The Role of Autonomy in Learning and Teaching Foreign Language Grammar
Abstract As is the case with the learning of other language skills and subsystems, success in learning foreign language grammar entails taking charge of one’s own learning and going beyond the requirements specified by the teacher. This is par- ticularly important if it is acknowledged that complete mastery of this subsystem is by no means confined to the familiarity with rules and the ability to apply them in traditional, controlled exercises, but also involves the capacity for employing par- ticular structures in spontaneous communication. In other words, it is necessary for the learner to develop both explicit and implicit command of the grammatical items taught, or at least to automatize his or her declarative knowledge to such an extent that the language features can be effectively employed in real time. If such a goal is to be attained, however, learners have to work on grammar in their own time, and it is also necessary for the teacher to encourage autonomous behaviors in this area. The aim of this paper is to outline the ways in which learner autonomy in learning grammar can be exercised as well as the steps that can be taken to foster an autonomous approach to learning this subsystem.
[if !supportLists]1 [endif]Introduction
Despite the fact that there is general consensus at present that grammar teaching, or form-focused instruction (FFI), is facilitative of second or foreign language learn- ing, or that it may even be indispensable in some contexts (cf. Ellis, 2008; Loewen, 2014, 2015; Nassaji & Fotos, 2011; Pawlak, 2006, 2013a, 2014), the benefits of this kind of pedagogic intervention are by no means guaranteed and hinge on a number of factors. On the one hand, a crucial role is played by the instructional techniques and procedures applied (see below for a brief overview), the effectiveness of which
is mediated by individual (e.g., working memory, learning style), linguistic (e.g., the complexity of a linguistic feature) and contextual (e.g., overall educational context, the nature of classroom interaction) variables (cf. Ellis, 2010a; Pawlak, 2014).1 On the other hand, equally, if not more important, particularly in situations of limited in- and out-of-class exposure to the target language (TL), which tran- spires in foreign language contexts, is the extent to which learners are able and willing to take responsibility for studying and gaining greater control of grammar, or exercise autonomy with respect to learning this subsystem (cf. Benson, 2011).Such involvement on the part of learners and their readiness to go beyond what may be required by the teacher, course or program become even more vital if we consider the fact that the mastery of grammar structures is by no means confined to the ability to use correct forms in controlled exercises or on pen-and-paper tests, and also involves the knowledge of the meaning and use of these structures as well as the skill in using them accurately, meaningfully and appropriately in sponta- neous, real-time communication. Surely, these goals cannot possibly be achieved only in the classroom where instruction comprises three or four hours a week and numerous objectives have to be pursued, even in cases when it is augmented to some extent by out-of-school tutoring. With this in mind, the present paper aims todemonstrate how autonomy can be manifested in learning grammar and how such an autonomous approach can be fostered. In the first part, emphasis is placed on the nature of grammar, the learning and teaching of this TL subsystem, as well as the techniques and procedures that teachers have at their disposal. This is followed by the justification of the necessity of developing autonomy in learning TL grammar, consideration of the ways in which learner independence in this area can be pro- moted, and tentative implications for everyday foreign language learning and teaching, together with caveats that should be carefully considered by practitioners. What also needs to be stressed at the very outset is that the main thrust here is not on explicating the different interpretations of the concept of autonomy, focused on in so many of the chapters included in this edited collection, but, rather, an illus- tration of how it can be applied to the mastery of grammatical structures.
[if !supportLists]2 [endif]Grammar, Grammar Learning and Grammar Teaching
Before embarking on the discussion of autonomy in learning foreign language grammar, it seems fitting to devote some space to confronting some common myths with respect to grammar, providing a definition of this subsystem, explaining what the knowledge of grammar involves, and, finally, illustrating the techniques and procedures that teachers can fall back upon in order to introduce grammar structures
1Although this framework was proposed with respect to corrective feedback and aimed to illustrate the different foci of research into its effectiveness, it can be extended to grammar instruction in its entirety, of which error correction constitutes an inherent part.
and later provide students with ample practice opportunities. As superbly demon- strated by Larsen-Freeman (2003), a number of unfounded beliefs, or myths, concerning grammar can be identified among language teachers, which to a greater or lesser extent negatively impinge on their instructional practices. They are reflected, among others, in the assumption that this subsystem constitutes yet another area of knowledge, the temptation to equate grammaticality with accuracy, the perception of grammar in terms of a set of rules, the conviction that grammar rules are arbitrary, the belief that there always exists one correct answer, or the notion that grammar operates only at the level of the sentence. Although there is without doubt some truth in each of these assumptions because, after all, grammar can be associated to some extent with correctness, rules or isolated sentences, they can be regarded as myths because they represent gross oversimplifications, thereby being extremely misleading. For example, while learners may be explicitly taught facts about grammar (e.g., irregular verbs) or specific rules (e.g., those for the formation of the passive), the ultimate goal is for them to use this knowledge to attain communicative goals, the use of grammar has to be not only accurate but also meaningful and appropriate, and there is inherent logic to the way in which the system of grammar is constructed in any given language. In addition, the choice of a specific structure in a particular situation is a function of a number of individual and contextual variables (e.g., when asked to use the verb to go in a sentence ending in yesterday, the learner might opt for I went, I was going, I had gone, I was about to go or even I would have gone, depending on his or her intentions), while the choice of the grammatical tense in the first sentence of a story is bound to affect choices made several paragraphs later (see Larsen-Freeman, 2003).
