English Grammar Teaching - Explicit and Implicit Methods Research Paper

The Methods of Teaching English Grammar

Introduction

Grammar is the building block of any language. It follows, then, that second language learners must be taught the grammar of their new language in order to attain fluency, to be able to self-correct, and to be able to compose and express complex ideas correctly. Without knowledge of grammar, students' knowledge of their second language (also called 'L2' language) is likely to remain limited to the memorization and imitation of specific phrases and structures. In many cases that is not enough to attain true fluency, so the teaching of grammar is a component of most second language education programs.

Ellis's definition of grammar teaching is as follows:

Grammar teaching involves any instructional technique that draws learners' attention to some specific grammatical form in such a way that it helps them either to understand it metalinguistically and/or process it in comprehension and/or production so that they can internalize it (p. 84).

Despite pointing out the benefits of explicit grammar teaching in other writing, Ellis here states that there is considerable controversy regarding the issue, pointing to the need for further research. The fact is that opinions about explicit or implicit grammar teaching have changed over the decades, and the superiority of one over the other has still not been resolved.

Background of the Study

Opinions vary with regard to how grammar should be taught. Do second language learners truly benefit from learning grammatical structures and rules by rote? Or does knowledge of grammar evolve intuitively once L2 learners are exposed to the language and begin to understand and use multiple phrases and structures? Every teacher of English as a second language will have an opinion in this regard, based on his or her anecdotal experience. It is evident, though, that anecdotal knowledge is not enough to decide on the question. All teachers have experienced the fact that there are some students who attain verbal fluency easily despite small mistakes in grammar and usage, and as such, seem to gloss over those technical challenges. Meticulously learning the rules of grammar may even slow those students down, as they seem to leap ahead into functional fluency. On the other hand, there are other students who prefer to repeatedly refer to the rules of grammar in order to guarantee their correctness. These students seem to gain much more from a systematic study. Knowing the rules of grammar gives them a solid reference point toward which to orient.

Grammar and Grammar Instruction in a Foreign Language

If school programs had the time and liberty to design individual programs for each student who entered them seeking to learn or perfect a second language, educators would no doubt find that a unique combination of a 'whole language' approach with implicit grammar instruction and an explicit approach in which rules of grammar are taught would be appropriate for every student. In fact it is the experience of most L2 learners that such a combined approach is most effective- the difficulty of course lies in translating these impressions into a solid curriculum that fits the needs of the majority of students. Educators are seldom at liberty to redesign or tailor programs to fit the needs of individual students. What, then, is the most beneficial and efficient way for students to learn the fundamentals of a language and to become fluent? Should learning grammar be considered an 'implicit' process, where the student's understanding evolves naturally over the course of his or her exposure to the language? Or must the teaching of grammar be 'explicit', where rules are introduced, memorized and practiced?

Reasons for grammar Instruction in an ESL classroom

The need to teach grammar to L2 learners exists for a number of reasons. Taking as our example English grammar, it is evident that this underlying structure of a language is a complex and unique system. This may indeed by particularly the case in English, given the history of that language and its multiple antecedents. English structures (like word sources and spellings) have elements in common with both Germanic and French, demonstrating that mixed heritage. For students learning English as a foreign language, certain elements of the language are consistently puzzling. These include the multiple English verb tenses and their usage (this is particularly the case for Asian students, whose first languages usually are devoid of verb tenses) and the use of articles in English, which is often confusing for ALL new learners of English, regardless of their first language. It seems clear that at least some rules of grammar must be taught explicitly, to help students master these 'problem areas', or their own particular individual difficulties. Otherwise, problems may persist for a lengthy period of time, impairing fluency.

However, grammar lessons in practice have sometimes been experienced as difficult or needlessly convoluted. Bill Bryson in The Mother Tongue relates a humorous account of an English lesson: "Some of us managed to learn what we were taught. We accepted and memorized the statements of teachers who told us that "English has eight parts of speech," or "English has nine [or was it eight?] ...Then there were some of us who despairingly went along with what we had to do, but never quite caught on" (p. 137).

