论文部分内容阅读
【Abstract 】The past decade has seen the increasingly heated debate on grammar teaching. As an indispensable component of language， various language teaching methods， such as the grammar-translation method and the task-based approach， have introduced a great number of ways to teach grammar. This essay presents controversies of the present-practice-produce teaching procedure， followed by discovering the importance of practice in grammar teaching.
【Key words】Value； practice； Grammar Teaching； Light of Criticism； Present-practice-produce （PPP） Procedure
1. The Present-practice-produce （PPP）
The present-practice-produce procedure is a relatively traditional teaching procedure. In the PPP teaching model， the language features will be first presented to leaners by exposure to detailed explanations， and then being practiced until completely mastered. In the production stage， plentiful opportunities will be provided to engage learners in using the language items in communicative situations. The PPP is regarded as an intensive procedure as it mainly focuses on specific grammatical features rather than a whole range of grammar items. Moreover， the PPP also represents the weak version of the communicative language teaching （CLT）， which points to teaching language by providing ample communicative practices and tasks in the production stage.
The PPP model of grammar teaching has been remaining a great number of controversies. Ellis （2006） claims that it is highly possible that learners can finally acquire the target language items successfully by the means of the PPP. Teachers can use a great many of drills and tasks to elicit the use of the language structures concerned. Consequently， learners are much more likely to master the new language items correctly and accurately since provided with sufficient practice opportunities. In line with this， it is also argued that， even though learners cannot acquire what they are taught， intensive teaching approaches （including the PPP） can be still beneficial in the course of second language acquisition （Ellis， 2006）. More specifically， teaching the more marked features or teaching what relate to learners’ problems with the target language can enhance leaners’ comprehension of the less marked ones. Moreover， in-depth practice of a single target structure will contribute to relatively higher level of accuracy when learners use it. There is another neglectable evidence to support the PPP， which is the PPP can be helpful for teachers to maintain the control of the classroom （Ellis， 2003）. However， criticisms and doubts have been shed on whether the PPP is of high value. Compared with extensive grammar teaching approaches， the language items can be covered in a PPP class is quite limited （Ellis， 2006）. Since the PPP mainly focuses on one or two specific structures， learners cannot access to as many language structures as in an extensive teaching class. As a result， the PPP is relatively time-consuming. It is recognised that learners do not always acquire what are taught in classes. Learners’ interlanguage development， thus， need to be taken into consideration in PPP classrooms （Ellis， 2003）. It is also recognised that the PPP regards language as a set of individual units that learners can master in a defined sequence. However， instead of adopting this way to learn a language， learners create inter-languages， “which are gradually grammaticized and restructured as learners incorporate new features （Ellis， 2003， p29）”. Furthermore， one of the practical problems with the PPP is that it is quite difficult to design effective practice for the production stage （Ellis， 2003）. Learners may tend to use already mastered structures to complete the practice instead of the targeted ones.
2. Practice in Grammar Teaching
Grammar needs to be taught （Swan， 2006） and the two main approaches of grammar teaching are ‘practice’ and ‘consciousness-raising （CR）’ Ellis （2002）. Learners who receive only grammatical explanation can end up with knowing quite a lot about the language， but they may not be able to use the language in authentic communicative situations. Therefore， practice always has its place in grammar teaching. Since CR is mainly directed at improving explicit knowledge of grammar and dose not contribute to communication directly， Ellis （2002） claims that practice， which aims to develop implicit knowledge， is of value in terms of the language acquisition. Even though learners not always acquire what they are taught， they can eventually learn how to use the language structures correctly as they are provided with sufficient opportunities to practice the items （Ur， 1996）. Meanwhile， Smith （1981， p166） argues that “ most spontaneous performance is attained by dint of practice”. After exposure to the target structures， learners are asked to produce exactly what they are taught consciously and repeatedly. Consequently， the structures can be produced correctly without reflection. Moreover， Ur （1988） claims that in grammar teaching， practice can transfer the new structures stored in short-term memory into long-term memory and help learners master the items with less teachers’ instruction. To do this， plenty of time should be devoted to practice sessions and that time should be exploited effectively. However， the effectiveness of practice in grammar teaching has been questioned as well. For instance， it is argued that practicing grammar structure in a controlled situation does not contribute to complete acquisition （Ellis， 2002）. Thus， consciousness-raising， as a supplement， can be combined with practice in grammar teaching grammar to enhance the effectivity of grammar classes. 3. Conclusion
It is widely recognised that methodological choices can be changeable. Undoubtedly， how to use a teaching method to enhance the understanding of the target language structures deserves consideration. Even though there are limitations to both PPP and practice， it would be unwise to claim that PPP and practice are of no value in grammar teaching. Teachers need to make every endeavour to seek the most suitable method of grammar teaching.
References：
[1]Ellis，R.（2002）.Grammar teaching–practice or consciousness-raising.Methodology in language teaching：An anthology of current practice，167-174.
[2]Ellis，R.（2003）.Task-based language learning and teaching.London：Oxford University Press.
[3]Ellis，R.（2006）.Current issues in the teaching of grammar：An SLA perspective.Tesol Quarterly，40（1），83-107.
[4]Smith，M.S.（1981）.Consciousness-Raising and the Second Language Learner1.Applied linguistics，2（2），159-168.
[5]Swan，M.（2006）.http：//www.mikeswan.co.uk/elt-applied-linguistics/teaching-grammar.htm.
[6]Ur，P.（1996）.A course in language teaching.Cambridge，England： Cambridge University Press.
[7]Ur，P.（Ed.）.（1988）.Grammar practice activities：A practical guide for teachers.Cambridge，England：Cambridge University Press.
