Holistic Grammar Through Socratic Questioning

Annie K. Koshi City College, The City University of New York

ABSTRACT When teaching grammar to second language (SL) learners, teachers should take
the new direction of aiming at grammatical consciousness-raising. One way to achieve this is to have learners discover grammar rules inductively, the teachersjob being to facilitate this grammar discovery process by providing appropriate techniques. Socratic questioning is an effective technique for facilitating the discovery process. This article discusses an approach that uses Socratic questioning to instill grammar awareness in advanced, academically bound SL learners. The article begins with a short review o f the recent controversy of natural vs. formal (conscious us. unconscious) teaching/learning o f language forms. The second part discusses the theoretical framework of the approach. The third part explains the pedagogical concepts on which the approach is based. The linal part examines the approach in detail. The approach will help learners look at the study of grammar as a means to receive and share information-the purpose of academic language learning. Language is presented holistically-as whole-pieces-in the form of reading materials, not in isolated sentences. Paying selective attention to specific structural features in the reading material, students answer higher order, critical thinking (Socratic) questions, which help them discover relevant grammatical rules inductively. The outcome is grammar awareness, which will help learners extend their grammar learning beyond the classroom.
Second Language Acquisition @LA) Theories and Grammar Teaching To teach or not to teach grammar is a dilemma that has faced second language and foreign language teachers for about two decades. The pedagogy of teaching grammar has been greatly influenced because o the dichotof mous theoretical concepts SLA researchers have introduced into the field. Some o them f are learning vs. acquisition (Krashen), explicit vs. implicit instruction (Bialystok), declarative vs. procedural learning (Anderson), controlled vs. automatic processing (Schneider, Shiffrin), capacitydemanding vs. capacity-free (McLeod, McLaughlin), conscious vs. unconscious learning (Rutherford, Schmidit, Sharwood Smith), and similar concepts. For the purpose o this article, 1 classify the f
Annie K. Koshi (W.D., Teachers College, Columbia f University) is Associate Professor o ESL at City College, The City University o New York. f

current theorists into two groups: naturalists and formalists. A key issue o debate among f these two groups o theorists is whether the f two dichotomies are completely different from each other or whether one converts into the other. Krashen (1981), a naturalist, maintains that the two kinds o knowledge are t e f tally different, and under no circumstance can learning become acquisition or explicit knowledge become implicit. Therefore, according to him, formal instruction in grammar is not helpful. Other naturalists, supporting Krashen, hold that formal classroom instruction, which promotes conscious, cognitivebased learningof grammar, is not useful because its effect is peripheral, fragile, and short-lived. No matter how intense the practice is, the learners take their own time translating the formal grammatical rules into their applied interlanguage rules. According to Krashen and his supporters, the only thing that counts is the amount o comprehensible f

Foreign Language Annals, 29, No. 3, 1996

XIREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS-FALL 1996

input, which will automatically lead to grammatical competence. Formalists, on the other hand, argue that learning must somehow precede and cause acquisition, or that learning and acquisition at least overlap (McLauglin 1978). Long (1983 and 1988) argues that formal instruction facilitates acquisition. Schmidt (1990) argues that nothing in the target language input becomes intake for language learning other than what learners consciously notice. He rejects the possibility for adults o incidental learning, in f the sense o picking up target language forms f from input, when they d o not carry information critical to the task at hand. Sharwood Smith (1981) claims that explicit knowledge may aid acquisition via practice.