One way to avoid such unhelpful overgeneralizations and to minimize their deleterious consequences is to offer a comprehensive definition of grammar, such that would be applicable to any language, highlight its most salient characteristics and explain what the mastery of this subsystem entails. Insightfully arguing that “(…) a description of the system is an essential starting point for proper pedagogy” and stressing the need “(…) to accommodate both traditional and newer approaches (…)”, Larsen-Freeman (2010, p. 521) defines grammar as “(…) a system of meaningful structures and patterns that are governed by particular pragmatic con- straints”. She goes on to explain that those structures and patterns can refer to morphemes (e.g., third person -s), function words (e.g., is), phrases (e.g., the verb depend has to be followed by on), clauses (e.g., the canonical word order, such as S-V-DO-IO in English), clausal formulas (e.g., I am really sorry to hear that…), discourse-level patterns (e.g., theme-rheme organization in English) or typological patterns (e.g., the subject prominence in English) (Larsen-Freeman, 2010, pp. 521– 522). Swan (2013, p. 558) adopts a somewhat narrower view by stating that, in order to deal with the need to group words in a meaningful way, languages avail themselves of “(…) the devices that we call ‘syntax’ and ‘morphology’, supple- menting purely lexical information by establishing ordering and movement con- ventions, changing the forms of words, and using function words (like English may or not)”. Irrespective of a particular definition that can be employed as a point of reference, it should be emphasized that grammar is complex and multidimensional,
not least because it is sometimes difficult to draw a line between vocabulary and grammar due to the interdependence of the two (i.e., hence the term lexicogram- mar), the distinctiveness of spoken and written grammar, or the role of grammatical choices is structuring discourse (cf. Larsen-Freeman & DeCarrico, 2010). As underscored by Larsen-Freeman (2001, 2003, 2010), grammar is also dynamic and should be viewed not only as a product, reflective of static rules as well as the prescriptions and proscriptions they bring with them, but also, or perhaps even primarily, as a process, indicative of the choices language users constantly have to make as they participate in ongoing communication, try to position themselves in it and adjust their messages to contextual influences (cf. Batstone, 1994). Larsen-Freeman (2002, p. 26) explains: “Language users must constantly be scanning the environment, observing their interlocutors and interpreting what they are hearing/seeing, in order to make decisions about how to respond in accurate, meaningful and appropriate ways, and then carry out their decisions ‘online’, i.e. they must then somehow activate what they have decided upon. This clearly entails a dynamic process”. For this reason, she suggests using the term grammaring, which stresses the fact that grammar should be viewed as a skill rather than a body of knowledge and refers to the ability to use linguistic features accurately, mean- ingfully and appropriately.
Obviously, being able to use grammar as a dynamic tool to respond to the ever-changing exigencies of a particular communicative event involves possessing appropriate resources and having the capacity to access these resources in real time. According to Larsen-Freeman (2001, 2003), the knowledge of a specific gram- matical structure has three dimensions which refer to (1) form (i.e., how this grammatical feature is constructed, which involves the use of appropriate pho- nemes, graphemes, grammatical morphemes as well as syntactic patterns),
(2) meaning (i.e., semantic information related to lexical and grammatical mean- ings, derivational morphemes or lexical phrases) and (3) use (i.e., pragmatic con- siderations which need to be taken into account when the structure is employed such as power relationships, preceding discourse, the nature of the communicative event). Thus, for example, in the case of the English passive voice, it would be necessary for learners, at the most basic level, to know that it is formed with the use of the right form of the auxiliary be and the past participle, it confers a different status on the performer of the action and the entity affected by it, and it is used to deemphasize the agent. Larsen-Freeman (2003) also stresses the interdependence between the three aspects of grammatical knowledge, with a change in one of them triggering modifications in the other two. What also needs to be kept in mind, however, is that, despite the considerable value of the framework, familiarity with all this information can only come in handy when the learner is capable of using a TL feature accurately, meaningfully and appropriately in real time. In other words, it is clearly insufficient to develop only explicit knowledge of these three dimen- sions, which is conscious, declarative and can be accessed only when learners have sufficient time at their disposal. It is also necessary to cater to the development of implicit knowledge, which is intuitive, procedural and can be used in real-time processing required by ongoing communication (see Ellis, 2007), or at least
automatize explicit knowledge to such an extent that it becomes accessible when attentional resources have to be directed to other aspects of communication (cf. DeKeyser, 2010; Pawlak, 2012a, 2013a). This means that learners may know how to construct passive voice utterances, what they mean and why they should be used in specific circumstances, but, without the requisite type of linguistic knowledge, they will not be able to deploy these resources in on-line processing, thus making errors or using the passive where it is unnecessary. Finally, it should be pointed out that different aspects of grammar are learned differently as are the explicit and implicit dimensions of grammatical knowledge, which has far-reaching ramifica- tions for effective instruction. Larsen-Freeman and DeCarrico (2010), for example, make the point that while learning the structure of a TL feature or lexical phrases in which it is used may require meaningful repetition, the meaning dimension might call for establishing form-function mappings, and issues related to use might necessitate appreciating the potential effect of the linguistic choices made in a specific context. As regards explicit knowledge, it is not constrained by orders and sequences of acquisition and therefore it can be acquired at any age with the help of cognitive operations deliberately employed in learning any other content, such as history or math, benefiting from explanations or conscious practice. By contrast, implicit knowledge is developmentally constrained as well as age-dependent, with its mastery requiring a considerable degree of mastery of syntactic operations. This means that acquisition requires engagement in real-time interaction and meaningful practice, a condition that is also indispensable for the attainment of the more modest goal of a high level of automaticity of explicit knowledge (see DeKeyser, 2007, 2010; Ellis, 2007; Pawlak, 2013a).
