Sei sulla pagina 1di 21



1.1 Theoretical Framework

The ability to use grammar accurately, meaningfully and appropriately is
needed for English learner to communicate both in oral and written way. What is
to write and speak must be based on correct grammar, so that the message
conveyed can be understood. In teaching grammar, mostly use textbook or
published material. If these materials are used continuously, it can make learners
less motivated in studying the language. To deal with this problem a teacher can
provide a supplementary material to support the textbook. The supplementary
materials are generally known as authentic materials. Morley and Guariento
(2001), claim that the purpose of using authentic materials is to prepare students
for their social lives. In other words, the authentic materials are used in order to
close the language gap between classroom knowledge and real life. Similarly,

Spelleri (2002) supports this analysis, she thinks that the language used in
text books are only valid in a classroom environment whereas the requirement of
real life English is different and this difference has not yet been closed by the use
of text books because learners have to deal with the language of brochures, office
work, application forms and others cultural product. In this case the role of the
teacher is crucial; it is the teacher’s responsibility to filter materials through
selection of the learning objectives. It is the teacher’s responsibility to identify the
items and their adaptability as well.

1.2 The Objective of Paper

Based on the background of the problem above, this paper is conducted to;
1. Discussing about materials in the teaching grammar.
2. Discussing about telling tails: grammar, the spoken language and materials

1.3 Focus of the Discussion
This paper will be focused on;
1. Discussing about how is the authentic materials in the teaching
2. What is telling tails: grammar, the spoken language and materials


2.1 Discussing about materials in the teaching grammar

Approaches to teaching grammar

The vast range of approaches and methods – from Grammar Translation
and Audiolingualism over Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) to "input
hypothesis" (Krashen, 1997, cited in Cook, 2008, p.1 [online]) and the "organic
approach" (Nunan, 1999 and 2001) – provides a variegated choice of models for
grammar teaching. However, this range seems to be surprisingly restricted in
itself. On the one hand, as the debate between Swan(1985a,b) and Widdowson
(1985) demonstrates, many grammar teaching approaches more or less claim
exclusivity; on the other hand, Woodward (1996) describes how teachers
themselves either tend to cling to long-cherished beliefs or to completely replace
them by new ones – hence, "using a true blend of several paradigms may be
impossible" (Woodward, 1996, p.8).

a. Deductive approaches
Traditional deductive approaches are teacher-centred and use a "building-
block" system to present individual grammatical structures independent of context
(Nunan, 2001, and Long, 2001). Characteristically, scripted materials are used,
and rules are often explained in L1 and practiced through pattern drill, rote
dialogues, rule-reciting or translation.
The deductive approach addresses cognitive skills, which develop towards
abstract thinking around the age of eleven (de Andres, 2003). Its benefits are thus
limited to older or more advanced learners familiar with language structure,
learners with prior experience of prescriptive grammar or learners of
"logical/mathematical" or "spatial" intelligence (Gardner, cited in Richards and
Rodgers, 2001, p.116).

A considerable disadvantage of deductive approaches is their disregard of
learners' need for meaningful content. While Brown (2001) allows that
occasionally a deductive approach may be warranted, Goleman (1995) notes "that
the Western civilisation has overemphasised the importance of the rational
functions of the mind to the detriment of the non-rational functions: intuition,
emotions, feelings" (Goleman, 1995, cited in de Andres, 2003, p.1 [online]).

b. Consciousness-raising approaches
The idea of learners' active exploration of language structures has been
characterized by the underlying principle of learner autonomy and independence.
For Nunan (2001), this means that learners discover rules from given data and
decide for themselves how to apply them. Although he concedes that some
grammatical structures should be taught in a linear way, most structures require a
complex process of acquisition and should best be learned in context. Ellis (2001,
p.2 [online]) describes the term "consciousness-raising" in connection with rules
as follows:
... We don't actually directly try to influence the construction of the complex
network ..., because really learners can only do it themselves. We cannot implant
rules into that network. Learners extract from the available information around
them the regularities that go into their knowledge system. If that is the case, all
that we can do is make them aware of some of these patterns and bits and pieces
of language and how they work under the assumption that if you have an
awareness of them, then ultimately your pattern detector might function a bit more

