Grammar Instruction Hybrid Grammar Instruction

Grammar Instruction Hybrid Grammar Instruction "It is generally posited in the literature that tasks should be structured in reference to desirable goals" Maria J. de la Fuente, Vanderbilt University, USA (2006, p. 266).

Work Plan Intensive explicit grammar instruction does make a significant, in fact, "all the" difference, Ernesto Macaro and Liz Masterman (2006), University of Oxford, UK, stress in their study, "Does intensive explicit grammar instruction make all the difference?." As they investigate how explicit grammar instruction impacts grammatical knowledge and writing proficiency in first-year French students attending a French at a United Kingdom (UK) university, Macaro and Masterman point out that according to prior research: "Explicit grammar instruction results in gains in explicit knowledge and its application in specific grammar-related tasks, but there is less evidence that it results in gains in production tasks" (Macaro & Masterman, p.

297). Contrary to this contention, albeit, Kate Paesani (2005), who adheres to Krashen's (1981) learning-acquisition theory, asserts in "Literary texts and grammar instruction: Revisiting the inductive presentation," that when educators utilize implicit grammar instruction, learners who are provided with sufficient comprehensible input, acquire language naturally, without requiring any explicit focus on form.

Research Questions In light of the challenging considerations contributed by proponents of intensive explicit grammar instruction and those who embrace implicit grammar instruction, the proposed study will investigate both aspects to suggest that hybrid grammar instruction may extend a venue to proffer learners a means to enhance their acquirement of grammatical forms and simultaneously raise their consciousness about the target language.

The "work plan" for the mixed method, case study (qualitative and quantitative) proposed study will address the primary research question: What pertinent perks may hybrid grammar instruction potentially proffer for learners than either explicit grammar instruction or implicit grammar instruction implanted as solo teaching practices? The following three sub-questions will contribute to the researcher's quest to answer the primary research question: 1. What are a number of contemporary concerns contributing to considerations regarding grammar instruction? 2. What are some advantages and disadvantages noted in explicit grammar instruction? 3.

What are some advantages and disadvantages noted in implicit grammar instruction? Study Relevance Currently, the critical role of grammar instruction in the communicative classroom in today's global environment merits, as well as mandates, relevant research. Along with arguing "that learners acquire language naturally when provided with sufficient comprehensible input, and do not require any explicit focus on form," Paesani (2005, Introduction section, ¶ 1), contends that "proponents of explicit grammar instruction, on the other hand, have argued that direct teacher explanation of forms is essential for successful acquisition" (Ibid.).

The researcher asserts that the proposed study will prove to be relevant as it simultaneously augments the literature and enhances the reader's understanding regarding the role of grammar instruction, as well as the differences between the various instructional methods. Grammar Definitions Marlene Asselin (2002) notes that at least three distinct meanings of grammar exist. According to linguists, these multiple meanings are identifed as Grammar 1, 2, and 3. Asselin notes the following definitions of grammar in "Teaching grammar": 1. Grammar 1 is the unconscious knowledge of language that allows people to produce and comprehend language.

It is learned informally by all language users; thus everyone acquires grammar. 2. Grammar 2 is conscious knowledge of language structures including concepts (e.g., parts of speech, nominalization), terminology (e.g., verb, sentence) and analytical techniques (e.g., parsing) for talking about the language. While early English grammars derive from Latin, recently developed grammars are based on views of language other than objective and neutral systems. When people talk about teaching grammar, they usually mean the Latin-based systems. 3. Grammar 3 is "linguistic etiquette" and consists of rules about correct and incorrect usage.

Historically, Grammar 3, or "proper English" can be traced to the dialect spoken by educated people in the London, England area several hundred years ago. (Asselin, 2002, Defining grammar section, ¶ 1-3) Proposed Study Structure The proposed mixed method, case study, will implement traditional research strategies, and include the following components: 1. Introduction 2. Literature Review 3. Method 4. Analysis 5.