The fact that elements of explicit grammar instruction, however puzzling they may seem to some students, must be included for most L2 learners does not adequately answer the primary question: Must teaching of students in general involve explicit instruction in grammar? Or will most students be able to learn grammar through exposure to correct speech and written texts, or 'implicit' teaching?

Explicit v. Implicit Instruction

Explicit grammar instruction is described as that which: "... supplies the declarative knowledge of grammar whereas implicit grammar instruction supplies procedural knowledge of grammar" (Tutunis 121). As stated previously, there is no consensus in the pedagogical literature regarding whether such instruction is helpful or necessary. For example, Lewis argues that teachers should not feel that one of their key functions is "explaining grammar". He states instead that you should provide answers to students' questions. Students should discover patterns for themselves and then ask about them. Pooley states that standard English usage is not in fact consistently 'standard', but that different interpretations may apply. This can be seen as an argument against explicit grammar instruction which formalizes and de-contextualizes rules.

It is important to note that implicit teaching of grammar still may require a high degree of proficiency and knowledge among teachers. In a classroom setting teachers are often called upon to explain "why' a sentence structure is a certain way. Some students routinely ask for such information as it increases their own understanding. Moreover, there are cases in which, even when the aim is not to teach grammar explicitly, the teaching of a specific rule may be beneficial to the class as a whole as it will clarify usage in a simple, understandable way. However, the course itself is more likely to emphasize usage and will probably be structured around themes, scenarios or abstract ideas.

Which approach has the best results for students?

Truscott argued strongly against the use of explicit grammar instruction in the form of grammar correction in L2 writing classes, citing empirical research that shows it to be ineffective and having possibly harmful effects. Students do not commonly retain or benefit from grammar correction. According to Ferris, Truscott's article led to a great deal of controversy. Ferris argues in favour of grammar correction in writing classes as a useful, in-context means of instruction. Almost a decade later, Ferris again addresses the debate over the efficacy of grammar correction in second language writing classes. The author points out that the research base is inconsistent and incomplete, and not a sufficient basis for practice.

In a sense, the question of whether implicit or explicit instruction is better for students is difficult to answer, as the answer itself may be highly variable. Part of the reason is that individual students themselves differ, as previously stated, with regard to what is most effective for them. Moreover, students' objectives differ. While for many students the objective is simple fluency, so that they might be able to participate in social, professional and academic life using their new language, today, increasingly, students have to pass specific tests in order to do so. Often educational programs are specifically geared at preparing the students for these tests, which include the TOEFL and IELTS. The student may enter an educational program specifically geared at passing and scoring well on such tests. The TOEFL, for example, is written by many thousands of international students worldwide. This may require more directed teaching specifically targeting some points of English grammar. It should be noted, however, that texting is changing to reflect a less explicit approach. Up until 2005, the TOEFL exam had a grammar component which many students considered the most challenging part of the exam, and which certainly required, for most students, a course of explicit instruction in English grammar. In 2005, however, the test was changed to focus much more on usage than on grammar. A Speaking section was added and the writing section expanded. The concern is now whether students can function well in verbal and written English, not whether they know the 'rules'. Teaching in preparation for this test has also shifted, although preparation materials do continue to include a grammar section (TOEFL IBT, TOEFL Strategies Course Book). The justification is that studying and practicing grammar will improve performance on the writing and speaking sections of the exam.

Noonan (n.d.) considers explicit grammar knowledge to be helpful in the acquisition of knowledge through 'noticing' grammar. Teachers can use explicit grammar instruction in order to draw attention to features of language in order to augment learning.

Scott (1990) also finds that explicit grammar teaching yields higher scores in some testing.

Students who are exposed to explicit grammar instruction tend to achieve a higher level of language proficiency and accuracy than those who receive only implicit instruction (Ellis, p19). Presson and MacWhinney (n.d) likewise find that explicit grammar instruction yields better results among students in the long term. The authors note that during post-tests immediately after teaching, results were equal for both styles of instruction. However, in a delayed test, those who received explicit instruction had better results.