Holistic Grammar Through Socratic Questioning (HGSQ): Theoretical Considerations Holistic Grammar is defined as grammar presented holistically-in whole piece reading materials-in contrast to grammar presented through isolated sentences as in traditional grammar teaching. Socratic questioning, in the context o HGSQ, involves f higher order critical thinking questions, answering which help learners discover grammatical rules by paying selective attention to specific formal features of the language as presented in the reading materials. Holistic Grammar through Socratic Questioning (HGSQ) is eclectic in the sense that it integrates concepts from both formalists and naturalists. It operates within the following theoretical assumptions: 1. Sources of L2 knowledge cannot be divided into independent binary categories. Classrooms should provide opportunities for both acquisition and learning, both explicit/ declarative and implicit/procedural knowledge. The amount o comprehensible input, f meaning stretches o language containing an f understandable message (even when it is embedded in subject-matter content), is insufficient for learners to acquire all the grammatical forms for effective communication (Swain 1985). Input may or may not facilitate second

language development, since only a small portion o this input serves as intake (Scarcella f and Oxford 1992,36). 2. In the case o adult learners, especially f those interested in academic work, we cannot assume that grammar will simply emerge on its own, given sufficient input and practice. (CelceMurcia 1991, 477) For them, formal instruction in grammar is needed so that their output characterizes structural features acceptable to the academic world and the professional/corporate world outside the academy. 3. Formal instruction in grammar is as important as input, if not more so (Higgs 1984 and Higgs and Clifford 1982). Teaching discourse without reference to the accurate use o gramf matical structures is tantamount to encourag ing students to exhibit the +rhetoric/- grammar syndrome. In other words, students writing, though coherent, may be incomprehensible to native speakers because o morphosyntactic f errors (CelceMurcia 1990, 145146). 4. For acceptable output, adult learners need, in addition to comprehensible input, awareness of linguistic features-language awareness (LA). Recent empirical studies (Allen, Swain, Harley, and Cummins 1990) show that LA-based strategies are more effective than strictly grammar-based ones. LAbased activities can speed up the rate of learning while their absence can contribute to fossilization (Kumaravadivelu 1994,37). 5. When learned as a decontextualized, isolated sentence-level system, grammar is not very useful. Learners should be provided with the context of the discourse within which the grammatical system works. If we teach grammar without reference to discourse, our students will fail to acquire the discourse competence so vital for developing effective reading and writing skills (Celce Murcia 1990, 145). 6. Grammar tasks that focus on consciousness-raising rather than practice facilitate second language acquisition by providing both implicit and explicit knowledge about the structural features of the language. In the words o Fotos and Ellis: f

404

FOREIGN LANGUAGE AALS--FALL 1996

Grammar tasks which emphasize consciousness-raising rather than practice appear to be an effective type o classf room activity, and their use is supported by what is currently known about the way a second language is acquired (1991,623). 7. Grammar tasks that require learners to use discovery techniques are a very effective way to actively involve them in the learning process because they can be highly motivating and extremely beneficial for the students understanding o English grammar (Harmer f 1987,39). 8. Inductive learning facilitates retention, especially in adult learners. Cognitive research has shown that discovering rather than being told underlying patterns favorably affects retention (Shaffer 1989,401). 9. Students enjoy and prefer the experience o inductive learning because they find it chalf lenging, not threatening (Shaffer 1989 and Fortune 1992). 10. The process of incidental intake of grammar-picking up grammatical formsa byproduct of exposure to comprehensible input, is accelerated when tasks demands f force attention on relevant features o the input because intake is that part o the input f that the learner notices (Schmidt 1990, 139). 11. Adult learners will be able to automize or proceduralize (Ellis 1990, 95) their explicit/ declarative knowledge o L2 grammatif cal features if the instructors lead them through input enhancement (Sharwood Smith 1991) grammar activities that function as pointers helping learners to pay attention to specific grammatical features in the input and to notice the gap between these features and the ones they generally use in their output (Ellis 1993,91). 12. Selective attention to formal features o f the language acts as a catalytic agent in the f cognitive process o grammatical consciousness raising (Rutherford 1987; Rutherford and Sharwood Smith 1985), which is an important factor in Adult Second Language Acquisition (ASLA). ASL learners are in a better