In light of these issues, of vital importance is the choice of the techniques and procedures that are employed with the purpose of introducing and practicing grammar structures as well as their adept integration so that they can contribute to the development of explicit and implicit knowledge, or at least sufficient automa- tization of the former. The instructional options that teachers can draw on in this respect have been classified in different ways, with much depending on whether the pedagogical intervention is viewed in terms of a focus on forms, where the struc- tural syllabus is a point of reference and the PPP (presentation – practice – pro- duction) sequence is broadly followed, or a focus on form, where learners’ attention is drawn to specific features as they are engaged in genuine communication (e.g., Celce-Murcia, 2015; Ellis, 1997, 1998, 2005, 2010b; Loewen, 2011; Nassaji &
Fotos, 2011; Pawlak, 2004; Williams, 2005; see Pawlak, 2006, 2014, for over- views). For the purposes of the present paper, instructional options in grammar teaching will be categorized following the classification put forward by Ellis (1997) and subsequently amended by Pawlak (2004, 2006), which is based on the dis- tinction between learner-performance options and feedback options. The former include focused communication tasks, which necessitate productive or receptive use of a given feature for successful completion (e.g., the Present Progressive to describe a scene in the park in a spot-the-difference task), and feature-focused activities, where learners are expected to attend to a specific form much more deliberately. The latter are subdivided into consciousness-raising tasks, employed
with the purpose of developing explicit knowledge, as is the case when introducing grammar structures by means of deduction (i.e., rule provision and explanation) or induction (i.e., rule discovery), or various practice tasks, which can take the form of output-oriented (i.e., forming a continuum from those entirely controlled to rela- tively free) or input-based (i.e., those that do not require immediate production ofthe targeted item, as the case might be with input enhancement;see Mystkowska-Wiertelak & Pawlak, 2012, for discussion of such options) activities. As regards feedback options, they are related to error correction, with crucial dis- tinctions between explicit and implicit corrective feedback (i.e., such of which the learners may be more or less cognizant), and output-prompting and input-providing corrective feedback (i.e., such that does or does not entail a requirement for self-repair) (see Pawlak, 2014; Sheen & Ellis, 2011).
Clearly, the job of the teacher is to combine the different instructional options in such a way that instruction becomes most beneficial in a specific situation, taking into consideration the realities of a particular context (e.g., access to the target language outside the classroom), learners’ characteristics (e.g., their age or learning styles) and needs (e.g., their concern with grammar), the nature of the targeted linguistic feature (e.g., its difficulty in terms of explicit and implicit knowledge), and what Larsen-Freeman (2003) calls the learning challenge, or the dimension of grammar knowledge that is most in need of pedagogic intervention. What should also be kept in mind is that teachers’ choices with respect to predominant instructional options, which, quite logically, are bound to translate into techniques used for assessment purposes, are bound to have a major bearing on the ways in which learners go about studying and practicing grammar structures (cf. Pawlak, 2009). This, in turn, may have consequences for the extent to which those learners may be able or willing to exercise autonomy in this area, an issue which is the focus of the remainder of this paper.
