Degree programme: Foreign Languages and Intercultural communication Teaching grammar to linguistics students: choosing the relevant approach

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Federal state autonomous educational institution for higher professional education

National research university higher school of economics

Faculty of Humanities

Bachelor's project

Field of study: Linguistics

Degree programme: Foreign Languages and Intercultural communication

Teaching grammar to linguistics students: choosing the relevant approach

Paulina Kochina

Reviewer

Assoc. Professor Bakulev, A.V.

Supervisor

Assoc. Professor Bogolepova, S.V.

Moscow, 2019



Introduction

grammar teaching exercise

Grammar instruction is an essential component of language teaching. Specialists in ELT agree that the knowledge of grammar, either explicit or implicit, is crucial to foreign language proficiency (Ur, 1988; Blyth, 1997).

As language pedagogy developed, scholars introduced various attitudes to grammar instruction. Since the end of the 20^th century, there has been a noticeable shift from the traditional paradigm based on drills and teacher-centred instruction to the reconceptualization of teaching grammar. Researchers questioned the efficacy of the form-focused approach, criticising its lack of attention to a speaker's mental processes because of the focus on the rules rather than meaning (Langacker, 1987) and insufficiency of input for constructing the mental representation of the target structure and the restriction to form-focused drills (Van Patten, 1996). As an alternative to explicit rules explanation and mechanical drilling, comprehension-based pedagogy was proposed (Krashen, 1982). This approach was based on students' acquisition of grammar through exposure to comprehensible input and centred on meaning rather than on form. Previously, there had been other attempts to place communication over form: they were reflected in the Direct Method, Audiolingualism, and the Natural Approach.

Despite the criticism towards the form-focused approach and the appeal of comprehension-based methods, both attitudes to teaching grammar have their proponents nowadays. For instance, the features of the traditional grammar teaching paradigm are reflected in the “Presentation, Practice, and Production” approach (PPP), which, having its restrictions, is yet believed to be applicable and efficient in certain educational contexts (Maftoon & Sarem, 2012). Meaning-centred grammar instruction, in its turn, has evolved into the Task-Based Language Teaching approach (TBLT), which is characterised by the emphasis on the communicative nature of language learning and comprehension-oriented tasks (Robinson, 2011).

Admitting the impossibility to define a single approach equally relevant for all educational contexts, we find it worthwhile to raise the question of which grammar teaching methods and techniques are the most efficient in a linguistics classroom, as this issue appears to be largely neglected. Therefore, the present study aims at revealing the grammar teaching methods which are the most relevant for linguistics students.

In order to fulfil this goal, we reviewed the existing approaches to grammar instruction, revealing their advantages and downsides. Specifically, we focused on Presentation, Practice, and Production (PPP) and Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) and examined them not only in terms of their efficacy, but also in terms of the degree of motivation observable among the students exposed to them. We also considered the possibility of integrating their traits into grammar lessons. For these purposes, we analysed the tests and surveys completed by four groups of second-year undergraduate linguistics students before and after experimental grammar lessons on conditionals of two different types (PPP-based and TBLT-based).

We expect this study to shed light on linguistics students' L2 grammar acquisition patterns and learning preferences. Our findings reveal the strong and the weak sides of both the PPP and the TBLT approaches and prove their combinability, providing grounds for innovative grammar course design at linguistic faculties of higher education institutions.



1. Theoretical background

1.1 Attitudes to teaching grammar

Grammar instruction has long been one of the most debatable issues in language teaching methodology. Not only do attitudes differ as to how grammar should be taught, but even whether it should be taught at all.

This controversy stems from the variety of attitudes to language and language teaching in general. Three theoretical approaches to language and the nature of linguistic competence that conditioned the essence of the basic approaches to language teaching can be distinguished: the structural, functional, and interactional view (Richards & Rodgers, 2007).

The structural view is the most traditional one. It considers language as a system of interrelated elements that are used to code meaning. This view implies that linguistic competence is achieved by the mastery of these elements, e. g. lexical items or grammatical units. In this paradigm, a syllabus consists of sets of language items to be learned.

According to the functional view, language is a tool of expressing functional meaning. Specialists in ESL adhering to this view focus primarily on the communicative content of a syllabus, specifying the topics and concepts and using grammar to communicate about this content. The starting point of language learning is the communicative dimension, not the elements of grammar.

The interactional view stresses the social nature of language. Interaction is key in the process of language teaching and learning, as language is seen as a means of realising interpersonal relations and providing social transactions. The content of language teaching is therefore interaction-oriented and may even not be specified, fully relying on the learners' needs.

These three views of language are reflected in the approaches to language teaching. With this variety of attitudes to language teaching in general, it is unsurprising that there is no unanimous agreement regarding the role of grammar in the mastery of a foreign language.

