1. Learning the rule system: Asking the ‘at what cost’ question Ernesto Macaro University of Oxford

2. The Great Grammar Debate What do we mean by ‘teaching grammar’? What do we mean by ‘having knowledge of grammar’? Why are we still arguing about it? Contexts? Phases? Lack of evidence? CLT not a method?

3. Historical Development Grammar-Translation (Pre 1850s) Direct Method (1900 – 1940) Audio-lingual (Audio-visual) 1941 - 1970 Communicative Language Teaching 1975 - ? All EGT No EGT Some (?) EGT

4. CLT in its purest form + task-based approaches Input processing Approach Focus on Form Focus on Forms Explicit Knowledge Implicit Knowledge A contemporary continuum

5. Explicit & Implicit Knowledge We are consciously aware (in working memory) of Explicit Knowledge. More difficult to be aware of Implicit Knowledge Explicit Knowledge is stored in long term memory as declarative information (as facts or propositions). IK is stored as procedural information (if situation X then do Y) Big issue: can EK become IK?

6. Which sentences are correct? 1.I saw the man who crossed the street 2.She watched the teacher who was giving the lecture 3.He forgot the guest who he is in the kitchen 4.He saw the boy who he is in the corner of the room 5.He met the man whom you recommended 6.She likes the same girl whom I like 7.I saw the girl that the boy hit her 8.She surprised the teacher whom the boy thanked her 9.We washed the baby to whom you had given a doll 10.He married the woman to whom you wrote the letter 11.I heard the girl that the man gave a flower to 12.I saw the girl that the boy read a book to her

7. Did you work out whether the sentences were right or wrong: “by feel” – (you just felt they were correct or incorrect) – Implicit Knowledge “by rule” – (you thought about what the rule or pattern was or might be) – Explicit Knowledge

8. New Programmes of Study: Grammar is ‘up front’ Identify and use tenses Use and manipulate key grammatical structures…including voices and moods as appropriate Use accurate grammar, spelling and punctuation

9. But what would be most teachers’ expectations about the learning of grammar?

10. Learners should be able to communicate meaning. in non-scripted talk: patterns of the language are sufficiently correct for the meaning to be understood (e.g. hier, *je mange* au restaurant chinois avec ma famille).

11. Learners should show evidence of growing awareness of patterns. Expectation that over time the pattern might become more target-like, even if only gradually.

12. Should learners be able to use some of the rules of the language correctly in focused grammar tasks ? Task: they have to provide the correct inflection for a verb when given in the infinitive Task: put a series of words in the correct syntactical order.

13. Should Learners be able to explain a rule in their own words? Teacher teaches a rule Teacher expects that the learners should be able to (at least) give their own rendition of the rule back to the teacher at some later point in time.

14. Should learners be able to use at least some metalanguage with respect to the rules that they have been taught? they might expect learners to be able to use the terms ‘noun’, ‘verb’ and ‘adjective’. Where do you stop? What about ‘adverb’? Is an adverb something that modifies a verb? Is ‘tomorrow’ an adverb? And what about ‘tomorrow’s performance will take place....’? What about ‘determiners’, ‘ditransitive verbs’, and ‘pseudo-clefts’,

15. What is the research evidence about whether morphology and syntax should be taught ‘explicitly’?

16. Beware the meta-analyses! Norris and Ortega (2000) 45 studies (published 1980-1998): advantage for focus- on-form. Spada and Tomita (2010) reporting on 34 studies between 1990 and 2004: better results for explicit instruction over implicit

17. Green, P. and Hecht, K. (1992) Implicit and Explicit Grammar: An empirical study Applied Linguistics, 13, 168-84 Questions: Do L2 learners know the rules they have been taught? Does knowing the rule mean you can spot a mistake? Context: secondary in Germany

18. Green, P. and Hecht, K. (1992) Results: Most learners had not learnt the description of the rules they had been taught (only 46% produced acceptable rule descriptions) Even the Gymnasium (academic school) achieved no better than 55% of acceptable rule descriptions (Yet) group as a whole produced 78% appropriate corrections -learners were able to correct without knowing the rules

19. Erlam, Rosemary, (2003) The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the acquisition of Direct Object Pronouns in French as a second language MLJ, 87, 2, 242-260 Question: does teaching grammar explicitly (or deductively) work better than teaching it inductively? Deductive – going from the global knowledge of rules to the particular/individual example Inductive – looking at particular/individual examples of a rule and encouraging the learner to generate their own rule (Context: secondary, New Zealand)

20. Erlam, (2003) Results In 7 out of the 12 post-treatment tests significant advantage of Deductive group over Inductive and Control groups – especially in productive tests rather than receptive tests. On production tests, Deductive group scored better on: pronoun frequency; pronoun form; pronoun placement Although the Deductive group made the greatest gains, they also showed the greatest decrease in effect size over time (between post and delayed) on all tests. Inductive group maintained gains over time. “control group showed little evidence of learning” (Learning what????)

