TOPIC 1

OVERVIEW ON GRAMMAR
Language teachers are in agreement that EL learners need to learn grammar to
communicate more effectively. What is constantly debated, however, is what to teach
EL learners and how.
Language teachers also agree that there is not a singular approach to the teaching of
grammar.  One approach which yielded positive results in one student or class will
result in dismal results in another student or group of learners. The question: Which
approaches have been proven to work for which kinds of learners?
With the effects of new technologies on EL learning (some of which were unimaginable
several decades back) and the complexity of the challenge faced by EL teachers today,
there is renewed interest in the history of grammar teaching.  Best practices are also
being assessed to identify which ones can benefit today’s EL learners who need to use
English to communicate and be productive.
The challenges faced by EL teachers teaching grammar are not new but the answers to
recurring questions are neither clear-cut nor easily found in the massive databases of
studies on grammar teaching.  It is helpful to remind EL teachers, over and over again,
that the complex process of teaching English requires constant evaluation of available
information and re-evaluation of day-to-day practices.  This, however, will only be done
by teachers who see the immense value of reviewing relevant information as they
reflect on their teaching vis-à-vis students’ goals and performances. It is our hope that
you are one of the teachers we just described in the previous sentence.     
In this module, we review the definition of grammar, its background, and relevant
researches on approaches used to explain and inform its teaching grammar approaches
and provide a summary of language learning strategies. The intent is to provide you
with adequate and relevant information so the choices you make as an EL teacher are
deeply grounded on principles you have carefully evaluated. 
Eight topics consist this module and after every two modules, your grasp of the topics
shall be assessed through a 30-50 item test. 
Make sure that when you decide to take the test, you are confident in your
understanding of the concepts.  When you click to take the test, you won’t be allowed to
change your mind.  Also, you will no longer have access to the topics should you need
go over a section (or sections). 
Diane Larsen-Freeman (2001) defined grammar as “the language users’ subconscious
internal system and the attempts to describe and codify that system.” A similar definition
is provided by Fromkin et.al (1990) who claim that grammar is "the sounds and sound
patterns, the basic units of meaning such as words and the rules to combine them to
form new sentences constitute the grammar of a language. These rules are internalized
and subconsciously learned by native speakers".
Grammar explains how words are formed (morphology) and how words are combined
(syntax). Although grammar is normally more often focused on the structure of a
language, it also provides explanations for other linguistic aspects such as the sound
system (phonology), the system of meaning (semantics), and the vocabulary of words
(lexicon).
In the definition of Larsen-Freeman (2001), grammar is viewed from two perspectives:
1) that of the learners and 2) that of observers and researchers who seek out
explanations for the workings of a language.  Consequently, learner’s linguistic
competence is a focus of grammar, whether as a means to explain the structure of
language use or as an end result for programs on EL language learning.
Here are views on grammar and the implications of such views on language teaching
and learning as adapted from Diane Larsen-Freeman, “Grammar” in The Cambridge
Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages, Carter and Nunan, ed.,
2001: 34-41).   
The field of linguistics present two types of descriptive grammars: formal grammars
which look at the form and structure of language with little or no attention is given to
meaning (semantics) or context of language use (pragmatics) and functional grammars
which focuses on the language’s function for communication and thus look into social
interactions to explain why one linguistic form is more appropriate than another in
fulfilling the communicative purpose in a particular context (Larsen-Freeman 2001:34). 
Formal Grammars.  In the United States, descriptivism or structuralism concurrently
prevailed (along with behaviorism) during the mid-20 th century. Structuralism assumes
that “grammatical categories should not be established in terms of meaning, but rather
in the distribution of structures in sentences (Fries 1952).” The belief that learning is a
form of conditioning brought about through repetition, shaping, and reinforcement
(behaviorism) was applied to language acquisition since language was considered a
verbal behavior (Skinner 1957).
Noam Chomsky (1959, 1965) pointed out the limitations of looking at “language-as-
behavior” and proposed the concept of grammatical competence: the knowledge of a
finite system of rules that enables an ideal language user in a homogenous speech
community to generate and understand an infinite variety of sentences.  Chomsky
asserted the existence of:
1) a deep structure that determined the semantic interpretation of a sentence; and
2) a surface structure that realized the phonetic form of sentences and that these two
were linked by a set of transformational rules. 
He worked to describe the underlying grammatical system (i.e. speaker’s competence),
rather than what speakers say or understand someone else say (i.e. their
performance).  He claimed that the learner’s task was to abstract the rules from the
language input they receive through processes such as hypothetical formation and
testing.   
Chomsky claims input data were degenerate (ill-formed, replete with false starts,
fragmented, etc.) but humans are biologically endowed with an innate language faculty
that incorporated a set of universal principles, i.e. a universal grammar (UG). This is
how children with normal faculties successfully acquired their native language despite
the “degenerate” input. He further explains that experience of a particular language
served as input to the language faculty which, in turn, provided children with an
algorithm for developing grammar of their native language.  For decades, generative
grammarians pursued the search initially for transformations that connected deep and
surface structure, and later on, for abstract “principles” which must be general enough
to account for what all languages have in common (Larsen-Freeman, 2001:35).
Formal grammars explain syntactic facts strictly on the basis of formal grammatical
properties of sentences (Chomsky 1995).   
Functional Grammars. The “conditions of language use” is the primary concern of
functional grammarians.  They believe that the language system is not an autonomous
set of rules and principles; rather than the rules and principles composing the language
system can only be adequately understood when they are analyzed in terms of the
conditions of use (Tomlin 1994). This implies that for functional grammarians, the study
of language use (pragmatics) goes before the study of formal and semantic properties
of linguistic expression (Larsen-Freeman, 2001:35). 
To further explain, here are examples:                                                
1.  Martin and Martha brought the puppy to the veterinarian.
2. The puppy was brought to the veterinarian by Martin and Martha.
This is what formal grammarians will do with the two sentences.
1. Explain how sentence # 1 is derived, i.e. that there are two doers of the action
(Martin and Martha, the subject) and the receiver of the action (the puppy, also called
the object) follows the verb (brought) in the sentence.
2. Explain that sentence 2 was derived by interchanging the subject with the object,
inserting be and the past participle and the preposition by before the displaced subject)
A functional grammarian is more interested in explaining the difference in use between
the two sentences according to the notion of “perspective”. The two sentences are
assumed to describe the same event, but that this event is presented from the
participant’s viewpoint in sentence # 1 and from the viewpoint of the result in sentence #
2.  He or she then is interested in determining what contextual factors influenced
speakers in choosing one version over the other (Larsen-Freeman, 2001:35). 
Givon (1993) further highlights that “although grammar consists of a set of rules, what is
of interest to the functional grammarian is not that the rules generate grammatical
sentences, but rather that the production or rule-governed sentences are the means to
coherent communication.” This communication orientation explains why functional
grammarians go to the level of discourse to explain grammatical structures (Chafe
1980; Longacre 1983). Factors such as information structure, interpersonal patterns of
interacting influence grammatical structure and aspect, and sequences of verb tense
can only be explained at the discourse level.