We can highlight the two basic positions in this respect. On the one hand, grammar can be viewed as a system of rules and principles without knowing which it is impossible to speak a language. Historically, grammar was the starting point and the core element of foreign language teaching, and its central role had never been questioned until the end of the 20^th century (Purpura, 2004). On the other hand, the principles of grammar can be regarded not as a goal in itself, but rather as an instrument providing successful communication. In this case, reciting rules is no longer important, but, instead, a student should be able to apply them in practical, real-life speech situations. Formal instruction is not essential here either; students are supposed to acquire rules in a natural way through exposure to meaningful input and interaction (Krashen & Terrell, 1983).

There is no unanimous agreement about the methods of teaching among specialists within both paradigms either. Each of the positions gave birth to several approaches to grammar instruction. There is a belief that grammar is best taught deductively, i.e. starting from the memorisation of a rule and exceptions and then passing on to specific examples and practice (Robinson, 1996). Others came to the conclusion that a more resultative way of grammar instruction is introducing new grammar inductively, i.e. by making students acquire grammar patterns through specific examples so that they begin to use them automatically and then induce themselves or listen to its delayed presentation from the teacher (Herron & Tomasello, 1992). Still others have evidence that both ways of presenting grammar produce relatively equal effects on language proficiency (Shaffer, 1989).

Taking these conflicting opinions and results into account, we found it natural that through the history of English language teaching methodologists witnessed a variety of grammar teaching approaches. It appears essential to focus briefly on the evolution of grammar teaching methods in order to understand the current status of grammar instruction in ESL methodology.



1.2 The evolution of grammar teaching methods

The Grammar-Translation Method, also known as the Classical Method, is the oldest and the most traditional one. According to this method, the successful mastery of a foreign language lies in the ability to read and understand the literature in this language, as well as to translate from the target language into your mother tongue and vice versa. The lesson usually starts with an explicit rule explanation, which is followed by translation exercises (Thornbury, 1999). Other typical activities for developing grammar skills can include reading comprehension exercises, filling in blanks, and finding analogies between patterns in the target language. The focus on the form of the target language is key; accuracy is highly valued. The skills of reading and writing are primarily focused on, while listening and speaking are mostly ignored. Grammar is introduced deductively, and the students are supposed to learn it consciously and memorise it. Communication is not a goal of this type of instruction. (Larsen-Freeman, 2000).

This method has its obvious advantages and disadvantages. Several researchers acknowledge the positive effects of pedagogical translation on language proficiency. Among these effects are the development of good writing skills through imitating literary texts of high quality (Hell, 2009), the students' intellectual growth and, as a result, the opportunity for the teacher to explain grammar in more complicated terms (Austin, 2003), a deep understanding of the similarities and differences between L1 and L2 (Chellapan, 1982; Danchev, 1983). We can also consider oral translation as a means of boosting speaking skills (Vermes, 2010).

However, the Grammar-Translation Method has also received a lot of critique, even since the times when there was little variety in grammar instruction approaches. The method has been blamed for excessive focus on form and lack of practical implementation of grammar in speech (Bloomfield, 1933), bad conditions for introducing grammar structures and communicative strategies in a controlled way and developing students' fluency (Newson, 1998), an unnatural learning setting, production of interference, isolation of the four language skills and prevention of students' thinking in a foreign language (Malmkjжr, 1998). Due to the complexity of its content and the monotony of the activities, Grammar-Translation often causes frustration among students (Richards & Rodgers, 2007).

The Direct Method, the first alternative challenging Grammar-Translation, appeared in the second half of the 19^th century. It is underpinned by the conviction that the main goal of language teaching is to enable students to communicate in the target language, which is why it is often referred to as the conversational method. The principles of the Direct Method allow no translation in the classroom, and meaning is conveyed directly in L2 using non-verbal aids (Diller, 1978). The native language is not used. Grammar is introduced inductively, and students may never receive explicit rule explanations. Students are encouraged to practise speaking as much as possible, and the tasks are practical-oriented. Instead of rule memorisation, students are supposed to form direct associations between meaning and the target grammar. Overall, grammar is not as significant here as vocabulary (Larsen-Freeman, 2000).

Clearly, there are certain advantages to this method. It appears to be more motivating for students, as they learn the language through practical tasks and are less likely to feel restricted by the lack of necessary knowledge (Rivers, 1968). Moreover, because L1 is not used in the classroom and all explanations are conveyed in L2, students achieve higher fluency (Mart, 2013).

Nevertheless, the Direct Method has been criticised for its being extremely demanding for teachers. Unless the teacher speaks with a native-like fluency, students will not be able to acquire the natural patterns of the language (Richards & Rodgers, 2007). We should also add that this method does not provide students with systematic theoretical knowledge of the structure of the language, which may contradict their personal expectations and, consequently, have a negative influence on their motivation.