Discussion, Conclusion and Recommendations The first chapter of the proposed study, The Introduction, will establish the study's focus, Hybrid Grammar Instruction; present the study's primary research and sub-research questions, as well as the study's relevance, and note the objectives the researcher proposes to fulfill during the forthcoming study. During the Literature Review of the proposed study, the researcher will summarize and synthesize ideas from approximately 25 scholarly sources to relate relevant information other researchers have published on the various methods utilized in grammar instruction.

To conduct the proposed mixed method case study, the researcher will implement the case study methodology, as noted earlier, to explore and describe the phenomenon of Hybrid Grammar Instruction. The researcher also plans to include data retrieved from a survey conducted with a minimum of 30 student participants currently completing classes in grammar instruction. The forthcoming study additionally proposes to incorporate information obtained from a minimum of three interviews with educators who utilize each of the grammar instruction methods this study examines.

During the next section of the proposed study, the Literature Review, the researcher will conduct the tasks of accessing, summarizing and synthesizing the information to address the primary/sub research questions. The goal the researcher assigns for this forthcoming critical study component is to not only structure it to meet, but to exceed its goal to construct a source of credible considerations. LITERATURE REVIEW The proposed Literature Review chapter will serve to frame the forthcoming study's investigation.

Literature reviews, according to the article, Literature Reviews (2007), simultaneously serve to relate current information in the field to the professional and the scholar. For the construction of the literature review's body, the researcher may choose from the ensuing five organizational strategies: 3. Chronological 4. Methodological 5. Thematic (Literature Reviews, 2007, Organizing the body section, ¶ 4-9). During the forthcoming study, the researcher opts to employ the thematic organizational format. The proposed themes, which reflect the focus for the proposed study's research questions, include: 1. Contemporary Grammar Instruction Considerations 2. Explicit Grammar Instruction 3.

Implicit Grammar Instruction Contemporary Grammar Instruction Considerations John M. Norris, University of Hawaii, Mano, and Lourdes Ortega (2001), Georgia State University, note in the study, "Does type of instruction make a difference? Substantive findings from a meta-analytic review," that during the past two decades, research on second-language acquisition has experienced an explosion in the number of quasi-experimental and experi-mental studies addressing the effectiveness of different instruc-tional methods that instructors implement in L2 classrooms and/or in laboratory settings.

When compared to naturalistic exposure, instruc-tion does make a difference in I.2 achievement, Norris and Ortega assert. From the primary focus of L2 instruction re-search exploring whether or not instruction in formal contexts impacts second or foreign language learning, the following basic research questions materialized. 1. Is an implicit or an explicit approach more effective for short-term I.2 instruction? .. 2. Can raising learners' metalinguistic awareness of specific L2 forms facilitate acquisition by fostering psycholinguistic processes of form-to-function mapping? .. 3.

Is instruction that draws learners' attention to relevant forms in the context of meaning-focused lessons more effective than an exclusive focus on meaning and content? .. 4. Is negative feedback beneficial for l2 development, and if so, what types of feedback may be most effective? .. 5. Is acquisition promoted more effectively when learners process the input in psycholinguistically relevant ways than when they experience traditional grammar explanation and practice? .. 6. Is comprehension practice as ef (cctive as production prac-tice for learning L2 structures? ... (Norris & Ortega, 2001, pp.

158-159) In her quantitative analysis based on a cognitive approach to task-based second language (L2) learning, de la Fuente (2006) implemented an academic approach to examine the effects of three vocabulary lessons on acquisition of basic meanings, forms and morphological aspects of Spanish words. L2,-word acquisition differs from achieving knowledge of a word's grammatical and syntactical aspects. Lexical acquisition, a complex issue, "includes various components (such as its spelling, phonological representation, word class, morphological or syntactic features, basic meaning, derived meaning, to mention some)" (de la Fuente, 2006, p. 269).