Meaning is central to functional grammarians. For them, grammar is a means for

making and exchanging meaning (Halliday 1978, 1994). There are three types of
meaning based on the systemic-functional theory by Halliday:
1.  experiential meaning - how our experience and inner thoughts are represented;
2. interpersonal meaning - how we interact with others through language; and 
3.  textual meaning - how coherence is created in spoken and written texts.
Once Again
At the core of grammar teaching and learning is meaning. 
Think About It
1. How were you taught English grammar? How important is knowledge of English
grammar in one's ability to use the language?
TOPIC 2
WHY TEACH GRAMMAR?
If you by any chance doubt the role of grammar in the development of English
proficiency, a look at most ESL and EFL programs – which allocate a considerable
amount of time to the teaching of grammar – will show you that grammar is considered
an important component of English language learning. Numerous researches have
proven that knowledge of grammar affects how one communicates.  The teaching of
grammar is doubly important according to Hannan (1989) because it is important to the
study of language, ideas, and writing. Grammar shows the power and order of the
human mind and helps us understand the diversity of human culture.
The teaching of grammar reflects the distinction made between formal and functional
approaches. 
Formal grammars follow the “structural” approach (Widdowson 1990) and assume that
communicative ends are best served through a bottom-up process – through practicing
grammatical structures and lexical patterns until they are internalized. 

 1950s – 1960s: pattern and structural drills, through, for example, audiolingual
method
 1970s: sentence-based linguistic rules with exercises asking students to
transform one sentence pattern into another

However, in the 1970s, these factors led to language-teaching theorists and

practitioners to embrace a new approach to language instruction, i.e. to focus initially on
language use rather than formal aspects of the language:

 observation of learners’ difficulties in transferring the grammatical structures

learned in class to communicative contexts outside;
 call to broaden linguistic study from grammatical competence to “communicative
competence” (Hymes, 1971); and
 the influence of functional grammar, research commissioned by the Council of
Europe (1971), and the encouragement of applied linguistics (Widdowson 1978;
Brumfit and Jonhson,1979 ).

Initially, this translated to the use of notional-functional syllabuses rather than one
based on linguistic units, such as had been used up to that point (Wilkins, 1976).
Although notional-functional syllabuses were also questioned in the 1980s, teaching
language use continued and was evident in the “communicative approach” (Widdowson,
1980). 
Activities used include role-playing, jigsaw tasks, and information-gap activities.  The
effect of the learners’ exposure to the structural approach was not tempered and it
remained that learners were increasingly expected to approximate target language
forms such as they used them in communicative purposes (Larsen-Freeman 2001:36).
Researchers on Second Language Acquisition (SLA) who looked at grammatical
development in meaning negotiation during learner's interactions contributed to the shift
in language pedagogy.  Hatch (1978) noted: “One learns how to do conversation, one
learns how to interact verbally and out of this interaction, syntactic structures are
developed.” Communicative language teaching (CLT) remains prevalent but its practice
has been noted to compromise language form (Widdowson 1990; Bygate et al 1994).

TOPIC 4
GRAMMAR AND LANGUAGE LEARNING
The findings of countless researches have not drastically changed the teaching of
grammar. Grammar instruction continues to focus on the accuracy of form and rule
learning using mechanical exercises (Jean & Simard 2011 cited in Larsen-Freeman,
2015). Larsen-Freeman (2015) points this out in “Research into Practice: Grammar
Teaching and Learning,” Language Teaching, Vol.48 Issue 2, 2015:263-280, and her
ideas are abridged in this section.
Apparently, practices that have for years contributed to the successful learning of
languages cannot be easily dislodged even by volumes of work resulting from all the
attention given to grammar pedagogy. A survey of researches shows that grammar is
still being taught traditionally in most classrooms in a non-integrative manner. Here are
the relevant findings:

 Students see value in grammar study (Schulz 1996; Loewen et al. 2009).
 Teachers see value in grammar study (Burgess & Etherington 2002).
 Both teachers and students see rule learning as important or very important and
teachers also find written grammar exercises useful or very useful (Jean &
Simard 2011).
 “Traditional teaching still seems to prevail . . . despite efforts to move away from
it (Jean & Simard 2011: 479).”
 Drills and pattern practice remain ubiquitous (Wong & VanPatten 2003: 407).

Why did this researches on SLA fail to effect improvements on grammar instruction?
The effects of textbooks from the publishing industry and teachers’ negative attitudes
toward change and innovation are cited as reasons (Skehan 1998; Thornbury 1998).  
In 1981, Krashen proposed for the teaching of grammar to be stopped because it had
very little effect on the natural language acquisition process and what learners needed
was abundant ‘comprehensible input’.  The research revealed that learners adhered to
a natural order of acquisition for certain English grammatical morphemes; natural
sequence of development for certain syntactic structures such as question formation in
English.  These reinforced Corder's (1967) claim that humans possessed ‘built-in
syllabuses.’ These also led strengthened Krashen’s claim (1981, 1982) that “conscious
grammar instruction would not contribute to subconscious language acquisition because
it would not develop learners’ grammatical competence.” He further maintained that
what is taught and learned explicitly had no effect on the implicit knowledge necessary
for a fluent communication. Paradis (2004) supported this claim through findings
showing that implicit and explicit knowledge are neuro linguistically distinct.
Researchers questioned Krashen’s claims and underscored the failure to consider the
importance of learners receiving feedback on their performance (White 1987). One
research also provided strong evidence contradicting Krashen’s position.  The study
showed that the language production of students enrolled in programs following the type
of instruction Krashen recommended continued to commit fundamental errors of
grammar despite years of study (Harley & Swain 1984).  This led other researchers to
point out the lack of linguistic complexity and variety of classroom language (e.g.,
Dalton-Puffer 2007; Lyster 2007).  Swain (1985) reinforced her assertion on
comprehensible output by showing that learners’ producing the language was
unappreciated with Krashen's exclusive focus on comprehensible input.
Comprehensible input might be necessary, but it wasn't sufficient. One's comprehension
of another language typically exceeds one's ability to speak it. Therefore, pushing
learners to express themselves clearly would be beneficial in that it would mean that
learners would have to learn to process language syntactically in addition to processing
it for meaning.
Against these arguments, Krashen maintained that students’ learning rules and
practicing them are only of little value (Krashen 2011). Further, he stated that language
can be acquired without learners producing any language and that opportunities for
learner production in the classroom were scarce anyway (Shehadeh 2002).
Thornbury (1998: 19) on SLA research and grammar says: “You may have noticed that
a number of recent books seem to be celebrating, in the words of one of them, ‘the
return of grammar to the center stage of language teaching and learning’ (Tonkyn 1994:
12). Yet, for as long as I have been teaching, grammar has never been anywhere but a
center stage.”
Nunan (1987) and Sato & Kleinsasser (1999) also agree. They assert that despite
teachers’ adoption of communicative language teaching, much class time is still spent
giving grammatical explanations and teaching rules (Gatbonton & Segalowitz 2005).
So why is it that teachers have not abandoned explicit grammar instruction as they have
been advised to do? 
Attitude. One explanation is that students’ and teachers’ attitudes and beliefs have
informed their own learning/teaching experiences (Borg 1999). Schulz's (2001) and
Jean & Simard's (2011) surveyed attitudes about grammar teaching among students
and teachers of a variety of languages. ‘The main findings suggest that grammar
instruction is perceived by both students and teachers as necessary and effective, but
not something they enjoy doing’ (Jean & Simard 2011: 467).
Given this negative effect, why is it that teachers’ views are seemingly entrenched?
Autonomy. Teachers are not autonomous agents. They are part of educational systems
that still use high-stakes grammar-based examinations and this in turn constrain
teachers’ efforts to lessen grammar instruction (Littlewood 2007).
So traditional grammar approaches remain entrenched because of long-standing views
on the importance of grammar teaching by teachers and by those who set educational
policy. Despite teacher education programs, nothing much has changed in teachers’
beliefs.  “Research often confirms that there is often little immediate evidence for the
change in teachers’ practices as a result of training (Waters & Vilches 2005).”
It must be pointed out, too, that SLA researchers often seek to define what is minimally
necessary to explain language acquisition. What is minimally needed is not necessarily
what is best for classroom instruction or what is best for all learners, especially those
whose only contact with the target language comes from what transpires in the
classroom.