position to comprehend the input when they are able to identify specific grammatical features that signal specific meanings. This is b e cause incidental learning of grammatical features is most unlikely to happen in ASL learners when the input does not carry information crucial to the task (Schmidt 1990, 149). Paying selective attention to language forms facilitates + 1 (the next rule) in Krashens input theory. It will enable learners to notice the gap between their interlanguage output and the observed input, which, in turn, will help them reformulate and restructure their interlanguage, so that it conforms to the conventions of the target language and the linguistic community. 13. The instructors role is to provide a mechanism to help learners notice specific grammatical features in the input conveying specific meanings. The purpose is not only to speed up learners intake o the specific feaf tures noticed (if these have not been acquired already) but also to induce them to recognize the need for a modification of their interlanguage (Hedgcock and Lefkowitz 1993, 298). These intake facilitation (Ellis 1993a) activities could take the form o any learning f strategy appropriate to the learners interlanguage level. Instructors act as coaches in priming (Hedgcock and Lefkowitz) learners through contextdriven, problemsolving tasks, which would direct their attention to specific grammatical features in the input. 14. Selective reading is an effective tool in grammatical development because it helps learners be aware o their interlanguage prob f lems. This selective reading involves intensive reading (contrasted with extensive reading), paying attention to specific grammatical prob lems. The intensive reading strategies required for grammar study would clearly be different in nature from those used in reading extended prose. (Scott, Randall, and Hall 1992, 362). Reading extended prose (extensive reading) is the same as reading for information (content). Extensive reading does not necessarily provide learners the opportunity for meaningful use o the language. In fact, as f Swain states: Simply getting ones message

405

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS-FALL 1996

across can and does occur with grammatically deviant forms and sociolinguistically inappropriate language (1985,248). In contrast to extensive reading, intensive reading has the specific objective of comprehensible output-the delivery of a message that is not only conveyed, but that is conveyed precisely, coherently, and appropriately (Swain 1985, 249). In other words, the difference between extensive reading and intensive reading is that o simply comprehending the language and f forcing the learner to move from semantic processing to syntactic processing (Swain 1985, 249). By analyzing the grammar provided through intensive reading, learners b e come conscious of target language forms and are pushed to correct their deviant interlanguage forms. 15. Finally, what is expected of the learners from a specific grammar lesson is not accurate production, but just awareness (consciousness raising) of the gap in their interlanguage, so that they will be able to monitor their errors, given adequate time. The kind of grammar teaching that is required is one that aims at consciousness-raising rather than practice (Fotos and Ellis 1991, 609). This means that learners spontaneous production may still be inaccurate.

guage, but are either non- or poor readers/ writers in their first language) may become fluent speakers in SL. However, their language f may become fossilized (Selinker). Some o them may even end up speaking pidginized varieties o SL. Formal instruction in grammar f is not typically perceived as useful to this group, because picking up language by ear is enough to satisfy their survival needs in the SL community, no matter how fossilized or pidginized their language is. 3. Those who are literate in their first language but are beginning SL learners may benefit from grammar instruction, but it is better to delay it because when one is beginning to learn something completely new or different, one tends to approach the newobject holistically for a time before feeling ready to d o any meaningful analysis (CelceMurcia 1991, 463). 4. Intermediate and advanced level adult (postpubescent) learners, especially if they are literate in their first language and need the second language for academic purposes, will not only benefit from formal instruction but will also demand it from instructors. They learn SL both informally (from their environment, workplaces, peers, media, books, and so on) and also formally from classroom instruction. The approach I present in this paper adHolistic Grammar Through Socratic Questioning:Pedagogical Considerations dresses the needs of group 4 learners above, Based on my long experience in teaching for whom grammatically and stylistically acESL students in different countries and at dif- ceptable performance is crucial for academic ferent learning levels, my own retrospective and career success. In the words o Rivers: f experience in learning English as a Foreign Language from school age, my readings, and It is no use saying it doesnt matter my close observations o SL learners varying f how they are performing in the lanin age and linguistic and cultural background, guage as long as they get their message I have reached the following conclusions on across. Most o the learners we are dealf the teaching o formal grammar to SL learners: f ing with want to sound like educated in1. Preadolescent learners, irrespective o f dividuals; they dont want just to get the degree o their first language proficiency, f messages across with gestures and acquire both fluency and accuracy in the seccrude words without proper morond language almost as native speakers do, phemes and so on. (Arnold 1991,3) and may not need any formal grammar instruction. Holistic Grammar Through Socratic 2. Preliterate and semiliterate adults (those Questioning @IcsQ): Definition who may be fluent speakers of their first lanHGSQ is hereby defined as grammar induc406