作者簡介：
龙薏（1992.6-），女，汉族，江西吉安人，硕士，教师，助教，研究方向：英语教育。
牟岚（1989.3-），女，汉族，湖北十堰人，硕士，教师，助教，研究方向：英语教育。
【Key words】Value； practice； Grammar Teaching； Light of Criticism； Present-practice-produce （PPP） Procedure
1. The Present-practice-produce （PPP）
The present-practice-produce procedure is a relatively traditional teaching procedure. In the PPP teaching model， the language features will be first presented to leaners by exposure to detailed explanations， and then being practiced until completely mastered. In the production stage， plentiful opportunities will be provided to engage learners in using the language items in communicative situations. The PPP is regarded as an intensive procedure as it mainly focuses on specific grammatical features rather than a whole range of grammar items. Moreover， the PPP also represents the weak version of the communicative language teaching （CLT）， which points to teaching language by providing ample communicative practices and tasks in the production stage.
The PPP model of grammar teaching has been remaining a great number of controversies. Ellis （2006） claims that it is highly possible that learners can finally acquire the target language items successfully by the means of the PPP. Teachers can use a great many of drills and tasks to elicit the use of the language structures concerned. Consequently， learners are much more likely to master the new language items correctly and accurately since provided with sufficient practice opportunities. In line with this， it is also argued that， even though learners cannot acquire what they are taught， intensive teaching approaches （including the PPP） can be still beneficial in the course of second language acquisition （Ellis， 2006）. More specifically， teaching the more marked features or teaching what relate to learners’ problems with the target language can enhance leaners’ comprehension of the less marked ones. Moreover， in-depth practice of a single target structure will contribute to relatively higher level of accuracy when learners use it. There is another neglectable evidence to support the PPP， which is the PPP can be helpful for teachers to maintain the control of the classroom （Ellis， 2003）. However， criticisms and doubts have been shed on whether the PPP is of high value. Compared with extensive grammar teaching approaches， the language items can be covered in a PPP class is quite limited （Ellis， 2006）. Since the PPP mainly focuses on one or two specific structures， learners cannot access to as many language structures as in an extensive teaching class. As a result， the PPP is relatively time-consuming. It is recognised that learners do not always acquire what are taught in classes. Learners’ interlanguage development， thus， need to be taken into consideration in PPP classrooms （Ellis， 2003）. It is also recognised that the PPP regards language as a set of individual units that learners can master in a defined sequence. However， instead of adopting this way to learn a language， learners create inter-languages， “which are gradually grammaticized and restructured as learners incorporate new features （Ellis， 2003， p29）”. Furthermore， one of the practical problems with the PPP is that it is quite difficult to design effective practice for the production stage （Ellis， 2003）. Learners may tend to use already mastered structures to complete the practice instead of the targeted ones.
2. Practice in Grammar Teaching
Grammar needs to be taught （Swan， 2006） and the two main approaches of grammar teaching are ‘practice’ and ‘consciousness-raising （CR）’ Ellis （2002）. Learners who receive only grammatical explanation can end up with knowing quite a lot about the language， but they may not be able to use the language in authentic communicative situations. Therefore， practice always has its place in grammar teaching. Since CR is mainly directed at improving explicit knowledge of grammar and dose not contribute to communication directly， Ellis （2002） claims that practice， which aims to develop implicit knowledge， is of value in terms of the language acquisition. Even though learners not always acquire what they are taught， they can eventually learn how to use the language structures correctly as they are provided with sufficient opportunities to practice the items （Ur， 1996）. Meanwhile， Smith （1981， p166） argues that “ most spontaneous performance is attained by dint of practice”. After exposure to the target structures， learners are asked to produce exactly what they are taught consciously and repeatedly. Consequently， the structures can be produced correctly without reflection. Moreover， Ur （1988） claims that in grammar teaching， practice can transfer the new structures stored in short-term memory into long-term memory and help learners master the items with less teachers’ instruction. To do this， plenty of time should be devoted to practice sessions and that time should be exploited effectively. However， the effectiveness of practice in grammar teaching has been questioned as well. For instance， it is argued that practicing grammar structure in a controlled situation does not contribute to complete acquisition （Ellis， 2002）. Thus， consciousness-raising， as a supplement， can be combined with practice in grammar teaching grammar to enhance the effectivity of grammar classes. 3. Conclusion
It is widely recognised that methodological choices can be changeable. Undoubtedly， how to use a teaching method to enhance the understanding of the target language structures deserves consideration. Even though there are limitations to both PPP and practice， it would be unwise to claim that PPP and practice are of no value in grammar teaching. Teachers need to make every endeavour to seek the most suitable method of grammar teaching.
References：
[1]Ellis，R.（2002）.Grammar teaching–practice or consciousness-raising.Methodology in language teaching：An anthology of current practice，167-174.
[2]Ellis，R.（2003）.Task-based language learning and teaching.London：Oxford University Press.
[3]Ellis，R.（2006）.Current issues in the teaching of grammar：An SLA perspective.Tesol Quarterly，40（1），83-107.
[4]Smith，M.S.（1981）.Consciousness-Raising and the Second Language Learner1.Applied linguistics，2（2），159-168.
[5]Swan，M.（2006）.http：//www.mikeswan.co.uk/elt-applied-linguistics/teaching-grammar.htm.
[6]Ur，P.（1996）.A course in language teaching.Cambridge，England： Cambridge University Press.
[7]Ur，P.（Ed.）.（1988）.Grammar practice activities：A practical guide for teachers.Cambridge，England：Cambridge University Press.
作者簡介：
龙薏（1992.6-），女，汉族，江西吉安人，硕士，教师，助教，研究方向：英语教育。
牟岚（1989.3-），女，汉族，湖北十堰人，硕士，教师，助教，研究方向：英语教育。