Ce

ntr

o d

e E

stu

dio

s d

e P

ostg

rado

UNIVERSIDAD DE JAÉN Centro de Estudios de Postgrado

Trabajo Fin de Máster

THE ROLE OF GRAMMAR

INSTRUCTION IN EFL IN THE

3RD YEAR OF CSE IN

ANDALUSIA

Alumno: Martínez Olid, Ismael Tutor: Prof. D. Antonio Vicente Casas Pedrosa Dpto: Filología Inglesa

Octubre, 2020

Table of contents

Abstract and keywords / Resumen y palabras clave

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Justification

1.2. Objectives

1.3. Structure

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. What is grammar?

2.2. The teaching of English grammar in CSE

2.2.1. Approaches to the teaching of English grammar

2.2.2. Planning grammar instruction in CSE

2.3. Grammar teaching and learning in the L2 classroom

2.3.1. Teacher's and learner's roles

2.3.2. Do students feel motivated when learning grammar?

2.4. Current approaches and teaching methods

2.4.1. Grammar-Translation method: reaction and compromise

2.4.2. Empiricism and technology

2.4.3. Cognitive theory

2.4.4. SLA tradition

2.4.5. Humanistic approaches

2.4.6. Communicative Language Teaching

2.4.7. The Post-Communicative period

2.4.8. Recent approaches to language teaching and learning

2.5. Partial conclusions

3. LESSON PLAN

3.1. Title

3.2. Justification

3.3. Contextualization

3.4. Competences

3.5. Objectives

3.6. Contents

3.7. Cross-curricular issues

3.8. Interdisciplinarity

3.9. Temporalization

3.10. Attention to diversity

3.11. Step-by-step account

3.11.1. Session 1

3.11.2. Session 2

3.11.3. Session 3

3.11.4. Session 4

3.11.5. Sessions 5 and 6

3.12. Evaluation

3.12.1. Evaluation tools

3.12.2. Evaluation criteria

4. REFERENCES

4.1. Primary sources

4.2. Secondary sources

1

Abstract: Nowadays, the teaching of grammar still remains as an area of much debate

in language teaching and learning. While there is solid evidence which supports the

approach of this linguistic aspect as an integral tool for language learning, there exists

some controversy as to its usefulness or convenience in the learning process. This MD

aims at advocating for the existence of grammar as a key tool for TEFL in CSE, because

of the fact that learners need to ensure that grammatical competence is to be

developed within the linguistic component of a given language (as stated by the CEFR).

However, this does not necessarily mean that communication has to be avoided. In

fact, it is essential for successful language learning. With this in mind, different

approaches to grammar teaching (as well as to other language skills) will be discussed

in this MD.

Keywords: EFL, CSE, grammar, grammatical competence, communicative competence,

communication.

Resumen: Hoy en día, la enseñanza de la gramática aún continúa siendo un aspecto de

debate en la enseñanza y el aprendizaje de una lengua. Mientras que existe evidencia

sólida que defiende el enfoque de este aspecto lingüístico como una herramienta

esencial para el aprendizaje de una lengua, hay controversia con respecto a su utilidad

o conveniencia en el proceso de aprendizaje. Este TFM pretende abogar por la

existencia de la gramática como una herramienta clave para la enseñanza del inglés

como lengua extranjera en la E.S.O. debido a que el alumnado necesita asegurarse de

que la competencia gramatical se desarrolla en el ámbito lingüístico de una lengua

determinada (como afirma el MCER). Sin embargo, esto no significa que la

comunicación deba evitarse. En realidad, es esencial para un aprendizaje de lenguas

exitoso. Así, diferentes métodos para la enseñanza de la gramática (y otras habilidades

lingüísticas) se abordan en este TFM.

Palabras clave: inglés como lengua extranjera, Educación Secundaria Obligatoria,

gramática, competencia gramatical, competencia comunicativa, comunicación.

2

1. INTRODUCTION

Nowadays, the teaching of grammar still remains as a controversial issue in the

field of education all over the world, thus being the subject of much debate. Based on

the assumption that grammar is understood to constitute the basis of any language as

far as its internal dimension is concerned (the set of rules which describe its structure,

as well as the way in which words combine to create larger units, therefore conveying

meaning), there exists solid evidence that supports, at the same time that defends, the

inclusion of such an important area in linguistics at all stages in the educational context

(particularly, when it comes to making reference to Primary and Secondary Education,

which remain compulsory for each individual in Spain).

Despite the fact that there are many linguists, researchers, academic experts,

or scholars (among others) who advocate for its exclusion, or at least for the fact that

it should have a minimal role or importance in the teaching and learning processes of a

Foreign Language (henceforth, FL), grammar yet plays such a crucial role as to both of

the afore mentioned processes that its exclusion or abandonment could quite result in

an incomplete or unsuccessful attempt to learn or master a language (in this particular

case, English at high school).

As a result, a great number of questions may arise regarding its inclusion or the

appropriateness of teaching this linguistic aspect at different educational stages in the

field of education (specifically, in Compulsory Secondary Education henceforth, CSE,

on which this paper focuses): To what extent is it necessary to teach it in the English as

a Foreign Language (henceforth, EFL) classroom? What are both the assets and pitfalls

of teaching grammar? What is the best way to teach it? Might the teaching of English

grammar give rise to a negative effect on the learners' successful L2 development? If

the teaching of grammar is given a secondary or minimal role, how would it affect the

language learning process as a whole?

Taking this into account, the main aim of this Master's Dissertation (henceforth,

MD) is to attempt to answer questions like the ones mentioned above, just as well as

to advocate for the existence of grammar as a required tool for language learning. The

next three subsections briefly expand on both justifying and suitably setting the goals

of this MD, paying attention to the way the contents are arranged.

1.1. Justification

After this brief introduction to the topic of this dissertation, a justification of its

choice is now provided. There are a number of reasons which explain my specific focus

on English grammar (especially, in CSE, which corresponds to the educational stage in

3

which I am primarily interested when it comes to teaching English as a FL), thus being

mentioned in the upcoming seven paragraphs.

To begin with, I would like to make reference to my days when I was a teenager

and the experience I had in the EFL classroom at high school. From the very beginning

of CSE, grammar constituted and signified a key aspect which was accounted for in the

teaching and learning processes, up to the point of being essential to master in order

to successfully pass the subject. All the teachers I had then paid a lot of attention to it,

and they agreed that grammar was to weigh up between 60 and 70% of the final mark,

which somehow indicates the influence it may have on the language learning process.

By contrast, not enough attention was paid to other language skills (such as listening or

speaking), which in fact I consider of great importance to be fluent in when it comes to

learning a FL. However, and despite the fact that these two language skills turn out to

be essential in order to successfully master a particular language, this does not mean

that other areas in linguistics (such as grammar) must be denied or excluded.

In Non-Compulsory Secondary Education (henceforth, NCSE), I tended to have a

similar experience to the one in CSE. Nevertheless, I had a different perception when I

went to university. In fact, in the case of the so-called “instrumental” courses, teachers

laid much more emphasis on the listening and speaking skills, which started to weigh

at least half of the final mark (obviously enough, and depending on the subject). After I

finished the degree on English Studies at the University of Granada, I was luckily given

the opportunity to work at a private language school in my town for a whole academic

year. I was in charge of providing support and reinforcement to many Primary, CSE and

NCSE's students who were studying EFL. Once again, grammar was a crucial aspect (on

which teachers mostly focused), since they understood it was necessary for their pupils

to be grammatically competent. Therefore, they could use their current grammatical

knowledge both for language comprehension and language production. I had the same

experience during my internship (as part of my ongoing master's degree), which took

place in May at a high school located in the province of Jaén.

Another reason that explains my choice of English grammar for this MD is due

to the fact that grammar is meant to be the basis of any language, as mentioned above

(thus entailing the rules or norms that are to be followed, as well as the way in which

words combine with either other words or other linguistic units to make sentences and

therefore conveying meaning). Grammarians pursue the need for either constructing

or creating error-free sentences (in other words, grammatically correct sentences), in

which no errors can be made to the extent possible.

Obviously, this has an effect on language comprehension and production (both

oral and written). Proof of that is the fact that grammatical accuracy is checked, and

this does not only apply to written comprehension and production (where it turns out

4

to be mandatory), but also when it comes to their oral counterparts (although perfect

utterances are not always achieved in order to make ourselves understood, the way in

which they are formed may sometimes result misleading in other's eyes, and therefore

potentially cause a communication breakdown).

With this in mind, it is of major significance to remark upon the mere fact that

grammatical accuracy is checked by the Common European Framework of Reference

for Languages (henceforth, CEFR; Council of Europe, 2001),1 and therefore, it needs to

be taken into account. Within the scope of this well-known document, it is noteworthy

the fact that the linguistic component (that includes grammatical competence, among

others) is measured, what hence highlights that grammar is to be borne in mind.

In addition, both the teaching and learning of grammar emphasise the idea of

“knowing a language”, as opposed to “knowing about a language”, that entails the fact

of being able to communicate effectively. A similar comparison is drawn between the

terms “language usage” and “language use”, respectively. Based on these statements,

it seems that, when coping with the teaching and learning of any language, grammar is

meant not to be used for communication purposes, as some researchers or academic

experts argue about or manifest in their research and studies. Nonetheless, one can be

complementary with the other (i.e. being grammatically competent enables learners to

construct grammatically correct sentences, which in turn both helps and facilitates the

process of having a clearer communication between speakers).

To conclude, I firmly consider the teaching of grammar essential when it comes

to successfully learning any language because of the fact that it can facilitate language

comprehension and production (both oral and written), as well as prevent pupils from

potential communication breakdowns. There are a vast number of current approaches

and teaching methods available, as well as a lot of techniques, which can be utilised for

either the teaching of grammar or language skills in a FL. This should be clearly seen as

an advantage, rather than a drawback, from which we, as potential future teachers to

be, should benefit. All of the information provided so far is discussed later in the paper

(mostly, throughout the entire Section 2).

1.2. Objectives

The main goals of this current MD are:

1 With regard to the CEFR, “It was designed to provide a transparent, coherent and comprehensive basis

for the elaboration of language syllabuses and curriculum guidelines, the design of teaching and learning

materials, and the assessment of foreign language proficiency” (cf. https://tinyurl.com/y4ruu4cu).

5

- To raise awareness of the utmost importance of the teaching of grammar at

any educational stage (specifically, in CSE).

- To show a number of different ways in which English grammar can be taught,

and thus make reference to several current approaches and teaching methods readily

available from which teachers and learners can consequently benefit.

- To design a lesson plan for teaching EFL in CSE in which grammar is taken into

consideration as a key element or source for the English learning process, using some

approaches or techniques previously discussed in the literature review.

