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

1.8 Results and discussion

Tests

The pre- and post-tests were distributed to the students before and after the experimental lessons. The students had 10 minutes to complete them and were not allowed to consult any sources or each other. Each test consisted of five sentences to be paraphrased using the target conditional types.

Pre-test (maximum score 5)

Paraphrase the sentences so that they have the same meaning.

1. You didn't listen to the boss attentively yesterday. That's why you missed many important details.

If you _______________________________________________ those important details.

2. You didn't remember to bring a map when we set off. That's why we're lost now.

If you _________________________________________ lost now.

3. I'd love to go with you, but I'm busy tonight.

If I _______________________________________________________ with you.

4. Without Doctor Turner's treatment he would have lost the whole leg.

If it _________________________________________________ the whole leg.

5. He could have asked her out on a date then. But he is so shy!

If he ___________________________________________________ her out on a date.

Post-test (maximum score 5)

Paraphrase the sentences so that they have the same meaning.

1. I'd love to help you carry the bags, but I'm not strong enough.

If I ______________________________________carry the bags.

2. I've eaten too much. I feel so sick now!

If I ________________________________________so sick now.

3. I failed the exam because I hadn't studied hard enough.

If I ________________________________________ the exam.

4. I only succeeded because you helped me.

I ___________________________________________ for your help.

5. She told that joke at an official meeting. She's not sensible at all!

If she ______________________________ that joke at an official meeting.

The delayed post-test was given to the students three months after the experimental lessons. It contained the same sentence transformation activity as in the previous tests and five sentences for translation from Russian into English. The test was aimed at assessing the students' ability to use the target conditionals, as well as the But for construction.

Delayed post-test (maximum score 10)

Paraphrase the sentences so that they have the same meaning. (maximum score 5)

I don't have enough money, so I can't go on that trip.

If I ____________________________________________________ that trip.

She didn't enjoy the movie because she isn't interested in politics.

If she _________________________________________________ the movie.

Mark isn't in the UK now because he didn't get a visa.

If Mark ____________________________________________ in the UK now.

Without his warning I would have got into trouble.

But __________________________________________________into trouble.

I missed the lecture because I was sick.

Had __________________________________________________ the lecture.

Translate the sentences into English. (maximum score 5)

1. Не будь он таким ленивым, он бы уже давно закончил этот проект.

2. Я бы купила это платье прямо сейчас, если бы мой размер был в наличии (in stock).

3. Если бы не пробка, мы бы приехали вовремя.

4. Если бы мы не поссорились на той вечеринке, мы и сейчас были бы хорошими друзьями.

5. Он бы выиграл, если бы заранее подготовился к конкурсу.

The students had been informed in advance that the tests would not influence their grades for the course and that only grammatical accuracy in terms of the target patterns would be assessed, i.e. lexical or spelling mistakes, as well as other grammar mistakes, would not be taken into consideration.

The table below shows the students' rounded average scores for all the tests.

Table 2. Test Scores for Each Group

Group		Pre-test (out of 5)	Post-test (out of 5)	Delayed post-test - transformation	Delayed post-test - translation	Delayed post-test overall score (out of 10)
Group 178-2 TBLT	Average	2,5	3	3,7	3,8	7
	Median	2	3	3,5	4	7
Group 179-2 TBLT	Average	2	4,2	2,7	4, 7	7,3
	Median	2,5	5	2,5	5	7,5
Group 177-1 PPP	Average	1,7	2,9	3	2,9	5,9
	Median	1	3	3	3	6
Group 179-1 PPP	Average	2,1	3,4	3	3,4	6,4
	Median	2	3	3	4	6,5

By summing this table up we can compare the average performance of the TBLT groups with that of the PPP ones.