TOPIC 5
LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES
IN THE CONTEXT OF ESL AND EFL
We look at grammar in the context of ESL and EFL learning by discussing language
learning strategies instead of reiterating the significance of grammar learning on ESL
and EFL learners’ overall English proficiency learning.  The latter is not something we
question at this point but we do have clarifications on strategies most useful to both ESL
and EFL learners. The discussion in this section is adapted from Oxford, Rebecca.
Language Learning Strategies in The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to
Speakers of Other Languages, 2001:166-172.    
Learning strategies are “operations employed by the learner to aid in the acquisition,
storage, retrieval and use of information, specific actions were taken by the learner to
make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective and
transferable in meaningful situations (Oxford, 2001: 166).”
Learning strategies allow learners to be more independent and self-directed.  This
arises from exerting control over one’s learning process.  Learning strategies also
contribute to self-efficacy or the confidence to know that one has the ability to
successfully accomplish a task.
Here are our conceptual background for understanding language strategies,
summarizing common features of these strategies, and delineating six types of
strategies.
Common features. All language learning strategies are related to the features of control,
goal-directedness, autonomy, and self-efficacy.
Goals are the reasons for language learning and determine the direction for language
learning.  Examples of goals are:

1. To use English fluently and accurately in business;

2. To order meals;
3. To ask for directions, etc.

Using learning does not immediately result in the attainment of the goals.  They are
usually fulfilled for aiming for smaller short term-goals – or proximal subgoals (Dörnyei
and Ottó 1998:60) – linked to specific language tasks.
For instance, the goal of using English fluently and accurately for business can be
addressed by knowing the formal language and knowing how to write objective reports,
and then moving on to knowing how to structure and deliver such reports to a group
consisting of one’s immediate supervisors.  Relevant activities for achieving these
subgoals will include knowing the difference between formal and informal English and
understanding how these are used in contexts; writing sample reports following a
pattern or format; creating introductions for presentations; knowing how to spot key
points and how to organize these into a coherent summary, etc...  All of these can be
called a strategy chain, a set of interlocking, related, and mutually supportive strategies
(Oxford, 2001: 166).
Types. Major varieties of language learning strategies are cognitive, mnemonic,
metacognitive, compensatory (for speaking and writing), affective, and social.  The
boundaries among these types are blurred most times because learners are known to
use more than one strategy at a given time (Oxford, 2001: 167).
Cognitive Strategies. These are strategies used by learners to connect previous
knowledge to new information and knowledge (O’Malley and Chamot 1990; Oxford
1990, 1996) and evaluate and restructure information (Iran-Nejad et al., nd).
Examples:
guessing from context, analyzing, deductive and inductive reason, systematic note-
taking, and outlining and reorganizing information.
One theory under this is the tapestry approach (Scarcella and Oxford 1992) which is
based on the work of Vygotsky (1978,1986) which claim that learning happens in
“interaction with other people (social learning) especially with the help of a “more
capable other” who is normally the teacher (Oxford, 2001: 167)”.  The teacher scaffolds
the learning process until the learner shows independence and capacity to do the task
successfully.  Teachers can prompt for the development of higher-order thinking skills
as support is provided.  Cognitive strategies can also be employees which include
testing hypotheses, evaluating information, looking for relevant information, and
research.
Mnemonic Strategies. These are devices used to easily order and remember
information (e.g. acronyms). 
Examples:
using rhyming words; body movement; association through location
The difference between mnemonic strategies and cognitive strategies is that when
mnemonic strategies are employed, the deep relationship of the information is not the
concern; instead, the simplistic and immediacy of remembering information is the
purpose of mnemonic devices.
Metacognitive Strategies. Metacognitive strategies allow learners to reflect on 1)
themselves; 2) their process of learning and 3) the task and serve to provide insights on
how best to manage these components so learning objectives are achieved.
Metacognitive strategies can be self-knowledge strategies that allow the learners to look
closely into their interests, needs, and learning style preferences.   Most language
teachers are oriented on learning styles (e.g. visual, auditory, kinesthetic, etc.) and such
knowledge can help learners identify what is best for their personal preferences.
Compensatory Strategies for Speaking and Writing. These are strategies employed to
address the gap because of something the learners do not know during written or
spoken communication. Common compensatory strategies used for both speaking and
writing include synonyms and circumlocution.  For speaking, gesturing to suggest
meaning and to provide descriptions is common.
Some claim that compensatory strategies only apply when communicating in English
and not when learning the language but Little (1999) and Oxford (1990) assert that
compensatory strategies can lead to “incidental learning”, a least researched aspect of
language learning but nonetheless noted to be significant.
Affective Strategies. These are strategies that allow the learners to determine their
feelings and the causes of these feelings (Arnold 1999).  Making the learner write in a
diary is one activity for this but it must be pointed out that the acceptability of resorting
to such activity depends on cultural norms (Oxford, 2001:168).
Another instrument used is “anxiety” checklists (e.g. language anxiety checklists; a
public speaking anxiety checklist; fear inventory).  These usually look into the learner’s
communication “fears” when using English.  Such instruments can result in learners
seeing a clearer picture of feelings that affect how they perform when communicating in
English but teachers are advised to use such instruments mindfully since the
information glimpsed from such instruments may prove to be detrimental to some
learners. Using these instruments in isolation, i.e. without contextualization or proper
briefing and debriefing, is not advised and teachers are advised to look into how these
can reinforce the learners’ negative image about themselves.
Social Strategies. These are strategies used when the learning process requires the
learner to interact with others.  Examples include: asking clarification questions, asking
questions to confirm, restating, and asking for help. These strategies are useful when
learners deal with others who come from a different background and when collaboration
is required to accomplish a task.  It goes without saying that these strategies are useful
during communicative activities.
It has to be pointed out that some strategies are observable (e.g. asking questions,
note-taking) while some others are not (making mental associations) and the use of the
strategies has led to insights based on an assessment of strategy use.  This includes
insights on the “good language learner” and the relationship between strategy use and
language proficiency; strategy teaching and strategy choice.
The “Good Language Learner”
Rubin (1975) characterized the “good language learner” as the one:

