Günümüz Dilbilgisi Öğretimi Üzerine Tartışmalar

Öz

rammar teaching is one of the fields of study related to language-oriented teaching. What grammar is and with what content and how it should be taught has long been a matter of discussion both in linguistics and in the field of educational science since the antique age. These issues have been discussed in terms of linguistics and pedagogy. Grammar teaching, which is sometimes seen as equivalent to language education, has been accepted as a language teaching tool today. In this study, current issues in mother tongue teaching are discussed and compared in terms of different views. The results show that discussions on what grammar is and with what content and how it should be taught remain its currency. Theories that are at the center of current discussions are generally discussed along with the application dimension. According to the results obtained it seen that that many contemporary grammar teaching approaches, especially functional grammar and constructivism cannot be adequately reflected in the teaching processes. Accordingly, it is revealed that although some current approaches are put forward, language teachers cannot break away from traditional practices for different reasons. It is seen as a necessity to show concrete ways to practitioners in the field by synthesizing the views put forward on grammar teaching.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• dilgilgisi öğretimi
• tartışmalar
• öğretim

Discussions about Grammar Teaching Today

Öz

Grammar teaching is one of the fields of study related to language-oriented teaching. What grammar is and with what content and how it should be taught has long been a matter of discussion both in linguistics and in the field of educational science since the antique age. These issues have been discussed in terms of linguistics and pedagogy. Grammar teaching, which is sometimes seen as equivalent to language education, has been accepted as a language teaching tool today. In this study, current issues in mother tongue teaching are discussed and compared in terms of different views. The results show that discussions on what grammar is and with what content and how it should be taught remain its currency. Theories that are at the center of current discussions are generally discussed along with the application dimension. According to the results obtained it seen that that many contemporary grammar teaching approaches, especially functional grammar and constructivism cannot be adequately reflected in the teaching processes. Accordingly, it is revealed that although some current approaches are put forward, language teachers cannot break away from traditional practices for different reasons. It is seen as a necessity to show concrete ways to practitioners in the field by synthesizing the views put forward on grammar teaching.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Grammar teaching
• Grammar teaching methods
• grammar teaching approach

Kaynakça

1. Akay, E. & Toraman, Ç. (2015). Students’ attitudes towards learning english grammar: A study of scale development. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 11(2), 67-82.
2. Allford, D. (2003) ‘Grasping the nettle’: Aspects of grammar in the mother tongue and foreign languages, The Language Learning Journal, 27(1), 24-32, DOI: 10.1080/09571730385200051
3. Andrews, R., Beverton, S., Locke, T., Low, G., Robinson, A.,Torgerson, C. & Zhu, D. (2004). The effect of grammar teaching (syntax) in English on 5 to 16 year olds’ accuracy and quality in written composition. London: EPPI-Centre.
4. Anılan, H. (2014). Evaluation of Turkish grammar instruction based on primary school teachers’ opinions. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(5), 1914-1924.
5. Association for Language Awareness, https://www.languageawareness.org/?page_id=48
6. Benzer, A. (2019). Dil bilgisi öğretiminde öğretim programı, ders kitabı ve merkezî sınav çıkmazı. Jass Studies-The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 76, 291-323.
7. Boivin, M.-C. (2018). A review of the current empirical research on grammar instruction in the francophone regions. Contribution to A Special Issue Working on Grammar at School in L1 Education: Empirical Research Across Linguistic Regions. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 17( 1)-48. https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2018.18.04.03
8. Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in grammar teaching: A literature review. Language Awareness, 12( 2), 96-108. DOI: 10.1080/09658410308667069