Macaro and Masterman investigate the efficacy of explicit grammar instruction in first year French students at an English university. In a comparative study, some students were given directed, intensive explicit grammar instruction for a short period of time. Over the course of five months, students in both groups were tested and it was demonstrated that the addition of the short explicit lessons did improve scores in some areas. However, interestingly enough, grammatical accuracy in composition and translation did not improve in the group who received explicit grammar instruction. As in the study by Green and Hecht, therefore, these findings reinforce the impression that explicit grammar instruction may not improve fluency and independent usage of L2 despite the fact that it may improve text scores.

Gremmo and Riley discuss the current importance of autonomy and self-direction in language teaching, noting that these are important ideas in current educational philosophy. Autonomy and self-direction may be considered inconsistent with formalized, explicit grammar teaching. In a self-directed approach, students' knowledge of grammar emerges from usage and from questions that the students themselves have. The teacher becomes a resource through which the student can access explanations and clarifications.

Gill discusses the utility of an alternate system of grammatical categorization, the 'natural language corpora', for teachers. This approach prioritizes actual usage in context over adherence to traditional rules of grammar. Gill notes that the natural language corpus contains ample evidence of patterns that are commonly used but would traditionally be identified as incorrect. Nevertheless, insofar as the goal for students is fluency, natural language learning may be preferable to an emphasis on the formal rules. This is coherent with an implicit learning approach, although, with awareness of the natural language corpora, teachers may introduce and correct standard word patterns. On the other hand, knowledge of the natural language corpora may also lead to the use of new explicit teaching methods. McEneryal, Wilson and Barker also address the natural language corpora and its utility in teaching grammar to students at the pre-tertiary. The authors suggest that an emphasis on the natural language corpora may make it possible to introduce a technological ('machine-aided') and date-driven method of scholarship and learning.

Green and Hecht found that when L2 learners are taught explicit rules of grammar, as commonly occurs, they may fail to apply those rules in casual communication. This illustrates the point that there may be a disconnection between the academic learning of grammar rules and actual fluent communication. Again, this highlights the point that the individual aspirations of the student are the key factors in choosing the most favorable method of teaching.

Teacher's Beliefs about Grammar Teaching

In a study of 48 teachers' attitudes toward teaching grammar, Burgess and Etherington (n.d.) find that most teachers "appreciate the value of grammar for their students and possess a sophisticated understanding of the problems and issues involved" (p. 433). The teachers also commonly cited the importance of individual student characteristics, their specific needs and their personal wishes as factors influencing the style of teaching that teachers will select.

On the teacher's blog "My English Pages", a teacher expresses the opinion that "habit formation through drilling and repetition cannot lead to language mastery". This 'habit formation' is associated with learning by rote, which is sometimes a feature of explicit grammar instruction and testing. Instead, this teacher emphasizes the use of "authentic" as opposed to "artificial" language. "Authentic" language involves structures and styles that occur in natural conversation. According to this teacher, the process of being exposed to authentic language leads students to "discover grammar for themselves instead of being told". Students become conscious of the structures of language, and the role of teachers may be to answer questions. Students autonomously become aware of how languages are structures - their own L1 language as well as the new language being acquired.

Horwitz suggests that ascertaining student beliefs about language learning would be helpful to the teachers and the learning process. The author suggests tools used for doing so. Horwitz also comments that teachers' own preconceived ideas can prevent them from understanding the expectations of their students. Farrell investigates the belief systems of English teachers with regard to grammar teaching practice and finds that their pre-existing beliefs are not easily changed. Richards, Gallo, and Renandya reached a similar conclusion, noting that many teachers favour explicit and direct grammar teaching regardless of what they are taught during their pre-service training. In a study, Farrell finds that teachers' beliefs are sometimes not reflected in their classroom practice for complex reasons. If the teacher's beliefs are not consistent with practice, the resulting dissonance may cause a lack of satisfaction or a disbelief in their own efficacy as educators. Tutunis notes that "...in practice, teachers keep their beliefs on the benefits of explicit grammar teaching as opposed to implicitness".

