Ellis 1997: 48 explains that Krashen tends to adopt the so- called ―zero-
option‖ which ignores explicit grammar teaching at all and puts the emphasis on language acquisition through natural communicative activities or situations.
Following Krashen‘s claim, Nassaji and Fotos 2004 declare that not only grammar instruction was ineffective but also it could create learning difficulties
and discourages learners from getting involved in successful communication. Therefore, they suggest that it should be abandoned.
Krashen‘s claims have had a significant influence on language teaching and led to decreasing the attention towards the teaching of grammatical rules and
to a greater tendency towards teaching language through natural and meaningful communicative
activities. The increased focus on the learners‘ use of the actual language in order to improve their communicative abilities has weakened the
emphasis on grammar teaching. VanPatten 1990: 296 states ―attention to form in
the input competes with attention to meaning‖. Therefore, teachers‘ attitudes
towards the importance of grammar teaching in foreign and second language have radically changed.
d. The Practice of Teaching Grammar
One aspect of the communicative competences discussed above which becomes the main attention of this study is grammatical competence. Throughout
its history, the teaching of grammar has more or less become the main concern in the field of secondforeign language teaching. The curriculum of European
schools in the eighteenth century used the textbooks consisted of statements of perpustakaan.uns.ac.id
commit to user
abstract grammar rules, list of vocabulary and sentences for translation. This is crystallized in the dominance of the Grammar Translation Method, as Richards
and Rodgers 2001: 6 describe, over European and foreign language teaching from 1980s to 1940s. Indeed, there was a time when learning a language equals to
learning its grammar. After the e
ra of ‗grammar centrality‘ in language learning, the evolution goes to other directions. Nassaji and Fotos 2004: 126-127 stated that much
grammar research over the past few decades has concentrated on determining whether grammar should be taught at all. The debate was represented by the
distinction between conscious learning and unconscious acquisition of language. It was claimed that language should be acquired through natural exposure, not
learned through formal instruction. It was therefore believed that formal grammar lessons would develop only declarative knowledge of grammar structures, not the
procedural ability to use forms correctly, and that there was no interface between these two types of knowledge since they existed as different systems in the brain.
In line with Nassaji and Fotos, Borg and Burns 2008: 456 state that no area of second and foreign L2 language learning has been the subject of as much
empirical and practical interest as grammar teaching. Assumptions about grammar and its role in L2 learning often lie at the heart of different orientations to L2
pedagogy and the history of L2 teaching. There are a number of experts who provide guidelines on integrating
grammar in teaching-learning process. Among them is Ellis citied in Richards, perpustakaan.uns.ac.id
commit to user
2009: 9-10 who suggests that classroom activities should provide opportunities for the following processes to take place:
1
Noticing
the learner compares the linguistic feature, where previously heshe had ignored it;
2
Comparing
the learner compares the linguistic feature noticed in the input with hisher own mental grammar, registering to what extent there is a ‗gap‘
between the input and his her own grammar; 3
Integrating Restructuring
the learner integrates a representation of the new linguistic feature into herhis mental grammar.
In addition, Thornbury 1999: 28 proposes that grammar presentation and practice should be evaluated according to how efficient they are the
efficiency factor and how appropriate they are the appropriacy factor. The former factor is gauged by determining its economy, its ease and its efficacy. The
later factor takes into account learners‘ needs, interests, attitudes and expectations. He advises that grammar teaching should be based and evaluated on those two
factors. Grammar teaching can also be viewed from the perspective of deductive
versus inductive approach Paradowski, 2007: 1-5. Deductive approach advocates a prior exposure of the students in a very systematic and logical
method. Thus, a teacher introduces the students to grammatical rules and structures in English by means of multiple media, such as textbooks, class-notes,
lectures and via other possible means. This technique simply means providing perpustakaan.uns.ac.id
commit to user
learners with the ready grammar rules, describing in detail how the new structure is formed, what its components are and in what type of context it can be used.
On the other hand, inductive approach is applied when language rule is inferred by means of a controlled discovery. The teacher provides the students
with the means to discover the rule – presenting the fundamentals as language
examples rather than the grammatical structures and rules. On the basis of the model examples, the students arrive at some generalization that accounts for the
underlying regularities in the data and formulate their own explanation of the rules governing the material presented. The elicited students‘ rules will then, if
necessary, be amended and corrected by the teacher, and the language structure practiced.
Inferred from the theories mentioned about grammar teaching, some conclusions can be drawn. They are: 1 historically, the teaching of grammar has
been one of the central issues in ELT; 2 there was a time when learning a language equals to learning its grammar, but gradually the position of grammar in
ELT is viewed in different perspectives; and 3 the ongoing theoretical and research-based debates about the position of grammar teaching is no longer about
whether to teach it or not, but more about how grammar should be taught. Another important aspect in grammar teaching is the perspective and
treatment of errors. The fact that language learners make errors in the learning process is considered normal and viewed as part of the process in learning a
language. Grammatical errors, according to Thornburry 1999: 114 cam be categorized as one of four categories identified from a language learners, the other
commit to user
three being lexical, discourse and pronunciation errors. He further explains that errors can also be classified causally into transfer errors interference from first
language and development errors influence from the nature of second language. Furthermore, Thornburry 1999: 119 mentioned that teacher‘s decision
to deal with grammatical error should take into account factors which are: 1
The type of error It deals with the questions: Does it have a major effect on communication? Is it
one of that the learner could probably self correct? 2
The type of activity It relates with the questions: Is the focus of the activity more on form or on
meaning? If the latter, it is probably best to correct without interfering too much with the flow of communication.
3 The type of learners
It shares the questions: Will the learner be discouraged or humiliated by correction? Alternatively, will the learner feel short-changed if there is no
correction?
3. Basic English Course as a Non Formal Education Institution
