CC BY
20INTEGRATIVE L2 GRAMMAR TEACHING: EXPLORATION, EXPLANATION AND EXPRESSION
Rahima Alisher qizi Charos Ganisherovna Shakhribonu Akmalovna Korakulova Uralova Abduvokhidova
Students of Samarkand State Institute of Foreign Languages QoraqulovaazQ 1 @gmail.c charosuralova99@gmail.c princess 13082001 @gmail.c om om om
ABSTRACT
Integrative grammar as a skill is very important in teaching and learning a foreign language; to develop habits and skills in speaking, and reading. This article is devoted to study the role of integrative grammar unit in the language teaching and use of writing units as educational technologies. In addition, it studies and analyzes the exploration, explanation and expression stages. While investigating the article, different works of well-known scientists such as Patsy M., Krashen, Stephen, J. P. Lantolf, D. Larsen-Freeman and etc have been used.
Keywords: "a turning point", Musumeci, Vygotsky, EEE method, Teacher-Student Interaction.
Integrative L2 Grammar Teaching is one of the most important life-long skills educators impart to their students. When teaching grammar, educators must be sure to select resources and support materials that not only aid them in teaching grammar, but that will also be the most effective in helping their students learn grammar well.
As a possible solution, integrative grammar teaching combines a form-based with a meaning-based focus. Spada and Lightbown (2013)1 have also argued "that form focused instruction and corrective feedback provided within the context of communicative interaction can contribute positively to second language development in both the short and long term" (p. 205). Thus, integration of form and meaning is becoming increasingly important in current research. Celce-Murcia, Dornyei and Thurrell (2007) call it "a turning point" in communicative language teaching (p. 141), in which "explicit, direct elements are gaining significance in teaching communicative abilities and skills" (p. 146). Kumaravadivelu calls this a "principled communicative approach" (cited by Celce-Murcia, Dornyei and Thurrell, 2007). Of course, depending on the students and their particular needs, either form or meaning can be emphasized. But in having various students with different needs in the same group, or having various
1 Lightbown, Patsy M.; Spada, Nina (October 2013). "Teaching and learning L2 in the classroom: It's about
time". Language Teaching. 53 (4): 422-432.
2 Dornyei, Z., & Murphey, T. (2007). Group dynamics in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
needs in the same students, an integrative grammar teaching approach creates optimal conditions for learning for everyone in the classroom. Musumeci (2007) mentions the idea of connecting form and meaning in grammar teaching as a developing trend in reference to the proficiency oriented curriculum. She points out that students should be able to learn explicit grammar rules as well as have a chance to practice them in communication in the authentic or simulation tasks. Interestingly, Musumeci advocates giving students a chance to look at the language on a sentence level to see how certain grammatical rules are applied.
Integrative grammar teaching, which presupposes students' interaction while learning, can be viewed as a cognitive process of learning an L2 that reflects the sociocultural theory proposed by the Russian psychologist Vygotsky (2008). In talking about the development of a child's brain and his socialization, Vygotsky argues that there is a strong relationship between learning and cognitive development, in which cognition develops as a result of social interaction and sharing the responsibility with a parent or a more competent person. From an early age, children look to their parents for clues to acceptable social behavior. This brings us to Vygotsky's zone of proximal development (ZPD) in which there are two main stages of an individual's development. The first stage is what a child or learner can do by himself; the second stage is his potential, what he can accomplish with the help of another, more competent person. The distance between two points is called the zone of proximal development. Vygotsky also introduces the notion of a mediator - a person who helps students to accomplish what
"5
they cannot do by themselves. According to Appel and Lantolf (2004) and Lantolf and Pavlenko (2005)4, the role of the mediator in teaching an L2 is placed on an L2 teacher, whose task is to direct students in the right direction and help them reach the second stage in the ZPD.