The next two methods, Audiolingualism and the Natural Approach, can also be subjected to the critique above, as they also reject explicit grammar explanations and presuppose the natural acquisition of language without paying special attention to rules.

Audiolingualism, based on behaviourist psychology, viewed language, and grammar in particular, as a form of behaviour to be learned through the creation of correct habits in L2 and overcoming the native language habits. Here foreign language learning becomes an entirely mechanical process. New structures are learned through the repetition of oral drills introduced by the teacher. New material is not presented until students reproduce the drill perfectly. The drills imitate real-life speech situations, so the main goal of the method is developing students' ability to use language for communication (Larsen-Freeman, 2007).

The large amount of exposure to L2 can be called the greatest merit of this method. At the same time, however, it may not withstand critique for a number of aspects. Firstly, no language course can embrace all the possible language patterns. Secondly, the drills a student learns are rather language-like behaviour but not the actual language: although a student may remember specific examples of grammatical patterns in use, he or she may not have established an association between this pattern and the meaning it conveys. As a result, a student may not be able to use this pattern in other speech situations (Hanchey, 1974).

A more radical view to teaching grammar, the Natural Approach, attached an even smaller significance to grammar. Underpinned by the theory of second language acquisition, this principle denies the necessity of formal instruction. A foreign language is supposed to be acquired in the same way as the native language. According to the methodologists of the Natural Approach, a language teacher, as well as the students, does not have to analyse or pay attention to grammatical structures, and grammar does not have to be presented in language teaching materials (Krashen & Terrel, 1983). A teacher provides comprehensible input, which leads students to free communication that provokes comprehensible output in L2.

The Natural Approach can be quite demanding for various reasons. Designing comprehensible input so that it covers all the desirable language items is challenging and time-consuming. Besides, the process of second language acquisition, unsupported by any kind of form-focused guidance, undoubtedly causes a high level of fluency but not necessarily accuracy.

The idea that the knowledge of grammar rules is insufficient to form the communicative competence, as well as the developments in sociolinguistics, influenced the development of Communicative Language Teaching in the 1970s.KUnlike the Natural Approach, CLT did not completely reject grammar instruction (Thornbury, 1999). A CLT-based syllabus was grammar-based, but grammar was presented in the form of functional labels, in other words, it was named according to its use in speech rather than in theoretical terms. The proponents of the CLT approach did not want to boost fluency at the expense of the knowledge of grammar, so tried to reach a balance between focus on form and meaningful communication, providing interactive tasks along with explicit grammar explanation.

It should be noted, though, that CLT also existed in more radical forms. The most prominent one, the Bangalore project developed by N.S. Prabhu, proposed a syllabus entirely based on meaningful tasks, which were the only means of grammar acquisition. Formal grammar instruction here was rejected (Thornbury, 1999). This method later evolved into Task-Based Language Teaching, which also has the concept of task at its core but recognises the necessity of focus on form. This method will be discussed in greater detail in the following section.

1.3 Modern trends in grammar methodology

The value of grammar teaching is recognised by the majority of modern methodologists. Grammar is explicitly included in ESL syllabuses, and the grammatical competence is controlled in language proficiency examinations. We can highlight two predominant methods used in ESL classrooms, namely, PPP and TBLT. Both rely on explicit grammar teaching, but the former presupposes deductive rule explanation and tends to accentuate the formal side of grammar instruction, while the latter is based on the inductive way of introducing new grammar material and places a greater emphasis on the communicative aspect of grammar.

In the present study, we will look at the theoretical grounds of both methods, reveal their strong and weak points, and analyse their relevance to the context of a linguistic classroom.

1.4 PPP

The definition of PPP - “Presentation, Practice, Production” - may not be as obvious as it may seem at first sight. While some scholars refer to it as a pedagogical approach (Shehadeh, 2005; Maftoon & Sarem, 2012), others label it as a language teaching “tool” (Swan, 2005) or “strategy” (Criado, 2013). We would rather call PPP a language teaching method. The term “approach” appears too general: it is more relevant to speak of the deductive and inductive approaches, and PPP should definitely be classified as a deductive approach, with the rule explication preceding the practice activities. As a method, PPP can comprise different techniques that can be applied within its general framework, for instance, the types of exercises at the practice stage may vary. Those techniques, in our opinion, should rather be referred to as tools.

The origins of the method are also unclear. Although PPP was largely believed to dominate over English teaching methodology until the 1990s (Maftoon & Sarem, 2012), no primary source of the PPP model can be traced in literature (Barnashova, 2004). In our summary of the principles of PPP we will rely on a range of sources, which, in spite of contradicting each other in terms of terminology, are in complete accordance with each other as to the structure of the PPP framework and the beliefs behind it.

To begin with, it is essential to describe the essence of PPP. This method is based on a three-stage grammar instruction pattern. These stages, namely, Presentation, Practice, and Production, are supposed to be followed in this particular sequence in a grammar lesson.