1.3. Structure

After commenting upon some basic ideas and topics which are dealt with in this

dissertation, as well as setting its main objectives, it turns out to be imperative to refer

to the way in which the MD's main contents are arranged. Section 2 is then devoted to

present a literature review of English grammar, therefore including information which

ranges from what it is basically understood by grammar to its role or relevance in the

teaching and learning processes of a FL. Different approaches to its teaching are hence

undoubtedly discussed, as well as different roles which both teachers and learners play

within them. Furthermore, many current approaches and teaching methods are briefly

proposed for the teaching of grammar (even though some of these may enhance other

language skills). Consequently, some partial conclusions are provided.

Section 3 is subsequently dedicated to the design of a lesson plan for teaching

EFL in CSE, which is entitled “On the route... to success”, intended for 3rd Grade English

learners. Within it, grammar is to play a key role in the learning process (not only the

search for grammatical accuracy is pursued, but also its usefulness for communication

purposes). For doing so, the topic of travelling has been appropriately selected. Section

4 draws a conclusion, mostly focused on the extent to which the main goals of this MD

have been reached. Finally, Sections 5 and 6 list all the references used for the precise

description of the contents previously discussed throughout this dissertation, together

with the appendices.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

As mentioned above, this MD focuses on the teaching of EFL in CSE, thus paying

attention to the role that grammar plays when learning the mentioned FL. But, before

getting into further details, it is interesting to put ourselves in every learner's shoes as

far as their L2 or FL learning is concerned. What does learning an L2 or FL imply then?

6

Learning a second language is a long and complex undertaking ... you struggle

to reach beyond the confines of your first language and into a new language, a

new culture, a new way of thinking, feeling, and acting. ... commitment, total

involvement, a total ... intellectual, and emotional response are necessary to

successfully send and receive messages in a second language. .... Language

learning is not a set of easy steps that can be programmed .... So much is at

stake that courses in foreign languages are often inadequate training grounds,

... for the successful learning of a second language. Few if any people achieve

fluency in a foreign language ... within the confines of the classroom (Brown,

2007: 1).

When learning a given FL, grammar is to be approached, in addition to language

skills, in order to successfully master it. As mentioned above (cf. Section 1), there exists

much debate as to the inclusion or the utility of grammar in language learning (mainly,

for the last five or six decades). According to López Rama & Luque Agulló (2012: 179),

in fact, it “has been attached different roles in the language classroom, reaching little

consensus, not only about the particular items to be taught, but about when, or how,

or even where to teach or learn”. Before dealing with its teaching in CSE, it is essential

to attempt to fully define it.

2.1. What is grammar?

Taking into account some of the most well-known online dictionaries, grammar

has to do with the internal dimension of a language. It can be defined as “the way you

combine words and change their form and position in a sentence, or the rules or study

of this” (CALDO; McIntosh, 20134). Furthermore, the Oxford English Dictionary Online

(henceforth, OEDO; Simpson, 2020) is in line with this statement, although it provides

a deeper notion of it:

That department ... which deals with its inflectional forms or other means of

indicating the relations of words ..., and with the rules for employing these in

accordance with established usage; ... including also the department which

deals with the phonetic system ... and the principles of its representation in

writing (OEDO).

So far, grammar is thus understood to refer to the set of rules which explain the

way a language system operates, therefore making special reference to morphology or

syntax, linguistically speaking. Nevertheless, semantics is also to be accounted for: “the

meaning of words and the vocabulary choices we employ” (Gartland & Smolkin, 2016:

392). A similar statement is provided by Kumaravadivelu (2006: 4). The meaning which

is conveyed as a result of the joining of words (thus creating larger units) enables us to

communicate.

7

Traditionally, two types of grammar have been identified: descriptive grammar

and prescriptive grammar. While the former attempts to account for all the structures

which are present in a particular language, the latter describes the way in which all of

us should both write and speak (Gartland & Smolkin, 2016: 392). In other words, while

prescriptive grammar aims to tell people “what is wrong from what is right” (Bergillos

& Moore, 2005: 409), descriptive grammar provides a structural description of all the

grammatical units found in a given language, which gives learners the opportunity to

“check their L2 hypotheses or variants with the actual principles ruling the functioning

and gain mastery as they adjust to accurate and appropriate patterns as produced by

native speakers” (Bergillos & Moore, 2005: 410). In the present day, it is stated the fact

that prescriptive grammar causes controversy because of the fact that it may prevent

some learners from either understanding or producing “free thoughts” (since some of

them may result in ungrammatical sentences).

2.2. The teaching of English grammar in CSE

At present, teaching English as a Foreign Language (hereafter, TEFL) in CSE (also

in NCSE) in Spain involves not only the teaching and learning of grammar (among other

linguistic aspects), but also the practising of the well-known four language skills in a FL

(namely, listening, reading, speaking, and writing). The former two are about (or have

the aim of) enhancing the students' FL comprehension, while the latter two (speaking

and writing) deal with the pupils' FL production. As mentioned above, grammar is to be

considered for a successful attempt to learn a second or FL, because of its effect on the

comprehension and mainly production of oral and written texts. Students can benefit,

in fact, from the listening and reading language skills because of the fact that they are

given access to information and data which are (or at least should be) as grammatically

correct as possible (when it comes to the data's internal structure). As a result, pupils

are then given the opportunity to know more about a particular language (thus putting

what they learn from listening and reading into practice in their target language).

As far as FL (in this case, English) textbooks in CSE are concerned, they typically

include a strong grammar basis. Therefore, it is not so surprising that teachers usually

tend to dedicate much time to explaining grammatical items to their pupils. However,

this normally signifies the mere fact that some crucial language skills (such as listening

and, especially, speaking) when learning a FL are given either a secondary role or quite

minimal importance. Much debate or criticism which ranges from academic experts or

researchers to many FL teachers thus comes in this respect, since they highly insist on

the idea that learning a second or FL is particularly due to or guaranteed through mere

communication. Historically speaking, (particularly, from the 1940s to the present day)

8

language learning has been seen from different perspectives (from simply conceiving

language as a set of rules to the concept of language as mainly communication).

Bearing in mind both linguistics and psychology, three main schools of thought

emerged in the last eighty years. Chronologically speaking, the first one to appear was

given the name of Structuralism, under the names of Ferdinand de Saussure (who saw

language learning as a process of analogy, carrying and emphasising his ideas all over

Europe) and the American linguist Leonard Bloomfield (who drew attention to the role

of induction, thus discovering any kind of regularities or principles that govern a given

language). This paradigm, which covered the 1940s and 1950s, conceived language “as

a linear, structured system that described grammatical sequences in terms of separate

components that could comprise a sentence” (Brown, 2007: 10). Structuralism, mainly

in the figure of Bloomfield, related some of his ideas about the nature of language to

the behavioural field of psychology. In fact, he argued the mere fact that language was

in consequence “limited to what the speaker/hearer knows, through induction, about

the relations between speech and writing symbols” (Vez & Viña Rouco, 2005: 51). After

these ideas about language, and specifically in the decade of the 1960s, a new school

of thought came out through the influence of Noam Chomsky, who attempted to show

that “human language cannot be scrutinized simply in terms of observable stimuli and

responses” (Brown, 2007: 11). It was called Transformational-Generative linguistics. It

was a paradigm characterised as “interested not only in describing language (achieving

the level of descriptive adequacy) but also in arriving at an explanatory level” (Brown,

2007: 11).

As opposed to the prior Structural-Behavioural position, Chomsky proposed the

L.A.D. (i.e. language acquisition device), by which he maintained that the “capability to

structure new utterances is innate, a part of the genetic endowment of human beings

that is called universal grammar. We are ... unconscious of these structural principles,

as we are of most other biological and cognitive properties” (Vez & Viña Rouco, 2005:

53). Obviously, what Chomsky refers to as unconscious deals with language acquisition

(thus different from language learning, which instead is a conscious process). After he

published Syntactic Structures, meaning started to be paid more attention in linguistics

(Vez & Viña Rouco, 2005: 53). At this time, the cognitive field of psychology defended

the belief that “meaning, understanding, and knowing were significant data .... Going

beyond merely descriptive adequacy to explanatory ... took on utmost importance”

(Brown, 2007: 11). The last school of thought to focus on is named Constructivism, the

one that was able to integrate the linguistic, psychological, and sociological paradigms,

characterised because of the emphasis placed “on social interaction and the discovery,

or construction, of meaning” (Brown, 2007: 12). Two different types of Constructivism

were manifested: cognitive and social. According to Brown (2007: 12), the former puts

a high emphasis on “the importance of learners constructing their own representation

9

of reality”, then giving learners an active role in their second or FL classrooms; whereas

the latter stresses the relevance of social interaction and cooperative learning.

As mentioned above, meaning started to gain importance in linguistics. It was J.

R. Firth who raised awareness of the meaning of utterances as one of the main goals of

linguistics. In fact, he described language as “a set of events which speakers uttered, a

mode of action, a way of doing things, and therefore linguists should focus on speech”

(Vez & Viña Rouco, 2005: 52). Then, M. A. K. Halliday (Firth's student) made progress

on his teacher's ideas and created a theory which was based on the notion of language

function (Systemic-Functional linguistics). With this in mind, “functional approaches to

grammar can be differentiated from formal or generative approaches to grammar by

their focus on the communicative, as opposed to cognitive, aspect of language” (Vez &

Viña Rouco, 2005: 52). Other linguists, such as D. H. Hymes, questioned the distinction

or contrast previously made by Chomsky between competence and performance, and

presented a “socially oriented communicative competence” (Vez & Viña Rouco, 2005:

54), which was constituted by four sub-categories: grammaticality, appropriateness to

context, feasibility and accepted usage (Vez & Viña Rouco, 2005: 54). Paying attention

to the dichotomy introduced by Chomsky, competence is defined as “one's underlying

knowledge of the system of a language – its rules of grammar, ... vocabulary, all the

pieces of a language and how those pieces fit together”, while performance is referred

to as “actual production (speaking, writing) or ... comprehension (listening, reading)

of linguistic events” (Brown, 2007: 36). This distinction is similar to the ones drawn in

Section 1.1. In fact, the first one deals with “knowing a language” vs. “knowing about a

language”, which Barrios Espinosa and García Mata concisely explain as what people

“know about the language and what they can actually do with it”, whereas the second

one deals with “language usage” vs. “language use”. Hence, the former “is manifested

through declarative knowledge of linguistic rules ...; language use is the capacity ...

shown by people to enter into effective communication by means of that knowledge”

(Barrios Espinosa & García Mata, 2005: 116).

As far as Spanish educational laws are concerned, the Royal Decree 1105/2014

(in which the minimum contents for CSE and NCSE are included), as well as the Order

of 14th July 2016 (in which the curriculum corresponding to CSE in Andalusia is covered,

together with some aspects related to diversity and evaluation) maintain or ask for the

teaching of grammar not only in the proper domain of the Spanish language itself, but

also when it comes to learning a FL (which in this case is English), as part of the whole

learning process. In addition, the CEFR has something to say about grammar teaching.