 is a willing and accurate guesser;

 has a strong drive to communicate;
 is uninhibited and willing to make mistakes;
 focuses on a form by looking at patterns and using analysis;
 takes advantage of all practice opportunities;
 monitors his or her own speech and that of others;
 pays attention to meaning (Oxford, 2001:169).

Additionally, the good language learner also “learns to think in the language and deal
with affective aspects of language learning” (Naiman et al, 1975 as cited in Oxford,
2001:169). These descriptions were questioned for being “prescriptive” and not
considering the multiple ways in which language learners learn.  Nonetheless, studies
on the practices of successful language learners were studied alongside the practices of
the less successful learners were results of the definition proposed for the “good
language learner.” In such studies, it became apparent that the ability to apply the
strategy most appropriate to the task characterized by the more successful language
learners (Oxford, 2001: 169).  Further, higher levels of English proficiency were found to
be related to greater strategy use (O’Malley and Chamot 1990; Oxford and Ehrman
1995; Oxford 1996; Cohen 1997). “While strategy use does not totally predict (or
perfectly correlate with) language proficiency,…strategy use clearly contributes to
language learning and in many studies, the contribution is substantial (Oxford,
2001:170).”
Teaching Learners Strategies
Studies on listening and writing proficiency highlighted that learning strategies can be
taught to the learners Johnson 1999; Dadour and Robbins 1996; Varela 1999; Park-Oh
1994). As cited in Oxford (2001:170), it was also found out that teaching strategies to
the learners increased the frequency of them using these strategies and contributed to
self-efficacy (Chamot et al. 1996), lessened anxiety, increased motivation, strategy
knowledge, and positive attitude (Nunan 1997).
Cultural background and beliefs (O’Malley et al 1985) and how the learning strategies
are discussed and presented affected how teaching the learning strategies the extent of
its benefits to the learners. Teaching the use of learning strategies should consider
“affective and learning-style issues; deal with strategies the students need to know; be
authentic and relevant, and be woven into regular language instruction (Oxford
2001:170)”.   Moreover, it was also suggested based on the studies conducted that the
use of strategies should be taught explicitly. The problem noted, however, is not all
teachers are capable of teaching language learning strategies.
Factors Determining Choice of Strategy
Studies show that many factors affect language learners’ choice of strategy.  These
include:

 Greater motivation is correlated to higher frequencies of strategy use.

 Language learning strategies were more frequently used in ESL classes than in
EFL classes.
 Learning style and personality type.
 Language learning strategies were more frequently used by females in most
studies although the reverse was true in two Middle Eastern cultures and among
Serbo-Croatian refugees in Sweden.
 Culture or national origin. These have a strong effect on how students learn
according to the studies.
 Career orientation. Strategy use has influence in major academic filed or
educational careers/aspirations.
 The kinds of strategies used were affected by age.
 The nature of the language task.

Language teachers should not only incorporate language learning strategies in their
sessions.  They should monitor the learners’ progress, their use of strategies, and the
kind of support they need to be able to use these strategies effectively and
appropriately.
TOPIC 7
DEBATES ON APPROACHES TO TEACHING
GRAMMAR
In this section, common debates on teaching grammar are covered.  The discussion
includes: form-focused instruction; giving explicit rules; deductive vs. inductive rule
getting; input-based instruction and focused tasks. The ideas presented here are
abridged from Larsen-Freeman, “Research into Practice: Grammar Teaching and
Learning,” Language Teaching, Vol.48 Issue 2, 2015:263-280. 
Form-focused instruction. Many language experts did not support Krashen's stance on
excluding grammar teaching from classroom instruction. Long (1991) reasoned “that
teaching grammar should not be banned, but that communication should be
foregrounded; importantly, grammar instruction should be carried out in a manner that
does not interfere with a natural acquisition.” He favors ‘focus on form’ teaching, which
calls learners’ attention to grammatical forms as they arise while learners are
communicating, as opposed to a ‘focus on forms’ approach, which employs a traditional
structural syllabus with its sequence of discrete pre-selected grammar structures.
In particular, Long advocated less use of explicit explanations of the grammar and more
the use of input made comprehensible through:

 interactional modifications such as comprehension checks (e.g., ‘you know what I

mean’?); and
 unobtrusive feedback, such as teachers correctly reformulating or recasting
students’ ungrammatical utterances.

Based on research, interactional modifications enhanced learners’ comprehension and

their production (e.g., Gass & Varonis 1994) and maintained them even after some time
(Mackey & Goo 2007).
Long's focus on form is primarily reactive, i.e., learners’ attention is directed to the
grammatical form once they have committed an error (Spada 1997) but form-focused
instruction includes a pre-emptive treatment of grammatical form, which is often initiated
by students and can be integrated into meaningful language use (e.g., Ellis, Basturkmen
& Loewen 2001). Both approaches accept that an important contribution of pedagogy is
to help students notice (Schmidt 1990) structures that would otherwise escape their
attention. This is particularly important for structures that are vulnerable to fossilization
(e.g., Han & Odlin 2006).
A variety of means for focusing learners on a form has been investigated.  Here are
some examples.
Giving learners explicit rules. One strand of research addressed whether students
should be given grammar rules or whether the rules should remain implicit, where
learners are simply exposed to language by using the language in the classroom and
where no explicit reference is made to structural regularities in the target language.
Here are some research findings.

 Explicit knowledge can become implicit through practice (DeKeyser 1997);

  A learner has to be developmentally ready to acquire explicit knowledge
(Pienemann 1989); and
 Explicit knowledge does have a role in affecting implicit knowledge by recruiting
learners’ consciousness so they enhance their ability to recognize patterns while
they are negotiating to mean (N. Ellis 2005; see also Leow 2001).