Authentic materials in the classroom

As Swan (1985b, p.85) points out, "authentic material gives students a

taste of 'real' language in use, and provides them with valid linguistic data for their
unconscious acquisition processes to work on." Nunan (1999, p.79) defines
spoken and written authentic texts as ...[having] been produced in the course of

genuine communication, not specially written for purposes of language teaching.
They provide learners with opportunities to experience language as it is used
beyond the classroom. Of course there is a great deal of language generated within
the classroom itself that is authentic, and this can very often be used for
pedagogical purposes.
According to Nunan (1999, p.80) the term "authentic text" covers
language samples drawn from a wide variety of contexts, including TV and radio
broadcasts, conversations, discussions and meetings of all kinds, talks, and
announcements [as well as] magazines, stories, printed material and instructions,
hotel brochures and airport notices, bank instructions, and a wide range of written
As "text" might be misunderstood as meaning "written language" only, I
will substitute it by "material". Despite learners' increasing needs to deal with
authentic materials, scripted materials are still prescribed or preferred in most
classrooms, as many teachers criticize the complexity of authentic language as too
demanding for most learners.
However, an often disregarded aspect of introducing authentic materials is
the pleasure and motivation it might bring to the learners. Working with "the real
thing", a genuine piece of the culture underlying the language, might even
motivate reluctant learners into overcoming their shyness, aversion or fears with
regard to language-learning. As Scrivener (1996, p. 85) puts it, "authentic is for
communication, fluency, real-life, pleasure."
For the study of Seeger (2009), she used a film with real-life discourse,
produced for a general audience, a) to supplement cultural information in the
textbook, b) to motivate learners into occupying themselves with grammar and c)
to give them a pleasurable experience with the English language.

Criteria of the Selection Materials.

There are some criteria that the teacher should pay attention to in selecting
an appropriate materials, particularly authentic materials, in teaching grammar.
According to Berardo (2006), there are three criteria of it. They are suitability of

content, exploitability, and readability. Suitability of content associates with
students’ needs and interest, as well as the compatibility between materials and
course objective. Exploitability deals with the idea whether the selection material
fits to teaching purpose, in this case teaching grammar. Additionally,
exploitability also refers to the consideration of the usage of the materials to teach
grammar. The other criterion is readability. It represents some points about the
appropriateness of materials and students’ ability. It is regarding to the easiness
and difficulty of the vocabulary used in selected authentic materials. What is
more, readability discusses if the materials make the students want to read more
about the topic.
Concerning to the criteria of the selection materials, the teachers
responded that they selected the materials under some conditions. The first is
students’ needs and interests. The second is the level of students, whether they are
in intermediate or advanced level. The third is course objective. The fourth is
language level, both vocabulary and grammar level. And the last is the richness of
the material. As the response to the item of the questionnaire which asked about
the criteria of selection materials, one of the teachers wrote “I look at the course
objectives first and decide what materials should be suitable with them. Because
from that point, I will be able to assess my students fairly and objectively.”

2.2 Telling Tails: Grammar, The Spoken Language and Materials

While traditional methods of teaching are based on the written sources, a
number of corpora of spoken English allow including spoken language patterns in
the teaching process and giving a boost to materials developing. Differences
between authentic language, the source of which is a real conversation, and
scripted language used in textbooks for learning purposes.