9. Bralich, A. P. (2006). The new SAT and fundamental misunderstandings about grammar teaching. English Today, 61-64, doi:10.1017/S0266078406003105
10. Bulut, M. (2014). Dil bilgisi öğretiminde yaşanan kavram kargaşasının Türkçe öğretimine etkisi. Electronic Turkish Studies, 9(12), 43-55.
11. Carter, R. (1990). The new grammar teaching. In Carter, R. (Ed.), Knowledge About Language and the Curriculum: The LINC reader (pp. 69-103). London: Hodder & Stoughton.
12. Carter, R. (1997). Investigating English discourse: language, literacy, literature. Routledge: New York.
13. Clark, U. (2010). Grammar in the curriculum for english: What next?. Changing English, 17(2), 189-200, DOI: 10.1080/13586841003787332
14. Cosson, R. (2007). Mother tongue education in brazil: A battle of two worlds. L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 7(1), 37-52. Crystal, D. (2017). English grammar in the UK: A political history. Supplementary Material to Making Sense: the Glamorous Story of Engish Grammar, http://davidcrystal.com/GBR/Books-and-Articles
15. Cuq, J.-P. (2003). le dictionnaire de didactique du français langue étrangère et seconde. Paris: CLE International.
16. Derewianka, B. M. (2012). Knowledge about language in the Australian curriculum: English. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 35, 2, 127-146.
17. Devos, F. & Vooren Van V (2014). Teachers’ attitudes towards (the alignment between) grammar in the L1 language curricula of primary and secondary education. Proceedings of ICERI2014 Conference (5642- 5651), 17th-19th November 2014, Seville: Spain.
18. Ellis, N. (2015). Implicit and explicit language learning: Their dynamic interface and complexity. In Patrick Rebuschat (Ed.) Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages (pp. 3-25). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
19. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20. Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40 (1), 83-107.
21. Fontich, X. (2014). Grammar and language reflection at school: Checking out the whats and the hows of grammar instruction. In T. Ribas, X. Fontich & O. Guasch (coords) Grammar at School: Research on Metalinguistic Activity in Language Education (pp.255-284). Brussels: Peter Lang.
22. Fontich, X. & Camps, A. (2014). Towards a rationale for research into grammar teaching in schools. Research Papers in Education, 29(5), 598-625, DOI: 10.1080/02671522.2013.813579
23. Gelderen Van, A. (2006). What we know without knowing it: Sense and nonsense in respect of linguistic reflection for students in elementary and secondary education. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 5(1), 44-54.
24. Gelderen Van, A. (2010). Does explicit teaching of grammar help students to become better writers? Insights from empirical research. In Locke, T. (ed.), Beyond the Grammar Wars: A Resouce for Teachers and Students on Developing Language Knowledge in English/Literacy Classrooms (pp. 109-128). Newyork and London: Routledge.
25. Gelderen Van A., Couzijn, M. & Hendrix, T. (2000). Language awarenes in the Dutch mother-tongue curriculum. In Lana White, J. Bruce Maylath, Anthony Adams & Michael Couzin (Eds.), Language Awareness: A History and Implementations (Studies in Language & Literature) (pp 57-88). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
26. Gordon, E (2005). Grammar in New Zealand schools: Two case studies. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 4(3), 48-68.
27. Güneş, F. (2013-a). Yapılandırmacı yaklaşımla dil bilgisi öğretimi. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 9(3), 171-187. Güneş, F. (2013-b). Dil bilgisi öğretiminde yeni yaklaşımlar. Dil ve Edebiyat Eğitimi Dergisi, 2 (7), 71-92.
28. Harris, J. R. (1962). An experimental enquiry into the functions and value of formal grammar in the teaching of English, with special reference to the teaching of correct written English to children aged twelve to fourteen. PhD. Thesis. University of London.
29. Hartwell, P. (1985). Grammar, grammars, and the teaching of grammar. College English, 47(2) (Feb. 1985), 105-127
30. Hawkins, E. (1984). Awareness of language: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. Hicks-Donmall, G. B. (1985). Language awareness. National Congress on Languages in Education (Great Britain). Assembly; Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research.: London.
32. Hlebec, H. (2017). Grammar instruction in Germany, https://dickhudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Grammar-Instruction-in-Germany_062717.pdf
33. Horarik-Macken, M. (2012). Why school English needs a ‘good enough’ grammatics (and not more grammar). Changing English, 19 (2), 179-194, DOI: 10.1080/1358684X.2012.680760
34. Horarik-Macken, M., Love, K. & Horarik, S. (2018). Rethinking grammar in language arts: Insights from an Australian survey of teachers’ subject knowledge. Research in the Teaching of English, 52(3), 288-316.
35. Hudson, R. & Walmsley, J. (2005). The English patient: English grammar and teaching in the twentieth century. Journal of Linguistics, 41, 593-622. doi:10.1017/S0022226705003464
36. Hulstijn, H., J. (2015). Explaining phenomena of first and second language acquisition with the constructs of implicit and explicit learning: The virtues and pitfalls of a two-system view. In Rebuschat, P (Ed.) Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages (pp. 25-46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
37. James, C. & Garrett, P. ( 1992). The scope of language awareness. In James, C. & Garrett, P. (Eds.) Language Awareness In The Classroom (pp. 3-21). New York: Routledge.
38. Jones, P. & Chen, H. (2016). The role of dialogic pedagogy in teaching grammar. Research Papers in Education, 31(1), 45-69, DOI: 10.1080/02671522.2016.1106695
39. Jones, S., Myhill, D. & Bailey, T. (2013). Grammar for writing? an investigation of the effects of contextualised grammar teaching on students’ writing. Reading and Writing, 26,1241–1263, doi: 10.1007/s11145-012-9416-1.