Although it “describes in a comprehensive way what language learners have to learn to

do in order to use a language for communication”, it also considers “what knowledge

and skills they have to develop so as to be able to act effectively” (Council of Europe,

2001: 1). That is to say, even though communication is central to be both efficient and

10

effective when it comes to being fluent in or mastering a given language, it is definitely

necessary to have certain knowledge of other language skills or tools as well (which in

turn may aid or facilitate communication). For doing so, both general competences, as

well as in particular communicative language competences, are to be developed:

Language use, embracing language learning, comprises the actions performed

by persons who as individuals and as social agents develop ... competences,

both general and ... communicative language competences. They draw on the

competences at their disposal in various contexts under various conditions and

... constraints to engage in language activities involving language processes to

produce and/or receive texts ..., activating those strategies which seem most

appropriate for carrying out the tasks (Council of Europe, 2001: 9).

If general competences are firstly taken into consideration, they are defined as

those whose main characteristic is being “not specific to language, but which are called

upon for actions of all kinds”, in contrast to communicative language competences, the

ones which deal with “those which empower a person to act using specifically linguistic

means” (Council of Europe, 2001: 9). Our focus is mainly on communicative language

competences, which are split into three main components: linguistic competence (that

is therefore split into lexical, grammatical, semantic, phonological, orthographic, and

orthoepic competences), sociolinguistic competence (which includes linguistic markers

of social relations, politeness conventions, register differences, dialect and accent, and

expressions of folk wisdom), and pragmatic competence (thus classified into functional

and discourse competences). The CEFR explicitly identifies grammatical competence as

one of the sub-competences that are to be developed within the linguistic component,

and therefore, it needs to be accounted for when learning a second or FL (grammatical

accuracy is to be checked in the students' production of both oral and written texts). It

can be properly defined as:

... knowledge of, and ability to use, the grammatical resources of a language

... Grammatical competence is the ability to understand and express meaning

by producing and recognising well-formed ... sentences ... (as opposed to

memorising and reproducing them) (Council of Europe, 2001: 112-113).

As López Rama & Luque Agulló (2012: 188) assert, this competence is conceived

as being “integral to all language skills, which learners have to master progressively to

arrive at a higher degree of accuracy, specifically within higher levels”. CSE's FL pupils

are then expected to develop their grammatical competence at high school, thus trying

to increasingly improve it as they promote to higher educational levels (hence, arriving

at a further degree of grammatical accuracy). Therefore, based on the aforementioned

Spanish educational laws and other well-known documents, it seems reasonably clear

that grammar teaching plays a role when learning a second or FL. Many reasons for its

teaching have been given, as specified by current research in SLA. In fact, and as stated

11

by Nassaji & Fotos (2004: 127), “the 1980s hypothesis that language can be learned

without some degree of consciousness has been found ... problematic ... conscious

attention to form ... is a necessary condition for language learning”. As they claim, “it

is necessary for learners to notice target forms in input; otherwise they process input

for meaning only and do not attend to specific forms, and consequently fail to process

and acquire them” (Nassaji & Fotos, 2004: 128). In addition, there exists evidence that

shows the fact that L2 learners pass through numerous developmental sequences both

in their teaching and learning processes, what has been theoretically named, as far as

Pienemann (1984) states, as “teachability hypothesis, which suggests that while certain

developmental sequences are fixed and cannot be altered by grammar teaching, other

structures can benefit from instruction any time” (Nassaji & Fotos, 2004: 128). In other

words, teaching needs to take into consideration the actual students' level (when they

are cognitively ready to acquire or learn new items). This relates to what is mentioned

by Stephen Krashen as comprehensible input (I+1), which entails that pupils “are only

sensitive to structural items one step above their current ... level” (Bergillos & Moore,

2005: 419).

Another reason which reinforces the teaching of grammar deals with the lack of

grammatical knowledge attained when the only focus relies on communication. Pupils

are expected to have at least a required minimum knowledge of grammar, which is not

just achieved “despite substantial long-term exposure to meaningful input” (Nassaji &

Fotos, 2004: 128). Moreover, many studies carried out on grammar teaching evidence

the true fact that “grammatical instruction has a significant effect on the attainment of

accuracy” (Nassaji & Fotos, 2004: 129). Therefore, being grammatically competent and

hence knowing how to build or combine structures “makes it possible to communicate

common types of meaning successfully”, up to the point that without having at least a

minimum knowledge of grammar, it would be quite “difficult to make comprehensible

sentences” (Swan, 2002: 151). Another aspect to bear in mind is the fact that students

will be required to show a certain degree of grammatical correctness in their closest or

approaching future, especially when it comes to applying for jobs. Undoubtedly, pupils,

as future employees to be, need to take into account the fact that they need grammar

for mere comprehensibility, as well as to be able to communicate effectively (and thus

expressing their ideas or thoughts the clearest way possible). Swan, in fact, then points

at this statement, indicating that learners may face some negative consequences in the

event of being unable to speak accordingly. He thus claims that “serious deviance from

native-speaker norms can hinder integration and excite prejudice” (Swan, 2002: 152).

It is worth remembering the fact that CSE's students have to ensure that they need to

develop their communicative competence (as the Council of Europe clearly defends). It

is at this cited stage that “tasks are designed to improve the students' communicative

competence so that they can operate effectively in a variety of everyday situations. ...

12

and also encourage the students to develop strategies ... to confront new situations

in the future” (Madrid, Jiménez Raya & Linde, 2005: 262).

2.2.1. Approaches to the teaching of English grammar

There still exists much debate concerning the way in which English grammar (in

this particular case) is to be taught. As mentioned above in this MD, and even though it

is assumed that a “general understanding of how language works, it was argued, is a

sound basis for … learning a foreign language” (Hudson & Walmsley, 2005: 612), a lot

of questions arise regarding how it is best taught, as well as what approaches are to be

implemented: How should English grammar be taught (specifically, in CSE)? What are

the main approaches to its teaching? Since there are different kinds of learners (with

respect to their actual intellectual capacities or abilities, strengths and weaknesses, as

well as their existing knowledge of grammar) in a FL classroom, how does the teaching

of grammar take place? As Hudson & Walmsley (2005: 615) clearly highlight, “teachers

should help children to understand their … linguistic resources (including grammar in

the broadest possible sense), so that the children can expand these … effectively and

become better writers, readers, speakers, and listeners”.

At present, a distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning is typically

made. According to Brown (2007: 104), the former is conceived as “a movement from

a generalization to specific instances: specific subsumed facts are inferred or deduced

from a general principle”, whereas in the case of the latter, it is stated that “one stores

a number of specific instances and induces a general law or rule”. Teachers in CSE tend

to rely on deductive reasoning, and thus usually provide direct explanations to their FL

students when it comes to grammar teaching. However, this entails the fact that pupils

are not given an active role in their learning process. In fact, from direct explanations

made by teachers (who thus take an active role), pupils are therefore required to apply

the rules through the practice of different activities or exercises. By contrast, there are

some teachers who firstly present specific grammatical items or instances by means of

using texts or other materials (and then ask their learners to induce or infer the rules).

In this sense, learners are obviously active participants in their learning process, since

they are given the chance to induce either norms or rules without having any access to

prior explanations. The given dichotomy between deductive and inductive reasoning is

related to direct and indirect instruction, respectively. As precisely specified by Hinkel

& Fotos (2001: 166), it is direct instruction that is described because of having “explicit

descriptions/explanations of grammar points given to the learners”, as opposed to the

second type of instruction, which “involves helping learners discover grammatical rules

for themselves”. As mentioned above, English textbooks in Spain often include a lot of

grammar practice, which normally entails that teachers dedicate a lot of time to giving

13

explanations to their students (i.e. direct instruction), instead of making their learners

active participants of their learning process (which is potentially more motivating for

them). As Hinkel & Fotos (2001: 166) assert, a discovery-based approach has numerous

assets, due to the fact that learners “may be more likely to remember what they learn.

Second, it can encourage students to form and test hypotheses about the grammar of

the L2, processes that are believed to be central to ultimate acquisition”. However, the

two approaches “can be effective, depending on the goals and contexts of a particular

language teaching situation” (Brown, 2007: 105).

As far as the Council of Europe is concerned, it includes different ideas as to the

way in which students learn. Within the scope of this document, two different ways of

learning have been given. While some theorists indicate that “the human information-

processing abilities are strong enough … to be sufficient … to acquire the language

and be able to use it both for understanding and for production” (Council of Europe,

2001: 139), and therefore argue the fact that “the most important thing a teacher can

do is provide the richest possible linguistic environment … without formal teaching”

(Council of Europe, 2001: 139), there exist many others who claim that “in addition to

exposure to comprehensible input, active participation in communicative interaction is

a necessary and sufficient condition …. … consider that explicit teaching or study of

the language is irrelevant” (Council of Europe, 2001: 140). Based on the premise that

the linguistic component has been properly defined as “a central, indispensable aspect

of language learning” (Council of Europe, 2001: 149), and in particular, if grammatical

competence is accounted for, the Council of Europe lists a number of different ways in

which grammar can be taught: deductively, giving “explanations using an appropriate

metalanguage in L2 or L1 and formal exercises” (Council of Europe, 2001: 152); by way

of “elicitation … of learners' hypotheses”; or inductively, whether by exposure to new

grammatical items in authentic texts or other similar materials or by incorporating the

items in specially composed texts (in which teachers purposely choose what elements

their students have to learn). The cited texts above may be followed, where necessary,

by explanations and exercises, as it is thus stated by the Council of Europe (2001: 152).

So far, the dichotomies presented (deductive vs. inductive reasoning and direct

vs. indirect instruction) are commonly applied when it comes to attempting to describe

dissimilar ways of grammar teaching. However, there exists controversy about the role

or importance that direct instruction (also described as “explicit instruction”) may play

not only in approaching the teaching of grammar, but also when it comes to the whole

language learning process itself, and the true fact that “how something is taught is not

directly related to how it is learned” (Nassaji & Fotos, 2004: 129). In fact, there are two

widely-known linguists, Stephen Krashen (1993) and John Truscott (1996) who criticise

the effects of explicit instruction, hence the former arguing that “explicit grammatical

knowledge about structures and rules ... may never turn into implicit knowledge”, or

14

the latter emphasising that “its effects are short-lived and superficial” (Nassaji & Fotos,

2004: 129). This approach to grammar teaching, also known as being traditional, “has

consisted of grammar lessons in which grammatical structures are explicitly presented

by the teacher in a decontextualized manner” (Nassaji & Fotos, 2004: 129). These rules

and structures are typically arranged in a linear sequence. Note this example, provided

by the linguist David Nunan (1998: 101): “in learning English, a student should master

one tense form, ... as the simple present, before being introduced to other forms, ...

as the present continuous or the simple past”. Nonetheless, and according to Nunan, it

is underlined that students do not learn new grammatical items at a specific time (and

hence following a step-by-step or linear sequence), but what really happens is the true

fact that “a learner's mastery of a particular language item is unstable, appearing to

increase and decrease at different times during the learning process” (Nunan, 1998:

101). This somehow deals with or is related to the fact that actual English textbooks in

CSE contain identical contents (specifically, in terms of grammatical items or elements)

at different levels or grades. What is more, these items are commonly presented out of

context, and therefore subsequently making the major “task of developing procedural

skill –being able to use the language for communication– more difficult ..., because

learners are denied the opportunity of seeing the ... relationships ... between form,

meaning, and use”, as it is thus claimed by Nunan (1998: 102). Hence, he defends that

pupils should conceive effective communication as involving a mixture of grammatical

accuracy and its corresponding functional interpretation, and so, giving them tasks in

which they are then able to explore “the relationship between grammatical items and

the discoursal contexts in which they occur” (Nunan, 1998: 102).