Similar to Vygotsky's theory is the often-criticized Krashen's (2011, 2015)5 Input Hypothesis, also well-known as the "i +1" hypothesis. According to this hypothesis i represents students' current level of L2 proficiency, and +1 is level of the linguistic form or function beyond the present students' level. Krashen's Input Hupothesis and Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development are basically describing the same cognitive process of social interaction in students' development. For Krashen, optimal input should be comprehensible, i.e. focused on the meaning and not on the form. In this study students will be focusing on the form, but actively, through communicative, meaning-based, exploratory assignments. Even though well-
3 Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.). (2004). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4 Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Sociocultural theory and second language learning: State of the art.Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 28, 67-109.
5 Jarvis, Huw; Krashen, Stephen D. (2015), "Is CALL obsolete? Language Acquisition and Language Learning Revisited in a Digital Age"
criticized for lack of empirical evidence (Faerch & Kasper, 20166; Gregg, 2014; McLaughlin, 2017, etc.), the significant contribution of the Input Hypothesis to the field of applied linguistics is that it shows how teachers can focus on the actual level of students, adjusting the complexity of the material so that learners will be able to reach what initially was beyond their level.
In this research I would like to share my understanding of integrative grammar teaching, combining the form and the meaning, and propose what I call the EEE method., which consists of three equally important stages: exploration, explanation, and expression. Exploration is the first stage of integrative grammar teaching. This stage is characterized by "inductive learning." Students are given sentences illustrating a certain grammar rule and are asked as a group to find the pattern and, with the help of the teacher, to formulate the rule. Many scholars have arguing against passive or inactive learning (see, for example, Johnson, 2015; and others) in which teachers refer to a textbook for explanations of rules. I completely agree with this critique. Students should be given opportunities to figure out everything by themselves, receiving help only when necessary. To make the task easier in the beginning, some grammatical forms or endings can be highlighted. Students tend to prefer assignments that allow them to explore the language. The knowledge they obtain becomes theirs and it is often much easier to remember. Exploration, then, works as an excellent tool for motivation. Example for first stage.
The rule: The use of the ending -s with verbs in the present simple tense.
Stage 1. Students were given the following sentences and were asked to find the
grammatical pattern. All instruction was done in English.
1). I go_ to school every day.
2). My mother works at the IBM company.
3). Water boils at 100 C.
4). My friends play_ tennis with me.
5). They ride_ bicycles.
The last part of the excerpt (turns 38-45) shows the way the teacher reacts in listening to the students' talk. Instead of interrupting, which would be disruptive, the teacher listens to the very end and then corrects the mistakes by repeating the sentence in the grammatically correct way. In turn 43, Aziza says "... plays on the piano," which is a typical mistake of ESL students whose L1 is Russian, in which the preposition 'on' identifies the object of the activity. The teacher, then, in turn 44 repeats and rephrases the sentence, emphasizing and modeling the correct use "So, Zuhra has two sisters. And one plays the piano. Interesting."
6 Kasper, Gabriele; Kellerman, E., eds. (2016). Communication Strategies: Psycholinguistic and Sociolinguistic Perspectives. London: Longman.
■ - 1463 I
1. Although groups can be very effective, teachers should not be naive about group
interaction. Even though it looks like students are creating meaningful utterances by themselves, the instructor holds the responsibility for making sure that there is no misuse, that 'leaders' do not impose wrong forms and rules, and that students have equal opportunities to participate and express their thoughts. In turn 18, Zuhra very abruptly makes it clear to the teacher that his help is not wanted. However, we cannot be sure that Aziza wanted the same. Thus, teachers need to find other strategies and techniques of controlling what is going on in groups, without explicitly "invading" a group. T: If instead of "mother" we use a different word, such as "father" or "son" will we put ending "s" or not?
2. Aziza: Yea, because that singular, right? If it is singular we should put "s."
3. T: But "I" is also in singular.
4. Aziza: Yea
5. T: And "mother" is in singular.
6. Aziza: Yea
7. T: So, why do we add "s" to the verb used with "mother" and don't add "s" with
"I"?
8. Aziza: ...
9. Anvar: Because I is a first ... what is that?
10. T: First person.
11. Anvar: Ye, and that's the third person.
12. T: That is a third person. Right. So, we do not add "s" with the nouns in the
third person. Good, so, if we pass to "Water boils at 100 C". What is here?
13. Aziza: We use -s in singular, right, and that is a third person, no not a third
person ...
