queries and the need to solvethem adequately on the spot
T3 prefers the production element as its more effective, assupported by (Hopkins and Nettle, 1994) suggest that Ellis(1993) proposal to replace practice activities with CR activitiesdoes not meet the practical demands of classroom teaching,such as learner expectations
(Hedge, 2000) observes that practice can contribute toimplicit grammatical knowledge by providing frequentoccurrence of a particular form for students to notice from theT3 findings
7/29/2019 Grammar Debate
17/19
Conclusions
CR approach is useful and effective if teachers are able to integrateinto their regular syllabus
3 out of 4 teachers view the analytical nature of CR activitiesenjoyable and useful
CR learning culture of encouraging student autonomy, learners
making intellectual effort to understand to understand the targetedfeature (Ellis, 2003)
Integration of CR into regular syllabus will result in greaterefficiency in terms of time by noticing a gap component(Thornbury, 1997)
Elliss (1993) claim is supported by this study to the extent thatCR approach leads to grammar learning with no production-for-
practice exercises as he argues against practice makes perfect
Generally CR activities are attractive, engaging and motivating, thisapproach leads learners passively acquire knowledge from teacher
7/29/2019 Grammar Debate
18/19
Questions
How effective are CR activities in your own opinion?
Do you think CR is the best approach? Yes/No, why so?
Do you agree CR is a supplement and not an alternativeto communicative activities (Ellis, 2002)? Yes/No, whyso?
7/29/2019 Grammar Debate
19/19
Thank you for Listening
Top Related