With the rise of the well-known communicative approach, where meaning and

communication are regarded central for successful language learning or development,

a new dichotomy for grammar teaching emerged. It was initially proposed by Michael

Long (1991), who proposed a straightforward distinction between “focus on form” and

“focus on formS”. According to Nassaji & Fotos (2004: 131), “focus on form” explicitly

involves “the teacher's attempts to draw the student's attention to grammatical forms

in the context of communication”. Therefore, an instance of this approach may include

“negotiating the right position of a hospital on a city map and consequently developing

the spatial references of prepositions” (Bergillos & Moore, 2005: 417). By contrast, it is

“focus on formS” that “involves discrete grammatical forms selected and presented in

an isolated manner” (Nassaji & Fotos, 2004: 131). The main characteristic of the cited

forms or structures is that they are typically presented decontextualised, together with

“no bearing on communication at all” (Bergillos & Moore, 2005: 418). A lot of scholars

advocate for the implementation of the “focus on form” approach when grammar is to

be taken into consideration in the classroom, since both grammar and communication

are firmly integrated, enabling L2 or FL pupils to further develop their communicative

15

competence (which is a must according to the Council of Europe). Nunan is also in line

with this approach (which he refers to as teaching grammar in context). He claims that:

If the communicative value of alternative grammatical forms is not made clear

to learners, they come away from the classroom with the impression that the

alternative forms exist ... to make things difficult .... We need an approach

through which they learn how to form structures correctly, and ... how to use

them to communicate meaning. Such a methodology will show learners how to

use grammar to get things done, socialize, obtain goods ..., and express their

personality through language. In other words, ... show them how to achieve

their communicative ends through the appropriate deployment of grammatical

resources (Nunan, 1998: 103).

2.2.2. Planning grammar instruction in CSE

Nowadays, grammar instruction in CSE tends to follow the classic PPP (that is to

say, Presentation, Practice, Production) model. As claimed by Bergillos & Moore (2005:

424), it is historically related to Structuralism, and it rigorously entails “a pre-conceived

lesson with overt grammatical focus, although, ... it was subsequently adapted to CLT

goals as well”. In the first stage of this model (Presentation), “the new grammar rule or

structure is introduced, usually through a text, a dialogue, or a story” (Nassaji & Fotos,

2011: 4). This can be done either deductively or inductively. As clearly stated by Nassaji

& Fotos (2011: 4), the main goal of this initial stage has to do with making pupils aware

of the new grammar rules or structures, so that they become familiar with them (thus

incorporating them in their short-term memory). Subsequently, as claimed by Bergillos

& Moore (2005: 424), the focus relies on “a more explicit examination/explanation of

the item”. During this stage (i.e. Practice), students are given “various kinds of written

and spoken exercises to repeat, manipulate, or reproduce the new forms. The practice

stage usually begins with controlled practices ... on specific structures and ... moves

to less controlled ... with more open-ended activities” (Nassaji & Fotos, 2011: 4). As it

is stated, its ultimate aim is to “help students gain control of the knowledge introduced

... and to move it from their short-term memory to their long-term memory” (Nassaji

& Fotos, 2011: 4). Finally, in the last stage of this model (Production), pupils are asked

to apply and use the rules which they have learnt in the previous two stages freely. It is

this final stage that is ultimately described as “the culmination of the language learning

process, whereby the learners act upon their linguistic knowledge, where they perform

their competence and become users of the language” (Rodgers, 2009: 344). Unlike the

Presentation and Practice stages, the Production one is learner-centred. Specifically, it

is at this particular stage that “the teacher's role ... is to provide occasions where the

16

students can actively apply the language .... The teacher typically does not correct or

become involved unless students directly appeal ... to do so” (Rodgers, 2009: 344).

In addition to the PPP model, Bergillos & Moore (2005: 425-426) list four more

grammar teaching models that can be used. The first is known as TTT, which stands for

“Test, Teach, Test”. It “assumes a diagnostic element, beginning with an evaluation of

the student's current abilities. The teacher selects an ... exercise which involves their

chosen ... point, ..., pre-teaches any necessary vocabulary ... but does not give any

prior grammatical clarification” (Bergillos & Moore, 2005: 425). It is argued that TTT is

a model that fosters learners' autonomy. The second model to focus on, developed by

the well-known ELT teacher and trainer Jeremy Harmer, is called ESA (in other words,

“Engage, Study, Activate”). It lays a high emphasis or relevance on making students get

“interested before any real learning/acquisition can be expected to happen” (Bergillos

& Moore, 2005: 425). Once that goal is reached, the study of grammatical elements or

structures can be approached either deductively or inductively (also known as directly

or indirectly, respectively). In the last stage of this model (i.e. Activate), practice plays a

role. According to Bergillos & Moore (2005: 426), it is wisely recommendable that “the

less controlled and more student-centred the better”. Last but not least, OHE (standing

for “Observe, Hypothesise, Experiment”, devised by Lewis, 1993) or III (in other words,

“Illustrate, Interact, Induce”, and created by Carter and McCarthy, 1995) have the aim

of seeking “to exploit the insights of cognitive approaches and discovery techniques. In

both instances the first step involves exposing the students to an authentic example of

the target language – in written or audio format” (Bergillos & Moore, 2005: 426).

There exist multiple techniques that can be utilised for the teaching of grammar

during the aforementioned stages in CSE (also in NCSE). Traditionally, exercises form

one of the most popular techniques that can be used not only for practising grammar,

but also for any other tool or skill in the language teaching and learning processes. As

Bergillos & Moore (2005: 429) suggest, the “fact that they are completely objective (in

that there is usually only one correct answer)” makes them widespread for assessment

purposes. According to the Council of Europe (2001: 152), some exercises may be: gap-

filling, sentence construction, multiple choice, sentence merging, category substitution

exercises, translation of example sentences from L1 to L2, grammar-focused exercises

in which fluency is measured or questions and answers. Activities are also employed to

a great degree for language practice. They are typically divided into communicative or

discovery-type activities. While the former's main objective is to “set up a situation in

which students can interact meaningfully” (Bergillos & Moore, 2005: 434), the latter's

emphasis is placed on “the student taking an active part in the L2 process, the learner

as researcher” (Bergillos & Moore, 2005: 436). Discovery-type activities are very much

related to the idea of consciousness-raising, which is therefore defined as “an attempt

to equip the learner with an understanding of a ... grammatical feature – to develop

17

declarative rather than procedural knowledge of it” (Ellis, 2002: 168). Games are also

to be considered as a powerful technique because of the fact that they “can make the

classroom fun” (Bergillos & Moore, 2005: 437). Moreover, they tend to have affective

implications for students in the classroom.

2.3. Grammar teaching and learning in the L2 classroom

As aforementioned (cf. Section 2.2.1), there are different approaches to English

grammar teaching (namely, from deductive reasoning or direct instruction to inductive

reasoning or indirect instruction). With the rise of the communicative approach, a new

dichotomy emerged. Therefore, a distinction was established between “focus on form”

and “focus on formS”. Basically, the difference that exists between these dichotomies

relies on the role or importance that direct grammar explanations play on the teaching

and learning process. While some of the approaches mentioned above (i.e. deductive

reasoning, direct instruction, and “focus on formS”) explicitly stress the significance of

direct or explicit explanations of grammatical rules or structures on language learning

(and usually presented out of context), others such as inductive reasoning and indirect

instruction somehow foster learners' autonomy (in that these approaches conceive the

students as active participants on their language learning process, hence helping them

to discover or induce the rules). Communication is also to be accounted for (especially,

in the case of the “focus on form” approach). Within the scope of this named approach

(as opposed to “focus on formS”), both grammar and communication are integrated.

Taking into consideration what Savignon (1972) and Spada (1986) argue about,

and as underlined by Barrios Espinosa & García Mata (2005: 131), formal instruction, in

which grammar is commonly addressed, “results in higher proficiency levels ... when

learners are also provided with opportunities for natural exposure”. As Montgomery &

Eisenstein (1985) assert, and according to Barrios Espinosa & García Mata (2005: 131),

a mixture “of form-oriented and meaning-oriented language teaching is ... efficient”.

Ellis (1994) also deals with formal instruction, mainly commenting upon the extent to

which it can improve the learners' production accuracy. As noted by Barrios Espinosa &

García Mata (2005: 131), this may take place if: “the structure does not imply complex

processing operations; the relationship between the structure and the ... function is

clear; and, the instruction is extensive and well-planned”. With this in mind, the “focus

on form” approach, in which grammar is presented in communicative contexts, seems

to be most appropriate for grammar teaching, since communication is not left aside.

However, this does not necessarily mean that other approaches (especially, the

ones whose only focus is on grammar descriptions/explanations) are to be excluded. In

fact, they may still be helpful for some given educational or situational contexts. What

is undoubtedly clear is the fact that the role of both teachers and learners may vary as

18

to the grammar approach chosen. This is further discussed in the following subsection.

Last but not least, pupils' motivation for learning grammar is also dealt with in Section

2.3.2.

2.3.1. Teacher's and learner's roles

As far as the roles of both teachers and learners are concerned, they may vary

depending on the approach or teaching method selected. Traditionally, the main roles

of teachers are related to those which typically characterise an instructor (hence, they

tend to give explanations to their pupils, as well as to correct and evaluate them). This

entails the fact that they thus take an active role in the teaching process. Nevertheless,

their roles have apparently changed in the last decades. In fact, and according to Vez &

Viña Rouco (2005: 73), this alluded change “has required teachers to move from being

EFL instructors to being consultants, and students ... from being a passive recipient of

linguistic information to being active participants and researchers”. At present, a lot of

teachers may have changed their roles in this respect (or, at least, they may have tried

to do so), despite the fact that there exists evidence which shows that a great number

of teachers still follow the traditional teaching role (for instance, when it comes to CSE

or NCSE). But, what does it mean to be a good EFL teacher in the present day?

It is clear that whether an EFL class succeeds or not depends to a great extent

on the personality of the classroom teacher. Apart from the skills needed ...,

he or she should also provide ... guidance for the students, encouraging them

to make the most of their abilities, both intellectual and personal, ... towards

their development as citizens, both of Spain and of Europe (McLaren & Madrid,

2005: 212).