[if !supportLists]3 [endif]The Need for Autonomy in Learning Foreign Language Grammar
As mentioned in the introduction, while the author is fully aware of the complexity of the concept of autonomy, the diverse ways in which it is understood, the different forms that it can assume and the various levels at which it can be manifested (see e.g., Benson, 2007, 2011; Benson & Voller, 2013), such issues will not be elab- orated upon in the present paper, since its main concern is demonstrating how learner independence can be exhibited in the task of trying to master foreign lan- guage grammar. With this in mind, following Holec (1981, p. 3), autonomy is simply understood here as the “(…) ability to take charge of one’s own learning” and entails taking “the responsibility for all the decisions concerning all aspects of this learning”. As such, it is evident, among other things, in setting proximal and distal goals in the process of language learning, choosing resources and strategies
intended to facilitate the attainment of these goals, effectively managing the available time, both in and out of the classroom, engaging in objective self-evaluation, or demonstrating awareness of one’s own needs, objectives and preferences (cf. Hedge, 2000; Pawlak, Marciniak, Lis, & Bartczak, 2006). Two important qualifications need to be made at this juncture. First, it is recognized that autonomy in language learning involves both a capacity for adopting the approach outlined above and a willingness to do so, as it is obvious that although learners may be able to manifest self-direction, they may refuse to do so for a number of reasons (cf. Littlewood, 1996). Second, the discussion is based on the assumption that while the ultimate goal might be proactive autonomy, in which learners are fully independent in their choices, which “affirms their individuality and sets up directions in a world which they themselves have partially created”, perhaps a more realistic goal in most cases of institutionalized foreign language education may be reactive autonomy, or “the kind which does not create its own directions but, once a direction has been initiated, enables learners to organize their resources autono- mously in order to reach their goal” (Littlewood, 1999, p. 75). While admittedly more modest, such an aim is much more tangible and much easier to achieve, also when it comes to learning foreign language grammar.
A question that arises at this point is why teachers should go to the trouble of promoting in their learners an autonomous approach to learning grammar struc- tures, a task that is likely to pose major challenges, not least because the available classroom time is typically limited, thus constituting a precious commodity. On the one hand, it could simply be argued that, as is the case with all the other TL skills and subsystems, success in developing mastery of grammar depends upon the extent to which learners choose to take charge of their learning and are prepared to go beyond the requirements specified by teachers. After all, whatever the area of the TL, three or four language classes a week, which is perhaps the norm for most learners at different educational levels in foreign language contexts, are blatantly insufficient to guarantee discernable progress if they are not accompanied by regular practice outside school, not so much in the course of additional instruction but, rather, in the home. On the other hand, given what has been said about the com- plexity and multidimensionality of grammar as well as the intricate processes involved in its learning, it would appear that adopting an autonomous approach is of particular significance in the case of this aspect of TL systemic competence. For one thing, the place of grammar instruction in language education has always aroused major controversy, with teachers and learners, mainly due to their previous experiences, often adopting extreme attitudes towards it and favoring quite dis- parate classroom practices. For this reason, the ability to display autonomy might prove to be invaluable both for students who, on account of their instructors’ preferences, are deprived of the opportunity to improve their command of grammar even though they need it for academic or vocational purposes, and for those who may be discontent with the manner in which TL features are taught, either because instruction excessively focuses on the product (e.g., stressing rules, accuracy or formal practice), or, on the contrary, is too innovative, being confined to items that are problematic (e.g., corrective feedback after the performance of a communicative
task). Secondly, the need for autonomy is justified by the fact that the teaching of grammar can only be fully effective if it takes account of the varying proficiency levels, the place on the interlanguage continuum (i.e., orders and sequences ofacquisition), often disparate goals and needs, as well as a wide array of individual learner differences, ranging from various components of aptitude (e.g., working memory), through self-concept (e.g., self-evaluation of grammar competence), to fluctuating motivation (e.g., involvement in some grammar tasks but not in others) (see e.g., Dörnyei, 2005; Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015; Williams, Mercer, & Ryan, 2015). It is clear that accommodating all of these variables during a language lesson is simply not feasible and only learners themselves can ensure the occurrence of optimal conditions and environments in their own time on condition that they are equipped with the right tools and have the necessary mindset. Thirdly, indepen- dence and self-direction are important for the development of both explicit and implicit knowledge, although perhaps not to the same degree. In the case of the former, an autonomous approach is useful because it will aid learners in better grasping the relevant rules, identifying problem areas that may be in need of attention, seeking out resources that can be instruments in overcoming difficulties, or going beyond the homework assignments set by the teacher by doing additional exercises involving specific TL features. However, in the case of the development of implicit knowledge, or accomplishing a high degree of automaticity of explicit knowledge, the ability and readiness to manifest autonomy seems to be a necessary condition for the reason that such a goal is clearly unattainable in the severely limited classroom time where numerous objectives need to be pursued. The steps that can be taken to foster autonomy in learning grammar are outlined in the following section.