The presentation stage is totally teacher-centred. It involves the explicit demonstration of a grammar rule. The target item is explained deductively through example sentences, dialogues, or short texts. In order to avoid students' distraction or confusion, all the unknown language is removed from the examples, so that only grammar remains in the focus. Students do little at this stage, as they only have to listen to the teacher's explanations passively.

The practice stage follows the presentation of the rule. Its aim is to fully familiarise students with the target grammar item and enable them to use it correctly in oral and written speech. This stage can subdivided into controlled practice and freer practice. The former consists of the mechanical repetition and memorisation of the target pattern without necessarily focusing on its use and functions. The latter demands a deeper understanding of the rule: a student needs to make conscious decisions about the grammar structures and pays more attention to the way the rule is applied in speech. Apart from drills and repetition after the teacher or a recording, the typical exercises at the stage of practice include sentence completion, matching sentence parts, asking and answering questions, and suchlike. It is possible and desirable to add activities that prepare students for further production of the target item, such as language games or dialogue composition (Barnashova, 2004).

The final, production stage is supposed to create a natural environment for the free use of the target structure. The emphasis here is placed on communication, so mistakes are not grave (Barnashova, 2004). Discussion, role-play, and problem-solving activities are the possible forms of student interaction. Unlike the previous stages, where the learning process is fully controlled by the teacher, this one provides maximum student autonomy. Students work in pairs of groups with minimal guidance from the teacher.

This framework is based on the model of skill learning, which has its roots in skill theory, particularly in application to language learning. According to this theory, a skill is learnt through a process of three stages: verbalisation, automatization, and autonomy (Johnson, 1996).

First, a skill is formulated and described verbally and is then shown by the instructor. This corresponds to the presentation stage, although the skill-learning model allows guided discovery, i.e. the verbalization may be elicited from the students rather than immediately done by the teacher (Ur, 1996). Then students are given the opportunity to practice the target skill through trial and error until they achieve the desired results and the skill becomes “authomatised” (which can be associated with the practice stage of PPP). After that they are bound to forget the initial verbal description. Finally, students become autonomous by improving their performance and need no further guidance from the instructor. We may establish a rough correlation between autonomy and production in PPP, though autonomy is a more advanced way of skill application (Ur, 1966).

We can see that the model is quite transparent and straightforward. If applied to a grammar lesson, it imposes a rigid structure on it and clearly establishes each step in the process of grammar instruction. Therefore, PPP has been widely used in ESL classrooms for years. The method has its obvious advantages, but it has also received a lot of critique.

Let us first consider the positive sides of the method. The procedures of a grammar lesson are clear and straightforward. Students are gradually guided from explicit rule demonstration to the use of the target item in speech. Every lesson has a precise goal, and all activities lead to tangible results (Barnashova, 2004). It is important that the students are aware of this goal, and they consciously try to achieve it.

Due to its structure and logic, a PPP-based lesson is quite easy to design and to give, and the standard framework makes the stages of the lesson quite predictable. The teacher controls the timing and the content of the lesson (Thornbury, 1999). Moreover, as a deductive method, it is timesaving: since the rule is presented immediately, little time is spent on eliciting ideas about it from the students or contextual preambles. Consequently, more time is dedicated to practice and the application of the rule in speech (Al Ghazali, 2008).

If we consider the PPP method from a learner's perspective, we can also find certain benefits. First, the lesson structure matches many learners' expectations: those used to deductive language teaching understand the goals and the standard process of achieving them (Skehan, 1998). Besides, the majority of ESL textbooks are PPP-oriented, so the target grammar items are distinctly incorporated into the syllabus.

Another argument in favour of PPP is that it relies on the students' consciousness, intelligence, and maturity (Al Ghazali, 2008). Ideally, the method allows the students to focus on linguistic features in detail. They become aware of the grammar patterns of the language. A PPP-based lesson can lead to the analysis of the target grammar. The students can form associations with the material they already know and notice the differences between the grammar of L2 and that of their mother tongue.

Along with the advantages mentioned above, the PPP method undoubtedly has its weak points. The general principles of PPP have received a lot of critique from the proponents of the SLA theory. It has been blamed for placing accuracy before fluency, and the hypothesis that the latter necessarily follows the former has caused major doubts (Thornburry, 1999). The PPP framework has also been criticised for teacher-centeredness, learner passiveness and lack of interaction, and imposing the view of language as a set of rules (Al Ghazali, 2008).

Another question is whether PPP allows real communication practice. Although its last stage is supposed to provoke natural unrestricted interaction among the students, it is doubtful if the students use language as a means of achieving a communicative goal or rather demonstrate the correct employment of the target grammar form (Willis, 1990).