14. Alisher: Third person? Yea.
15. T: Third person. That is correct. Ok, now let's go to the examples number 4 and
number 5. Here we have "friends play" and "they ride."
16. Aziza: That is plural, right? My friends play tennis with we, that is right
because that's the plural, right?
17. T: Hu hu.
18. Aziza: And they ride cycles. That's right, because it is plural too.
19. T: Good. So, can we form a rule?
20. Anvar: Yes, you mean?
21. T: In what cases we add
22. Alisher: -s at the end of the verbs?
23. T: Yea.
24. Alisher: If the noun is singular and third person and this is present simple tense
we add -s at the end of the verbs.
25. T: And if it is in plural?
26. Alisher: we don't put -s.
Teacher-Student Interaction in Exploration of the New Rule. Excerpt one is a good example of an initiation, response, evaluation (IRE) interactional sequence (Mehan, 2009). The teacher begins by introducing the topic for group exploration and then elicits students' responses. The way the teacher gives the task in turn 1 is actually amazing and potentially very powerful: "Imagine yourself being scholars who are finding the patterns or making a new rule. Do you see any sequence?" This invitation to participate had a tremendous effect on the students. It contained several implicit messages. One was that because "making new rules" is a discovery, it is acceptable to make mistakes; students need not to be afraid of talking and expressing the thoughts. Another was encouraging confidence and students' potential, who were responsible for investigation and participation in the learning process. The flow of teacher-student dialogue, as a rule, depends primarily on the students' reactions, responses, and their understanding of what is to be learned. If students do not understand something, or misinterpret the rule, the teacher tries to control it and puts them on the right track by paraphrasing their statements or with leading questions. This occurs in turn 12, Aziza overgeneralizes, saying "If it is singular we should put '-s.'" The teacher quickly responds in turn 13 by shifting students' attention to the first sentence "I go to school every day," by saying "But "I" is also in singular," thus, telling them that the pattern they have found should be clarified or revised. Moreover, in turns 15 through 17, the teacher guides the cognitive thinking of the group by using leading questions, keeping the students' thinking under control. Here he says "But 'I' is also in singular [turn 13] and 'mother' is singular [turn 15]. So, why do we add -s to the verb used with "mother" and don't add -s with "I"?" [turn 17]. But a couple of times, in turns 18-20 and 31-32, students initiated the co-constructioning the teacher-student dialogue, when some learners took the opportunity to answer teacher's question, which were addressed to a different student. We will get back to this later.
The classroom interaction is governed by the teacher and by the students, a situation which creates optimal conditions for learning. Thus, in turn 2, Anvar does not know how to call "I" from the first sentence and asks the teacher to help him "because of the ... how do you say the ... the nouns in the first." Responding to Anvar's implicit request, the teacher does not give him the grammatical term Anvar is expecting in order not to confuse the other students with terminology. However, it might have been done. By his answer in turn 3, "OK, so we do not use ending -s with 'I,'" instead of saying the word "pronoun," the teacher gives a clue to the group that an inductive style of learning is more important than the use of terminology and that they are expected to say what
they see in a way that makes them feel comfortable. They were encouraged not to worry about the metalanguage. However, the interactional sequence (teacher-student communication) established at the beginning, breaks several times into "studentstudent" interaction. Thus, in turn 19, Aziza answers the question, which was initially expected from Anvar, saying "Because it is ... what is that ..." He knows the answer but does not have the lexical competence to respond immediately. In turn 24, Alisher, breaking the student-teacher sequence, enters the discussion and helps with Aziza's confusion "We use -s in singular, right, and that is a third person, no not a third person ...," by saying "Third person, yeah." The break in the teacher-student response sequence is a vivid example of how ZPD theory works. The teacher starts from where the students are and with his help they improve their knowledge of grammatical structure. As soon as they reach a certain level on which they (or at least some of them) feel confident, they are eager to show their understanding of the subject matter by, for example, breaking into the student-teacher dialogue. It completely agrees with Lantolf
n
(2013) who emphasizes that ZPD is negotiated between the teacher and the student(s). Paraphrasing is an important technique used in cognitive learning. Instead of giving the explicit answer, the teacher employs different strategies to help them discover the answer by themselves. In turn 7, the teacher says, "Is it only with "mother" or with any other noun?" and, not getting any answer from the group, the teacher rephrases the question in turn 9: "is 'mother' singular or plural." Thus, the teacher gives contextual clues as to what is expected. The clue turns out to be essential and in turn 10, Aziza enters the discussion, saying "Singular, right?" In turn 30, the teacher asks Anvar "Ok, can you formulate the rule?" Anvar was eager to speak but did not understand the question, which explains his words ("yes, you mean?"[turn 31]). That made the teacher become more detailed in giving the task. "In what cases we add," in turn 32, was enough for Alisher to grasp what is expected; moreover, he continued for the teacher: "'s' or 'es' at the end of the verbs?"