[if !supportLists]4 [endif]Ways of Promoting Autonomy in Teaching Foreign Language Grammar
An autonomous approach to learning grammar can be encouraged in a number of ways, many of which mirror the techniques that can be applied to foster autonomy in the process of foreign language learning in its entirety (see e.g., Benson, 2011; Komorowska, 2003; Pawlak et al., 2006). Since a thorough consideration of all of these actions is beyond the scope of this paper and would in all likelihood require a book of its own, in the subsections that follow, some basic ways of fostering autonomy in this respect will first be briefly outlined and subsequently three areas will be singled out for a more in-depth discussion, that is raising learners’ aware- ness of issues involved in learning and teaching grammar, acquainting them with grammar learning strategies, and promoting the use of information and computer technology (ICT) in the study of TL grammar. Obviously, the application of these techniques has to be carefully premediated taking into account the specificity of a
[if !supportLists]4.1 [endif]Necessary Steps Towards Fostering Autonomy in Learning Grammar
When it comes to some rudimentary, one could even say necessary, steps that should be resorted to in order to instill in learners an autonomous approach to learning grammar, they are closely linked with the way grammar is introduced and practiced in the classroom, which recognizes the impact of predominant instruc- tional procedures on the choice of learning strategies. These steps can be sum- marized as follows:
[if !supportLists]1) [endif]encouraging a discovery approach to learning grammar, which entails greater emphasis on different forms of induction; however, this should not be inter- preted as meaning that getting learners to discover rules should be the default mode of introducing grammar, as the character of a specific TL feature, learner characteristics or the available amount of time can dictate otherwise (see Pawlak, 2006);
[if !supportLists]2) [endif]setting up tasks enabling collaborative construction of grammatical knowledge, where, in line with the claims of sociocultural theory (Lantolf, 2006), learners engage in what is referred to as collaborative dialog (Swain, 2000) or lan- guaging (Swain, 2006), reflecting on the use of the target language; one example of such a task is a dictogloss activity, where students listen to a text containing a lot of instances of the targeted feature, read twice at normal speed, take notes and then have to come up with a text as close to the original as possible;
[if !supportLists]3) [endif]creating opportunities to use the structures taught in communication, as this is needed to trigger the development of implicit knowledge or at least bring about automatization of explicit knowledge, without which real-time use of grammar is impossible; this can be attained through frequent reliance on focused com- munication tasks (see above), or the use of corrective feedback in response to a particular category of errors in the course of communicative activities (e.g., the passive in descriptions of famous landmarks);
[if !supportLists]4) [endif]encouraging experimentation with new language forms, which, yet again, calls for tasks that require learners to use those forms for message conveyance in speaking or in writing (e.g., making up a story in which the Past Continuous has to be employed or describing houses or apartments, which calls for the use of prepositions);
[if !supportLists]5) [endif]familiarizing learners with additional resources for the learning of grammar, such as dictionaries in which they can find information about how specific parts of speech are used, or reference books, which provide detailed information about all the dimensions of a specific structure;
[if !supportLists]6) [endif]providing appropriate training in the use of such resources, which can ensure skillful and effective application thereof in different situations; this might involve, for instance, explaining to students what the codes included in the dictionary mean or asking them to seek out forms meeting specified criteria;
[if !supportLists]7) [endif]encouraging productive and receptive use of the target language outside the classroom, a goal that may not be easy to achieve in the case of students coming from families with limited financial resources, residing in places where access to the TL is hard to come by or having difficulty in accessing the Internet; even under unpropitious circumstances, though, teachers can advise learners to attend to the use of the grammar structures that have recently been taught as they watch movies, read books or journals, and, when such oppor- tunities present themselves, to actually use them when interacting with for- eigners face to face or by means of the computer;
[if !supportLists]8) [endif]asking students to create their own exercises and tasks in which the grammarstructures that have recently been taught have to be used; these activities can primarily serve the purpose of establishing and gaining control over explicit knowledge but they could also foster the automatization of such knowledgeor the growth of the implicit representation; students could, for example, design exercises requiring application of narrative tenses or find a set of pictures or drawings which, when divided between group members, could provide opportunities for the use of these TL features in spontaneous communication;
[if !supportLists]9) [endif]raising learners’ awareness of grammar-related issues, which could, for instance, take the form of getting learners to confront the myths discussed earlier in the present paper, making them cognizant of the complexity of this TL subsystem, familiarizing them with the three dimensions of grammatical knowledge, or explaining and exemplifying the notion of orders and sequences of acquisition;
[if !supportLists]10) [endif]raising learners’ awareness of their own use of grammar, which boils down to honing the skills of monitoring and self-evaluation with the purpose of attending to and noticing potential problems with the use of grammar; learners could be asked, for example, to audio-record their descriptions of famous places with the use of the passive voice and then listen to them in order to identify or correct their errors; another possibility is asking students to act in the capacity of observers in focused communication tasks, jot down errors in the use of the targeted structure and then discuss them with their peers.