Even if learners are developmentally ready to learn a given structure and they are
taught that structure explicitly, the learners may not right away use the structure
productively. One reason is that explicit instruction may be linked with usage. If what is
learned is not applicable in the learner’s context, a transfer does not take place
(Segalowitz 2003; Lightbown 2008). Another explanation is that learners are hesitant to
give up their ‘one form one meaning’ (Andersen 1984) strategy, where they have
adopted one form to meet their communicative needs. This explains why, for instance,
learners use will to convey futurity in English for some time before they broaden their
structural repertoire to include other means of doing so, be going to, the present
progressive, etc. (Bardovi-Harlig 2004). Still another explanation is fact that grammatical
acquisition is a gradual process, which may involve learners’ interlanguages
progressing through transitional stages (Ellis 2008).
Norris & Ortega (2000) found a positive effect of explicit teaching; nevertheless, the
outcomes in the various studies they surveyed tended to be ones where learners had to
demonstrate explicit knowledge or answer discrete/decontextualized test items,
measures that would presumably favor explicit knowledge (Norris & Ortega 2000: 501;
Doughty 2003). However, there is increasing evidence that explicit attention to
grammatical form can contribute to spontaneous production as well (Housen, Pierrard &
Van Daele 2005; Sheen 2005; Pawlak 2007; Spada & Tomita 2010; Scheffler 2012).
Swain & Lapkin (1998) also found benefits when students made opportunities for
themselves to discuss grammar explicitly in ‘language-related episodes,’ where
students talk together about the language they are using and discuss which correct form
they should produce. Whatever the source, ultimately what is important is how much
explicit knowledge learners have to procedural and automatize (DeKeyser & Prieto
Botano 2014).
                                                                                            
Deductive versus inductive rule getting. Do students learn rules best by being given
them deductively by their teachers or in textbooks, or are students better off being given
examples from which they work out the rules inductively themselves?
A discovery learning approach would favor induction, with the added benefit that
students learn how to figure out the rules on their own. However, not all rules may lend
themselves to induction easily. For instance, participants in studies by DeKeyser (1995)
and Robinson (1996) showed that students learned simple morphosyntactic rules better
under conditions of explicit-deductive learning and more complex rules better under
implicit-inductive conditions, presumably because the latter was difficult to articulate
(Spada & Lightbown 2008).
A number of studies have examined the efficacy of inductive and deductive approaches
(Ellis 2006) but neither approach has been consistently favored (cf. Shaffer 1989; Erlam
2003).
One approach for combining induction and deduction to promote students’ awareness
involves using a ‘garden path’ strategy (Tomasello & Herron 1988, 1989). Students are
given partial information about a grammar structure, thus making it seem easier than it
is, or in other words, students are ‘led down the garden path.’ For example, students
might be given a rule without being told its exceptions. The reason for giving students
only a partial explanation is that it is hypothesized that students are more likely to learn
the exceptions to the rule if they are corrected at the moment they make an
overgeneralization error than if they are given a long list of exceptions to the rule to
memorize in advance.
Applying sociocultural theory to grammar instruction, Adair-Hauck, Donato & Cumo-
Johanssen (2005) advocate a guided-participatory approach to rule formation. In their
approach students receive assistance from the teacher in figuring out the rules rather
than the teacher's providing the students with explanations, or the students’ being left
on their own to figure out the grammar explanations. However, research on learner
preferences has shown that learners favor a deductive approach, where they are
provided the rules (Haight 2008; Vogel, Herron, Cole & York 2011).
Input-based instruction. Rather than working on inducing or deducing grammatical rules,
input-based instruction requires learners to attend to problematic grammatical forms
during structured input activities. Contending that learners have difficulty paying
attention to form and meaning simultaneously, VanPatten (1990; VanPatten & Cardiero
1993) advocated pushing learners to actively process target forms and connect them to
their meanings.
For instance, learners may note temporality more readily in content words, such as
adverbs of time, and less in the non-salient endings on verbs that mark tense; therefore,
the contention is that learners need processing instruction that is focused on verb
tenses in the input. Learners might, for example, be asked to choose between
sentences containing different tenses in response to a verbal prompt (Marsden & Chen
2011). During the period of time set aside for processing the input, learners never
produce the target form in question (VanPatten 2002); however, they may subsequently
practice producing tensed verbs. Indeed, a meta-analysis of studies of the effectiveness
of comprehension versus production-based instruction suggests that a combination of
input processing and production activities may be most effective (Shintani, Li & Ellis
2013).
Those criticizing input processing (DeKeyser, Salaberry, Robinson & Harrington 2002)
claim that while it helps learners learn explicit knowledge (Marsden & Chen 2011), it
does not show that it contributes to implicit knowledge being acquired. Furthermore,
DeKeyser and Botana (2014) claim that most processing instruction research covers
only a few grammatical structures, and is typically limited to students who are college-
aged. Nonetheless, VanPatten's efforts have been acknowledged for these highlights
that student activities engage them in processing crucial form-meaning links in
comprehension activities (DeKeyser, Salaberry, Robinson & Harrington 2002).
Research that presumably makes the input more salient has been tested through input
enhancement (Sharwood Smith 1993; White 1998), for example by boldfacing or
otherwise highlighting certain grammatical forms in a written passage or by making
features of oral language more prominent. Trahey & White (1993) recommend ‘flooding
the input’ with many uses of particular grammar structures. While these are intuitively
appealing measures that teachers can implement, research has yet to demonstrate
decisively that any of these efforts pay off (e.g., Jensen & Vinther 2003; Wong 2003).
One way to make sense of the current state of affairs is Spada & Lightbown's (2008:
195) generalization that more explicit enhancement appears to lead to more L2 learning
progress than less explicit enhancement.
Focused tasks. What is considered here are the more circumscribed ‘focused tasks’
(Ellis 2003, 2009), tasks which call for students to use certain grammar structures in
order to satisfy task demands (Larsen-Freeman 2003), such as when students are
given a map and asked to direct a classmate to a particular location. Such a task is
likely to elicit prepositions of position and direction. Loschky & Bley-Vroman (1993)
suggested that tasks in which L2 forms are task essential, meaning that a task cannot
be accomplished unless participants use a specific structure, are most helpful (Sanz &
Morgan-Short 2004).
Constructing tasks where certain grammar structures are essential is not easy, but
when successfully accomplished, research has shown that students’ performing tasks
can assist the acquisition of grammar (e.g., Mackey 1999). Different tasks can be used
to supply learners with input by listening or reading (Fotos 2002), or to make use of
grammar structures productively in speaking or writing. Here are examples.

 Samuda's (2001) focused ‘things-in-pocket’ task, designed to create

opportunities for students to use epistemic modals.
 Pica, Kang & Sauro (2006) showed how different tasks, such as jigsaw listening,
and spot-the-difference, featured attention-promoting designs that made them
useful, drawing learners’ attention to L2 structures and formulaic sequences
(Nguyen 2014) that are difficult to notice through classroom interaction alone.
 (Gatbonton & Segalowitz 2005) designing communicative tasks in which
formulaic utterances are naturally repeated contributes to students’ being able to
use the utterances fluently without resorting to drills and pattern practice.