a. Differences Between Authentic and Scripted Dialogue

Comprehensibility of the scripted language allows it to be more popular
and suitable for the pedagogical usage. The implication of authentic language in

syllabus can become a relevant and helpful method for the students to improve
their level.
“Tails” structures to prove the importance of spoken grammar for the
teaching process. This is a feature of a big value in the CANCODE corpus and,
unfortunately, lacks the proper description in grammar books. What is more, this
topic causes difficulties for materials designers, teachers and their students.
1. What are the features of “tails”?
 Informal grammar structures
 Occur at the and of sentences
 Almost exclusive to the spoken language
 Important for a listener-sensitive and affective grammar
2. What are the uses of “tails”?
 To express attitudes.
 To add emphasis.
 To evaluate.
 To provide repetition for listeners.
3. Why are “tails” structures needed to be appropriately embedded within
language course book dialogues?
 They are widely used by speakers of different origin.
 They provide the upper-intermediate and advanced learners with more
choice for building a conversation.
 “Tails” provide cohesion for the pre-planned discourse.
 The structures help the listener to catch and understand the whole range of
emotions put in the sentences.
4. How to evaluate materials for teaching “tails”?
In order to choose proper materials for teaching spoken grammar patterns
like “tails”, teacher should know how to evaluate them. The writers consider such
points of the evaluation:
 Examine whether it is appropriate to use writing based exercises for
practicing the spoken grammar constructions.

 Find out if it is reliable to support the process of teaching with audio
 Take into consideration teachers’ and students’ expectations.
 Detect how much time should be spent on learning “tails” and what
methods should be used for this aim.
 Choose only reliable sources of authentic texts.
5. Why an approach to spoken grammar through language awareness/
consciousness-raising activities should be seriously considered?
 Since the approach is based on communicative language teaching, it
allows learners to improve their fluency.
 When students are trying to discover grammatical structures by
themselves, they are able to learn them more effectually.
 Students do not waste their time on ineffective automatic production of the
 Students can easily notice grammar structures because the approach allows
using the content-based tasks.
 Interpersonal orientation of the tasks encourage students of learn different
grammar patterns.
 The approach is a very efficient way to stimulate such an important feature
in students as observation, which is helpful for comprehension.
6. How can we foster and enhance grammatical consciousness-raising in the
EFL/ESL classroom?
 Examples of grammatical patterns should be clear and well-organised to
 Everything that can distract students from concentrating on target structure
ought to be avoided.
 It is better to use the corpus-informed materials than corpus-driven ones.
While the latter are authentic texts without any modifications, the corpus-
informed materials imply texts’ transformation for the better

 Teachers should be competent enough in order to know to what extant
they can modify the authentic texts.
7. Why is it important to include such grammar constructions as “heads” and
“tails” in the teaching process?
“Heads” just like “tails” are very useful language patterns for the students
for making their language sound more fluently.
8. What are the functions of “heads”?
 Orienting and focusing.
 Preparing the listener to the following information.
 Maintaining the interpersonal relationships.
9. Differences between “heads” and “tails”:
“Heads” “Tails”
Main function Providing orientation Express personal attitude
Involving of personal
Less interpersonal More interpersonal
Position in sentence At the beginning At the end

10. Why is it important to provide the English language learners with broader
choice of spoken grammar constructions?
 It develops a “feel” of the language for learners.
 Spoken English will be more widely used in the near future and speaking
skills are becoming more valuable for people.

Teaching Grammars benefitials for students

The position that grammar instruction affords no advantage to students
during acquisition of writing skills, while based on what Braddock at al., call
“widespread agreement,” has not been received without resistance among
educators and scholars. In fact, the opposite is true. All during the past six decades
a war has been raging between the educators who have stated that instruction in
grammar was detrimental to the development of students’ writing, and those who
have blamed the poor or mediocre writing skills of college students on the lack of