Table 3. Test Scores for TBLT and PPP

Groups		Pre-test	Post-test	Delayed post-test - transformation	Delayed post-test - translation	Delayed post-test overall score
TBLT	Average	2,3	3,6	2,9	4,3	7,2
	Median	2	4	3	4,5	7,5
PPP	Average	1,9	3,2	3	3,2	6,2
	Median	2	3	3	3	6

Although the groups of the two types had approximately the same results in the pre-test, the TBLT groups gained slightly higher scores in the post-test. In the long term, the results did not vary significantly as well between groups of both types in the delayed post-test transformation. Contrary to our expectations, the PPP groups did not outperform the TBLT groups better in the delayed post-test translation. It is important to note that no differences between the performances of the two group types are dramatic.

Yet, if we consider the TBLT groups' minor advantage in the post-test and the delayed post-test transformation results, a possible explanation to the obtained results could be the following. Although the PPP groups were exposed to a greater number of form-focused activities, including translation and sentence transformation, and received a more detailed explanation of the structure and the use of conditionals, they spent less time on practising the target grammar. While they may remember the theory on conditionals better, they may find it more difficult to apply it on the spot to particular contexts of speech. The TBLT groups, having spent less time on the theory, were given more opportunities to freely practise conditionals in various contexts, most of which were close to real-life speech situations. That is why, as we assume, the performance of the TBLT groups after the experimental lessons was slightly more successful.

It is also worthwhile to analyse the students' perception of their language proficiency progress after the lessons on conditionals. In the questionnaire, we inquired whether the participants would use the target conditionals in speech (all of them/some of them/none) and whether they remembered the structure of the target conditionals, i.e. the theory (yes/partly/no).

The expected use of target conditionals in speech is represented in the table below.

Table 4. Expected Use of Target Conditional Types

	Full	Partial	None
Group 178-2 TBLT	67%	33%	0%
Group 179-2 TBLT	63%	38%	0%
Group 177-1 PPP	62%	38%	0%
Group 179-1 PPP	54%	46%	0%

All the participants were sure that they would use the target conditionals in speech to some extent. It can be noted that the TBLT students felt a little more confident about the application of conditionals in real-life speech which, again, can be explained by the fact that the tasks they had performed during the lesson were of a more practical-oriented character than the activities completed by the PPP groups.

Let us now focus on the students' memorization of the structure of the target conditionals according to their self-assessment.

Table 5. Memorisation of the Target Structures

	Full	Partial	None
Group 178-2 TBLT	75%	25%	0%
Group 179-2 TBLT	63%	38%	0%
Group 177-1 PPP	38%	62%	0%
Group 179-1 PPP	69%	31%	0%

Here the percentage varies greatly. The figure that clearly stands out is the low percentage of remembering structure fully in one of the PPP groups (177-1). Overall, we can observe a greater confidence among the representatives of the TBLT groups, which again contradicts our initial expectations. During the PPP-based lessons, much more attention was paid to the structure of the target conditionals. There were detailed theoretical explanations, and the students took notes while listening to them. Also, while checking the activities in the PPP groups, the students and the teacher focused on the reasons for choosing this or that conditional type. With these factors in mind, it was natural to anticipate a greater confidence about the memorisation of the theory concerning the topic of the lessons among the students in the PPP groups. Obviously, these results beg the question: does the TBLT approach guarantee a better acquisition of the target grammar than the PPP approach? Do linguistics students need theoretical grammar explanations at all or should they only learn them through meaningful tasks according to the principles of second language acquisition? Should we reject the theoretical presentation of grammar and form-focused grammar exercises?

We believe that these questions cannot be answered unless the students' perception of the two approaches is considered as well. By this we mean their attitude to efficacy of the grammar activities of different types and the motivation these activities cause. Therefore our next issue for analysis is the students' assessment of the activities and tasks they had during the experimental grammar lessons.

Activities assessment

In the questionnaire, the students rated the exercises and tasks they experienced during the grammar lessons on a scale from 1 to 5 in terms of their usefulness, the motivation they cause (or simply how exciting the activity was to participate in), and their difficulty. There were also two open-ended questions, namely: Which activity(-ies) did you enjoy the most and why? and Which activity(-ies) did you enjoy the least and why? As we have mentioned in the experiment description, the revision activities were not included in the activity assessment section of the questionnaire. The tables below show the results of the groups' activities assessment (the figures are rounded); the conclusions under the tables are based on the students' feedback given in the open-ended questions section.