Furthermore, the framework is not always applied at its best, which entails noticeable negative consequences. If a rule is oversimplified, the students will not be able to apply it to more difficult cases in speech that have not been covered in the lesson (Willis, 1990). Also, there is a risk that the target grammar item may only be used within the individual lesson dedicated to it, and the students will not be able to employ it in speech further on due to the lack of practice (Willis & Willis, 1996).

The production stage of a PPP lesson also poses certain threats. As the students' speech is not controlled strictly here, they may avoid the target structure and express their ideas through alternative language means. Because of this uncertainty and the more complicated nature of the required activities, teachers may often ignore the production stage, and the lesson may be restricted to only presentation and production (Barnashova, 2004).

Summing up the pros and cons of the PPP method, we can highlight those that are particularly relevant for linguistics students. PPP is beneficial for the learners who aim at exploring the theory of language in detail and are willing to understand the structure and the functions of this or that grammar item and use it consciously. The framework is also appealing because of its clear structure and precise goals. Besides, many students have a habit of deductive grammar learning due to its prevalence in schools.

However, we can assume that, at a higher level of language proficiency, explicit rule explanation and mechanical practice may undermine learner motivation. Instead, linguistics students may feel more enthusiastic if more communication-oriented tasks are included in the lesson, which teachers often fail to do within the PPP framework.

1.5 TBLT

Task-based Language Teaching, or TBLT, is underpinned by a theory of language learning rather than a theory of language structure (Shehadeh, 2005). A product of the CLT theory, it is based on the assumption that communicative skills are of major importance in language learning, and practice is the relevant way of developing them (Richards & Rodgers, 2007).

In TBLT, language practice realised through tasks, which provide the context for language acquisition and promote language learning. Specialists in ELT provided a number of definitions of the concept of task. In these definitions, various aspects of the task have been taken into account: its stimulation of real communicative exchange, the orientation on a particular goal and the use of language in order to achieve a certain outcome, the connection of the language use with a real-life context, and the focus on form rather than on meaning (Shehadeh, 2005). With these aspects in mind, Shehadeh (2005) defines a language learning task as “an activity that has a non-linguistic purpose or goal, with a clear outcome and that uses any or all of the four language skills in its accomplishment by conveying meaning in a way that reflects real-world language use.” We find this definition precise enough to reflect the essence of the task used for language learning purposes.

It is important to define the components of the task. Nunan (1989) proposed the following model of the task. It should consist of verbal or non-verbal input (such as a text or a picture sequence), an activity derived from the input that the learners are supposed to engage in, an implicit or explicit goal and roles for the teacher and the students. Along with other components, a TBLT lesson necessarily contains a sequence of tasks (Nunan, 1989).

Willis and Willis (2007) classified tasks according to the cognitive processes involved for their completion. Brainstorming, fact-finding, quizzes, memory and guessing games are examples of listing tasks. Sequencing, ranking ordering and classifying refer to the ordering and sorting task type. Comparing and contrasting tasks include graphic organisers and games finding similarities and differences. Projects and creative tasks can take the form of newspapers and posters. Storytelling, anecdotes and reminiscences constitute the task type of sharing personal experiences. There are also problem-solving tasks that require logic problem prediction.

As well as the PPP model, the TBLT framework is a sequence of three phases: pre-task phase, task cycle, and language focus. The phases are logically connected, and each one prepares the students for the next. However, unlike in the PPP framework, grammar is discussed during the last phase. Within the framework, the three basic conditions are created: exposure, use, and motivation (Willis, 1996).

The pre-task phase is usually the shortest. The teacher introduces the topic to the class and gives tasks instructions. Topic-related words and phrases are provided for the students to prepare for the task completion. The typical activities at this stage are: classifying lexical units, choosing the odd unit (odd one out), matching phrases to pictures, memory challenge, brainstorming and making mind-maps, asking questions. In order to introduce the topic, a teacher may also share a personal experience. In all the activities, useful language arises, so the students get prepared for the next phase.

The task stage gives the students the opportunity to use the target language while they are trying to achieve the goal set by the teacher. The task cycle consists of three components: task itself, planning, and report. First, students complete the task, monitored by the teacher from a distance. They work in pairs or in small groups. The teacher monitors the process without interfering much in it and acts as a facilitator, ignoring errors of form, optimizing the students' interaction and minding the time limit.

Then, during the planning stage, the students prepare to report the outcomes of their work to the whole class, in oral or in written form. Here they pay more attention to accuracy and organise their ideas more carefully. The teacher helps by providing sample reports and useful resources, e.g. dictionaries.

Finally, some reports are presented to the class. The students may compare the results with each other or with a recording of other students doing a similar task. The typical purposes of the report include making lists of ideas, exchanging ideas, evaluating each other's work, persuading the audience, and problem solving. After the presentation of the reports the teacher sums up the results achieved by the students while doing the task.