Students' Preference

Schulz examines the underlying student and teacher beliefs about the benefits of explicit and implicit grammar instruction. The study discovered some discrepancies between teachers' and students' attitudes. In this study of over 800 students, the common attitude expressed was that an emphasis on form in language learning can be helpful in the classroom. The study also shows that teachers may not be aware of this preference, and recommends closer communication between teachers and students so that teachers may be attuned to their students' expectations. Later, in a study of 607 Columbian foreign language students and their teachers, Schulz found a number of discrepancies between student and teacher attitudes about explicit grammar instruction, which, the author states, can be detrimental to learning. Shulz ascribes these differences to cultural expectations.

Awareness of students' preferences can, of course, influence the teacher's experience and the techniques ultimately used. One ESL teacher working in Hungary relates the following:

I went about my teaching without sweeping grammar under the carpet, however. I just taught it implicitly until I came up against some critics telling me that I should keep the fact in mind that Hungary is an explicit grammar heaven and not all the students are necessarily conditioned for total implicitness. As I have been told, Central Europeans need grammatical consciousness. For this reason I have recently reconsidered my approach and have curled back to giving explicit explanation after I involve my students in implicit grammar games; thus I have blended the two approaches (Thekes).

This anecdotal account illustrates two important things about the real-lie application of grammar instruction. First, students' expectations must be taken into account, and may sometimes contradict research, or what the teacher has been taught. Students who have been conditioned to expect explicit instruction may not respond well to lessons that do not include it. To complicate matters, students in ESL programs often participate in instruction for relatively short periods of time - sometimes as brief as three to six weeks. There may not be time to 'convert' the students to a new and unfamiliar approach. Second, this passage points out the efficacy of a combined approach - in this case, explicit explanations after implicit lessons. Research on these combined approaches is scant, but given the controversy, this is a compromise many teachers have found effective in their own classrooms.

Previous Research

Theory regarding grammar instruction began in the eighteenth century with the work of grammarians Franz Boaz and Otto Jespersen (Lynch n.d.). Interestingly, Boaz and Jespersen were of the opinion that sentence structures should be studied contextually, using contemporary documents and verbal usage (Lynch n.d.). This contradicts the common impression that an older or more traditional approach is inevitably more explicit and rules-based. In fact, an emphasis on explicit teaching of grammatical rules came about in the late nineteenth century. A pedagogical approach which involved 'parsing' sentences persisted in some educational programs well into the twentieth century. Nassaji and Fotos reflect upon the recent history of language instruction, noting that, since the late 1970s, the role of grammar instruction was "downplayed". The authors suggest that explicit teaching of grammar was viewed as detrimental, and idea that several other authors cited here support. However, Nassagi and Fotos note that more recent research has led to a renewed interest in explicit grammar teaching, having shown that it is necessary in order for students to gain a high degree of accuracy.

In contrast to Nassaji and Fotos' assertion that explicit grammar teaching went out of style in the late 1970s, Hudson and Walmsley situate the shift away from grammar teaching earlier, in the first half of the twentieth century. Moreover, the authors state that there was a reinstatement of grammar teaching since the 1960s. Perhaps the difference in these accounts is due to the fact that Hudson and Walmsley are basing their observations on British school curriculum rather than North American schools. It is possible that similar trends occurred somewhat earlier in England.