The concept of making students active participants in their learning process has

to do with the move which existed towards the so-called learner-centred teaching (as

opposed to teacher-centred teaching, where pupils are passive recipients and teachers

take an active role). In this way, the “order in which the language items are learnt may

be determined by the learner rather than the teacher. ... students should learn from

their own experience and gradually become responsible for their learning progress”, as

stated by McLaren & Madrid (2005: 215). Nonetheless, this does not apply to all pupils,

since, as mentioned above (cf. section 2.2.1.), there are different kinds of pupils in a FL

classroom (because of their potential intellectual capacities and abilities, strengths and

weaknesses). Therefore, the teacher needs to “be able to establish learner needs and

interests” (McLaren & Madrid, 2005: 215).

As mentioned in section 2.2.2., the PPP grammar model is highly utilised for the

teaching of grammar (especially, in CSE). But, what are the roles which teachers play at

every stage of it? Do they vary?

19

Stage Purpose Teacher's roles

Presentation

- to present new language in context so that meaning is clear

- to present the new form in a natural spoken or written text so that students

can see its use in discourse - to link the new form to what students

already know - to check comprehension

- to elicit the form from students where possible and exploit their existing

knowledge

Instructor, corrector

Practice

- to help students memorize the form - to help students produce the word

order - to give intensive practice through

repetition - to provide opportunities for feedback

and error correction - to give practice in pronouncing new

forms - to develop confidence

Manager, evaluator, corrector

Production

- to reduce control and encourage students to find out what they can do

- to encourage students to use the forms in expressing their own content

- to help students see the usefulness of what they have learned

- to check what has been learned and diagnose problems

Monitor, resource, diagnoser

Table 1: Purposes and teacher's roles at each stage in the PPP model (Hedge, 2000: 166).

2.3.2. Do students feel motivated when learning grammar?

To begin with, and before commenting upon learners' interest or motivation as

to the teaching of grammar, it is interesting to refer to the teacher's figure and its role

as potential motivator in the CSE classroom:

It is natural to suppose that the teacher him/herself, through personal qualities

and pedagogic behaviour, will generate ... motivation. Evidence ... suggests

that the most important qualities they would like a teacher to possess would

be ...: 1) personal qualities; 2) didactic qualities; 3) .../academic knowledge;

4) physical characteristics (McLaren & Madrid, 2005: 227).

Traditionally, a distinction has been established between intrinsic and extrinsic

motivation. While the former involves no reward, except the mere activity, exercise or

20

task for its own sake, the latter is encouraged “by the anticipation of a reward ... and

beyond the self. Typical extrinsic rewards are money, prizes, grades, and even certain

types of positive feedback” (Brown, 2007: 172). Taking this into account, it seems that,

considering a great number of CSE students, they commonly show extrinsic motivation

when it comes to carrying out tasks or passing the subjects included in the curriculum.

Obviously, this is also the case when learning an L2 or a FL (in this particular case, EFL),

and specifically, its linguistic aspects (such as grammar). In fact, and as clearly claimed

by Manzaneda & Madrid (1997: 166), grammar activities or exercises are conceived as

the second least motivating for learners, which somehow evidence the fact that pupils

show themselves more passive when entering class participation, and even concerning

their own language learning process.

2.4. Current approaches and teaching methods

Nowadays, there are numerous approaches and teaching methods available for

language learning. Both teachers and learners can benefit from them, since they have

different features and implications (hence, teachers are encouraged to freely apply any

of them depending on the given educational context or specific learning outcomes that

are pursued). Although some approaches or current teaching methods which are to be

found in the following subsections are hardly applied currently, they may still be useful

for some teaching or learning situations in the classroom:

Foreign language teaching continues to witness the popularity of approaches

and techniques, which for a while seem to bask in the limelight but then fade

into the shadows. Sometimes they bring about changes in direction, or shifts in

emphasis or the rethinking of existing thoughts .... At the time of popularity it

often seems ... that such an approach might be the universal panacea for the

teaching of foreign languages .... What ... takes place is that after an initial

interest and enthusiasm ..., teaching tends to carry on much as it did before,

with some elements of the fashionable new approach being absorbed into the

teacher's repertoire, if they fit in with one's personal teaching style or can be

accommodated with it, or if they are imposed ... from above by the governing

authorities (Adams, 1997: 22).

2.4.1. Grammar-Translation method: reaction and compromise

The first method to focus on is named Grammar-Translation method. It came to

be known late in the 19th century. Within its scope, grammar constitutes the basis of a

given language, and translation of literary texts is the most typical exercise which can

be found. As shown in the table below, language is simply “reduced to the grammatical

system. The sentence is the main unit” (Tejada Molina, Pérez Cañado & Luque Agulló,

21

2005: 160). Learning is only understood once grammar rules and vocabulary lists have

been memorised. Nevertheless, this method underwent much criticism. In fact, it only

accounts for grammar as a basis when it comes to learning a language, and thus it does

not give learners the opportunity to use it. The subsequent table lists its features:

Content

Linguistic notions: rules and exceptions Morphology of words

Syntax: parts of the sentence Simple and complex sentences

Objectives

The study of literary works is the ultimate goal The teaching of conversation is postponed and

underestimated Extra-linguistic goal: mental gymnastics

Materials The grammar book

The dictionary

Procedures

Explanations in the mother tongue by the teacher, who has a central role

Meta-language used for grammatical notions Practice exercises to apply the notions in a deductive way

Memorization of long vocabulary lists Reading comprehension and vocabulary exercises of a text

Translation of literary texts Compositions

Assessment Exams to evaluate the capacity to understand written texts

and to translate sentences Table 2: Features of the Grammar-Translation method (Tejada Molina, Pérez Cañado & Luque Agulló,

2005: 160).

Around the second half of the 19th century, a reaction against the prior method

took place because it “did not prove to be efficient in everyday language conversation”

(Tejada Molina, Pérez Cañado & Luque Agulló, 2005: 161). One of the main figures was

Gouin, a French Latin's teacher who studied German as a FL. He was known because of

the fact that he could not take part in real conversations, despite memorising big lists

of vocabulary and grammar rules (as it was a must in the previous method). However,

he soon observed the way his nephew could speak his mother tongue without studying

its rules or norms. It is at this precise point when Gouin gave importance to the use of

“the target language as a direct methodology and an easy sequence of concepts to ...

practice the content” (Tejada Molina, Pérez Cañado & Luque Agulló, 2005: 161). This

new teaching method, which was named Direct method, was “in favour of the teacher

and the students speaking together, relating the grammatical forms ... to objects and

pictures, etc. in order to establish their meaning” (Harmer, 2007: 63). Its main features

are shown in the table below:

22

Content Spoken everyday language

Gradual sequence

Objectives Capacity to ask questions and to answer

Listening and speaking communicative skills

Materials Posters, real objects, realia and texts

Procedures Direct techniques with no use of L1: immersion

Questions and answers Small groups and native speakers

Assessment Conversation and interview exams Table 3: Features of the Direct method (Tejada Molina, Pérez Cañado & Luque Agulló, 2005: 162).

Without denying either grammar or speaking, the subsequent method (Reading

method) stressed importance to reading. The use of graded readers was underlined in

this new methodology. They “were prepared so that students faced textual models ...

and progressive varieties of the FL starting with the most basic level (made up of just

300-500 vocabulary items) up to more advanced ones” (Tejada Molina, Pérez Cañado

& Luque Agulló, 2005: 163). A brief outlook of this methodology's main characteristics

is shown below:

Content Controlled vocabulary within reading texts

Basic grammar

Objectives Learner needs

Basic language and reading

Materials Graded reading texts

Procedures Oral introduction

L1 is permitted for explanations and meaning Intensive and extensive reading exercises

Assessment Ability to use the FL Table 4: Features of the Reading method (Tejada Molina, Pérez Cañado & Luque Agulló, 2005: 164).

2.4.2. Empiricism and technology

A new methodological trend emerged, in which both linguistics and psychology

are to play a significant role for the upcoming decades. Technology is now used, mainly

in the form of recordings and visual filmstrips.

With the outbreak of World War II, Americans pursued their need for becoming

“orally proficient in the languages of both their allies and their enemies. The time was

ripe for a language teaching revolution” (Tejada Molina, Pérez Cañado & Luque Agulló,

2005: 165). The first teaching method that appeared within this trend was referred to

as the Audiolingual method, which “had essentially sprung from behavioural theories

of the time” (Brown, 2007: 17-18). Moreover, it denied the main characteristics of the

Grammar-Translation method (hence, diminishing the need or relevance of grammar

23

rules, and emphasising or prioritising oral skills). More details of this method are given

in the subsequent table:

Content Grammar structures

Objectives In terms of separate skills: listening, speaking, reading and

writing Priority of oral skills

Materials Language laboratory

Recordings

Procedures

Direct techniques: without reference to the mother tongue

Mimicry and memorization: mim-mem techniques Structural pattern drills: active and simple practice

Artificial dialogues to introduce the structures

Assessment Skill objective tests

Multiple choice and cloze tests Table 5: Features of the Audiolingual method (Tejada Molina, Pérez Cañado & Luque Agulló, 2005: 166).

The posterior teaching method to be mentioned was known as the Audiovisual

method, which appeared in France. It fully “rejects the emptiness of formal structures

of language and applies a meaningful and contextualized solution ... The result is that

communication is the aim” (Tejada Molina, Pérez Cañado & Luque Agulló, 2005: 167).

It fosters the use of filmstrips as a powerful means of presenting utterances in context,

so that these can be comprehensible enough. More features are listed as follows:

Content Everyday FL

Objectives 1 Basic linguistic variety

2 General topics and reading: newspapers... 3 Specialized discourses: E.S.P.

Materials Filmstrip + tape (semantic unit)

Procedures

1 Presentation: Visual scenario for meaningful utterances and context

2 Explication: Pointing

Demonstrating Selective listening

Questions/Answers 3 Repetitions and memorization

4 Exploitation (development or transposition) Visual emancipation

Role-play and new questions and answers Grammar

Assessment According to goals Table 6: Features of the Audiovisual method (Tejada Molina, Pérez Cañado & Luque Agulló, 2005: 168).

24

2.4.3. Cognitive theory

A new perspective on learning ... would reject the old behaviourist one which

is based on products, ..., verbal habits. Understanding ... mechanisms had

not been considered because of their risk of being subjective and ambiguous

data. ... for language description, syntactic structures could not explain their

formation process without any reference to meaning, ..., when the text and

context are eluded. On the other hand, the audiovisual method laid too much

emphasis on peripheral psychological mechanisms, although its references to

meanings and context are positive. An appeal to a broader perspective both in

the linguistic and psychological fields is claimed. The cognitive theory is the ...

response to ... more complete perspective on how we learn. Its proposal of a

similar position on linguistic grounds would come through transformational-

generative grammar (Tejada Molina, Pérez Cañado & Luque Agulló, 2005: 170).