Had the research findings changed teaching practice, some areas of the debate may
have been settled.  The question now is why are research findings not affecting practice
widely? Here are possible reasons.

1. The lack of consensus among researchers. Most would recommend some focus
on form, but in which way this is to be implemented, there is considerable
disagreement (see, for example, Batstone & Ellis 2009).
2. Knowing grammar rules confers a certain authority. Grammar invests teachers
with transmittable knowledge (Thornbury 1998), and the temptation to display the
knowledge may prove irresistible. Besides, as we saw with students’ preference
for being given explicit rules, students want the security of knowing what is right,
which they believe rules give them.
3. The individual differences among teachers. Basturkmen, Loewen & Ellis (2004)
examined teachers’ instructional practices in relation to the incidental focus on
form. Teachers did indeed engage students in focusing on form, but they did so
in different ways, based on their personal teaching style or the language they
teach (Simard & Jean 2011).
4. The differences among students. Indeed, the efficacy of certain practices may be
determined by a host of factors, such as learners’ literacy (Tarone & Bigelow
2005), their proficiency (Ammar & Spada 2006), or their goals (Larsen-Freeman
2006). Indeed, not all students want to or need to use the target language with
complete accuracy. These days the acknowledgment that English is an
international lingua franca that is more likely to be used among English second
language speakers leaves many teachers wondering just what grammatical
standards they should enforce. Frankly, teachers cannot afford to be purists.
They have responsibility for working with diverse students, many of whom
approach the learning of grammar from different standpoints and with different
objectives.
5. Teaching and learning are complex and situated endeavors. Simple un-nuanced
and decontextualized pronouncements for the interface or non-interface stances,
or for and against focusing on form, are likely to be wrong or at least overstated.
TOPIC 8
STRATEGIES IN TEACHING GRAMMAR
Researches mentioned in the previous sections also reflect efforts to merge the
teaching of communication with the teaching of structure because structural and
communicative approaches share “a common overarching goal: to teach students to
communicate.”
In this section, strategies in teaching grammar are adapted from Larsen-Freeman,
“Grammar” in The Cambridge Guide to Teaching Speakers of Other Languages, Carter
and Nunan, ed., 2001:34-41.
Present, Practice, Produce (PPP). This structural approach requires the teacher to
present students with an explicit description of grammatical structures or rules which are
subsequently practiced, first in a mechanically controlled manner and later in a freer,
communicative way.  This is often called the present, practice, produce (PPP) approach
to grammar teaching.  Although this remains a common sequence and many teachers
have used it successfully, some question its value; e.g. presentation of abstract rules
can be inappropriate for younger learners. Further, if learners learn grammatical
structures only when they are ready to do so, they wonder if gains from practice will
have an enduring effect.  It is not uncommon for students to be able to supply the
correct form in practice exercise, but then be unable to transfer that ability to immediate
communicative use outside class.
Spiral Syllabus. To spiral the syllabus, i.e. keep returning to and expanding upon the
same grammatical structures over time is one way to solve the limitations of the PPP
approach. It is based on the belief that the acquisition of grammatical structures is not
linear, i.e. one structure is not completely mastered before another is attempted. 
Rutherford (1987) suggests that an optimal approach to dealing with the non-linearity of
grammatical acquisition is when teachers help students understand the general
principles of grammar (e.g. how to modify basic word order) rather than concentrating
on teaching structure-specific rules.
Communicative Approach. Instead of starting with a grammar point, the communicative
approach begins with a lesson that revolves around students’ understanding of content
or completing a task. When a grammatical problem is encountered, a focus on form
takes place immediately by drawing students’ attention to it, i.e. promoting their noticing.
At a later point, activities may be introduced which highlight that point in the target
language (Loschky and Bley-Vroman 1993).
Input Processing and Consciousness-Raising Tasks. The input-processing (Lee and
van Patten 1995) and consciousness-raising tasks (Rutherford and Sharwood Smith
1988) also do not require students to produce the target structure.  Instead, the teacher
makes students aware of specific grammatical features using tasks (Dickens and
Woods 1988). 
For example, students are given a set of examples and asked to figure out for
themselves the rule regarding the correct order of direct and indirect objects in English
(Fotos and Ellis 1991):
                                    I bought many presents for my family.
                                    I bought my family some presents.
                                    She cooked a delicious dinner for us.
                                    She cooked us a delicious dinner.
Students work in small groups so they simultaneously use the target language
communicatively as they introduce the grammatical rule.
Others have not abandoned the productive practice of learning grammar.   Gatbonton
and Segalowitz (1988) argue that practice can lead to automatization of certain aspects
of performance, which in turn frees up students’ attentional resources to be allocated
elsewhere.  Larsen-Freeman (1991; 2001) has coined the term “grammaring” in
proposing that the ability to use grammatical structures accurately is a skill requiring
productive practice (Anderson 1982). Following the need to focus on the form within
CLT, such practice is meaningful and not decontextualized and mechanical.
Tri-Dimensional Grammar Approach. Since it is important that students not only learn to
produce grammatical structures accurately but also learn to use them meaningfully and
appropriately, Larsen-Freeman (1997) asserts that grammar is best conceived as
encompassing three dimensions: form, meaning, and use.
For instance, it is not sufficient for students to practice the singular and plural forms of
demonstrative adjective pronouns (this, that, these, those), or to distinguish the distal
and proximal meaning difference among them.  It is also necessary for students to learn
when to use them (e.g. this/that versus the personal pronoun it in discourse) and when
not to use them (e.g. in answer to a question such as What’s this?).  While the
productive practice may be useful for working on a form, associative learning may
account for meaning, and awareness of and sensitivity to context may be required for
appropriate use. Since grammar is complex, and students’ learning styles vary, learning
grammar is not likely to be accomplished through a single means (Larsen-Freeman
1992).
Teacher Feedback. While most teachers value using feedback to help students bring
their interlanguage into alignment with the target language, questions of how much and
what sort of feedback to give students on their grammatical production are unresolved. 
Various proposals are, e.g. for teachers to:

 Lead the students “down the garden path”, i.e. deliberately encourage learners to
make overgeneralization errors when corrected (Tomasello and Heron 1988);
 Provide explicit linguistic rules when errors are made (Carol and Swain 1993);
 Provide negative feedback by recasting (reformulating correctly a learner’s
incorrect utterance) or leading students to self-repair by elicitation (e.g. “How do
we say that in English?”), clarification (e.g. “I don’t understand”), metalinguistic
clues (e.g. “No, we don’t say it that way”), or repetition (e.g. “A books?” (Lyster
and Ranta 1997).