2. TBLT

Task 1

“Think about some important decision that you regret having made (or not made). Tell your partner about how your life would be different now if you had (not) made this decision.”

Table 6. TBLT Task 1 Assessment

		Usefulness	Motivation	Difficulty
Group 178-2	Average	4	3,3	1,9
	Median	4	3	2
Group 179-2	Average	4	3,9	2,5
	Median	4	4	2,5

Several students marked this task as their most preferred one. They explained their choice by the fact that this task “makes students see how these grammar structures can be” and is “useful for natural speech”. At the same time, several students named this task the least enjoyable, as it was difficult for them to come up with ideas on the spot in order to make conditional sentences. Another student described it as time-consuming and not very useful, because it did not cover all the uses of mixed conditionals.

Task 2

“Think about some failure in your life and the trait of your character that led to this failure. Tell your partner about it. You may speak about someone else's experience as well.”



Table 7. TBLT Task 2 Assessment

		Usefulness	Motivation	Difficulty
Group 178-2	Average	4	3,3	2,1
	Median	4	3,5	2
Group 179-2	Average	4,4	3,9	2,3
	Median	4,5	4	2

This task was appealing to the students who were eager to share their personal experiences. However, some found it disturbing or boring because of its subject (failures and character traits).

Task 3

“Make up 3 sentences using the sentence patterns we have discussed. Translate them into Russian and ask your partner to translate them back into English.”

Table 8. TBLT Task 3 Assessment

		Usefulness	Motivation	Difficulty
Group 178-2	Average	4,3	3,3	2,3
	Median	4	3,5	2,5
Group 179-2	Average	4,9	4,1	2,5
	Median	5	4	2,5

None of the students rated this task as the least preferred one. The students mentioned the satisfaction from the partners' precise sentence translation and the opportunity to develop translation skills along with the revision of conditionals as its merits.

Task 4

“Finish the sentences on the blackboard.”



Table 9. TBLT Task 4 Assessment

		Usefulness	Motivation	Difficulty
Group 178-2	Average	3,3	2,7	2
	Median	3	2,5	1,5
Group 179-2	Average	4,1	3,6	2,1
	Median	4	4	2

This task caused the greatest amount of negative feedback (almost 20% of the students named it their least preferred one), primarily because of its being not challenging enough. Boredom, time limits and content were among its other disadvantages. Only two students found this task the most enjoyable because the content was interesting for them and because it was easy.

Task 5

“Imagine how history would have been different if the event on your card hadn't happened and write about it using the structures discussed during the lesson. Guess your groupmates' events.”

Table 10. TBLT Task 5 Assessment

		Usefulness	Motivation	Difficulty
Group 178-2	Average	4	4	2,4
	Median	4	4	2,5
Group 179-2	Average	4,5	4,3	3,5
	Median	5	4,5	4

Obviously, the students considered Task 5 in the TBLT lessons the most efficient and motivating. 42% of the students enjoyed this task the most. The task was unusual, engaging and challenging for them and caused the greatest amount of positive feedback. The students appreciated the background knowledge required for the task completion, the communicative nature of the task and the interaction with their groupmates, the opportunity to employ creativity and the game element (guessing the historical event). The fact that the subject matter was not personal was also among the positive components of the task. Only two students disliked Task 5 because they were not strong in history, so the topic was not enjoyable for them and resulted in confusion.

The figures show that tasks 3 and 5 appeared the most useful to the students. Task 5 was also rated the most motivating and the most challenging one.

A number of students shared some general impressions about the TBLT lesson in the questionnaire. Almost 20% of the students wrote that they had enjoyed all the tasks. Some of the feedback was quite controversial, e.g. one student enjoyed the variety of the tasks, while another one claimed that the tasks were “pretty similar” (though he/she enjoyed them all, too). The opportunity to practise conditionals and English in general was appreciated as well. Some students disliked the need to speak spontaneously (i.e. during the revision task on the 3^rd conditional) and felt uncomfortable having to use their imagination; some felt distracted from the target grammar by the content of the tasks.