Only after these phases comes the language focus. The teacher draws the students' attention to the target grammar they used to accomplish the task. Explicit grammar explanations are given, and students are able to analyse the target item consciously. The instruction is student-centred, and the language is always explained in the communicative context.

Having described the task types and the TBLT framework, we can briefly summarise its principles. The method values natural communication greatly. However, it is not restricted to purely naturalistic learning and includes conscious focus on formal elements of language for the sake of accuracy. A task allows the students to practice the language in a communicative context. The instruction is learner-centred, and the students take an extremely active part in the learning process.

As opposed to the PPP method, TBLT is inductive in nature. The students are guided from the use of the target grammar in speech to the conscious formulation of the grammar pattern in the focus of the lesson. There are a number of advantages to inductive grammar teaching in terms of learner independence and motivation. Students work out rules from examples, which requires mental effort, and formulate it in the most convenient way for themselves. This entails greater memorability of the material learned. Successful discoveries, as well as learner independence, highly motivate students and create a relaxing setting in the classroom (Al Ghazali, 2006).

At the same time, many teachers avoid TBLT. The reasons may vary: some are used to the order and predictability of teacher-centred form-focused grammar lessons, some are discouraged by the complex preparation required for a TBLT-based lesson, some fear that the framework will not allow the necessary amount of control over the process and the target language will not be focused on enough.

In regards to a linguistics classroom, we can outline some strong points and some drawbacks of TBLT. On the one hand, TBLT suits learners with a high level of language proficiency, as it allows to practice language in a relatively free communicative setting. It makes the learning process engaging, fills it with meaningful content, and provides practical-oriented contexts for language use. However, we can assume that many linguistics students have a deep-rooted habit for the traditional form-focused grammar teaching approach, and, if exposed to TBLT, they may feel a need to focus on theory more.

Both PPP and TBLT exist in modern ESL classrooms. Given the fact that neither of them has been entirely dismissed, we decided to investigate whether one of the two methods is more relevant specifically for a linguistics classroom in a higher education institution. We also assumed that the two methods could be equally efficient in this educational context and that the traits of both methods could be integrated in a grammar lesson for linguistics students.

1.6 Methodology

For this research, four groups of sophomore students of the Foreign Languages and Intercultural Communication educational programme at the Foreign Languages Department of Higher School of Economics University were chosen. The programme is aimed at educating specialists in language pedagogy, translation, interpretation, and intercultural communication, therefore its students focus on both the theory of language and its practical application. The study took place in the 2018-2019 academic year. The students were randomly chosen. The ages of the students varied from 18 to 19. The numbers of students in each group ranged from 8 to 13. Their English learning backgrounds were different; their language proficiency level was estimated to be B2-C1.

In their course of English Practice mainly based on the Outcomes Advanced coursebook, a revision of conditional sentences of the 2^nd, 3^rd, and mixed types was included in the Grammar section. The experimental lessons designed in order to reveal the efficacy and the influence on the students' motivation of the grammar teaching methods in question, as well as the students' attitude to them were dedicated to these types of conditionals. The majority of the participants were familiar with Conditional sentences before the experimental lessons. The familiarity percentage among the groups ranges from 92% to 100% for the 2^nd and 3^rd conditional and from 85% to 100% for the mixed-type conditionals (see the table below).

Table 1. Students' Familiarity with Conditional Sentences

	2nd conditional	3rd conditional	mixed conditionals
Group 178-2 TBLT	100%	100%	92%
Group 179-2 TBLT	100%	100%	100%
Group 177-1 PPP	92%	92%	92%
Group 179-1 PPP	100%	100%	85%

For the first two groups, 178-2 TBLT and 179-2 TBLT, the experimental lesson was based on the TBLT approach. First, tasks were given to students. Only after the task completion, there was a brief discussion of the structure of conditional sentences and their use. For the second two groups, 177-1 PPP and 179-1 PPP, the lesson was designed according to the PPP approach. The patterns of conditional sentences and the cases of their use in speech were introduced to the students in detail, then several form-focused activities were given to them and, finally, they practised the target conditional types in speech. The tasks at the practice stage, however, were communicative ones, so that the students could compare them with the rest of the activities they had been exposed to.

In order to answer the research questions, we implemented two kinds of data collection tools. The first type of data collection tool was the written tests on conditionals which the students completed before the lessons (the pre-test), immediately after them (the post-test), and several months after the experiment (the delayed post-test). In each of the tests, the students had to paraphrase the given sentences using conditionals. The delayed post-test also contained a translation activity.

The second data collection tool was the feedback questionnaires which the participants completed anonymously immediately after the grammar lessons. The questionnaires included Likert-scale items and open-ended questions aimed at revealing the students' attitudes regarding the activities they encountered during the experimental lessons in terms of their influence on language proficiency progress and motivation.