The theoretical approach which, arguably, had the greatest impact on grammar teaching is commonly known as 'Universal Grammar'. This was an influential theory that came about in the 1970s and gained much ground through the next several decades. It coincides with and may be causally related to the shift away from a reliance on explicit grammar teaching, although, according to some scholars, Universal Grammar requires its own specific form of explicit instruction. The relationship of Universal Grammar to explicit v. implicit grammar teaching is clear. If we suppose that the objective of every student of English as a second language is to achieve perfect fluency, explicit teaching is unnecessary or superfluous only if it is believed that students can achieve perfect proficiency in grammar without such teaching. Universal Grammar theory offers an explanation for how this can occur. If grammatical rules are 'universal', everyone implicitly already knows them, or a version of them. This can explain why children 'pick up' the rules of their L1 language often without explicit instruction, and why some people are able to do so with an L2 language. Linguist Noam Chomsky was the first to propose Universal Grammar as a reason behind this phenomenon. Later, discussions of Universal Grammar seem to center around the differences and similarities between L1 and L2 language learners. More recent scholarship casts some doubt on the Universal Grammar explanation.

Schachter points out the error in the previously-held assumption that L2 acquisition (particularly among adults) is analogous to L1 acquisition in children. The author argues that there are clear and demonstrable differences between these processes, but that for a period of twenty years (late 60s to late 80s) it was assumed that the two processes were comparable. Thus, as children gain fluency in their L1 language and a familiarity with its structures without explicit instruction in grammar, it was assumed that L2 learners could do the same. Schachter implies that while the Universal Grammar theory has been used to support this notion, to do so amounts to a misunderstanding of Universal Grammar. It is easy to understand how such a belief may have come about; if there is a structural universality among all languages, then the awareness of these deep structures will be activated as the student is exposed to the L2 language. The universal grammar itself will already be known to the student, 'intuitively' if not explicitly. Just as the majority of children easily learn to speak their mother tongue, the majority of adult learners can develop a 'sense' of how to speak their new language. Montague states that it is possible to understand the syntax of most languages, natural or artificial, with a single unified theory; in this, he is in agreement with Chomsky's theory.

Clahsen and Muysken also illustrate the difference between L1 and L2 learners using the example of grasping the verb-final order of sentences in German. The authors state that children learning German as a first language grasp the word order from the beginning, without any confusion. L2 learners of German tend to attempt to impose the subject-verb word order, but may learn to gradually modify it in response to instruction. Clahsen and Muysken argue that adult learners can only access general learning strategies and are, of course, influenced by word order in their L1 language. Children learning a language can absorb and internalize abstract hypotheses. Schachter points out that there are four major differences between L1 and L2 acquisition: "completeness", "equipotentiality", "previous knowledge", and "fossilization". The role of Universal Grammar in L2 acquisition is "much more modest" than might be assumed, because the particular rules of the L1 language have a lasting influence on the learner's processing and coding of language. Therefore, despite the fact that L1 learners may require no explicit grammar teaching, this is very likely not the case with regard to L2 learners. In contrast, the Kraschen-Terrell hypothesis indicates that adult L2 learners fall into two distinct categories - those who "pick it up" intuitively or 'naturally', and those who require a set of coherent rules in order to learn. The learning style of the first category of learners may be more similar to L1 learners. The diversity of learning styles among L2 learners may indeed explain inconsistent or ambiguous research results.

Cook, in an interpretation of Chomsky's work on Universal Grammar, explores reasons behind the perceived differences between L1 and L2 learners. It can be observed anecdotally that L2 learners, particularly adults, have a more difficult time and generally require additional support in learning the rules of their L2 language, whereas for many children the process does appear to be intuitive, natural and easy, not necessitating explicit teaching. Cook observes that direct accessibility to Universal Grammar 'rules' may or may not be available to L2 learners. If it is accessible, the learner would only need the proper 'triggers' to internalize the syntax of his or her new language. However, if Universal Grammar is not directly accessible, the learner's L1 language forms a sort of frame through which any further language acquisition is viewed. He can therefore approach the new language only with reference to the parameters of the first language. Cook introduces a third possibility, based on Chomsky's work and Lenneberg's Critical Period Hypothesis (Lenneberg; Chomsky, p. 206, cited by Cook). According to this hypothesis, the age of the learner is the critical factor. Universal Grammar may be accessible to the language learner only during a specific age period, approximately from age 2 to age 12. After the age of 12, the brain is too "inflexible" to internalize new language structures based on access to Universal Grammar. Therefore, after that age, L2 learners must learn through the framework of the L1 or through a non-language faculty of the brain, necessitating more explicit instruction. This theory has considerable merit, given that anecdotal evidence tells us that language learning is 'easier' for children than for adults. Children learning a second language typically do so easily, and learn to speak without an accent and with a full grasp of syntax and usage, often making them indistinguishable from native speakers of that language. The younger the child, the more likely it is that full fluency will be achieved. This theory provides a resolution to the question of inherent difference between L1 and L2 learners and the teaching approaches they require, as well as providing room for variation between individual L2 learners.