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNAIS-FALL

1996

tively learned through critical, intensive reading o discourselevel text. A discourse-level f text is defined as a written piece made up o f a sequence of well-formed sentences, related to each other by unity o the topic expressed f (sticking to the point) and structural conventions (e.g., rhetorical patterns, such as comparison and contrast, argumentation, etc.) and connected to each other by linguistic devices (e.g., transition words). Socratic q u e s tions, in this context, are higher order, criticalthinking questions on selected grammatical structures, the answers to which help learners inductively find the grammatical codes o the f operating system of the language as used in the discourse-level text. The underlying premise is that holistic pref sentation o grammar through discourse analysis, contrasted with decontextualized grammar teaching through rote memorization of rules and sentence-level drills and exercises, may be an effective way to instill grammatical accuracy in academically bound adult learners.

are deciding factors in selecting any one grammar point to be taught at any one given time.

Holistic Grammar Through Socratic Questioning (HGsQ): Materials Materials consist o authentic, discoursef f level, expository pieces o writing, which serve as models. All three requirements-authentic, discourselevel, and expository-are important. Authentic means not specially written for teaching purposes. In other words, what the language learners are exposed to is not controlled and manipulated in any way to adapt to specific structural features. Since reading for information is an integral part o f HGSQ, the discourselevel reading text rnaterial should be a minimum o two paragraphs f long. To sustain students interest in the reading material, it should contain a great deal o f new information. An expository piece of writing is defined as a piece of prose explaining a point of view. Conversational-type language, such as dialogues and narratives and biographies, do not come under this definition. Models d o serve a role in this approach. The rationale behind using discourse-level models is that they provide students exposure to: (a) grammar (morphology and syntax), (b) sentence variety, and c) different modes of rhetorical organization-all these as used by native speakers in their writing. Repeated f exposure to these features o the language in the same model itself and in different models helps facilitate students natural acquisition process by activating the intuitive heuristics o the learner (Kumaravadivelu 1994,36 and f 1992, 45). Students inductively infer the morphological and syntactic properties. Thus models provide resources-the raw materials-for students to make discoveries. However, these models are not used in any way that the learners copy or adapt them. They are used as support materials to stimulate and guide learners awareness of discourse properties. Since the writing that follows is not on themes related to those in the f models, the chance o producing parallel texts is minimized.

Holistic Grammar Through Socratic Questioning @ I: Syllabus

Because HGSQ is basically a readingwriting integrated approach, in the sense that grammar lessons are integrated into reading and writing and are not taught as an end in themselves, there is no grammatical syllabus per se to be followed. TeachingAearning follows a topdown process (from reading for information to learning grammatical structures that convey specific information), not a bottom-up one (from grammar to content). Grammar lessons d o not follow any definite sequence. Socratic questions monitoring the comprehension of the reading materials provided, and the writing that precedes and/or proceeds from reading, lead to discussion of syntax and grammar. Thus grammar lessons occur in the context o reading. f Learners problems in reading comprehension resulting from the complex structural features of the reading material, structural irregularities displayed in learners prewriting, and similar other gaps in learners interlanguage