grammar instruction. A few scholars, though, have considered the matter from a
balanced academic perspective, articulating a consistent argument for grammar
instruction. In The Oxford English Grammar, Greenbaum (1996) provides
significant points of view towards the inclusion of grammar in language
The linguist and grammarian makes his remarks under the
subtitle“Reasons for studying grammar” and begins with a comment about the
eternal debate about grammar instruction in the British and American schools and
the change in educational “fashions:” From time to time there are public debates
about the teaching of grammar in schools.
Educational fashions change, and after a period of over twenty-five years
since the formal teaching of grammar was abandoned in most state schools there
have been recent calls in both Britain and the United States for the reintroduction
of grammar teaching as part of “a return to the basics” (1996, p. 37)
Greenbaum then presents four persuasive reasons for grammar education.
The first reason is the fact that grammar should be an ingredient of an individual’s
“general knowledge,” as much as all the other subjects taught in the school:
There are sound arguments for teaching about language in general and the English
language in particular.
An understanding of the nature and functioning of language is part of the
general knowledge that we should have about ourselves and the world we live in.
In this respect linguistics deserves a place at all levels of the curriculum at least as
much as (say) history, geography, or biology. For language is the major means by
which we communicate with others and interact with them, and out attitudes to
our own variety and the varieties of others affect our image of ourselves and of
others. Linguistics is a central discipline that has bearings on many other
disciplines: psychology, sociology, anthropology, philosophy, literature, and
computer science. (1996, p. 36)
The second reason that should compel grammar instruction has to do with
our need to use language in various contexts and the language skills required for
such a purpose:

Study of the English language can help students develop their ability to
adjust their language appropriately to different contexts. They should be aware of
the expectations that Standard English is the norm for public writing, and they
will need to learn to adopt the conventions for public writing in grammar,
vocabulary, spelling, and punctuation. (1996, p. 36)
Greenbaum (1996) considers reasonable the notion that grammar
instruction benefits the students throughout the writing process, and in particular
during paper drafting and editing:
Grammar (in the sense of ‘syntax’) is generally regarded as central to
linguistics, and it should therefore be included in a linguistic curriculum
on its own terms. Many educationists have denied that a study of grammar
can improve the ability to write English correctly and effectively, but (as
with all subjects) it depends on what is taught and how it is taught. It
would seem reasonable to suppose that written style can be improved
through learning about the resources for grammatical structures, word
order, and the devices for connecting sentences and paragraphs. Certainly,
that kind of knowledge would be helpful at the editing stages to improve
the style of earlier drafts and to correct grammatical errors.
The last reasons for grammar instruction, believes Greenbaum, are for “the
interpretation of texts,” and the learning of foreign languages:
There are other applications of a knowledge of grammar both in and out of
the classroom:
The interpretation of texts-literary or non-literary-sometimes depends on
grammatical analysis; recognition of grammatical structures is often
required for punctuation; and a study of one’s own grammar is helpful in
studying the grammar of a foreign language. (1996, p. 37)
The studies, comments Tomlinson, are based on a biased perspective, or a
reversed logical process which begins with the conclusion and works hard to
confirm the pre-established idea:
The studies are not as many as one is led to believe. Many references turn
out to be simply polemic. Those that are genuine research follow a pattern. There

is an introductory piece of polemic, followed by a summary of past research in
which the author, without scrutinizing the research itself, accepts all the
conclusions that show grammar teaching to be ineffective; and then comes the
author’s own research.
The main problem these polemical studies face, though, is the procedural
approach to the relation between grammar and writing, which appears to bend
statistics in order to prove a point:
The method is usually to attempt to quantify pupils’ knowledge of
grammar, or an aspect of it; secondly, to quantify similarly their standard
of written English; and then to show that no valid statistical correlation
obtains between the two.
Assuming this to be a viable procedure (and this is not the place to discuss
whether it is possible to assign precise numerical values to such complexities) we
can see straightway that such studies need to be designed with extreme care.
Clearly there are likely to be several ways of arriving at a negative statistical
correlation other than the one you are hoping to demonstrate. So far I have not
seen a study that is not so flawed in design as to make its conclusions worthless.
Tomlinson (1994) then examines two studies on grammar and writing
skills and explains the methodological problems that plague each of them. He
begins with Robinson’s (1959) M.Ed.
unpublished thesis, “The relation between knowledge of English
Grammar and ability in English Composition,” which was the result of
research performed in 1958 “in four maintained grammar schools in the
Manchester area”
While Robinson selected the students at random in order to assess “the
actual knowledge of the students” who included a “random sample of 145 pupils,”
and establish “whether their achievement in written work correlated with this
knowledge [about basic sentence structure],” the compositions were “impression-
marked.” States Tomlinson:
But if you are assessing the effect of grammatical knowledge on written
work, there is no point in insisting on impression-marking. Why not? The