Finally, Crain and Pietroski illustrate the continued relevance of Universal Grammar theory by addressing the conundrum of why and how children routinely achieve a high level of linguistic competence in their L1 language without specific instruction, summarizing the "nativist' argument that children are able to gain knowledge beyond their experience as a result of a Universal Grammar. If a universal system of linguistic ordering exists to which we are 'naturally' attuned, mere exposure to language will be enough to trigger an innate knowledge of patterns. However, Crain and Pietroski note that this is not the only possible explanation for the relative ease of first language acquisition, and that recent developments in psycholinguistics cast doubt on the key role of a Universal Grammar in language learning.

Grammar Teaching and Classroom Practice

Explicit grammar instruction involves classes and lessons built around features of grammar. Because English grammar is complex, the instruction may be split up into a curriculum of lessons, encompassing a variety of topics. Typically, a grammar Curriculum may be as follows: Introduction to different types of sentences (simple compound complex), parts of speech, verb tenses, phrases, dependent clauses, prepositions, and articles. Depending on the complexity and the ultimate aim of the specific educational program, students may spend several days or even longer learning about these grammatical features and practicing their application. Exercises may include sentence completion (where the student is asked to select the correct phrase to finish a grammatically correct sentence, either from multiple choice or by writing in the missing words); and sentence correction (where a student is asked to assess whether sentences are correct or incorrect, to identify errors and correct them) (TOEFL Practice Drills Course Book). Other forms of questions may be used to test specific skills. For example, students may be asked to add punctuation to sentences or paragraphs; to match fragmented parts of sentences; to choose the correct article or preposition; or to convert a subordinate clause to a phrase, or vice versa (Dornan and Dawe). Many other possibilities exist, but these are all examples of tools that are commonly used by teachers, examiners and curriculum writers to teach and assess competence in grammar in an explicit manner.

Implicit grammar instruction does not necessarily exclude some aspects of explicit teaching or information sharing. However, the focus of the teaching is on actively using the language in a naturalistic way rather than on teaching and memorizing grammar rules. Thus, lessons will center around activities and readings rather than grammar points. Students will read for comprehension, practice writing, and engage in oral experiences and activities such as role play. During the latter, they may be taught specific (grammatically correct) phrases to use and encouraged to use and expand upon them. In the readings, activities and class conversation, correct English grammar usage is modeled, giving students ample chance to learn by example and to 'absorb' correct usage. Depending on the teaching style and the format and purpose of the class, teachers may also correct students when they make mistakes in grammar, usage, word choice or punctuation. Over time, through practice and imitation, the student gets to know the correct forms even if he or she has not specifically been taught the grammatical rule.

Conclusions

There is often a considerable gap between theory and grammar teaching in the classroom. However, research continually attempts to close the gap, offering evidence for best practice and philosophical bases for teachers' mandate and action. For example, Ellis states:

. . . we don't actually try to influence the construction of the complex network [implicit knowledge] . . . because really learners can only do it themselves. We cannot implant rules into that network. Learners extract from the available information around them the regularities that form into their knowledge system...all that we can do is make them aware of some of these patterns. . .

The question of how teachers can best 'make students aware' still remains. Cross summarizes factors and techniques that teachers can use in research-based classroom practice:

Explicit instruction -- instruction explaining and drawing attention to a particular form.