3. PPP

Activity 1

“Match the beginnings of the sentences with their endings.”

Table 11. PPP Activity 1 Assessment

		Usefulness	Motivation	Difficulty
Group 177-1	Average	3,7	4	2,1
	Median	3	4	2
Group 179-1	Average	4,1	4,1	2,5
	Median	5	4	2

None of the students chose this task as the most enjoyable; 30% enjoyed it the least. The main reason for this was the easiness of the task.

Activity 2

“Open the brackets using the mixed conditionals.”

Table 12. PPP Activity 2 Assessment

		Usefulness	Motivation	Difficulty
Group 177-1	Average	4,5	4	3,5
	Median	5	4	3
Group 179-1	Average	4,4	4	3,1
	Median	5	4	4

This task did not provoke much feedback. One student enjoyed it the most; two liked it the least. However, the figures show that the students generally found it very useful and quite motivating.



Activity 3

“Translate the sentences into English.”

Table 13. PPP Activity 3 Assessment

		Usefulness	Motivation	Difficulty
Group 177-1	Average	4,7	4,1	3,8
	Median	5	4	4
Group 179-1	Average	4,3	4,3	3,2
	Median	5	5	3

The students expressed contrary attitudes regarding the translation activity. Many students believed this exercise to be quite challenging: some considered it an advantage and a motivating factor, while others were discouraged by the difficulty. As well as in the TBLT groups, the students expressed a need to practise translation more.

Activity 4

“Paraphrase the sentences using But for + noun, If it hadn't been for + noun / Had it not been for + noun.”

Table 14. PPP Activity 4 Assessment

		Usefulness	Motivation	Difficulty
Group 177-1	Average	4,2	3,6	3,2
	Median	5	3	3
Group 179-1	Average	4,6	4,2	3
	Median	5	4	3

The students' attitude to this activity was quite neutral: they gave no specific comments about its advantages and downsides. Figures show that they perceived the task as quite useful, moderately motivating, and of medium difficulty.



Activity 5

“Think of 5 important people in your life and tell your partner about how your life would be different without them using the structures But for + noun, Had it not been for + noun.”

Table 15. PPP Activity 5 Assessment

		Usefulness	Motivation	Difficulty
Group 177-1	Average	4,3	4	3,1
	Median	5	4	3
Group 179-1	Average	4,2	3,8	2,7
	Median	4	4	3

The PPP groups appreciated this task a lot more than the TBLT groups. We can ascribe it to the fact that the task was meaningful and interactive: the students had an opportunity to talk to their groupmates and exchange personal experiences.

Activity 6

“Think how history would be different without this politician and his/her actions. Write several sentences using the sentence patterns we discussed today.”

Table 16. PPP Activity 6 Assessment

		Usefulness	Motivation	Difficulty
Group 177-1	Average	4,2	4,3	3,3
	Median	5	5	3
Group 179-1	Average	4,5	4,1	3
	Median	5	4	3

The last task was the most enjoyable one for 45% of students in the PPP groups. The students called the task “useful”, “very interesting” and “exciting”. The game element (guessing the politician), the necessity to use extra sources to find the required information and the subject matter of the task were mentioned as it positive sides.

The two production tasks at the end of the lesson were the only communicative tasks in the PPP groups. It is important to note that the students gave no negative feedback on these two tasks. Having been exposed to form-focused, non-interactive exercises throughout the lesson, the students highly appreciated the communicative ones.

In the PPP groups, 30% of the students could not choose one favourite activity because they had enjoyed all of them. On the other hand, one student disliked all the activities. Another student specifically mentioned the revision exercise as the least enjoyable one.