The qualitative data obtained from the tests and the questionnaire was processed through the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The participants' responses to open-ended questions were analysed qualitatively. We believe that the chosen methods best meet the needs of our research. The tests demonstrate the gap between the students' initial and developed skills of using conditional sentences, while the questionnaires show their perception of the grammar teaching approaches in the focus of our study.

1.7 Experimental lessons

Before presenting the data provided by the participants of the experiment, it appears worthwhile to focus on the experiment itself. As we have mentioned in the Methodology section, we devised two grammar lessons on the topic of conditional sentences of the 2^nd, 3^rd, and mixed types (see the detailed descriptions of the lessons below). The 2^nd and 3^rd conditionals were a topic for revision, therefore the activities dedicated to them (finishing the sentences and the snowball game for TBLT and choosing the correct option for PPP) were not included in the Likert-scale activities assessment section of the questionnaire. The use of mixed-type conditional sentences was a more difficult topic for most students, so the activities targeted at it were to be primarily focused on. Nevertheless, several students gave their feedback on these activities in the open-ended questions section.

The TBLT-based lesson

The first lesson, designed in accordance with the principles of TBLT, was taught to groups 178-2 and 179-2. At the beginning the students briefly revised the 2^nd and the 3^rd conditional.

Revision activity 1

First, each student had to finish the sentence beginnings on their cards using their imagination:

1. If I were a famous Hollywood actor/actress, …

2. I'd be really happy if…

3. If I didn't have this class now, …

The students then shared the full sentences with their partner. Then selected students reported their partners' sentences to the whole group. The teacher corrected the mistakes, elicited the structure of the 2^nd conditional from the students, and wrote it on the board.

Revision activity 2

The second revision task was a whole-class snowball game. The first student had to complete the sentence:

If I hadn't entered the university, …

The next student had to start his/her sentence with the ending of first student's sentence. E.g.

S1. If I hadn't entered the university, I would have stayed in my home town.

S2 If I had stayed in my home town, I would have spent more time with my old friends, etc.

All the mistakes were corrected on the spot. After the task the teacher briefly focused the structure of the 3^rd conditional and its use.

The main tasks were meant for the acquisition of the new material, namely, the mixed conditionals and the constructions But for, If it hadn't been for / Hadn't it been for. They were also aimed at developing the students' ability to use all the types of conditionals in speech and choose the relevant ones depending on the context. All the tasks had a meaningful context, either personal (individual experiences) or topical (politics). These tasks were included in the assessment rubric of the questionnaire, therefore for the sake of convenience they will be numbered here in the same order.

Task 1

The students were asked to think about some important decision that they regretted having made (or not made). They were to tell their partners about how their lives would be different at the moment of speaking if they had (not) made this decision. They could as well talk about somebody else's experience. Before the task the teacher orally presented several model sentences. After exchanging the sentences with a partner, selected students reported their partners' stories to the whole class. Then the mistakes were corrected and the structure of the mixed conditional type to be used in this case was briefly discussed.

Task 2

The students were to think about a failure in their lives and the traits of their character that had led to that failure. They had to share the stories with their partners. Like in the previous task, they could speak about someone else's experience as well. Then selected students reported their partners' story, the teacher corrected their mistakes on the spot and commented on the use of the mixed conditionals in the task.

Task 3

The third task was taken from the Outcomes Advanced coursebook. The students were to write conditional sentences on the given topics: the result of the last election, a famous political figure in Russia, and an important life moment. Then they translated their sentences to their partners. The partners' task was to translate the sentences back into English. Then the students changed roles. The teacher monitored the activity, correcting the mistakes and explaining the use of conditionals where necessary.

Task 4

The students had to finish the following sentences on the board so that they were true for them:

But for my mother, …

If it hadn't been for my friend, …

Hadn't it been for my neighbour, …

The teacher had provided several model sentences before the students completed the task. Having written their own sentences, the students read them to the whole class. The teacher gave feedback on the use of the target constructions. This task appears the least communicative at first sight, but the students' sentences were personal and meaningful and provoked further discussion.

Task 5

Each student received a card with an important historical event, e.g. American Civil War, formation of the League of Nations, bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, etc. The students had to imagine what would have been different in history and what the present would be like if that event hadn't happened. They were to write several conditional sentences about it and then read them to their partners without naming the event, so that the partners could guess it. The students were allowed to use the Internet to find all the necessary information about the historical events. The teacher monitored the students' performance and gave feedback when necessary.

The PPP-based lesson

The lesson devised according to the PPP model was taught to groups 177-1 and 179-1. For each grammar item in the lesson, the instruction pattern was the same: first, the teacher explained the item and provided example sentences (presentation), then the students completed at least one form-focused activity involving the use of the target item (practice). The final activities involved free communicative use of all the target items (production). A large number of students took notes while listening to the teacher's explanations.