Frequency -- the regular occurrence of a certain structure in input.

Perceptual Salience -- highlighting or underlining to draw attention to a certain structure.

Task Demands -- constructing a task that requires learners to notice a structure in order to complete it. (Cross)

In accordance with this general stance, Ellis suggests a set of teaching activities that may help develop knowledge of L2 grammar in language learners:

- 1. Listening to Comprehend: Students listen to comprehend a text that has been structured to contain several examples of the target form.

- 2. Listening to notice: Students listen to the same text again, but are given a gap-fill exercise. The target form is missing and the students simply fill it in exactly as they hear it to help them notice the form.

- 3. Understanding the grammar point: With help from the teacher, the students analyze the data and "discover" the rule.

- 4. Checking: Students are given a written text containing errors and are asked to correct them.

- 5. Trying it: Students apply their knowledge in a production activity.

(Source: Ellis pp. 30-31.)

The above set of activities represents a compromise in the 'battle' between proponents of implicit and explicit grammar instruction. That is, it contains both - it might be said that it contains the best of both. Students listen and form their own impressions of a text based on their own observation. Later, they are helped to discover the grammar rule, and to learn and apply it. Although actual approaches in classroom teaching vary, it seems that many teachers incorporate both implicit and explicit teaching in their grammar instruction. While empirical research continues to point to a division between the two approaches, application to practice reflects an awareness of the importance and efficacy of both. This compromise position is provides a basis for both practice and for future directions in research.

References:

Bestwick, Teresa. "Grammar - implicit or explicit?" Edublogs: View from the Whiteboard. [online].

Bryson, B. "The Mother Tongue". New York: William Morrow and Company, in Rothstein & Rothstein, English Grammar Instruction that Works , Preface, p. ix

Burgess, John and Etherington, Sian. "Focus on grammatical form: explicit or implicit?". System vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 433 - 458

Clahsen, Harald and Muysken, Pieter. 'The availability of universal grammar to adult and child learners - a study of the acquisition of German word order'. Second Language Research vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 93-119.

Cook, Vivian. 'Chomsky's Universal Grammar and Second Language Learning'. SLA Topics. Version of paper in Applied Linguistics.

Crain, Stephen and Pietroski, Paul, 'Nature, Nurture and Universal Grammar'. Linguistics and Philosophy vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 139-186.

Cross, Jeremy. 'Noticing' in SLA: Is it a Valid Concept? TESL-EJ. 6 (3).

Dornan, Edward A. and Dawe, Charles W. The Brief English Handbook, Fourth Edition. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers.

Ellis, Rod. The Place of Grammar Instruction in the Second/Foreign Language Curriculum. In Fotos, Sandra and Eli Hinkel (Eds.), New Perspectives on Grammar Teaching in Second Language Classrooms (pp. 17-34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Ellis, Rod. "Current Issues in the Teaching of Grammar: An SLA Perspective". TESOL Quarterly.

"Explicit Or Implict Grammar Teaching?" My English Pages [online].

Farrell, T.S.C., 'The Reflective assignment: Unlocking pre-service English teachers' beliefs on grammar teaching'. RELC Journal vol. 30, no. 2, pp: 1-17.

Farrell, Thomas S.C., 'Conceptions of Grammar Teaching : A case study of Teachers' Beliefs and Classroom Practices'. TESL- EJ vol. 9, no. 2.

Ferris, Dana R., 'The "Grammar Correction" Debate in L2 Writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime ...?)'. Journal of Second Language Writing vol. 13, no. 1, pp: 49-62.

Ferris, Diana, 'The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott'. Journal of Second Language Writing vol. 8, no.1, pp. 1-11.

Francis, Gill, 'Grammar teaching in schools: What should teachers be aware of'. Language Awareness vol. 3, no. 3-4.

Green, Peter S. and Karlheinz Hecht. 'Implicit and Explicit Grammar: An Empirical Study'. Applied Linguistics vol. 13, no. 2, pp.168-184.