impression mark depends to an unexpected extent on variables unrelated to
grammatical knowledge, e.g. vocabulary choice and spelling, and indeed
to further aspects difficult to relate to English teaching at all, e.g. the
amount of content and its originality, or the ability to summon relevant
facts and marshal them into a composition.
The second research work examined in Tomlinson’s paper is Harris’
(1965) article which bore the title “An experimental enquiry into the functions of
and value of formal grammar in the teaching of English,” a summarization of the
thesis with the same title written in 1962. The basis of Harris’ conclusions
research had been “an experiment…carried out over a period of two years with a
pair of classes in five London schools” (Tomlinson, 1994, p. 24). These classes
were “two grammar, two comprehensive, [and] one girls’ secondary modern,”
divided into groups, the ones who “had one period of instruction in formal
grammar,” and the control group, those who “used the time saved to write a long
story.” p. 24).
The division of the students into the two groups was intended show the
difference in progress between the groups:
The aim was to test whose English improved the more: in Harris’s words,
the“grammar class” that had the grammar lesson or the “non-grammar”
class that had the writing practice instead. It was ostensibly a test of the
effectiveness of the grammar lesson, with a control class that did not have
it. (Tomlinson, 1994, p. 24)
The data on the students was collected through various testing
assignments, each planned to produce documentation which would indicate the
difference between the two groups:
Each class would write a composition at the beginning of the two-year
period and another on the same subject at the end of it, and these would be scored
for errors. Pupils would also take two parallel tests of grammatical knowledge.
(Tomlinson, 1994, p. 24)
One of the problems of data collection, though, was that “Harris was
unable to match the classes in intelligence, background or attainment (p.113),” the

second was “ascertaining whether the teacher was impartial in attitude or equally
adept at both methods of teaching (p.115),” as the classes received both grammar
and composition instruction from the same individual, something which could
prejudice the final results (Tomlinson, 1994, p. 24). The most disturbing problem
Harris’ (1962) research, still, was that both student groups had received
grammar instruction:
All this is fair enough until you discover that Harris’ “non-grammar”
classes, the supposed control groups, those who spent their weekly lesson on a
writing task, were in fact, also being taught grammar.
(Tomlinson, 1994, p. 24) Tomlinson then proceeds to explain the different
uses which Harris had attributed to the two noun phrases, “formal teaching of
grammar, “ and “teaching of formal grammar,” terms he had discussed in his
At this point we must confront the problematic meaning of “formal
grammar teaching” that Robinson skirted. The phrase is ambiguous, covering as it
does two alternative noun phrase structures: “formal teaching of grammar” and
“teaching of formal grammar”—and indeed also the two conflated. Space prevents
me from going through all the possible interpretations; but in Harris’s thesis, the
meaning of “formal grammar teaching” is the teaching of formal grammar, and by
“formal grammar,” he means traditional formal grammar. (Tomlinson, 1994, p.
The use of the “noun phrase structures” mentioned above had caused the
confusion which had allowed Harris to claim that the control group had received
no grammar instruction while the test group had been taught “formal grammar:”
This is what his “grammar” classes were taught: a rigid heavily taxonomic,
traditional grammar which, for example, went into four classes of adjectives. It
was also taught in a formal way, from a standard textbook: Humphreys and
Roberts, Active English Course, ULP, 1939, Books 1 and 2—ten lessons of
grammar alternating with ten composition lesson supposedly based on it. (The
course content is set out on pp.138-9). But when Harris labeled his control groups