The teaching methodology that is found within this new perspective consists of

“a reaction against the Audiolingual one. … Substitution and transformation drills …

were introduced with a rationale different from behaviourist drills: to infer the rules of

the target language, to actively engage … to link new learning to prior knowledge …”

(Tejada Molina, Pérez Cañado & Luque Agulló, 2005: 173). It is noteworthy to note that

errors were now considered as part of the learning process. The main characteristics of

this method are listed in the subsequent table:

Yes No

Conscious analysis Connection of prior to new knowledge

Reflection Memorization

Transformation and substitution drills Repetition drills

Creation of hypotheses and rules Habit-formation

Errors show the learner is learning Errors avoided at all costs

Inductive or deductive classroom presentation

Foster rote-learning and positive habits

Table 7: Features of Cognitive Code learning (Tejada Molina, Pérez Cañado & Luque Agulló, 2005: 173).

2.4.4. SLA tradition

Within this perspective, two major methods are dealt with. The first one has to

do with the Natural approach, whose main basis was developed by Krashen and one of

his associates, Tracy Terrell (Brown, 2007: 79). It views language as communication, so

that “meaning, rather than grammar, is at the core of their notion of language” (Tejada

Molina, Pérez Cañado & Luque Agulló, 2005: 176). However, the process of learning an

L2 is compared to how children learn their L1. Furthermore, L2 learners “are not asked

to produce output immediately, as they ... go through a silent period” (Tejada Molina,

Pérez Cañado & Luque Agulló, 2005: 176). More characteristics are shown below:

25

Yes No

Meaning, rather than form Unconscious acquisition, rather than

learning Analysis of syntactic structures

Comprehensible input Drills

Games, problem-solving and affective activities

Stressful situations

Silent period Input before output Authentic activities

Repetition and immediate production

Table 8: Features of the Natural approach (Tejada Molina, Pérez Cañado & Luque Agulló, 2005: 177).

The second method to focus on is named Total Physical response, developed by

James Asher (1977). He points out two main characteristics to define it. As specified by

Tejada Molina, Pérez Cañado & Luque Agulló (2005: 177), the first one “is that children

have to comprehend a lot of input before they learn how to speak. The second is that,

when they are young, children receive input in which a lot of physical manipulation …

is involved”. In addition, he was also interested in creating stress-free situations in the

classroom, where pupils “would not feel overly self-conscious and defensive” (Brown,

2007: 78). More features of this teaching method are shown in the subsequent table:

Yes No

Comprehensible input Language as structures and vocabulary

Language as meaning

Language learning: association of stimulus-response through physical

action

Conscious reflection and analysis of linguistic structures

Unconscious acquisition Conscious learning

Silent period Input before output

Immediate production

Inductive learning Deductive learning and explanation of

structures

Teacher as leader of the classroom Learners: active participants in teaching

process

Activities designed to reduce affective filter

Use of commands in the form of orders Stressful situations leading to anxiety

Table 9: Features of Total Physical response (Tejada Molina, Pérez Cañado & Luque Agulló, 2005: 178).

2.4.5. Humanistic approaches

26

Within this new trend, three different teaching methods emerged, even though

they “share a common framework: the primacy of affective and emotional factors”, as

clearly stated by Tejada Molina, Pérez Cañado & Luque Agulló (2005: 180).

The first one was named Community Language learning, which addresses “the

question of how adults learn a second language, rather than an identification between

children's L1 and adults' L2” (Tejada Molina, Pérez Cañado & Luque Agulló, 2005: 180).

Within this method, pupils are given the role of “clients and teachers as non-directive

counsellors” (Tejada Molina, Pérez Cañado & Luque Agulló: 180). In this way, teachers

stand “outside a circle of students and helps the students say what they want to say by

translating, suggesting or amending the students' utterances. The students' utterances

may then be recorded so that they can be analysed at a later date” (Harmer, 2007: 68).

Subsequently, pupils are encouraged to reflect on their learning process. The posterior

table summarises the main features of this teaching method:

Humanistic position: avoidance of anxious situations Conscious learning

Learners as clients: whole-person approach Learners: active participants in the teaching process

View of language as process No grammatical analysis

No a priori syllabus Translation, recording and analysis techniques

Self-correction is fostered Emphasis on group-work

Table 10: Features of Community Language learning (Tejada Molina, Pérez Cañado & Luque Agulló, 2005: 181).

The second one was known as the Silent Way, in which “the teacher frequently

points to different sounds on a phonemic chart, modelling them before indicating that

students should say the sounds” (Harmer, 2007: 68). Teachers use gestures in order to

“guarantee or check comprehension or to indicate slight changes in content. Thus, the

teacher directs the classroom but has an indirect role, because he/she has to be silent

most of the time, giving an active role to the learner” (Tejada Molina, Pérez Cañado &

Luque Agulló, 2005: 182). A summary of this teaching method is provided below:

27

Humanistic position: avoidance of anxious situations Learners as active participants in the learning process

View of language as structures and vocabulary Learner autonomy promoted

Self-correction is fostered Teacher is silent most of the time

Teacher as leader and decision-maker Use of repetition

Use of cuisenaire rods

Table 11: Features of the Silent Way (Tejada Molina, Pérez Cañado & Luque Agulló, 2005: 182).

The third one was named Suggestopedia, which was created by Georgi Lozanov

(1979). Within this methodology, learners “need to be comfortable and relaxed so that

their affective filter is lowered”, as stated by Harmer (2007: 68). The typical procedure

in a classroom would be: after some music or breathing techniques, students “listen to

texts and represent different roles using the L2. .... are flooded with oral input which

they have to learn in an inductive way, and the activities are designed so that they ...

do not provoke mental blocks. Interaction is also employed ... (Tejada Molina, Pérez

Cañado & Luque Agulló, 2005: 183). A summary of this method is provided below:

Focus on unconscious learning When relaxed, learners are capable of incredible feats

Use of yoga techniques to facilitate relaxation and concentration Activation of the left brain to foster holistic learning through music

Language: L1-L2 pairs Use of translation and memorisation

Oral input before output Interactive activities

Table 12: Features of Suggestopedia (Tejada Molina, Pérez Cañado & Luque Agulló, 2005: 184).

2.4.6. Communicative Language Teaching

The main aim of this method, which appeared in the 1960s, is to highly develop

communicative competence, as the Council of Europe (2001: 101) highlights. Students

are thus expected “not so much to produce correct sentences or to be accurate, but to

be capable of communicating and being fluent. ... language learning is ... linked with

real-life communication outside its confines, and authentic samples ... are employed”

(Tejada Molina, Pérez Cañado & Luque Agulló, 2005: 185).

2.4.7. The Post-Communicative period

28

Within this period, some criticism emerged towards the previous methodology.

In fact, it is stated that students are not given enough grammatical and lexical items or

structures, as well as the fact that pupils do not need so much “instruction in skills and

strategies such as predicting, negotiating meaning, or guessing” (Tejada Molina, Pérez

Cañado & Luque Agulló, 2005: 188).

As specified by Swan (1985b), “functions, notions, situations, topics, phonology,

structures, vocabulary, and skills” should be taken into consideration. Hence, as stated

by Tejada Molina, Pérez Cañado & Luque Agulló (2005: 189), he asserts that “semantic

and formal syllabuses not only do not rule each other out, but one cannot do without

the other and they must therefore be integrated”.

2.4.8. Recent approaches to language teaching and learning

Task-Based Language Learning (hereafter, TBLL) is one of the most well-known

recent approaches in language learning. Linguistically speaking, both discourse analysis

and pragmatics are now taken into account for the description of language (therefore,

language did not only involve communication, as some approaches defended). TBLL is

understood to constitute a series of different tasks where communicative competence

is pursued (Tejada Molina, Pérez Cañado & Luque Agulló, 2005: 191).

Some other recent approaches, such as the Lexical approach, put emphasis on

the “nature of the lexicon. Specifically, it considers the group of up to eight words, that

is, the lexical chunk”, as the particular unit to be exploited for language learning, as it is

specified by Tejada Molina, Pérez Cañado & Luque Agulló (2005: 192). Another current

approach includes the so-called Neuro-Linguistic Programming (hereafter, NLP), which

evolved in the 1970s. It is mainly “based on observation and experience”, and its ideas

“are being incorporated into diverse other areas: personal development, management,

sales and marketing, or education”, as clearly stated by Tejada Molina, Pérez Cañado &

Luque Agulló (2005: 194).

Subsequently, the widely-known Multiple Intelligence theory, developed by the

psychologist Howard Gardner (1993), deals with the inclusion of eight different ways in

which intelligence can be promoted. They are: intrapersonal, that involves knowledge

of our own feelings; interpersonal, that requires knowing about others' behaviours and

motivations; logical-mathematical, which includes problem-solving or knowing the way

to establish connections or patterns between different pieces of information; musical,

which implies knowing about the particularities of sounds; spatial, which is connected

to the spatial or visual capacities; linguistic, which is closely related to language and its

form; bodily-kinaesthetic, which helps or facilitates physical expression; and naturalist,

29

which implies being able to describe the natural world (Tejada Molina, Pérez Cañado &

Luque Agulló, 2005: 196-197).

Another recent approach makes reference to cooperative learning, which gives

importance to “the idea of cooperation and interdependence among group members”,

and that aims at making pupils “work together in structured groups to reach common

goals. .... The learners are thus direct and active participants in the learning process,

must work collaboratively ... and ... learn to monitor ... their ... learning” (Tejada

Molina, Pérez Cañado & Luque Agulló, 2005: 198). Last but not least, the last approach

to focus on is named Content-Based instruction (hereafter, CBI). It integrates language

instruction “with instruction in the content areas. The focus is thus on the substance or

meaning of the content that is being taught ... The foreign or second language is used

as the medium of instruction; as the vehicle through which ... content is learned”, as

stated by Tejada Molina, Pérez Cañado & Luque Agulló (2005: 200). Essentially, it views

successful language learning as specifically involving meaningful activities. Content and

Language Integrated Learning (henceforth, CLIL) is also to be highly considered, since it

is used in many bilingual programmes. Within the scope of this methodology, students

are given the opportunity to learn a given subject in the curriculum in addition to an L2

or a FL at the same time (since the contents of the subject are presented in that of the

L2 or the FL).

2.5. Partial conclusions

So far, the teaching of grammar has been approached from different points of

view. While there are some linguists or scholars (among others) who defend its role in

the teaching and learning processes of a given language, there exist many others who

advocate for its exclusion when it comes to language learning (or at least for the mere

fact that it should be given quite minimal importance). However, and according to the

Council of Europe (2001: 112-113), learners need to develop grammatical competence

as one of the sub-competences that are listed within the linguistic component. Hence,

this somehow evidences that grammar plays a significant role when learning an L2 or a

FL, since it accounts for the norms or rules that are to be followed in a given language.

It is useful both for language comprehension and mainly production (which in turn aids

or facilitates communication). The fact that grammar is to be accounted for as a crucial

tool for language learning does not necessarily mean the fact that other linguistic areas

or even the so-called four language skills must be denied or attached a minimal role. In

fact, communication is central for language learning and it can be complementary with

grammar. The “focus on form” approach is in line with this idea, and advocates for the

teaching of grammar in communicative contexts. The subsequent lesson plan attempts

to consider both grammar and communication as key elements for language learning.

