Grammar teaching in MFL lessons in England

This is a summary part of an interesting study carried out by Sara Liviero (a former MFL teacher, I believe) for The Language Learning Journal in January 2017. This journal is the organ of the Association for Language Learning, the leading UK professional association for MFL teachers. The study's full title is Grammar teaching in secondary school foreign language learning in England: teachers' reported beliefs and observed practices. It can be accessed here:

"How should I teach grammar?" is a question often asked by new teachers. The abstract of this article mentions that teachers may find themselves pulled in different directions in this regard, given that research supports that focus on grammatical form is useful in classrooms, whereas the GCSE exam (taken by 15/16 year-olds in England and Wales) is more focused on communicative, skill-focused criteria. (Note that this study was focused on the old, pre-2018 GCSE with Controlled Assessment.) The study looked at eight teachers, observed their lessons and explored their views on grammar teaching. So the study is a useful contribution to knowledge about teacher practice and beliefs in this potentially confusing post-method era.

In the introductory section of the article Sara Liviero looks at some background to views on grammar teaching and Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) methodology. She notes the well-known distinction between explicit grammatical knowledge (the declarative ability to name and describe how grammar works) and implicit grammatical knowledge (that procedural knowledge which "cannot be brought into awareness or articulated" (Roehr, 2007). She also reminds readers of how the grammar-translation approach prioritised explicit knowledge contrasts with implicit approaches (she uses the word inductive - this is used differently by some writers) - where the focus is on meaning. (I found some confusion in her definitions here - people use the terms inductive and implicit in different ways. For me implicit equals incidental, whereas inductive means still teaching rules but after students have had a chance to work them out for themselves.)

Sara goes on to suggest that research into focus on form and MFL assessment practices are not in alignment. Referring to the previous GCSE (up to 2017), she claims that the 10% of marks allocated for knowledge and application of grammar does not effectively require students to successfully demonstrate grammatical skills. (This is very arguable, for example grammatical skill is required in interpreting listening and reading material and is often displayed in the best Speaking and Writing work, that which is clearly not just pre-learned,)

Having summarised the renewed interest in explicit grammar teaching in English lessons, she notes research which shows that, although communicative guidelines shaped the pre 2018 GCSE, many MFL teachers continue to teach grammar explicitly. Research has also reported that teachers often saw communication as in opposition to grammar and that the status of grammar teaching had suffered as a result of CLT.

Sara then gives some background about the subject of teacher cognition - "what teachers think, know and believe" (Borg, 2006). (Simon Borg is a leading researcher into teacher cognition.) Borg has found that MFL teachers often hold idiosyncratic beliefs about methodology, often based more on their personal beliefs than research evidence. These beliefs vary a good deal, partly based on where teachers were taught themselves and are resistant to change during teacher training. (So, for example, native speaker French teachers may have different experiences to those who learned French in the UK.)

The study

So Sara's study looked at these eight teachers' lessons and views about teaching grammar. One error which got past the editors stood out to me here. Sara says that the pre-2018 GCSE consisted almost entirely of "predictable modules" where students can learn their responses by rote. In fact, only 60% of the GCSE marks were for the Speaking and Writing Controlled Assessments. Rote learning is of little or no use for the Listening and Reading papers. She is right to note, however, that in Speaking and Writing it is not clear to what extent students were showing creative use of language. She also alludes to the pressure for teachers to teach to the exam, even if it conflicts with their views of how languages are best learned. (This is a perennial issue, whatever the nature of the exam in question.)

Her eight teachers were MFL teachers (French, German and Spanish) from various backgrounds, including natives. 16 lessons were observed. (Not many.) Interviews were conducted. The observations showed a range of practice, with a good deal of variation from teacher to teacher. Here are some of the grammar teaching modes and strategies as reported by the teachers, with actual observed practice:

Teacher 1
Reported: Inductive, communicative, presenting grammar rules which students copy, memorise and apply. Comparison with English grammar, colour coding input, giving 'structures'.
Observed: presentation of examples with translation, telling students to avoid trying out new language, use of metalanguage, recapped imperfect tense endings, students copied and joined sentences together.

Teacher 2
Reported:Explicit. Presenting rules. Translating from English one tense to another. Use of basic metalanguage.
Observed: lots of TL use, recasts, flooding of input. Incidental focus on form, task-based activity, CLT, metalinguistic explanation and independent written composition.

Teacher 3
Reported:Explicit grammar teaching. Integrating communication in TL. "This is the rule, here are some examples, do some practice."
Observed: explicit grammar teaching, use of metalanguage, classroom TL, written composition, translated instructions.

Teacher 4
Reported: Teaching word categories. Comparing with English structures, testing students' metalanguage.
Observed:  Proactive deductive, form-focused instruction. Simpler to harder. Sentence analysis. Translation. No TL. Independent written composition.

Teacher 5
Reported: TL use. Incidental, inductive approach. Rules from examples. Metalanguage in TL. Minimalist approach to grammar. Go from easier to harder. Scaffold from previous work.
Observed: TL. Focus on meaning. Incidental focus on form. Recasts. Input flooding. Any explicit focus on forms in TL. Task-based CLT. Independent written composition.

Teacher 6
Reported: Teaching the mechanics. Lots of activities to eliminate boredom. Group work. Inductive - "to make them see patterns". Draw the rules from examples. Use previous knowledge.
Observed: moderate TL use. Recognising vocab, phrases and sentences. Translation. Students copied and joined sentences together. Oral and written work.

Teacher 7
Reported: CLT. TL. Inductive and deductive focus on forms. Recasts. Noticing of structures.
Observed: TL. Focus on meaning. Incidental focus on form. Recasts. Input flooding. Explicit focus on forms in TL. Task-based CLT. Independent written composition.

Teacher 8
Reported: Traditional grammar teaching. No TL. Comparisons with English grammar.
Observed: Translation from English to French. Stick to templates, avoid new language. Metalanguage. Students copied and joined sentences together. Building block approach.

(That was the most interesting part of the study to me. Of course these are snapshots, but they do suggest a great variety of approaches to the teaching of grammar. They come as no surprise to me. I also found myself aligning instinctively with some teachers over others! How about you?)

Sara goes on to summarise some of the teacher observations, which I won't refer to here. Of interest was her finding that the teachers in selective schools focused less on reinforcing exam requirements and rote learning strategies. (Again, this does not surprise me as a former selective school teacher - where students are high-performing you don'y need to stress exam techniques quite so much. They'll cope.)

I'll stop at this point. If you want to explore more of this discussion and the teachers' views the article is open access until the end of December 2018.

Will the new GCSE exam make a difference to classroom practice with regard to grammar teaching? Almost certainly, as teachers and students can rely less on rote learning and as translation has been given a boost by its inclusion in papers. Hopefully less time is now being devoted to memorising material, even if the latter remains significant for the Speaking assessment.

In sum, although research on teaching grammar in MFL is still somewhat hazy, there is general support for some "focus on form", but no clear view on quite how much and how it should be done. It would be interesting to know how well the students of each of the above teachers developed as linguists. Their GCSE results would give some idea about this. And of course a study of this type is unable to look into the role of teacher personality, classroom relationships and sheer quality of delivery of the chosen approach. As I often argue, the latter is of great importance.

Image: pixabay.com