The acquisition of a word's basic meaning, however, de la Fuente stresses, does not automatically ensure simultaneous acquisition of the word's formal aspects. In learning L2, the process includes the following four criteria reflect the meaning of the word, "task": 1. Meaning is primary; 2. there is a goal to be accomplished; 3. The task is outcome evaluated; and 4. there is a real-world relationship (de la Fuente, 2006, p. 264).

Findings from the study by de la Fuente (2006) indicate that the particular pedagogical presentation did not impact the immediate retrieval of the targeted word forms, albeit the approach did influence long-term retrieval (one week) of the targeted forms. The task-based lessons particularly appeared more effective than the "Presentation, Practice and Production (PPP) lesson" (de la Fuente, Abstract).

According to de la Fuente (2006), the following depicts a comprehensively defines "task": A task is a work plan that requires learners to process language pragmatically in order to achieve an outcome that can be evaluated in terms of whether the correct or appropriate propositional content has been conveyed. To this end, it requires them to give primary attention to meaning and to make use of their own linguistic resources, although the design of the task may predispose them to choose particular forms.

A task is intended to result in language use that bears a resemblance, direct or indirect, to the way language issued in the real world. Like other language activities, a task can engage productive or receptive, and oral or written skills, and also various cognitive processes. (Ellis, as cited in de la Fuente, 2006, p. 264). Alan V.

Brown (2009), University of Kentucky, Department of Hispanic Studies, asserts in the study, "Students' and teachers' perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: A comparison of ideals," that although formulating teachers' and students' perceptions of L2 teaching constitutes a formidable task and sometimes may seem an endless chore, the assessment depicts an arena where research proves vital.

The need for ongoing research in this area needs to continue as in the L2 classroom, changes in L2 teaching practices continue over time and idiosyncratic perceptions of L2 amidst teachers and students remain a revealing, relevant reality. Explicit Grammar Instruction The study by de la Fuente strongly supports the value of employing a proactive form-focused approach to Task-Based L2 vocabulary learning, particularly structure-based production tasks.

Results assert that a task-based lesson utilizing an explicit focus-on-forms component proved more successful than a task-based lesson that did not factor in promoting the acquisition of word morphological aspects. Additional results suggest the explicit focus on forms component may merit better results when positioned after the student acquires the meaning, at the end of the lesson (de la Fuente, 2006). Ultimately, de la Fuente (2006) concludes, instructive tasks serve a vital role in teaching L2 vocabulary.

Macaro and Masterman (2006) tested 12 students/participants who completed a course in French grammar directly before their university studies to ascertain if a short, albeit intensive barrage of explicit instruction, an approach reportedly not previously investigated, possessed significant power to foster improvement in the learners' grammatical knowledge, as well as their production tasks' performance.

From Macaro and Masterman testing the participants at three points over five months and comparing retrieved results with those of a group, not provided the intervention, findings support previous findings that explicit instruction does stimulate gains in some aspects of grammar tests, albeit does not promote gains in student accuracy in either free composition or translation (Ibid.). Findings Paul D.

Toth (2004), Department of Modern Languages University of Akron, Ohio, recounts in the study, "When grammar instruction undermines cohesion in L2 Spanish classroom discourse," indicate that when the educator ensures the content and sequence their contributions ensure the direction and purpose of classroom discourse are transparent, this may aid learner's comprehension in grammar instruction. Toth "compares ordinary conversational topics and targeted second language (L2) forms for their effectiveness in building and maintaining classroom discourse cohesion" (p. 27).

Poor topic cohesion, Toth asserts, may adversely affect comprehension in low-L2-proficiency learners more than it would influence high-L2-proficiency learners, as individuals processing fewer of their interlocutor's utterances' morphosyntactic features will depend more on wider discourse patterns for inference of intended meanings and in turn, formulate appropriate responses. In instructor-led, whole-class interaction, albeit where learners possess less freedom to construct the discourse direction than they would in ordinary conversation, the instructor primarily bears the responsibility to establish and maintain constructive cohesion.