Clearly, choices among these and other techniques depending upon the nature of the
current activity of the teacher, the students, the trust that has been established, and the
social dynamics of the classroom.
TOPIC 10
 LEARNER ERRORS AND ACTIVITIES 
EL teachers are reminded to look at learners’ errors more sympathetically and to assess
options to address these errors objectively.  This can only happen if the EL teachers
know their learners and the factors why they commit specific errors and select
strategies most appropriate to address these errors. In this section, we look at language
errors and factors why ESL or EFL learners commit these errors and propose that EL
teachers use activities that promote language awareness and allow language use in
communicative situations.
On language errors and language mistakes 
EL teachers know that there is a marked difference between language errors and
language mistakes. Here is how (Corder 1967 in Ellis 1994:51) differentiated language
errors from language mistakes.
Language errors – these take place because of a lack of knowledge and are thus
manifestations of the absence of competence. In other words, errors occur because
learners do not know. Teachers, then, do not correct errors.  They must teach the
knowledge first.
One kind of error is transfer error.  This happens when the EL learner is using the
grammar of his or her L1 for a performance he or she needs to do in L2.  A transfer
error then is committed by an EL learner while speaking or writing in L2 using the rules
of L1.
According to Lott (1983 in Ellis 1994:59), there are three kinds of transfer errors.  These
are:
Overextension of analogy – occurs when the learner misuses an item because it shares
features with an item in the L1
For example, an Italian learner uses ‘process’ to mean ‘trial’ because ‘processo’ in
Italian means trial
Transfer of structure – occurs when the learner utilizes some L1 feature (phonological,
lexical, grammatical, or pragmatic’) rather than that of the target language.
Interlingual/intralingual errors – occurs when a particular distinction does not exist in the
L1 (for example, the use of ‘make’ instead of ‘do’ by Italian learners because the
‘Make/do’ distinction is non-existent in Italian). (Ellis 1994:59)
Language mistakes – these arise because of learners’ failure to access information
stored in their brains about the rules of the target language and they resort to the use of
an alternative, non-standard rule that is easier to access. Mistakes are thus
performance problems and not manifestations of the lack of competence.  In other
words, mistakes happen because the learner failed to apply what he or she knows.
Mistakes can be corrected as the knowledge is already learned and learners have to be
guided in their effective use through practice.
                The classifications proposed by Ellis provide explanations of why errors
occur.  Another study also proposed these three categories of errors (Dulay and Burt
1974 in Ellis 1994:59-60):

1. 1. Developmental errors – those similar to L1 acquisition

 2. Interference errors – those that reflect the structure of the L1
3. Unique errors – those that are neither developmental nor interference

Among the many variables correlated with errors, age, and duration of exposure or
study of the L2 are frequently studied.  The assumption is the longer the exposure to L2,
the fewer errors are committed.  Since age is often assumed as a measure of exposure,
the assumption, too is that older EL learners (who are presumed to have studied the L2
longer) have lesser errors.  The study of Dagneaux et al. (1998:163- 174) however
showed that advanced learners still commit frequent errors.  The assumption, too, that
more basic errors (e.g. subject-verb agreement) are not committed by EL learners at
more advanced levels.  The study of Chamot (in Ellis 1994:55) revealed that this is not
necessarily true because, over time, the kinds of errors committed by learners vary, and
for some errors, very little change takes place thus the errors continue to be committed.
There is also the assumption that beginners are more affected by their mother tongue
compared to others at the intermediate or advanced levels (Taylor 1975 in Ellis
1994:62). There are also errors that are committed only at certain language levels (e.g.
errors arising from more complex sentence structure committed by an intermediate
learner but not the beginner learner who still rely on simple sentences).  Finally,
correlating error frequency with language levels is also the subject of studies.
What strategies can be used by the EL teacher who aims to address learner errors and
mistakes?
On language activities and tasks
One way to address errors is to promote awareness of the language. “Language
awareness proponents have always firmly opposed a view of language (both first and
second language) that focuses on prescriptive instruction and is concerned primarily
with correctness, and only secondarily with understanding, appreciation and creation
expression(Lier 2001 in Carter and Nunan, 2001).” It is suggested that language
lessons should promote “awareness, attention and noticing particular features of the
language.”  Sharwood Smith(1981) advocated for that the “teaching of formal aspects of
the language need not necessarily proceed by rules and drills, but can be done by
judiciously highlighting relevant aspects of the language (Lier 2001 in Carter and Nunan
2001). ”
The communicative approach to language teaching suggests task-based learning which
is the use of a sequence of communicative tasks to be done in the target language
instead of teaching a sequence of language items as is the practice in “form-based
approaches”.  A task is an activity “where the target language is used by the learner for
communicative purposes to achieve a goal (Willis 1996).  Meanwhile, a communicative
task is “a piece of classroom work which involves the learners in comprehending,
manipulating, producing or interacting in the target language while their attention is
primarily focused on meaning rather than form (Nunan 1991 in Willis and Willis 2001).”
There are three broad types of tasks according to Prabhu(1987 in Willis and Willis
2001). These are information gap, reasoning gap, and problem-solving where learners
can be asked to:

 give and follow instructions;

 gather and exchange information;
  solve problems;
 give informal talks in the classroom;
 take part in role-playing and drama activities.

Another classification of tasks is suggested by J. Willis (1996).  “She suggests that we

first draw up a series of topics suited to the learners.  She then identifies a number of
operations based on the chosen topic to be carried out in the target language.  These
operations are listing; ordering and sorting; comparing; problem-solving, sharing
personal experiences; creative tasks (Willis and Willis 2001 in Carter and Nunan 2001).”
The use of communicative tasks normally follows a three-part task cycle. 

1. Task Stage – learners working in twos or threes use whatever language they can
recall doing the task. The teacher stands back but encourages all attempts at
communication.  Example of task: name five of your favorite films and explain
why you like these films
2. Planning Stage – learners prepare for a public presentation of what they have
discussed. The teacher advice and correct learners on language use as there will
be a particular focus given on the form.
3. Report Stage – learners present as accurately and as fluently as possible and
the teacher simply acts as chair, commenting on the content and summing up at
the end.      

Here are just a few activities that can be considered for EL learners and when properly
used, these can allow teachers to promote language awareness and communicative
language use.
  
