Many people, including language teachers, hear the word "grammar" and think of a fixed set of word forms and rules of usage. They associate "good" grammar with the prestige forms of the language, such as those used in writing and in formal oral presentations, and "bad" or "no" grammar with the language used in everyday conversation or used by speakers of nonprestige forms.
Language teachers who adopt this definition focus
on grammar as a set of forms and rules. They teach grammar by explaining
the forms and rules and then drilling students on them. This results in
bored, disaffected students who can produce correct forms on exercises
and tests, but consistently make errors when they try to use the
language in context.
Other language teachers, influenced
by recent theoretical work on the difference between language learning
and language acquisition, tend not to teach grammar at all. Believing
that children acquire their first language without overt grammar
instruction, they expect
students to learn their second language the same way. They assume that
students will absorb grammar rules as they hear, read, and use the
language in communication activities. This approach does not allow
students to use one of the major tools they have as learners: their
active understanding of what grammar is and how it works in the language
they already know.
The communicative competence model balances these extremes. The model
recognizes that overt grammar instruction helps students acquire the
language more efficiently, but it incorporates grammar teaching and
learning into the larger context of teaching students to use the
language. Instructors using this model teach students the grammar they
need to know to accomplish defined communication tasks.
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น