Teaching Grammar to Improve EFL Learners’ Written Production Skills: Traditional vs. Communicative Approach
1
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The present study aims at investigating a more effective way of teaching the grammar to improve EFL learner’s written productions. Two different approaches to grammar teaching were employed throughout one semester. The subjects were Korean college students, and Divided into two groups, they were taught (Class A and Class B). Throughout one semester, traditional approaches to grammar teaching were employed for Class A, and more communicatively-oriented grammar teaching was used for Class B. After teaching the grammar in two different ways, three types of written productions were collected to measure the efficacy of the two approaches: a quiz given right after each grammar instruction, a comprehensive test given at the end of the semester, and a writing assignment also given at the end of the semester. The results of data analysis indicate that a communicatively- oriented approach to grammar teaching (Class B) is more effective than traditional grammar teaching (Class A). It is concluded on the basis of the following: (a) The subjects in Class B made less errors than those in Class A (i.e., effective in terms of quality); and (b) The subjects in Class B produced more sentences than those in Class A (i.e., effective in terms of quantity) in their tests and writing assignment. The result implies that the subjects in Class B became more confident and motivated to write in English after taking the grammar instructions (i.e., a communicatively-oriented approach to grammar teaching).
Abstract
The present study aims at investigating a more effective way of teaching the grammar to improve EFL learner’s written productions. Two different approaches to grammar teaching were employed throughout one semester. The subjects were Korean college students, and Divided into two groups, they were taught (Class A and Class B). Throughout one semester, traditional approaches to grammar teaching were employed for Class A, and more communicatively-oriented grammar teaching was used for Class B. After teaching the grammar in two different ways, three types of written productions were collected to measure the efficacy of the two approaches: a quiz given right after each grammar instruction, a comprehensive test given at the end of the semester, and a writing assignment also given at the end of the semester. The results of data analysis indicate that a communicatively- oriented approach to grammar teaching (Class B) is more effective than traditional grammar teaching (Class A). It is concluded on the basis of the following: (a) The subjects in Class B made less errors than those in Class A (i.e., effective in terms of quality); and (b) The subjects in Class B produced more sentences than those in Class A (i.e., effective in terms of quantity) in their tests and writing assignment. The result implies that the subjects in Class B became more confident and motivated to write in English after taking the grammar instructions (i.e., a communicatively-oriented approach to grammar teaching).
참고문헌 (16)
- Ferris, D., "Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process and practice. Mahwah" (1998), Lawrence Erlbaum
- Fotos, S., "Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach", TESOL Quarterly, 25(4), pp.605~628 (1991)
- Frodesen, J., "Grammar dimensions: Form, meaning and use" (2000), Heinle & Heinle
- Hillocks, G., "Research on written composition: New directions for teaching" (1986), ERIC Clearinghouse
- Krashen, S. D., "Principles and practice in second language acquisition" (1982), Pergamon
- Larsen-Freeman, D., "Teaching grammar. In Teaching English as a second or foreign language" (2001), Heinle & Heinle
- Lee, E,, "A comparison of Korean EFL learners’ oral and written productions", English Language & Literature Teaching, 12(2), pp.61~85 (2006)
- Lightbrown, P., "The importance of timing in focus on form. In Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition" (1998), Cambridge University Press.
- Paulston, C., "Teaching writing in the ESOL classroom: Techniques of controlled composition", TESOL Quarterly, 6(1), pp.33~59 (1972)
- Scarcella, R., "Secondary education in California and second language research: Instructing ESL studenss in the 1990s", CATESOL Journal, 9(1), pp.129~151 (1996)
- Sharwood Smith, M., "Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases", Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), pp.165~179 (1993)
- Silva, T., "Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing:The ESL research and its implications", TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), pp.657~677 (1993)
- Tomasello, M., "Down the garden path: Inducing and correcting overgeneralization errors in the foreign language classroom", Applied Psycholinguistics, 9(3), pp.237~246 (1988)
- Tomasello, M., "Feedback for language transfer errors", Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11(4), pp.381~395 (1989)
- Truscott, J., "The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes", Learning, 46, pp.327~369 (1996)
- Widdowson, H. G., "Grammar, nonsense and learning. In, Grammar and second language teaching: A book of readings", pp.152~165 (1988), Newbury House