30

3. LESSON PLAN

Image 1: Some iconic places to visit worldwide (taken from: https://tinyurl.com/y3shd2fq).

3.1. Title

The subsequent lesson plan, which is designed for teaching EFL in CSE, is named

“On the route... to success”. Metaphorically, students are implicitly given the idea that

they may be successful once this lesson plan is practically carried out. Furthermore, a

potential success in this didactic unit may also highly contribute to language learning.

3.2. Justification

The idea of choosing the topic of travelling for this current lesson plan is mainly

due to my pre-service's experience at the I.E.S. Santa Teresa high school, which is to be

found in the province of Jaén (near the University of Jaén's main complex). Despite the

fact that on-site classes led to online lessons due to the COVID-19 pandemic, I enjoyed

my time at the aforementioned high school, and thus tried to learn as much as I could

in a different teaching methodology to which I was used to. Hence, I decided to design

31

my MD's lesson plan taking into consideration real data, and this does not only apply

to choosing the I.E.S. Santa Teresa as the geographic location, but also its facilities and

even students' characteristics (this is further developed in the subsequent section). Its

geographic location is shown as follows:

Image 2: I.E.S. Santa Teresa's geographic location (taken from: https://tinyurl.com/yyzql9bz).

After checking the 3rd Grade EFL's coursebook (which was entitled New Action

3!, developed by Burlington Books and written by McDonald & Devlin, 2019), I strongly

considered that the topic of travelling (which was specifically dealt with at Unit 4: “On

the Road”) could be perfectly used for approaching English grammar without leaving

mere communication aside. In fact, and as claimed by the Council of Europe (2001: 51),

the topics of “travel” or “places” are conceived as helpful for creating communicative

tasks. Furthermore, it is stated that travelling improves both social and communicative

skills, as well as it enhances values such as tolerance and respect towards others and

their culture. What is more, it may build up your confidence as to coping with potential

obstacles throughout your life.

The idea of promoting not only Spain, but also Andalusia, as explicitly touristic

destinations is also somehow covered within this lesson plan. Moreover, it is of utmost

importance that pupils develop an attitude of interest and respect for others' cultures,

as it is specified in Objective j from the Royal Decree 1105/2014 (in which the minimum

contents for CSE and NCSE are covered, together with the assessment criteria and the

32

assessable learning standards), in Objective b from the Decree 111/2016 (in which the

arranging and the curriculum for CSE in Andalusia are dealt with), and in Objectives 10

and 14 from the Order of 14th July 2016 (where the curriculum corresponding to CSE in

Andalusia is established, in addition to aspects related to diversity and evaluation).

The grammar practice found within this didactic unit especially has to do with:

“Past Simple”, “There was/were”, “Used to” and “Past Continuous”. However, because

of the fact that the EFL subject in CSE in Spain often follows the so-called procedure of

continuous assessment (in that contents from prior units or lessons constantly appear

as long as the course proceeds), it would not be so surprising that other tenses, units

or grammatical structures may be dealt with. As to the way in which grammar will be

taught to learners, it may vary based on the given educational or situational context to

be found within the classroom. Furthermore, the fact that all the students do not learn

the contents at the same pace indicates that the teaching method adopted may hence

vary accordingly. For this reason, both deductive and inductive reasoning (also known

as direct or indirect instruction, respectively) have to be borne in mind (even though it

is advisable to teach grammar inductively).

3.3. Contextualization

This lesson plan is designed for 3rd Grade English learners who are studying EFL

at the I.E.S. Santa Teresa high school. It consists of 6 sessions which last for 55 minutes

each. Specifically, these are to be taught at the beginning of the second term, including

January 8th, 9th, 10th, 13th, 15th, and 16th, 2020. As to the number of students found

in the classroom, there are 18 EFL learners (10 boys and 8 girls) in the group, which is

heterogeneous and where the pupils' level may fit that of low intermediate (B1), as far

as the CEFR (Council of Europe, 2001) is concerned.

With regard to attention to diversity, there are two students (one boy and one

girl) with lack of attention (namely, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; hereafter,

ADHD). They sit in the front row of the classroom and, therefore, close to the teacher.

Both of them are given individualised explanations during the 6 sessions by the teacher

or the rest of their classmates (mainly, the ones who show a higher English proficiency

level). Among them, there is a boy whose curricular level is above their classmates' (it

is closer to B2), and who participates a lot in the EFL classroom. The fact of counting on

students with either higher curricular level or higher degrees of proficiency definitely

makes the teaching method much easier for the teacher.

As to the EFL classroom's description, it is very big and spacious, which clearly

helps the implementation of group work and facilitates cooperative learning. Students

are commonly sitting in rows, although the classroom arrangement changes when it is

33

needed. Within the high school's main complex, there is a computer room, in addition

to other facilities, equipped with computers, projectors, or electronic whiteboards. The

pupils may be required to carry out some of their tasks in the above-mentioned room

at some given point.

3.4. Competences

According to the Royal Decree 1105/2014, there exist seven key competences

(henceforth, KC) in the curriculum (Royal Decree, 2014: 172; my own translation). They

are listed in the subsequent table:

KC1 Linguistic communication

KC2 Mathematical competence and key competences in science

and technology

KC3 Digital competence

KC4 Learning to learn competence

KC5 Social and civic competences

KC6 Initiative and entrepreneurship

KC7 Cultural awareness and expression competence Table 13: Key competences (Royal Decree 1105/2014: 172).

3.5. Objectives

The objectives to be reached within this lesson plan are split into three sections

(didactic aims, objectives of stage and FL objectives). The first column (in other words,

didactic aims) shows my proposed aims to be reached in this lesson plan. With regard

to the objectives of stage (in this case, CSE), those chosen in the table below are taken

from the Royal Decree (2014: 176-177). Concerning the FL objectives, they come from

the Order of 14th July (2016: 212-213), and they refer to those directly related to the FL

(in this case, English). Moreover, the last column focuses on the KC which are explicitly

developed within this lesson plan.

Didactic aims Objectives of stage

(Royal Decree 1105/2014)

FL objectives (Order of 14th July

2016) KC

- To understand and produce oral and written

texts whose main theme is travelling

- To talk about punctual or in progress past actions

- To talk about past actions which are no longer true

now

b, e, i, j 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 14

KC1

KC2

KC4

KC7

34

- To appreciate and respect others and their culture

Table 14: Lesson plan's objectives.

3.6. Contents

1. Listening 2. Speaking and

interacting 3. Reading

4. Writing and interacting

- Recognising and identifying

vocabulary related to travelling

- Participating in class discussion about the book

- Asking for and giving directions

- Understanding vocabulary which is related to travelling

- Reading and

understanding the main topics in a

book

- Writing a

summary of a text

- Writing a composition about a town, a city or an

ideal destination

Table 15: Lesson plan's contents.

3.7. Cross-curricular issues

Within the present day theoretical framework, and specifically, if the Article 6

of the Decree 111/2016 is accounted for, cross-curricular issues are accounted for.

They highly contribute to significant learning through social, ethical and cultural views

which are given to students. This lesson plan stresses both the widely-known Andalusia

culture and the Spanish one as well.

3.8. Interdisciplinarity

According to the Decree 111/2016, interdisciplinary elements have to be borne

in mind because of the fact that they are significant to establish academic relationships

between different disciplines. This lesson plan explicitly addresses disciplines such as

geography or literature.

3.9. Temporalization

As mentioned in section 3.3., the days in which this lesson plan is to be put into

practice are: January 8th, 9th, 10th, 13th, 15th, and 16th, 2020.

35

3.10. Attention to diversity

Teachers are bound to have pupils at different levels of knowledge. All the

students are different by nature, with dissimilar strengths and weaknesses or levels of

competence. Within this lesson plan, there are two students (one boy and a girl) with

lack of attention. As aforementioned (cf. section 3.3.) they are placed in the front rows

of the classroom, receiving individualised explanations when necessary. Furthermore,

it is important to highlight the fact that pupils with higher degrees of proficiency tend

to assist their classmates when needed, and they normally participate a lot in the EFL

classroom.

3.11. Step-by-step account

The subsequent lesson plan is divided into 6 sessions:

3.11.1. Session 1

1. The teacher asks the students to watch a video about the Top 10 most typical

destinations which are visited every year in Spain (also including Andalusia). This video

lasts for 09:22 minutes. Once learners have entirely watched it, they are asked several

questions:

- Video taken from: https://tinyurl.com/yydacpfs.

- Duration of the activity: 20'.

- Skills practised: listening and speaking.

36

2. Travel flashcards: Match the following items related to the field of travelling

to its proper definitions. Can you find any new words to you?

- Duration of the activity: 10'.

- Skills practised: vocabulary.

37

3. The teacher shows a description of his hometown to their students. He asks

them whether they have visited it or not in the past. Consequently, students are asked

to provide a brief description of their hometown in about 10'. Some basic information

that is expected to be included concerns: name of the town or city, where it is located,

how many years they have been living there and names of the most touristic places to

visit there.

The teacher first provides an example: Loja (Granada).

Image 3: Loja (taken from: https://tinyurl.com/yy6sc3mw).

38

- Duration of the activity: 10'.

- Skills practised: reading and writing.

4. Grammar: “Past Simple” and “Used to”. The teacher asks for volunteers in

the classroom. He wants someone to provide a brief summary of how these tenses are

formed, as well as to explain when they have to be used. Subsequently, the pending 10

minutes will be devoted to grammar practice, so that they get used to use these tenses

(since they will need to know how to use them for future tasks).

Image 4: Past Simple (taken from: https://tinyurl.com/y2uw9gmp).

39

Image 5: Used to (taken from: https://tinyurl.com/yxvwxvqg).

- Duration of the activity: 15'.

- Skills practised: writing.

3.11.2. Session 2

1. The teacher devotes the first 5 minutes of the classroom for clarifying some

doubts from the previous session.

2. Subsequently, the teacher gives all the students a copy, in which a text titled

“Last summer holiday” appears. Firstly, he asks them to read it aloud (one by one), so

that he can check how their pronunciation is like. Then, the teacher asks them to circle

all the past tenses in the text, and requires them to complete an activity which involves

reading comprehension. This is to be done individually.

- Duration of the activity: 10'.

- Skills practised: speaking and writing.

40

Image 6: “Last summer holiday” (taken from: https://tinyurl.com/y4rrpt3l).

3. The teacher now divides the classroom in groups of two. Given that they now

have an idea of what the previous text was about, he asks them to write a summary of

it in a separate piece of paper, which is to be handed in before the lesson ends.

- Duration of the activity: 15'.

- Skills practised: writing.