In "Reviewing the case for explicit grammar instruction in the university foreign language learning context," John Klapper and Jonathan Rees (2003), University of Birmingham, focus on two groups of participants within the project's sample. From their charting over the four-year period, Klapper and Rees utilized two differing and repeated proficiency measures, one holistic, and another focusing on grammatical competence, to highlight the effect of formal and naturalistic learning contexts on the sample's pace and development order, relating to specific grammatical competencies in L2 German.

Klapper and Rees, however, exposed the groups to differing instructional approaches, giving the specialist group extensive explicit teaching of grammatical forms, and allocating more meaning-focused tuition in German to the less specialist group, "with only occasional and, generally, more incidental attention to linguistic form" (p. 286). In terms of entry, both the specialist group and the less specialist group possessed similar profile IQ and German language proficiency scores while they received comparable amounts of instruction. One conclusion from this study effort confirmed the natural route of language acquisition.

According to Klapper and Rees, although findings from analyzing the progress on specific structures in L2 German indicates some learners display more progress under the formal instruction influence, naturalistic exposure appears to stimulate other learners more successfully. Neither instruction nor naturalistic exposure, albeit, appear to possess the potential to modify L2 acquisition orders. Hybrid Grammar Instruction Shiva Kaivanpanah and Sayyed Mohammad Alavi (2008).

English Department, Faculty of Foreign Languages, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran, purport in the study, "The role of linguistic knowledge in word-meaning inferencing," that in regard to L2 research, researchers have not attributed adequate focus on the role of grammatical knowledge in inferencing word meaning. Kaivanpanah and Alavi address: 1. The effects of syntactic complexity of texts on inferencing word meaning, 2. The relationship between level of language proficiency and EFL learners' inferencing ability in syntactically simple and complex texts, and 3. The use of linguistic and extralinguistic knowledge sources in inferencing.

(Kaivanpanah & Alavi, 2008, p. 172). Kaivanpanah and Alavi (2008) find indications that the texts' syntactic complexity, along with the language proficiency level impact word-meaning inferencing. "Explicit instruction of grammatical constructions, for example, helps L2 learners realize whether an unknown word is a verb, noun, or adjective. Implicit instruction of grammar also raises learners' consciousness regarding how words are related in sentences" (Kaivanpanah & Alavi, 2008, p. 189). Results also may tentatively support the perception that grammatical knowledge contributes to word-meaning inferencing, while it also calls for explicit instruction of grammatical structures in L2 contexts.

In the study, " Language education: Past, present and future," Stephen Krashen (2008), University of Southern California, purports that the Skill-Building Hypothesis perception has dominated language teaching in the recent past. This view asserts that the individual first learns language by from initially learning about it. Next, the individual practices the rules he/she learned in output. The emergence of the Comprehension Hypothesis, the view that one acquires language when he/she understands messages, currently marks the present consensus in this area, Krashen states.

This contemporary view embraces "the beginning stages of its applications: comprehensible-input-based teaching methods, sheltered subject matter teaching, and the use of extensive reading for intermediate language student"( Krashen,, p. 178). In grammar instruction, the profession is currently taking more advantage of The Comprehension Hypothesis, Krashen concludes.

Beniko Mason Shitennoji, International Buddhist University, Osaka, Japan, and Stephen Krashen (2004), Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California, conduct the study, "Is form-focused vocabulary instruction worthwhile?." According to Shitennoji and Krashen, for both first and second language acquisition, hearing stories may enhance incidental vocabulary development. They add, however that some also claim "…direct instruction is more effective than incidental vocabulary acquisition and that combining both approaches will be more effective than incidental acquisition alone" (Shitennoji & Krashen, p. 179).

