10 research-informed principles for grammar teaching

This is another extract from The Language Teacher Toolkit (Smith and Conti, 2023), and follows on from the previous post about types of grammatical knowledge. If you want to explore more posts about grammar, have a look here, here and here.

Here is a thought-provoking post by Gianfranco Conti.

And here is a very practical post from James Stubbs, about moving students from implicit to explicit knowledge.

Here are out 10 principles

1.    Do not make learning grammar rules the focus of language teaching (Ellis and Shintani, 2013). Grammar teaching can reduce enjoyment (Graham, 2022). In particular, make the grammar content lighter with students with lower language-analytic ability, i.e. being able to derive rules by analysing language. Grammar teaching is more suitable for high-aptitude learners (Suzuki and DeKeyser, 2017).

2.     Combine the use of explicit and implicit learning (Ellis and Shintani, 2013). To maximise implicit learning, use highly patterned input, input-flooding and input enhancement, i.e. emphasizing specific grammar items, through phonetic or visual devices (such as pronouncing a verb ending louder, highlighting a preposition, colour-coding case endings in German). Another way to maximise implicit learning is to exploit input at every level (Ellis, 2015), through intensive reading and listening.

 

3.    Introduce new structures in familiar linguistic contexts, e.g. with known vocabulary, to decrease cognitive load (Smith and Conti, 2021). Practise new grammar structures in sentences which are simple, short and where vocabulary and pronunciation create less cognitive load.

 

4.    Gradually phase out scaffolds. Move gradually from receptive processing to highly controlled, then semi-controlled and finally unplanned production. The rate at which you do this depends on the class. Research suggests that successful acquisition of a grammatical feature correlates with success in the initial retrieval episodes (Boers, 2021). So, go to production when you are confident students will be successful.

 

5.   Be aware of factors affecting acquisition, including issues such as L1 positive/negative transfer, saliency (how noticeable features are), regularity, frequency, complexity, phonological issues and so on. Anticipate these in your planning (Ellis, 2015). Above all, consider whether the class is developmentally ready to acquire grammar features, notably younger learners and lower-attaining students.

 

6.       Compare with L1 structures. Especially for students with low L1 literacy, explain how you would form and use the L1 equivalent of the target L2 structure first, then draw or elicit a comparison from the students. Tribushinina et al. (2022) provide evidence that this contrastive approach is effective for primary age children with developmental language disorder.

 

7.     Consider Transfer-Appropriate Processing. Remember that if a structure is learnt and practised in a specific linguistic context or through a given task, it is not easily transferred to another. For instance, if reflexive verbs are only practised in the context of daily routine, students find it difficult to transfer them to other contexts (Smith and Conti, 2021). Similarly, grammar is best tested in the way it was practised.

 

8.   Assess grammar uptake through a mixture of structured assessment (e.g. gap-fills) and free-production tasks, for example, “talk to me about last weekend” (Ellis and Shintani, 2013). Structured assessment tells us if students can do so when there are clear prompts as to what they are required to retrieve; free-production tasks test spontaneous grammar use, so tell us if the target structures have really been acquired.

9.   Use delayed assessment. Assess the learning of a grammar structure not just when the retrieval strength is high (such as right at the end of series of lessons on it), but several weeks later too. This reveals how much has been truly retained. Delayed tests can be impromptu and low stakes, so students are not demoralised if they do badly.

 

10. Correct errors directly and selectively. Research evidence is mixed on error correction, but generally suggests that it can improve grammatical accuracy, both oral and written, if done clearly, selectively, promptly and in a contextually sensitive way (e.g. Ellis and Shintani, 2013).