41

4. The subsequent 25' of the classroom are dedicated to the presentation of a

book, which is called “Two explorers: Marco Polo and Roald Amundsen”, developed by

Burlington Books and written by Arthur Taylor. The main aim of this book is the fact of

promoting reading not only in the classroom, but also outside its confines. Moreover,

it follows one of the main programmes of the I.E.S. Santa Teresa high school, as it can

be checked on its webpage. 2 This programme I make reference to is named Lectura y

Biblioteca. At the beginning of sessions 3 and 4 there will be given 15' for the reading

of this book as well.

Moreover, some discussion about this book is to be carried out before ending

up this session. Some questions include:

Image 7: "Two explorers: Marco Polo and Roald Amundsen"

- Duration of the activity: 25'.

- Skills practised: reading and speaking.

- Book taken from: https://tinyurl.com/y4mklvy5.

2 I.E.S. Santa Teresa's webpage: https://tinyurl.com/y4rkhwhj.

42

3.11.3. Session 3

1. The teacher asks the students to read again the book “Two explorers: Marco

Polo and Roald Amundsen” during 15'. It is important to highlight the fact that he asks

one or two questions about the reading to some students. These learners would have

to give a brief summary about what they read.

- Duration of the activity: 15'.

- Skills practised: reading and speaking.

2. Grammar: “Past Continuous”. The teacher asks again for volunteers. Learners

have to briefly explain how this tense is formed, and then, they are required to work

on grammar practice.

- Duration of the activity: 15'.

- Skills practised: writing.

3. Essay topic (one to choose): 'Imagine that you travelled to your ideal place or

destination last year on holidays. Describe your experience. What did you enjoy most?'

or 'Recommend a place that you have visited in the past. Why do you recommend it?'

This is to be handed in.

- Duration of the activity: 25'.

- Skills practised: writing.

43

3.11.4. Session 4

1. The teacher asks the students to read again the book “Two explorers: Marco

Polo and Roald Amundsen” during 15'. It is important to highlight the fact that he asks

one or two questions about the reading to some students. These learners would have

to give a brief summary about what they read.

- Duration of the activity: 15'.

- Skills practised: reading and speaking.

2. Giving directions. Students are required to complete a worksheet on basically

giving directions. In the case that some doubts are found, they are free to ask.

- Duration of the activity: 15'.

- Skills practised: writing.

3. Essay topic (one to choose): 'Imagine that you travelled to your ideal place or

destination last year on holidays. Describe your experience. What did you enjoy most?'

or 'It is important for college students to travel to other countries to better understand

other people. Do you agree or disagree?'.

This is to be handed in.

- Duration of the activity: 25'.

- Skills practised: writing.

44

3.11.5. Sessions 5 and 6

These two sections are to be joined. Students are firstly required to look for

information on the Internet about a chosen place. It can be a town or a city which they

have previously visited in the past or an ideal place for them to visit. This final task is to

be done in groups of two. The first thing that they have to hand in is a piece of writing

about a complete description of this place. Then, in the final session (session 6), they

are given the chance of choosing between: either presenting that information in front

of their classmates or recording themselves at home (in case they feel embarrassed to

do the task in the classroom).

3.12. Evaluation

3.12.1. Evaluation tools

- 50% Final project (sessions 5 and 6).

- 20% First essay (session 3).

- 20% Second essay (session 4).

- 10% Observance and active participation.

3.12.2. Evaluation criteria

Evaluation criteria Indicators/ALS

1.1. (CCL, CD) 1.6. (CCL, CAA)

- Understands essential information related to travelling

- Recognises oral data related to the topic

2.1. (CCL, CD, SIEP) 2.4. (CCL, SIEP)

- Maintains simple conversations using words related to travelling

- Carries out performances orally

3.1. (CCL, CMCT, CD) 3.5. (CCL, CAA, SIEP)

- Understands essential information (no matter the tense used)

- Recognises basic patterns to ask for and give directions

4.1. (CCL, CD, SIEP) 4.4. (CCL, SIEP)

- Writes summaries after reading texts - Writes compositions about travelling

45

4. REFERENCES

Within this section, all the references which have been used for the description

and discussion of the contents dealt with in this MD are listed. Therefore, they are split

into primary and secondary sources.

4.1. Primary sources

Adams, E. (1997). Humanistic and whole-person teaching revisited. In E. A. Adams, A.

Bueno González & G. Tejada Molina (eds.), The Grove. Working Papers on

English Studies (special issue: Francisco Manzaneda Oneto In Memoriam), 4:

21-37. Jaén: Universidad de Jaén.

Barrios Espinosa, M. E. & García Mata, J. (2005). Teaching and learning foreign

languages. In N. McLaren, D. Madrid & A. Bueno (eds.), TEFL in Secondary

Education, 113-154. Granada: Editorial Universidad de Granada.

Bergillos, F. L. & Moore, P. (2005). The teaching of grammar. In N. McLaren, D. Madrid

& A. Bueno (eds.), TEFL in Secondary Education, 409-441. Granada: Editorial

Universidad de Granada.

46

Brown, H. D. (20075). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. White Plains, NY:

Pearson Longman.

Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:

Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University

of Cambridge.

Decreto 111/2016, de 14 de junio, por el que se establece la ordenación y el currículo

de la Educación Secundaria Obligatoria en la Comunidad Autónoma de

Andalucía. BOJA (Boletín Oficial de la Junta de Andalucía), nº 122 de 28 de junio

de 2016: https://tinyurl.com/y6rjgcss (retrieved: October 07th, 2020).

Ellis, R. (2002). Grammar teaching: practice or consciousness-raising? Methodology in

Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice, 167-174.

Gartland, L. B. & Smolkin, L. B. (2016). The histories and mysteries of grammar

instruction: supporting elementary teachers in the time of the Common Core.

The Reading Teacher, 69/4: 391-399.

Harmer, J. (20074). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Harlow: Pearson

Longman.

Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Hinkel, E. & Fotos, S. (eds.) (2001). New Perspectives on Grammar Teaching in Second

Language Classrooms. New York: Routledge.

Hudson, R. & Walmsley, J. (2005). The English patient: English grammar and teaching in

the twentieth century. Journal of Linguistics, 41: 593-622.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding Language Teaching: From Method to

Postmethod. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

López Rama, J. & Luque Agulló, G. (2012). The role of grammar teaching: from

communicative approaches to the Common European Framework of Reference

for Languages. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas, 7: 179-191.

Madrid, D., Jiménez Raya, M. & Linde, A. (2005). The EFL curriculum for secondary

education. In N. McLaren, D. Madrid & A. Bueno (eds.), TEFL in Secondary

Education, 241-280. Granada: Editorial Universidad de Granada.

Manzaneda, F. & Madrid, D. (1997). Actitudes y motivación en la clase de inglés (1º de

BUP). In E. A. Adams, A. Bueno González & G. Tejada Molina (eds.), The Grove.

Working Papers on English Studies (special issue: Francisco Manzaneda Oneto

In Memoriam), 4: 153-171.

47

McIntosh, J. (ed.) (20134). Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary Online (CALDO).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: https://tinyurl.com/zefluxy (retrieved:

October 07th, 2020).

McLaren, N. & Madrid, D. (2005). The FL teacher and class management. In N.

McLaren, D. Madrid & A. Bueno (eds.), TEFL in Secondary Education, 211-240.

Granada: Editorial Universidad de Granada.

Nassaji, H. & Fotos, S. (2004). Current developments in research on the teaching of

grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24: 126-145.

Nassaji, H. & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching Grammar in Second Language Classrooms:

Integrating Form-focused Instruction in Communicative Context. New York:

Routledge.

Nunan, D. (1998). Teaching grammar in context. ELT Journal, 52/2: 101-109.

Orden de 14 de julio de 2016, por la que se desarrolla el currículo correspondiente a la

Educación Secundaria Obligatoria en la Comunidad Autónoma de Andalucía, se

regulan determinados aspectos de la atención a la diversidad y se establece la

ordenación de la evaluación del proceso de aprendizaje del alumnado. BOJA

(Boletín Oficial de la Junta de Andalucía), nº 144 de 28 de junio de 2016:

https://tinyurl.com/y5jrrz79 (retrieved: October 07th, 2020).

Real Decreto 1105/2014, de 26 de diciembre, por el que se establece el currículo básico

de la Educación Secundaria Obligatoria y del Bachillerato. BOE (Boletín Oficial

del Estado), nº3 de 3 de enero de 2015: https://tinyurl.com/q6agrpo (retrieved:

October 07th, 2020).

Rodgers, T. (2009). The methodology of foreign language teaching: methods,

approaches, principles. In K. Knapp & B. Seidlhofer (eds.), Handbook of Foreign

Language Communication and Learning, 341-372. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Simpson, J. (ed.) (2020) (updated quarterly). Oxford English Dictionary Online (OEDO).

Oxford: Oxford University Press: https://tinyurl.com/y5cjqy9y (retrieved:

October 07th, 2020).

Swan, M. (2002). Seven bad reasons for teaching grammar - and two good ones.

Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice, 148-152.

Tejada Molina, G., Pérez Cañado, M. L. & Luque Agulló, G. (2005). Current approaches

and teaching methods. In N. McLaren, D. Madrid & A. Bueno (eds.), TEFL in

Secondary Education, 155-209. Granada: Editorial Universidad de Granada.

Vez, J. M. & Viña Rouco, M. (2005). Concepts of language: linguistic theory and

language teaching. In N. McLaren, D. Madrid & A. Bueno (eds.), TEFL in

Secondary Education, 43-78. Granada: Editorial Universidad de Granada.

48

4.2. Secondary sources

Asher, J. (1977). Learning Another Language through Actions: The Complete Teacher's

Guidebook. Los Gatos, CA.: Sky Oaks Productions.

Carter, R. & McCarthy, M. (1995). Grammar and the spoken language. Applied

Linguistics, 16/2: 141-158.

Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of the Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New

York: Basic Books.

Krashen, S. (1993). The effect of formal grammar teaching: still peripheral. TESOL

Quarterly, 27/4: 722-725.

Lewis, M. (1993). The Lexical Approach. The State of ELT and a Way Forward. Hove:

Language Teaching Publications.

Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: a design feature in language teaching methodology. In

K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg & C. Kramsch (eds.), Foreign Language Research in Cross-

Cultural Perspective, 39-52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Lozanov, G. (1979). Suggestology and Outlines of Suggestopedy. New York: Gordon and

Breach Science Publishers.

Montgomery, C. & Eisenstein, M. (1985). Real reality revisited: an experimental

communicative course in ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 19/2: 317-333.

Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages.

Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6/2: 186-214.

Savignon, S. (1972). Communicative Competence: An Experiment in Foreign Language

Teaching. Philadelphia: Center for Curriculum Development.

Spada, N. (1986). The interaction between type of contact and type of instruction:

some effects on the L2 proficiency of adult learners. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 8/2: 181-199.

Swan, M. (1985b). A critical look at the communicative approach. ELT Journal, 39/2:

76-87.

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes.

Language Learning: A Journal of Research in Language Studies, 46/2: 327-369.