Inevitably, at least at the beginning of integrative grammar teaching, students look to and ask the teacher for clarification and confirmation that they are saying the right things. Vivid illustrations of this can be found in turns 3, 10, 24, 26, 32, when either by rising intonation or with the help of the clarifying word "right?" students expected approval on behalf of the teacher. Interestingly, it looks as if students picked up "right?" from the teacher, who used it first for clarification in turn 3. The response to students' request for clarification is usually done by the teacher in the form of a brief message ("hu, hu" [turn 27]). Sometimes the teacher does not give direct approval, but rather catches the correct idea from a student, extends it, and keeps the discussion going.
7 Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education. Vygotskian praxis and the theory/practice divide. New York: Routledge.
The analysis of the types of questions used by the teacher in the activity is reflected by students' participation. The activity starts with Yes/No questions (turns 1, 3, 5, and 9). They are primarily used when students participate only slowly. Thus, to ensure they are not lost, the teacher says, "OK. We don't use it with "I," do we use it with "mother"?" [turn 5]. When the students' participation decreases, alternative questions are used as the teacher reinforces and encourages students. There may be several explanations to students' slowing down. The first may be that the instructional method was new and even though students were told what was expected of them, they were not sure about what to do. The second may be in the nature of each new task. At first, when students were introduced to the unknown format, it was new and took much time to figure out how they were supposed to behave. However, when the learners grasped the idea about the formation of the tense and were active in their responses, the teacher used w^-questions, which challenged them to think and directed them in the right way [turns 22, 31, 35]. This classroom participation structure follows the IRE interactional sequence. As Johnson's (2015) research shows, the teacher and students set implicit rules of interaction. At the beginning, at turn 1, students are waiting for the teacher to initiate the discussion by giving an assignment. Then, starting from turn 2, once students are asked a question, they receive the responsibility for completing the information cycle by interpreting what they see to make up grammatical rules. As it was stated above, in some cases some students break the established rule by answering their peer's questions without waiting for the teacher. As we saw, the teacher supported such break-ups, since it involved several students in the discussion, thus giving equal opportunities for interaction.
Explanation is the second stage of learning. As students find sequences or patterns in the examples they used during the exploration stage, the teacher or the students can summarize what was previously discovered, now focusing on the form. In some situations, it may be essential to go to the textbook and together with students relate 'textbook rules' with the examples and findings of the exploration stage. The explanation stage is quite important because students feel safer when they know the rules and have some source to go back to in case of confusion or for future reference. Depending on students' proficiency, confidence, and actual performance, this stage can sometimes be omitted. However, students should be aware of and experience the strategies they may use to refer to the explicit rules, if needed.