Revision activity

As well as the TBLT-based lesson, the PPP-based one included a revision of the 2^nd and 3^rd conditionals. First, the teacher gave a detailed presentation of these two types. Then the students had to choose the correct option in the given sentences and comment on their choice.

1. She will go/would go/would have gone mad if she found out what you're doing here!

2. If I am/were/would be you, I'd buy that dress.

3. He wouldn't have gone to that concert if his wife didn't ask/hadn't asked/wouldn't have asked him to.

4. Mary will look/would look/would have looked much better if she slept more and worked less.

5. I wouldn't have voted for him if I knew/would know/had known that he'd start a war!

6. If Jack had/had had/would have had more time, he would have done this task better.

7. We wouldn't spend/wouldn't have spent/didn't spend so much time commuting if we lived in a small city.

8. Alice would have called/would call/had called you as soon as possible if only she had known that you were in trouble.

This exercise was not included in the activity assessment section of the questionnaire, as, like the corresponding tasks in the TBLT lesson, it was only used as a drill for revision.

After introducing the topic of the lesson, the teacher gave a detailed presentation of the two types of mixed conditionals. Then the students completed three exercises on mixed conditionals. The teacher checked the exercises and gave detailed feedback. The students gave their own explanations of the choice of the conditional types.

Activity 1

The students had to match the beginnings of the sentences with their endings individually. Then selected students read the sentences aloud and commented on the use of the mixed conditionals in each case.

1. If you were smarter,	a. you wouldn't be lying sick in bed now.
2. If she had been born in the United States,	b. if he could drive.
3. You wouldn't be so hungry	c. you wouldn't have believed all their promises.
4. If I had more friends,	d. she wouldn't need a visa to work there.
5. If Dad were at home,	e. if you'd had a snack during the break.
6. Roger wouldn't have come by bus	f. I would have thrown a birthday party last night.
7. If you had taken the medication as prescribed,	g. if you had submitted the project before the deadline.
8. The boss wouldn't be so angry	h. he would've turned on the light.

Activity 2

The students had to open the brackets individually choosing the correct conditional type.

1. I would have a better job now if I ______________ (WORK) harder at school.

2. If Tom ______________ (NOT BE) so passive, he would have solved this problem long ago.

3. Imagine! If I had invested in that small company, I __________ (BE) a millionaire now!

4. If you liked house music, I _____________ (INVITE) you to go with us to the club last night.

5. We would still be good friends if we ____________ (NOT GET) out of touch after graduation.

6. Philip would be dead now if he ____________ (CATCH) that plane.

Activity 3

The students had to translate the sentences into English in written form. They could consult their notes but not each other.

Конечно, я бы не выглядел таким несчастным, если бы не готовился к экзамену всю ночь. 2. Будь она немножко поумнее, она бы не стала сразу соглашаться на это предложение. 3. Если бы мой отец не работал так много в юности, сейчас он не был бы таким успешным предпринимателем. 4. Если бы меня предупредили заранее, я была бы в более официальной одежде. Я бы не надела джинсы! 5. Если бы мой брат не был таким упрямым и не спорил так часто с начальником, он бы давно уже получил повышение. 6. Мы бы сейчас были в Париже, если бы вовремя купили билеты. 7. Если бы ты позвонил мне с утра, я уже сейчас был бы у тебя. 8. Если бы я зарабатывала больше, я бы уже давно купила себе новую машину.

These activities were followed by the presentation of the But for, If it hadn't been for / Hadn't it been for constructions.

Activity 4

As a practice exercise, the students paraphrased the following sentences employing the target constructions.

1. My brother helped me to get the tickets. I wouldn't have got them without his help.

2. If Megan hadn't worried so much about this matter, we would have forgotten about it!

3. We were all were ready in time, but Dave came late, so we missed the bus because of him.

4. Rick oughtn't to have learnt the bad news, but Katie told him everything.

5. It was difficult to navigate in Barcelona. But Miguel didn't let me get lost!

After the presentation and practice stages, the students had two production tasks. These, in contrast to most of the activities in the lesson, were communicative ones.

Activity 5

The first communicative task was the same as Task 4 in the TBLT-based lesson: the students had to finish the sentences on the blackboard, share them with their partners and then report each other's sentences. The only difference was that in this case the activity was preceded by a form-focused exercise (Activity 4).

Activity 6

The final activity was similar to Task 5 in the TBLT-based lesson. Each student received a card with a name of a famous politician on it, e.g. William the Conqueror, Vladimir Lenin, Mahatma Gandhi, etc. The task was to think what would have been different in history and what the present would be like without that politician and his actions and write several conditional sentences about it. The students could consult any sources. Then they read the sentences to their partners without naming the politician and tried to guess the politician on their partners' cards. The teacher listened to the students while they were talking, corrected their mistakes and gave comments on the use of conditionals.