40. Kolln, M. & Hancock, C. (2005). The story of English grammar in United States schools, English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 4(3), 11-31. Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford, England: Pergamon.
41. Ling, Z. (2015). Explicit grammar and implicit grammar teaching for English major students in university. Sino-US English Teaching, 12(8), 556-560, doi:10.17265/1539-8072/2015.08.002
42. Locke, T. (2010). Introduction: “grammar wars” and beyond. In Locke, T. (ed.), Beyond the Grammar Wars: A Resouce for Teachers and Students on Developing Language Knowledge in English/Literacy Classrooms (pp. 109-128). Newyork and London: Routledge.
43. McDonagh, J. & Wilkinson, J (2007). Grammar grief: A discussion of the study of language. ITE English: Readings for Discussion, http://www.ite.org.uk/ite_readings/grammar_grief_20071130.pdf
44. Milian, M. (2015). Working on grammar at school. In T. Ribas, X. Fontich & O. Guasch (eds.), Research on Metalinguistic Activity in Language Education (pp. 43-73). Brussels: Peter Lang.
45. Mitchell, C. L. (2001). Grammar Wars: Language as Cultural Battlefield in 17th And 18th century England. London and New York: Routledge.
46. Mulder, J. (2011). Grammar in English curricula: Why should linguists care? Language and Linguistics Compass, 5(12), 835–847, doi. 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2011.00316
47. Myhill, D. (2000). Misconceptions and difficulties in the acquisition of metalinguistic knowledge. Language and Education, 14(3), 151–63. Myhill, D. (2010). Ways of knowing: Grammar as a tool for developing writing. In Locke, T. (ed.), Beyond the Grammar Wars: A Resouce for Teachers and Students on Developing Language Knowledge in English/Literacy Classrooms (pp. 129-148). Newyork and London: Routledge.
48. Myhill, D. & Jones, S. (2011). Policing grammar: the place of grammar in literacy policy. In Goodwyn, A. & fuller, C. (Eds.), The Great Literacy Debate (pp. 45-63). New York: Routledge
49. Myhill, D. (2018). Grammar as a meaning-making resource for improving writing. Contribution to a Special Issue Working on Grammar at School in L1-Education: Empirical Research Across Linguistic Regions. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 18, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2018.18.04.04
50. Myhill, D. & Watson, A. (2014). The role of grammar in the writing curriculum: A review of the literature. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 30(1), 41-62, DOI: 10.1177/0265659013514070.
51. Negro, I. & Chanquoy, L. (2005). Explicit and implicit training of subject-verb agreement processing in 3rd and 5th grades. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 5, 193–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10674-005-0331-0
52. Paterson, L. P. (2010). Grammar and the English national curriculum. Language and Education, 24(6), 473-484, DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2010.495782.
53. Pehlivan, A. (2003). Türkçe ders kitabı seçme ve değerlendirme. Ankara: Turhan kitabevi.
54. Pongpairoj, N. (2004). Integrating implicit and expilicit grammatical perspectives on the acquisition of the English articles: An action research. MANUSYA: Journal of Humanities, DOI: 10.1163/26659077-00701002
55. Rebuschat, P. (2015). Implicit and explicit language learning: Their dynamic interface and complexity. In Patrick Rebuschat (Ed.) Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages (pp. ıx-xııı). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
56. Rijt, van J., Swart de P & Coppen, P-A. (2019). Linguistic concepts in L1 grammar education: A systematic literature review, Research Papers in Education, 34(5), 621-648, DOI: 10.1080/02671522.2018.1493742
57. Rijt, van J. & Coppen, A-P (2017). Bridging the gap between linguistic theory and L1 grammar education: Experts’ views on essential linguistic concepts, Language Awareness, 26(4), 360-380, DOI: 10.1080/09658416.2017.1410552
58. Tordoir, A., & Wesdorp, H. (1979). Het grammatica-onderwijs in Nederland: een researchoverzicht betreffende de effecten van grammatica-onderwijs en een verslag van een onderzoek naar de praktijk van dit onderwijs in Nederland [Grammar education in the Netherlands; an overview of research into the effects of grammar education and a report of a study into the practice of this education in the Netherlands]. Den Haag: SVO, Staatsuitgeverij.
59. Uyumaz, G. & Bayat, N. (2020). Dilbilgisi öğretiminde ölçme ve değerlendirme, Ahmet Pehlivan & İ. Seçkin Aydın (Ed.) Dil Bilgisi Öğretimi (ss. 259-280). Ankara: PegemA.
60. Walker, L. (2011). 200 Years of Grammar: A History of Grammar Teaching in Canada, New Zealand and Australia, 1800-2000. Bloomington: IUniverse.
61. Watson, M., A. (2015). Conceptualisations of ‘grammar teaching’: L1 English teachers’ beliefs about teaching grammar for writing. Language Awareness, 24(1), 1-14. doi: 10.1080/09658416.2013.828736.
62. White, L. (2000). A pradigm change for the teaching of the mother tongues. In Lana White, J. Bruce Maylath, Anthony Adams & Michael Couzin (Eds.), Language Awareness: A History and Implementations (Studies in Language & Literature) (pp 41-56). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
63. Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction in French: The roles of explicit information and structured input. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), From Input to Output: A Teacher’s Guide to Second Language Acquisition (pp. 187–205). New York: McGraw-Hill.
64. Wyse, D. (2001). Grammar. For writing? A critical review of empirical evidence. British Journal of Education Studies, 49 (4), 411-427. Yarrow, R. (2007). How do students feel about grammar?: The framework and its implications for teaching and learning. Changing English, 14(2), 175-186, DOI: 10.1080/13586840701443008