The obtained results do not show a significant difference in the students' appreciation of the two methods, although the communicative task (TBLT Task 5/PPP Activity 6) was highly valued by the majority of students of both group types. We can see that the students value the theoretical content and the ability to drill the target forms provided within the PPP method and the originality of tasks and the interactive nature of the TBLT method. Overall, the PPP-type activities appeared more useful to the students, most probably due to the fact that their aims were more obvious and there were more explicit grammar explanations. As for the students' motivation, we cannot claim that it varied significantly depending on the lesson type. The communicative and the drilling activities provoked a relatively equal amount of interest, although the last task in each lesson caused the greatest enthusiasm because of its highly communicative nature, the game element and the necessity to use extra information sources and cultural background. We should also note that the students found the TBLT-type tasks easier to complete than the PPP-type exercises. This can be explained by the lesser focus on accuracy in the TBLT lesson. Obviously, these statements are generalised, and there are opposing opinions in each of the four groups.



Conclusion

The results of the tests show that the accuracy in the use of conditionals in the TBLT groups only slightly exceeded that in the PPP groups. We should also admit that the representatives of the TBLT groups expressed a greater confidence about further use of conditionals in speech, as well as about remembering the structure of the target conditional types. However, we cannot claim that TBLT guarantees a more successful grammar use in speech than PPP or a deeper understanding of the target grammar structures.

The benefits of the TBLT approach for the students' language proficiency are obvious. Tasks allow students to apply their grammar knowledge to practical cases of speech. Grammar serves as a tool for meaningful communication, not as a goal in itself. As a result, students are engaged in the tasks and have more opportunities to practise the target grammar in speech and employ it in the natural flow of speech. They remember particular contexts better, which helps them subconsciously memorise the target structures and use them further on.

Nevertheless, the students' attitude to TBLT, or, more precisely, to the tasks (as opposed to form-focused exercises and decontextualized activities) is not entirely positive due to their different language learning backgrounds and preferences. Because many students are more used to the traditional grammar tasks, such as open cloze or multiple choice, they may experience certain difficulties with communicative tasks, where they have to come up with ideas, interact with each other more or less spontaneously and at the same time mind the target grammar. Moreover, unlike most traditional grammar exercises, tasks always have a meaningful context. The contexts may involve personal experiences and attitudes or real-life situations that students may not enjoy talking about or some topics they dislike. This can make them feel confused and, consequently, reluctant to practise the target grammar. Some students may also get distracted by the topic and pay little or no attention to the target grammar.

For these reasons, we suppose that the PPP approach should not be entirely rejected. Students with a traditional language learning background expect a grammar lesson to include at least some focus on theory, and this can be especially important for linguistics students, who are often willing to explore the structure of language along with its practical implementation. The PPP framework, though, can be modified and modernised: some scholars even claimed that it may be flexible and the order of the activities and their types can be changed (Byrne, 1986; Criado, 2013).

We would also recommend integrating a larger number of translation activities into grammar lessons, as the students find them useful for their general language proficiency progress. These activities, though, can be made more communicative (translating each other's sentences is a possible option) and more meaningful (texts for translation could be context-related or be incorporated into practical-oriented tasks).

It is clear that students need a greater number of communicative tasks for a better acquisition of the new grammar structures, but they also need some focus on form to meet their expectations and to help them prepare for more challenging activities. The traditional grammar exercises, though, can be modernised to some extent with a greater emphasis on communication, and the presentation of the rules does not necessarily have to precede the tasks. That is why we can conclude that a grammar lesson in a linguistics classroom can and should bear the traits of different approaches, as both TBLT and PPP are relevant and combinable for this educational context.

References

1. Al Ghazali, F. (2006) The Presentation-Practice-Production Vs Consciousness-Raising: Which Is Efficient in Teaching Grammar? The University of Birmingham / The Centre for English Language Studies (CELS).

2. Austin, J.D. (2003) The Grammar Translation Method of Language Teaching. London: Longman.

3. Barnashova, O. (2004) PPP and Co. English at School, 3(7), 40-48.

4. Bloomfield, L. (1933) Language. New York: Holt and Co.

5. Blyth, C. (1997) A Constructivist Approach to Grammar: Teaching Teachers to Teach Aspect. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), Special Issue: How Language Teaching Is Constructed, 50-66.