the “non-grammar” classes, he did not mean that they were not taught grammar,
only that they were not taught “formal” grammar. (Tomlinson, 1994, p. 25)
Tomlinson’s (1994) extensive review of Harris’ (1962) research and
conclusions provides the reader with a new perspective on the grammar vs.
composition argument.
The procedural and statistical deficiencies which had been buried in the
pages of Harris’ thesis for a long time appear to demand a revaluation of
Braddock et al. (1963) report conclusion that “formal grammar” has a “negligible”
or “even harmful effect on the improvement of writing (p. 37).” The scholar
finishes his article with the following words:
To conclude on the basis of teaching parts of speech to 12- and 13-year-
olds that grammar teaching, even the teaching of traditional grammar, had
no value in the secondary school, if not specious nonsense, certainly a non
sequitur. It was, however, what many in the education establishment
wanted to hear. Indeed, approving references to these studies are still
common today, which is why I have analysed these two at length. It is my
hope that we shall now hear less of them. (1994, p. 26)
Tomlinson’s (1994) article reopened the grammar debate, and lead to new
research on the relation between grammar and writing. Previous composition
theories had been based on the idea that “the lexicon and grammar are distinct
domains,” and the distinction meant that “grammatical acquisition” was a
language process that took place “autonomous or modularized from the earlier
task of word learning (Pinker, 1999),” a perspective with which current research
Recent theorizing, however, has moved away from traditional modular
interpretations toward a view in which lexical-semantics and grammar
share crucial properties and resources (e.g. Bates & Goodman, 1997). The
move to unite grammar and lexicon can be seen in linguistics within
frameworks like Lexical-Functionalist Grammar (e.g. Bresnan, 1982). An
increased integration of lexical and grammatical structures is evident even
within generative grammar, the school that originally proposed a modular

distinction between grammar and the lexicon (Chomsky, 1995).
(Marchman, Martínez-Sussman, & Dale, 2004, p. 212)
Grammar Teaching: Two Current Methods The NCTE (1985) “official
resolution” concerning grammar teaching based on Research in Written
Composition, or the Braddock Report (1963), had been:
Resolved, that the NCTE affirm the position that the use of isolated
grammar and usage exercises not supported by theory and research is a
deterrent to the improvement of students’ speaking and writing and that, in
order to improve both of these, class time at all levels must be devoted to
opportunities for meaningful listening, speaking, reading, and writing; and
that NCTE urge the discontinuance of testing practices that encourage the
teaching of grammar rather than the improvement of writing. (cited in
Mulroy, 2005, p. 6)
This position has been imposed on the educational institutions in the
United States through different means by NCTE, while the rebels have paid the
price for their defiance. Some academics, though, have designed methods of
grammar instruction that NCTE has deemed acceptable because grammar teaching
does not occur as “isolated grammar and usage exercises” but as an integral part
of the composition process.
Weaver (1996; 2006) is one of the most known names in grammar
instruction at the present time. Her position on grammar teaching is rather hard to
delineate, due to the fact that she has been attempting to please both non-
grammarians and grammarians alike. Her first book, titled Grammar for Teachers:
Perspectives and Definition (1979), a NCTE publication, appears to show
agreement with both sides of the issue at the same time. In chapter five, entitled
“What to do with Grammar,” Weaver states:
The situation remains much the same as in 1950: there is little evidence
that the formal study of grammar has much of a positive effect on
students’ use of language (see for example Elley et al.1975, Petrosky’s
1997 review, and the SLATE 1976 Starter Sheet on “Back to Basics.”
Studies which at first seemed to prove the value of grammar study have

generally not seemed so conclusive, upon careful examination. (1979, p.
Two pages later, Weaver suggests that teachers should have a solid
knowledge of grammar in order to teach their students “grammatical concepts and
terminology” and improve their writing skills and language effectiveness:
Let us be clear, however, on what we mean. There is little pragmatic
justification for systematically teaching a grammar of the language, whether that
grammar be traditional, structural, transformational, or whatever. On the other
hand it may be desirable or even necessary to use some grammatical concepts and
terminology in helping students become more effective language users. Thus the
teacher needs a fairly solid background in grammar in order to work with students
(p. 55)
Here, the reader might become rather confused: If grammar teaching had
not been included in public and college education for three decades, how could
teachers have a “solid background” in the field? Moreover, with all the “evidence”
against the “value of grammar” in writing, could there be a good reason for
teaching something that has been “proven” to waste the student in-class time?
Lessons which would include “some grammatical concepts,” though,
would not resolve the grammar instruction issue, argue Meyer, Youga, and Flint-
Ferguson (1990). The trouble appears to be the unnatural manner in which
grammar is taught as a scholastic discipline:
Traditional grammar instruction is bound to fail because it is given without
any realistic context. In Ed Vavra’s words, “Students are never asked to do
anything with [grammatical knowledge]} 1987, 72). People who feel
comfortable and confident with the grammar of our language developed
that confidence by becoming “natural language users” of standard English
(Smith et al. 1982, 35). (p.66)
The solution, then, is to abandon instructional approaches where “context
is often ignored,” and where “language is often divorced from reading, literature,
vocabulary, and spelling.” The new grammar teaching approach must “provide a