[if !supportLists]4.2 [endif]Raising Awareness of Learning and Teaching Grammar
Although sensitizing students to the complexity of grammar, mentioned in the previous section, plays an important role, even more useful in shaping their autonomy is likely to be raising their awareness about the process of learning and teaching of this TL subsystem. This aim could be accomplished, among other
things, by asking students to express their preferences concerning the study of grammar in a whole-class mode, initiating small-group discussion about the most efficacious ways of learning and teaching grammar, perhaps using narratives describing specific learner profiles in this respect as a point of reference. Students could also be encouraged to keep a diary about the difficulties they encounter in learning grammar and the ways in which they deal with them, or to self-assess their use of grammar structures in different tasks, for example with the help of audio-recordings of oral and written output, an idea mentioned above, analysis of the errors they committed that were noted down by the teacher, or specifically designed self-assessment grids completed immediately after the completion of a given activity. Since, due to insufficient knowledge, learners may experience dif- ficulty in identifying pivotal issues on their own, what might be particularly enlightening is administering questionnaires related to various aspects of form-focused instruction, and then discussing their outcomes. Questionnaires of thiskind, such as the one designed by Pawlak (2011, 2013b), could, for example, tap into learners’ opinions concerning overall importance of FFI, also with respect to specific language skills, the choice of syllabus (e.g., structural vs. task-based), the way in which lessons devoted to teaching grammar are constructed (e.g., the degree to which FFI is integrated into communicative tasks or happens in isolation), the manner in which grammar structures are introduced (e.g. deduction vs. induction), the approaches to practicing structures with which students have been familiarized (controlled vs. communicative activities), and ways of responding to grammar errors (e.g., timing, source, the degree of explicitness, the requirement for self-correction) (see also Loewen et al., 2009; Spada & Lightbown, 2008). To give an example, awareness about introducing TL features could be enhanced with the use of the following Likert-scale items: “It is best to discover grammar rules together with other students”, “I like to discover grammar rules by myself”, “I prefer to read or listen to texts containing new structures rather than be given rules”, “It is best when the teacher explains grammar rules”, “I find it helpful when the teacher uses my mother tongue to explain grammar”, “I am convinced that the use of terminology is important in teaching grammar”, or “It helps me when demon- stration is used in teaching grammar”. Of course, items included in questionnaires would need in most cases to be formulated in learners’ first language and worded without recourse to complex terminology in order to ensure ample understanding. Also, when open-ended questions are included, students should be allowed to provide responses in the language of their choosing.
[if !supportLists]4.3 [endif]Familiarizing Learners with Grammar Learning Strategies
An integral part of any long-term program aimed to develop autonomy with respect to learning foreign language grammar should be encouraging students to fall back
upon grammar learning strategies (GLS), an area that has been conspicuously neglected by researchers (Cohen, 2011; Oxford, Rang Lee, & Park, 2007; Pawlak, 2009, 2012b). Strategies of this kind can be defined as “deliberate thoughts and actions students employ for learning and getting better control over the use of grammar structures” (Cohen & Pinilla-Herrera, 2009, p. 64), which implies that successful application of such strategic devices stimulates the growth of explicit knowledge of rules and the ability to employ them in real-time processing. Pawlak (2012b), basing on general taxonomies of language learning strategies, catego- rizations of instructional options that can be employed in FFI and previous research findings, proposed a division of GLS into four groups, namely: (1) metacognitive GLS, used to plan, monitor and evaluate the learning process (e.g., previewing grammar structures to be covered in a lesson, having specific objectives in learning grammar), (2) affective GLS, drawn upon to deal with the feelings and emotions involved in the process of grammar learning (e.g., relaxing when experiencing problems in understanding or using grammar features, encouraging oneself to engage in additional practice), (3) social GLS, which involve cooperation with others when studying or practicing grammar structures (e.g., asking the teacher to repeat or explain a grammar point which has not been understood, practicing grammar structures with other students), and (4) cognitive GLS, which are applied directly in activities focusing on grammar structures.
While the first three groups are equally applicable to learning all aspects of the TL, the last one takes account of the specificity of learning and gaining greater control of the different dimensions of grammar, with the effect that it deserves more thorough treatment at this point. Pawlak (2012b) subdivides such strategies into four groups, namely: (1) cognitive GLS used in communicative tasks (e.g. trying to use specific grammar structures in communication, reading for pleasure or watching television to improve grammar, noticing and remembering TL features that cause problems with getting messages across), (2) cognitive GLS for developing explicit knowledge (e.g., paying attention to the rules provided by the teacher or course- book, grouping grammar structures to remember them better, trying to discover grammar rules by analyzing examples), (3) cognitive GLS for developing implicit knowledge (e.g., listening to and reading texts containing many examples of the targeted structure, comparing the way in which grammar is used with the learner’s own language production, trying to use grammar rules in a meaningful context), and (4) cognitive GLS related to error correction (e.g., listening for any feedback that the teacher gives, trying to notice and self-correct errors in the use of grammar, monitoring one’s spoken and written output with respect to the use of the TL features taught). Obviously, extensive training in the use of these strategies is needed following one of the models proposed in the literature (e.g., Chamot, 2005), with the main principles of such strategy-based instruction (SBI) being that it should start with metacognitive GLS, be comprehensive, direct and explicit, begin early in foreign language education, involve numerous practice opportunities, and rely, if need be, on the use of learners’ mother tongue (see Chamot, 2004). Since such training would necessarily be time-consuming and in many cases needs to be