Gremmo, Marie-Jose and Riley, Philip, 'Autonomy, self-direction and self access in language teaching and learning: The history of an idea'. System vol. 23, no. 2, pp:151-164

Horwitz, Elaine K., 'Using Student Beliefs about Language Learning and Teaching in the Foreign Language Methods Course'. Foreign Language Annals vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 333-340.

Hudson, Richard and Walmsley, 'The English Patient: English grammar and teaching in the twentieth century'. Journal of Linguistics vol. 41, no. 3, pp: 593-622.

Hudson, Richard. 'Is grammar teachable?' Bibliographical note. English vol. 4, no.11, pp. 11-14.

Klapper and Rees compare the merits of formal (explicit) and naturalistic (implicit) grammar instruction for L2 learners of German.

Klapper, John, and Rees, Jonathan, 'Reviewing the case for explicit grammar instruction in the university foreign language learning context', Language Teaching Research vol. 7 no. 3, pp: 285-314.

Lewis, Michael. The English Verb. Language Teaching Publications.

Lowe, M, 'Is grammar innate?' In: Modern English Teacher vol.19, no. 4, pp. 58 -63

Lynch, Larry (n.d.) 'Grammar Teaching: Explicit or Implicit?' esl base

[online]Macaro, Ernesto and Masterman, Liz. "Does intensive explicit grammar instruction make all the difference? Language Teaching Research vol. 10, no.3, pp. 297 - 327.

McEneryal, Tony, Wilson, Andrew and Barker, Paul, 'Teaching grammar again after twenty years: corpus-based help for teaching'. ReCALL vol. 9, no. 2, pp: 8-16.

Montague, Richard, 'Universal grammar'. Theoria vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 373-398.

Nassaji, Hossein and Fotos, Sandra, 'Current Developments in Research on the Teaching of Grammar', Annual Review of Applied Linguistics vol. 24, pp: 126-145.

Noonan, Francis J. (n.d.). "Teaching ESL Students to 'Notice' Grammar". The Internet TESL Journal.

Pooley, R.C., The Teaching of English Use. Urbana, Illinois: National Council of of English.

Presson, Nora and Brian MacWhinney. (n.d.). "Contrasting explicit and implicit Instruction for grammatical categorization". LearnLab Pittsburgh Science of Learning Centre. [online].

Richards, J.C., Gallo, P. B., & Renandya, W. A., 'Exploring Teachers' Beliefs and the Processes of Change'. PAC Journal vol. 1, no. 1, pp: 41-58.

Schachter, Jacquelyn, 'Second Language Acquisition and Its Relationship to Universal Grammar'. Applied Linguistics vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 219-235.

Schulz, Renate A., 'Focus on Form in the Foreign Language Classroom: Students' and Teachers' Views on Error Correction and the Role of Grammar'. Foreign Language Annals vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 343-364.

Schulz, Renate A., 'Cultural Differences in Student and Teacher Perceptions Concerning the Role of Grammar Instruction and Corrective Feedback: USA-Colombia'. The Modern Language Journal vol. 85, no. 3, pp: 244-258.

Scott, Virginia A. "Explicit and Implicit Grammar Teaching Strategies: New Empirical Data". The French Review vol. 63, no. 5, pp. 779 - 789.

Sharpe, Pamela. Barron's TOEFL IBT Internet Based Test. 13th Edition. New York: Barron's Educational Services, Inc.

Thekes, Jerry. (n.d.). "Grammar teaching should be implicit, not explicit".

TOEFL Practice Drills Course Book. Kaplan, Inc.

TOEFL Strategies Course Book. Kaplan, Inc.

Truscott, John, 'The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes', Language Learning vol. 46, no. 2, pp: 327-369.

Tutunis, Birsen. "Grammar in EFL Pedagogy: To be or not to be: Explicit or implicit grammar instruction in EFL". International Journal of Humanities and Social Science vol. 2, no. 5.