In their study, through the learners' hearing a story, combining a story and supplementary activities crafted to purposely focus students on learning the new words in the story. According to Shitennoji and Krashen (2004), findings indicate that supplemental focus on form in the form of traditional vocabulary exercises does not prove to be as efficient as the learner hearing words in the context of stories. The authors, albeit, note that numerous considerations prohibit them from firmly embracing this particular conclusion.

Shitennoji and Krashen do assert, however, that hearing stories serves as a pleasant experience, and although hearing stories may be a bit less efficient than skill-building for vocabulary development, a number of positive supportive reasons attribute to many learners preferring this instructional method.

Nina Spada, Khaled Barkaoui, Colette Peters, Margaret So and Antonella Valeo (2009), Department of Curriculum Teaching and Learning, Modern Language Centre, Ontario Institute, contend in "Developing a questionnaire to investigate second language learners' preferences for two types of form-focused instruction," that in defining and measuring preferences for different types of second/foreign language instruction, qualitative data they collected about teachers' preferences confirms that a number of difficulties and challenges surface during the process.

One challenge includes the fact that: "Learning may be negatively affected when learners' expectations are not matched by the reality of the classroom and learner attitudes play a strong role in determining the success of innovations in instructional practices" (Spada, Barkaoui, Peters, So & Valeo, 2009, p. 71). In addition, when instructors' and learners' attitudes do not match, this potentially leads to conflict that may adversely affect learning.

In the study, "Incidental focus on form in teacher -- learner and learner interactions," Susan Yuqin Zhao and John Bitchener (2007), AUT University, School of Languages, Private Bag, Auckland, New Zealand, note that learners, as teachers, qualify to respond to each another's errors with practical target language information. Questions and concerns from earlier research generated the study by Zhao and Bitchene relating to form-focused instruction. Findings from this study note the frequent occurrences of incidental FFEs in both T -- L and L -- L interactions.

In addition, learners more actively preempted questions with each another, rather than with their teachers, permitting the researcher to initiate opportunities for the learners to access target language data for the instantaneous resolution of language difficulties. Nevertheless, in regard to the type of feedback provided, Zhao and Bitchene (2007) did not determine any difference between the teacher and learner interactional patterns. They did, however, note a difference in uptake responses between the two interactional patterns.

"The study notes that, in both teacher -- learner and learner -- learner interactions, incidental FFEs occur frequently, and that the high frequency of immediate uptake facilitates opportunities for L2 learning (Zhao & Bitchener, 2007, p. 431). As learners could serve as an effective knowledge source for each other, the instructor should encourage spoken interactions between learners in the L2 classroom, Zhao and Bitchener assert.

In the study, "Second language learners' beliefs about grammar instruction and error correction," Shawn Loewen, Shaofeng Li, Amy Thompson, Kimi Nakatsukasa, and Seongmee Ahn (2009), all involved in Language Studies at Michigan State University, stress that learner beliefs prove significant. Loewen, et al. investigated the beliefs of 754 L2 learners regarding the divisive role of grammar instruction and error correction. The student participants completed a questionnaire consisting of 37 Likert-scale items and four open-ended prompts.

"The quantitative items were submitted to a factor analysis, which identified underlying factors (efficacy of grammar, negative attitude toward error correction, priority of communication, importance of grammar, importance of grammatical accuracy, and negative attitude toward grammar instruction)" (Loewen, et al., p. 91). Loewen, et al. utilized these factors to examine differences in beliefs among learners learning various target languages and identified themes that emerged from the qualitative data. Findings from the study by Loewen, et al.

(2009) suggest that among learners studying English as a second language, as well as those studying a foreign language, various beliefs exist regarding grammar instruction and error correction. Those learner beliefs serve as a vital individual difference variable in L2 learning. Loewen, et al.

conclude that questions addressing the amount of focus instructors need to place on linguistic forms and ways this particular focus should be realized in the L2 classroom, along witht a number of other issues related to grammar instruction and error correction, will continue to be debated in L2.