[if !supportLists]4.4 [endif]Promoting the Use of ICT in Learning Grammar
A powerful tool in developing an autonomous approach to learning foreign grammar is without doubt ICT, which provides learners with copious opportunities to develop both their explicit and implicit knowledge with respect to all the dimensions listed by Larsen-Freeman (2003), that is form, meaning and use, such that could never be provided during language lessons. In addition, the fact that these resources are easily accessible at any time and space, and that they can be selected in accordance with learners’ goals, needs, learning styles and strategies makes them particularly conducive to fostering autonomy, not only in learning grammar but all the efforts invested in learning the target language. What needs to be emphasized, however, is that it would perhaps be wishful thinking to assume that learners will avail of such opportunities of their own accord or that just recommending the use of technology will be sufficient. In fact, students have to be actively encouraged to engage in the use of ICT in learning grammar and this could involve, among other things:
[if !supportLists]• [endif]demonstrating to students how they can capitalize on the opportunities offered by word processors and presentation software (the use of grammar checkers but also enhancing awareness of their limitations, including feedback in texts pro- duced by other learners, creating presentations devoted to grammar for self-instruction purposes);
[if !supportLists]• [endif]training students in effective use of electronic dictionaries, whether those available on DVDs, smartphones or online (e.g., understanding grammatical information which they provide, taking advantage of examples of authentic use of the targeted structures, performing activities on grammar that some dic- tionaries contain);
[if !supportLists]• [endif]familiarizing students with the benefits of using corpora, or “(…) large collec- tions of both spoken and written natural texts” (Reppen & Simpson-Vlach, 2010, p. 89), and the related tools in the classroom and outside (e.g., discovering and checking typical patterns, using popular search engines for the same pur- pose); this has to involve copious practice opportunities so that learners can develop the necessary skills;
[if !supportLists]• [endif]promoting the use of educational software which is easily available on the market and demonstrating how such software can be used for the benefit of enhancing grammatical knowledge, whether explicit or implicit; even when such programs primarily rely upon traditional exercises, their strength is the availability of immediate, sometimes student-tailored feedback, and access to useful reference tools;
[if !supportLists]• [endif]demonstrating how Internet-based resources can aid the learning of grammar, both in relation togeneric websites, where authentic written and spoken texts can be found, enabling investigation of grammar items, and dedicated ones, specifically intended for language learning and typically containing elements assisting the study of grammar;
[if !supportLists]• [endif]encouraging the use of Internet communicators or virtual worlds, since syn- chronous computer-mediated communication of this kind can allow the use of the targeted items in real time and, if it is conducted with native-speakers or advanced language users, can be a valuable source of corrective feedback; this has the potential benefit of enhancing implicit knowledge in conditions when more attentional resources are available for processing form-meaning mappings.
[if !supportLists]5 [endif]Implications and Caveats
As elucidated in the present paper, the complexity and multidimensionality of grammar dictate that there is an obvious need to take actions intended to promote autonomy in learning this target language subsystem. Encouraging such an autonomous approach is also warranted in view of the fact that the degree to which learners need to know and use grammar structures is bound to vary and the effectiveness of the learning process is mediated by individual difference variables which can best be accommodated by learners themselves. This said, it should be emphasized that the ways in which this goal can and should be achieved will vary from one class, program or even individual to another. It seems clear, for example, that autonomy in this respect is of pivotal importance for students in foreign lan- guages departments who are expected to master difficult grammar structures and use them effectively in communication. On the other end of the spectrum, it is difficult to take issue with the assumption that an autonomous approach in this area will be of little significance for individuals who sign up for language courses with a view to developing a basic command of the target language in order to get by in everyday situations. It should also be stressed that the amount of autonomy is a matter of degree, different levels of this attribute may be manifested by different learners, and some of them, due to the beliefs they hold, may refuse to exercise self-direction in this area, with all of this indicating that the goals of independence in learning grammar should be realistic and compatible with the characteristics of a specific context. The last caveat is that an autonomous approach to learning TL grammar is by no means intended to entirely replace more traditional form-focused instruction which is delivered by the teacher, but, rather, to complement it, thus enhancing its effectiveness and supporting the use of grammar in communication. This is because, while the teacher may at the end of the day be the ultimate authority for most school learners when it comes to explaining the rules of grammar and deciding about the ways in which grammar structures can be practiced, it is only by going beyond classroom and homework assignments, taking advantage of the right
resources and applying appropriate learning strategies that students can fullydevelop explicit knowledge and automatize it to such an extent that it can be effortlessly used in spontaneous communication.
Batstone, R. (1994).Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
London and New York: Routledge.
Celce-Murcia, M. (2015). An overview of teaching grammar in ELT. In M. A. Christison, D. Christian, P. A. Duff, & N. Spada (Eds.), Teaching and learning English grammar: Research findings and future directions (pp. 3–18). New York and London: Routledge.
Chamot, A. U. (2005). The cognitive academic language learning approach (CALLA): An update. In P. A. Richard-Amato & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Academic success for English languagelearners: Strategies for K-12 mainstream teachers(pp. 87–101). White Plains, NY: Longman. Cohen, A. D., & Pinilla-Herrera, A. (2009). Communicating grammatically: Constructing a learner strategies website for Spanish. In T. Kao & Y. Lin (Eds.), A new look at language teaching and testing: English as subject and vehicle (pp. 63–83). Taipei, Taiwan: The Language Training
and Testing Center.