meaningful context to grammar,” because “unless this grammar instruction means
something to the students, it, too, will fail to achieve lasting results” (p. 67):
The notion of context has always been important in theoretical work and
research on natural uses of language, from reading (see, for example, Smith et al.)
to children’s acquisition of their mother tongue (Moskowitz 1978). If the
classroom now must replicate the condition of natural language use, we must see
the context of language instruction as crucial. (p. 67)
Teaching Grammar
(Deductive Approach)
Widodo (2006) engages in a comprehensive review and ample
examination of “approaches and procedures for teaching grammar.” He begins his
exploration with a definition of “practice” in language (“internalizing the structure
of a language”), and “consciousness-raising” (“an attempt to equip learners with
an understanding of a specific grammatical feature”). He then explains the idea of
“explicit knowledge” (“language and the uses to which language can be put”),
with its opposite, “implicit knowledge” (“automatic and easily accessed”). The
rule-driven approach to the teaching of grammar is a “deductive approach,” while
the rule-discovery learning is the inductive approach. All theses notions are then
organized in a five-step instruction procedure:
1. building up student’s knowledge of the rule or rule initiation;
2. eliciting functions of the rule or rule elicitation;
3. familiarizing students with the rule in use through exercises or rule practice;
4. checking students’ comprehension or rule activation; and
5. expanding students’ knowledge or rule enrichment.
Teaching grammar in context could also mean using various printed sources to
provide the environment for instruction on parts of speech, parts of sentence, and
sentence configuration.
Kane (1996, November) includes among such sources the news, in the
paper entitled Teaching Grammar and Style through the News. She considers this
approach as an effective instruction method among the “different philosophies of
instruction,” part of the “grammar in context” approach. Referring to her position

in the debate concerning grammar and language learning, she remarks that the
parts of speech must be learned “in the context of real, interesting language rather
than artificial exercises.”.
On the other hand, grammar could be a remarkable tool in the teaching of
literature, states Doniger (January, 2003), and provides the following insight into
the process:
How many of us look at literature study as the interpretation of sentences?
Yet, it is “sentences” that authors work with as their basic building blocks.
In his article, “Literature as Sentences,” Richard Ohmann tells us, “Each
writer tends to exploit deep linguistic resources in characteristic ways—
that his style, in other words, rests on syntactic options within sentences”
(emphasis added 145). As teachers of literature, we can help students
investigate the connection between grammatical resources and the work in
question. (p. 101).


Peacock (1997) has another definition of authentic materials which is” the
materials that have been produced to fulfill some social purposes in the language
community”. Authentic materials are assume as the important tools for teachers in
class in order to make his/her teaching effective in transmitting the necessary
knowledge to all students. Thetfore, the educators, should have “a mission for
these students who are struggling to express themselves in writing”, and we need
to meet our challenge. We must offer our students the kind of English language
education which will make a difference in their personal and professional lives.


Krashen, S. (1982), cited in: Cook, V. (2008, p.1 [online]) Krashen's

Richard, J.C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Seeger, I. (2008) Teaching Grammar with Authentic Material. Advantages &
Disadvantages of Deductive and Conciusness-Raising Approach. TESL
Modul. Retrieved from
Tomlinson, (2011).Materials Development in Language Teaching.Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hanganu,(2014) Teaching Grammar in College.Journal.Available at
file:///C:/Users/gc%20comp/Documents/Teaching-Grammar-In College.pdf