Even though this task is similar to the grammar explanations typical in the learners' L1 countries, the teacher tried to make this "routine" activity cognitive and that is why he compares examples used in the first stage with examples given in the textbook. Even though it sounds simple, this technique has a great effect on learners. It serves as a bridge between what students consider "theory," or what is usually given in textbooks, on the one hand, and "practical use," what students have discovered, on the other. In
the explanation stage it is important to make a connection between the examples and the explicit rules. This connection will help learners build on what they already have discovered. After the explanation of the explicit rules, the teacher again gives students meaningful examples of how and in what situations the tense can be used. For example, the specific example about the teacher's wife illustrates the rules in a content-based utterance, which can be a good technique for modeling. After discovering the rules and providing students with models of their usage, it will be interesting to see how learners are going to use their knowledge in the actual interaction. EXPRESSION STAGE
Expression is the third and last stage of the process. After discovering certain grammatical patterns in the exploration stage and getting to know the rules in the explanation stage, students start practicing the production of meaningful utterances with each other in communication and interactive tasks. The rationale of this stage is to provide students experience in applying their acquired knowledge in practice by making meaningful utterances. On the one hand, this may also serve as a motivation technique, since learners can actually see what they can do with what they have learned. On the other, the expression stage gives them the opportunity to practice communicating under the teacher's supervision, which usually assures the students that they can produce a correct utterance. Communicative interaction will be better if it is content-based, which allows students to relate it to something they care or know about, thus making it authentic.
Group work in the third stage of the EEE instructional method is very powerful. Students are often less comfortable asking the teacher questions. Peer interaction creates a certain micro-world that enables the students to negotiate the assignment, clarify tasks, and even provide each other with corrections. It definitely develops their strategic competence (Savignon, 2002). In excerpt 3, students twice rejected the teacher's help and coped with the problem alone. It can be assumed, even though we obviously cannot be sure, that if the students did not have the opportunity to work and negotiate the meaning in groups, some questions would remain unsolved.
In conclusion, this article described a way of combining form and meaning in teaching L2 grammar to ESL students. What I call the EEE method, consisting of three stages (exploration, explanation, and expression) has been proposed. A series of experimental lessons were administered to ESL students to study the patterns of classroom interaction during each of the suggested stages. As the analysis of the lessons shows, in the first, exploration stage, learners look at certain sentences and discover a grammatical pattern under an instructor's supervision. This stage also involves cognitive learning. Instead of being given an explicit rule, students spend some time discussing and discovering grammatical patterns, which, as the survey shows, helps them understand the rules. A teacher is given the role of the mediator working within the zone of
proximal development. He starts at the point where his students are and pushes them, with his help, to grow and improve their L2 competence. In the second, explanation
o
stage, the teacher explains explicit rules, which, as Lightbown (2010) and Pica (2015) show, will make their speech more grammatically accurate. It is important for the teacher to connect the rules to the examples from the exploration stage, which builds on what students already know, as well as provides content-based examples for the third stage. In the third, expression stage, students use new structures in interaction, producing meaningful utterances. This stage prepares L2 learners for spontaneous L2 use by helping them focus equally on form and on meaning in using their language in communication. Finally, the evaluative questionnaire, which was administered to determine the attitudes of the students towards a new method of grammar teaching, showed that students liked the method and thought its work was effective.
REFERENCES
. Lightbown, Patsy M.; Spada, Nina (October 2013). "Teaching and learning L2 in the classroom: It's about time". Language Teaching. 53 (4): 422-432.
2. Dornyei, Z., & Murphey, T. (2007). Group dynamics in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.). (2004). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Sociocultural theory and second language learning: State of the art.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 67-109.
5. Jarvis, Huw; Krashen, Stephen D. (2015), "Is CALL obsolete? Language Acquisition and Language Learning Revisited in a Digital Age"
6. Kasper, Gabriele; Kellerman, E., eds. (2016). Communication Strategies: Psycholinguistic and Sociolinguistic Perspectives. London: Longman.
7. Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education. Vygotskian praxis and the theory/practice divide. New York: Routledge.
8. Ellis, N.C., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (Editors) (2009). Language as a Complex Adaptive System. Wiley-Blackwell.
9. SPADA, NINA; LIGHTBOWN, PATSY M. (June 2010). "Form-Focused Instruction: Isolated or Integrated?". TESOL Quarterly.
10. Kasper, Gabriele; Kellerman, E., eds. (1997). Communication Strategies: Psycholinguistic and Sociolinguistic Perspectives. London: Longman.
8 SPADA, NINA; LIGHTBOWN, PATSY M. (June 2010). "Form-Focused Instruction: Isolated or Integrated?". TESOL Quarterly.