Cohen, A. D. (2011). Strategies in learning and suing a second language. London and New York: Routledge.
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 97–113). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. DeKeyser, R. (2010). Cognitive-psychological process in second language learning. In M.
H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 119–138). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner. Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. New York and London: Routledge.
Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1998). Teaching and research: Options in grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 39–60. Ellis, R. (2005). Instructed language learning and task-based teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 713–728). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ellis, R. (2007). Implicit and explicit learning, knowledge, and instruction. In R. Ellis, S. Loewen,
C. Elder, J. Philp, H. Reinders, & R. Erlam (Eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching (pp. 3–25). Bristol, Buffalo, Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2010a). Epilogue: A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 335–349.
Ellis, R. (2010b). Explicit form-focused instruction and second language acquisition. In B. Spolsky & F. M. Hult (Eds.), The handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 437–455). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hedge, T. (2000).Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy in foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Komorowska, H. (2003). Metodyka nauczania języków obcych [Methodology of foreign languageteaching]. Warszawa: Fraszka Edukacyjna.
Lantolf, J. P. (2006). Sociocultural theory and L2: State of the art. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 67–109.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2010). Teaching and testing grammar. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.),
The handbook of language teaching (pp. 518–542). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & DeCarrico, J. (2010). Grammar. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics (pp. 18–33). London: Hodder Education.
Linguistics, 20, 71–94.
Loewen, S. (2011). Focus on form. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second languageteaching and learning(Vol. II, pp. 577–592). New York and London: Routledge.
Loewen, S. (2014). The role of feedback. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 24–40). London and New York. Routledge.
Loewen, S. (2015). Introduction to instructed second language acquisition. London and New York: Routledge.
Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thompson, A., Nakatsukasa, K., Ahn, S., & Chen, X. (2009). L2 learners’ beliefs about grammar instruction and error correction. Modern Language Journal, 93, 91–104.
Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A., & Pawlak, M. (2012). Production-oriented and comprehension-based grammar teaching in the foreign language classroom. Heidelberg, New York: Springer.
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context. New York and London: Routledge.
Oxford, R. L., Rang Lee, K., & Park, G. (2007). L2 grammar strategies: The second Cinderella and beyond. In A. D. Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies (pp. 117–139). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pawlak, M. (2004). On the effectiveness of options in grammar teaching: Translating theory and research into classroom practice. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 40, 269–287.
Pawlak, M. (2006). The place of form-focused instruction in the foreign language classroom.
Poznań, Kalisz: Adam Mickiewicz University Press.
Pawlak, M. (2009). Grammar learning strategies and language attainment: Seeking a relationship. Research in Language, 7, 43–60.
Pawlak, M. (2011). Cultural differences in perceptions of form-focused instruction: The case of advanced Polish and Italian learners. In A. Wojtaszek & J. Arabski, J. (Eds.), Aspects of culture in second language acquisition and foreign language learning (pp. 77–94). Heidelberg, New York: Springer.
Pawlak, M. (2012a). Variability in the use of implicit knowledge: The effect of task, level and linguistic form. In E. Piechurska-Kuciel & L. Piasecka (Eds.), Variability and stability in foreign and second language learning contexts (pp. 279–298). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Pawlak, M. (2012b). Grammar learning strategies: State of the art. In L. Pedrazzini & A. Nava (Eds.), Learning and teaching English: Insights from research (pp. 69–90). Monza-Milano: Polimetrica.
Pawlak, M. (2013a). Principles of instructed language learning revisited: Guidelines for effectivegrammar teaching in the foreign language classroom. In K. Droździał-Szelest & M. Pawlak (Eds.), Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives on second language learning andteaching: Studies in honor if Waldemar Marton(pp. 199–220). Heidelberg, New York: Springer.
Pawlak, M. (2014). Error correction in the foreign language classroom: Reconsidering the issues.
Heidelberg, New York: Springer.
Pawlak, M., Marciniak, I., Lis, Z., & Bartczak, E. (2006). Jak samodzielnie poznawać języki i kultury? Przewodnik metodyczny dla nauczycieli do Europejskiego portfolio językowego dla uczniów szkół ponadgimnazjalnych i studentów [How to independently get to know languages and cultures. A guide to the European language portfolio for senior high school students and language learners in institutions of higher education]. Warszawa: Centralny Ośrodek Doskonalenia Nauczycieli.
Reppen, R., & Simpson-Vlach, R. (2010). Corpus linguistics. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics (pp. 89–105). London: Hodder Education.
Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. II, pp. 593–610). New York and London: Routledge.
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated? TESOL Quarterly, 42, 181–207.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97– 114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London: Continuum.
Swan, M. (2013). Grammar. In E. Simpson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of applied linguistics
(pp. 557–570). London and New York: Routledge.
Williams, J. (2005). Form-focused instruction. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 671–691). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Williams, M., Mercer, S., & Ryan, S. (2015). Exploring psychology for language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