6. Byrne, D. (1986) Teaching Oral English. Harlow: Longman.

7. Carless, D. (2009) Revisiting the TBLT versus PPP Debate: Voices from Hong Kong. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 19, 49-66.

8. Chellapan, K. (1982). Translanguage, Translation and Second Language Acquisition. In F Eppert (Ed.), Papers on translation: Aspects, Concepts, Implications (pp. 57 - 63). Singapore: SEMEO Regional Language Center.

9. Criado, R. (2013) A critical review of the Presentation-Practice-Production Model (PPP) in Foreign Language Teaching. In R. Monroy (Ed.), Homenaje a Francisco Gutiйrrez Dнez (pp. 97 - 115). Murcia: Edit. um.

10. Danchev, A. (1983). The Controversy over Translation in Foreign Language Teaching. In Translation in Foreign Language Teaching, Paris, Round Table FIT-UNESCO.

11. Diller, Karl C. 1978. The Language Teaching Controversy. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

12. Hell, Gy. (2009) A fordнtбshelye a rуmaioktatбsban (йs Cicero fordнtбsai). Modern Nyelvoktatбs XV. 1-2, 3-12.

13. Herron, C. & Tomasello, M. (1992) Acquiring grammatical structures by guided induction. French review, 708-718.

14. Johnson, K. (1996) Language Teaching and Skill Learning. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

15. Krashen, S.D. (1982) Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon,

16. Krashen, S.D. & Terrel, T.D. (1983) The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Oxford: Pergamon.

17. Langacker, R.W. (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical perspectives. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

18. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000) Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

19. Maftoon, P. & Sarem, S. N. (2012) A Critical Look at the Presentation, Practice, Production (PPP) Approach: Challenges and Promises for ELT. BRAIN. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience, 3(4), 31-36.

20. Malmkjжr, K. (1998) Translation and Language Teaching. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.

21. Mart, C.T. (2013) The Direct-Method: A Good Start to Teach Oral Language. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 3(11), 182-184.

22. Newson, D. (1998). Translation and Foreign Language Teaching. In Malmkjжr, K. (Ed.), Translation and Language Teaching (pp. 63-68). Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.

23. Nunan, D. (1989) Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

24. Purpura, J.E. (2004) Assessing Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

25. Richards, J. & Rodgers T. (2007) Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

26. Rivers, W.M. (1968) Teaching Foreign Language Skills. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

27. Robinson, P. (1996) Learning Simple and Complex Second Language Rules Under Implicit, Incidental, Rule-Search, and Instructed Conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18 (01), 27-67.

28. Robinson, P. (2011) Task-based language learning: A review of issues. Language Learning 61(1), 1-36.

29. Shaffer, C. (1989) A Comparison of Inductive and Deductive Approaches to Teaching Foreign Languages. Modern Language Journal, 73(4), 395-403.

30. Skehan, P. (1998) A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

31. Shehadeh, A. (2005). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching: Theories and Applications. In C. Edwards & J. Willis (Ed.), Teachers Exploring Tasks in English Language Teaching (pp. 13 - 30). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

32. Swan, M. (2005) Legislation by Hypothesis: The Case of Task-Based Instruction. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 376-401.

33. Thornbury, S. (1999) How to teach grammar. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

34. Ur, P. (1996) A course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

35. Ur, P. (1988) Grammar Practice Activities: A Practical Guide for Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

36. Van Patten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993) Explicit Instruction and Input Processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 225-243.

37. Vermes, A. (2010) Translation in Foreign Language Teaching: A Brief Overview of Pros and Cons. Eger Journal of English Studies, 10, 83-93.

38. Willis, D. (1990) The Lexical Syllabus: A New Approach to Language Teaching. London: Collins ELT.

39. Willis, J. & Willis, D. (1996) Challenge and change in language teaching. Oxford: Heinemann.

40. Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

41. Willis, J. (1996) A Framework for Task-Based Learning. Harlow: Longman.

Размещено на Allbest.ru