21. Klapper J. and Rees J (2003) Reviewing the case for explicit grammar instruction in the university foreign language learning context. Language Teaching Research 7,3, 285-314 Question: Is Focus on FormS better than Focus on Form? (i.e. is explicit teaching of grammar better than more implicit/embedded in interaction) Context: undergraduates on honours or non- honours programmes in UK university

22. Klapper J. and Rees J (2003) Results no significant differences at entry point (A levels) end of year 2: explicit group scored significantly higher on C-Test and grammar test. beginning of year 4: Implicit significantly outperform Explicit group on C-test and Grammar test

23. Macaro & Masterman (2006 ) Does intensive explicit grammar instruction make all the difference? Language Teaching Research, 10/3, 297-327 Research Questions: Does an intensive short course of explicit grammar teaching, with high achieving first year undergraduates, result in: Greater grammatical knowledge Fewer (written) production errors Context: “access” programme for undergraduate French at Oxford

24. Macaro & Masterman Results: Discrete point grammar test: very few significant differences between experimental group and controls. Narrative writing test: no significant differences in elimination of grammatical errors. Conclusion Intensive explicit grammar instruction is not sufficient even with highly motivated, high-achieving learners. Structural change needs time to develop Individual progression needs to be respected

25. At what cost? Even if you are not convinced that the jury is still out on the effectiveness of Explicit Grammar Teaching……. what is being pushed aside by lesson after lesson which focuses on EK of grammar? What are the costs of focusing on accuracy?

26. Look at the ‘big picture’ The case of Japan At what cost?

27. Professional Development Consortium in MFL

28. Who we are Funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) University of Reading: Suzanne Graham and colleagues University of Oxford: Ernesto Macaro and colleagues The Willink School, Reading Cherwell School, Oxford Bartholomew School, Eynsham Larkmead School, Abingdon Whitecross School, Hereford

29. What we did Developed eight basic principles of language teaching based on what we think the research is telling us Started developing an assessment system which reflects those principles

30. To date we have Held seven day-long workshops around the country attended by over 300 teachers from 144 schools in 33 counties in England. Teacher-trainers from 28 universities also attended.

31. Our principles are supported by A series of reports from Ofsted from the 1990s to 2011 On-going problems with limited opportunities for:  spontaneous talk  developing effective listening, reading and writing skills Concerns regarding teachers’ classroom use of the target language (Ofsted, 2011)

32. Principle 1 ORAL INTERACTION Target language input is essential for learning but it can be made more effective if learners are allowed/encouraged to check their understanding of it by asking questions of what the teacher is saying or asking the teacher to repeat.

33. Principle 2 ORAL INTERACTION Learners need to be encouraged to speak spontaneously and to say things that they are not sure are correct

34. Principle 3 ORAL INTERACTION Less spontaneous oral interaction should nevertheless be of ‘high quality’. By high quality we mean including substantial student turns; adequate wait time; cognitive challenge [e.g. by requiring a verb phrase or subordinate clause]; appropriate teacher feedback; nominating students rather than waiting for volunteers.

35. Principle 4 ORAL INTERACTION Students should be explicitly taught strategies to use when faced with communication difficulties. These should be taught alongside techniques for developing their oral fluency.

36. Principle 5 READING AND LISTENING Learners need to be taught how to access a greater range of more challenging spoken and written texts, through explicit instruction in comprehension strategies and in the relationship between the written and spoken forms.

37. Principle 6 FEEDBACK Learners need to develop their self- confidence and see the link between the strategies they use and how successful they perform on a task.

38. Principle 7 WRITING Writing should be developed as a skill in its own right not just as a consolidation of other language skills. For this to happen students should frequently write using the language and strategies they already know rather than resources provided by the teacher (e.g. textbooks, writing frames, dictionaries, etc. )

39. Principle 8 (underpins all other principles) The principal focus of pedagogy should be on developing language skills and, therefore, the teaching of linguistic knowledge (knowledge of grammar and vocabulary) should act in the service of skill development not as an end in itself.

40. Speaking and interacting Level C – An experimenting communicator: Can do all of A & B consistently and confidently, plus: Begins to produce utterances & fragments creatively (untaught). Makes spontaneous contributions (for real communication). Spoken productions may contain inaccuracies, pauses, hesitations and reformulations. They are beginning to overcome the influence of the English sound-spelling system when pronouncing words in written form. Feels confident with a variety of topics which have been taught. Can ask a range of question types (information; requests etc.) Can make limited and appropriate comments spontaneously Uses the TL fairly routinely to interact with the teacher and peers. They are able to sustain longer interactions (multiple turn exchanges but not a sustained discussion). Level C - Developing linguistic knowledge 1) (VBD) Can recall at least 80 non- cognate words. Some may be inaccurate in form. 2) Can recall at least 25 collocations* (e.g. à mon avis). Can quickly recall correct form of at least 100 cognate words. Has a range of both concrete and abstract vocabulary. 3) (DRS) awareness of when TL structure differs from English; awareness of the importance of function words in spontaneous productions and in writing (prepositions; articles) Main Development Strand (skill progression) Supporting Strand: Linguistic Knowledge (vocab; grammar; etc)