 
Pair-Share. Pair-Share is a simple strategy for engaging students in talking.  Students
are asked to talk with a partner about a task at hand.  Whether structured or impromptu,
the Pair-Share covers a language focus (e.g. simple present tense) and provides
practice for a language competency (e.g. ability to ask and answer Yes/No questions). 
When structured, the teacher should identify what or when in the lesson he or she
wants the students to engage in a Pair-Share. The teacher can also provide sentence
frames because the activity is also an opportunity to develop oral language fluency and
accuracy of vocabulary use while applying a sentence structure. 
The activity is non-threatening and allows students to engage in a free-flow of ideas. 
Teachers want students to bring what they know into the Pair-Share.  It is a friendly
exchange of both language and content, and students will naturally acquire language
during the exchange. When the lesson has a clear language objective, the sentence
frame can be used.  It is important for language learners to feel successful as language
users and this can happen by providing them to use language in a natural environment
such as a Pair-Share.
Table Talk. Similar to a Pair-Share, Table Talk can be impromptu or structured. 
Organize your students so that they see each other eye-to-eye and are close enough to
hear each other. The teacher can have students work on a structured activity where a
language objective is clear. During the table talk, the teacher can ask the students to
stop briefly and recap what has been discussed. The teacher should walk around, listen
to what the students are saying and check in on their progress on the task. Table Talk
allows learners to negotiate to mean, prepare for the more demanding tasks through
ideas and language models they observe from their group mates.
Forced debate. Let students debate in pairs. Students must defend the opposite side of
their personal opinion. It encourages them to step away from their own beliefs and
teaches them to look through a different colored glass once in a while.
Find Someone Who. This activity asks students to mingle with their classmates to try to
find someone who fits the different descriptions or abilities listed in the worksheet.
Again, the items in the worksheet can be language prompts that allow learners to
practice Grammar, Vocabulary, and Pronunciation or these may be scaffolds that will
enable the learners to focus on comprehension and fluency instead of worrying about
language use.  To begin the activity, it is suggested that the teacher models what needs
to be done for the students. 
Grammar Games. A “grammar game” is essentially any technique for memorizing or
practicing a particular aspect of grammar – be it verb conjugations, sentence structure,
spelling, and punctuation, or any other intimidating feature of your target language.  The
element of competition and collaboration is one reason why grammar games are widely
and it there is no argument that these games can provide real-life opportunities to use
the language.  
TOPIC 11
NEW DIRECTIONS AND TIPS FOR TEACHERS
As was mentioned at the start of this module, there is no debate on the significance of
grammar to the accomplishment of the EL learner’s language learning objectives.  What
remains a challenge for EL teachers is identifying the right approach so a learner-
centered language learning process shall be taking place. In this section, we again look
at the research to arrive at insights on what lies ahead for EL language learning and
teaching.  The ideas presented here are abridged from Larsen-Freeman, “Research
into Practice: Grammar Teaching and Learning,” Language Teaching, Vol.48 Issue 2,
2015:263-280. 
Most educators persist in seeing grammar as a set of rules that govern accurate form in
language, most often at the sentence level.  Nevertheless, grammar actually has to do
not only with form and meaning, but also with use in texts (defined as knowing when to
use a grammar structure where two or more structures convey more or less the same
semantic meaning: when to use phrasal verbs rather than their single verb
counterparts, for instance, or when to use the past tense instead of the present perfect
to comment on prior experience).  
Little attention has been given to the pragmatic use of grammar structures, although this
remains a major challenge for even the most advanced of learners. Pragmatic ‘failures’
in grammar are not always as conspicuous as inaccuracy, but committing them
sometimes has more serious consequences. Students need to know about the use of
structures so that they understand the consequences of their choices (see, e.g., Larsen-
Freeman 2014a).
The grammatical system offers its users choices in how they wish to realize meanings
and position themselves ideologically and socially (Larsen-Freeman 2002). Some of the
research on grammatical options has been done using functional frames of analysis. 
Research on academic language has been particularly important in supporting the
learning of language through content in content or theme-based language instruction
(CBI) and Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) language instruction
(Schleppegrell, Achugar & Oteíza 2004).  Also helpful in this regard has been
researching that investigates how grammar operates at the discourse level (Celce-
Murcia & Olshtain 2000; Batstone 2002; Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman forthcoming).
These days there is also a great deal of research being done in applied corpus
linguistics.  Although insights from corpus research have been slow to be incorporated
into textbooks (Biber & Reppen 2002), corpus linguistics has been held to have
potentially beneficial application for language teaching (McGarrell 2011; Römer 2011),
especially with regard to making students aware of lexicogrammatical patterning (Liu &
Jiang 2009) and the difference between oral grammar and written grammar (e.g.,
McCarthy & O’Keeffe 2014).
Then, too, L2 researchers have found cognitive linguistics (e.g., Tyler 2012), concept
grammar (Strauss, Lee & Ahn 2006), integrational linguistics (Lantolf 2009), and
construction grammar (e.g., Hinkel 2012) fruitful perspectives to inform pedagogy.
Hinkel observes that high-frequency multi-word expressions can be learned and used
holistically, instead of being assembled from grammatical and lexical forms caused by
communication demands. In keeping with a sociocultural perspective (Johnson 2009),
language can be conceived of as social practice. The implications of this are that the
instruction does not focus on the discrete form, but rather ‘the conceptual meanings that
are being expressed that denote ways of feeling, seeing, and being in the L2 world’
(2009: 24).
In addition, seeing grammar in more dynamic terms (‘grammaring’) in order to enhance
the inert knowledge problem is also recommended. Whereas traditional approaches to
teaching assume that grammar is static, a grammaring approach fosters the ability of
students to go beyond the input, for, after all, language learning is not about conformity
to uniformity (Larsen-Freeman 2003). The grammar system is not closed, but is rather
constantly evolving, due to the creativity of its users as they make new meanings,
making it impossible to distinguish errors from linguistic innovations without an appeal to
sociopolitical factors, such as who is doing the talking (Larsen-Freeman 2012a, 2014b).
No one denies that rules can describe a grammatical system, but is it rules that are
acquired, or is it, instead, that students learn patterns from exemplars? Repeated
exemplars might at some point lead students to induce a rule, but it also makes sense
that language-using patterns remain as instances in learners’ memories, emerging as
they do from the language that both language learners and fluent speakers of the
language experience. Rather than applying a rule to produce a grammatical utterance,
then, users of the language analogize from previous instances. After all, no rule-based
description of a grammatical system is complete, and there is a great deal of
conventional use of patterns that do not lend themselves to explication by rules. For
instance, there are no rules of English grammar that would account for ‘by and large,’ a
phrase made of a preposition, conjunction, and an adjective (Larsen-Freeman &
Cameron 2008; Ellis with Larsen-Freeman 2009).
Another important factor to consider is that grammar is a lexicogrammatical resource for
making meaning. In other words, it is not autonomous from the meaning-making
capacity of language more generally, but rather integral to how we make meaning in
interaction with others (Liamkina & Ryshina-Pankova 2012). This interpretation of
grammar suggests that students would be better served to learn grammar through
iteration, which modifies their grammatical resources rather than simple repetition that
copies them exactly (Larsen-Freeman 2012) and by teaching students how to adapt
their language resources to ever more complex situations (Larsen-Freeman 2013).
One reason that research on grammar teaching has not been more influential is that
there exists a chasm between this research and the practice of teachers. Researchers
and teacher educators need to find the means to help teachers navigate the distance
(Sharkey & Johnson 2003; Bartels 2005) if they want their research findings to be taken
up. However, seeing research findings as ‘applicable’ to pedagogy might not be a
helpful way to think of them. Perhaps the most important contribution of research to
practice is to challenge teachers to think differently, to experiment with new practices,
and to help them make the tacit explicit by cultivating new ways of talking about their
practice (Borg 2010; Pedrazzini & Nava 2012).