407

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNAIS-FALL

1996

Holistic Grammar through Socratic Questioning (HGSQ: Method The specific method used is discourse analysis by selective attention to specific structural properties in the context o the f models provided. However, this analysis is being done in nonlinguistic terms. In other words, technical terms that applied linguists use in discourse analysis, such as theme, rheme, anaphoric, exophoric, and cataphoric references, and so on, are replaced by traditional sentence-level grammar terminology, for example, subject for theme, comment or predicate for rheme, and the like. Which structural properties should be selected for analysis depends on the interlanguage level of the learners. The teacher can make this determination based on diagnostic tests given to the class, written samples from individual students, and the like. f The purpose o the analysis is not to produce mechanically the specific feature in fillin, substitution, and similar exercises or on any grammar tests, but for cognitive understanding. This method, in essence, is not different from what Fotos and Ellis talk about:
The approach we have in mind is one f that downplays the role o production f and, instead, emphasizes the role o cognitive understanding. One way in which this can be achieved is by constructing various problemsolving tasks that require learners to consciously analyze data in order to amve at an explicit r e p f resentation o the target feature. (1991, 609)

Holistic Grammar Through Socratic Questioning (HGSQ): Technique The specific technique used to analyze the discourse properties is Socratic questioning, a critical-thinking strategy employed to facilitate selective attention to specific structural p r o p erties. Socratic questioning is an offshoot of the critical thinking movement and is named after the teaching practice o the great f philosopher, Socrates, who lived about 24 centuries ago. Through the use o penetrating f

(thought-provoking) questions, Socrates helped his pupils gain deeper insight and understanding and develop coherent lines of reasoning on which to base their thoughts and beliefs. The technique Socrates used is called Socratic questioning. Teaching by Socratic questioning aims at helping learners find the answers themselves through their own thought process, not requiring them to simply accept the teachers statements on the topic. It incorporates four f major elements o critical thinking, namely, analysis, synthesis, application, and self-assessment. For example, a question such as How does the writer indicate the time o acf tions in the text we are reading? requires learners to a) analyze their concept about time in the real world with specific reference to how it is represented in the text (with selective attention to tense forms), b) recall and combine into one whole piece all the background information learners have gathered so far about the relationship between time and tense forms (synthesis), c) apply this synthesized knowledge to finding the answer to the question asked, and d) self-assess their interlanguage level on the specific structure under discussion (tenses, for example) by getting feedback on their answers from the teacher/ f tutodpeer. One important requirement o using the Socratic questioning technique is that even in giving negative feedback to learners answers (in case they are incorrect), the teacher very seldom makes statements, but s/he responds with another question to help them reevaluate their thinking process (why they gave an incorrect answer). Thus, Socratic questioning requires questions that teachers follow up with further questions (not with statements)-the chain continues until leamers find the answets through selfdiscovery. f All o us ask our learners questions. The traditional methodology is to ask factual (what) questions for which the answers are already in f the readingheaching material. This kind o question does not make learners independent thinkers who critically analyze what they learn and find answers themselves. Socratic questions are higher order cognitive questions r e

408

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS-FALL 1996

quiring answers to the whys, hows, and wheres. If teachers want to get higher level answers, they definitely have to ask higher level questions. Part of the reason why students d o not apply the grammar taught is that they are taught through noncognitive, mechanically driven activities, which do not encourage critical thinking. The teachers aim should be to help learners become independent thinkers. The Socratic questioning technique used in the HGSQ approach also involves addressing three interacting dimensions of the formal properties of language, namely, meaning/semantics, and function/pragmatics (Larsen-Free man 1989,188189). For example, students can f be asked to analyze specific parts o the readf ing text to find regularities o form (e.g., tense morphemes) and compare and contrast them with other forms. Depending on the interlanguage level of the students, they may be directed by the teacher in the analysis by form-related questions, such as What common features do you find in words X, Y, Z? These form-related questions should be followed by meaning-oriented questions, such as What does this form mean? How d o you know this? Isthis meaning always signaled by the same form? These questions are followed by function-related questions, such as Whydoes the writer use this form in this context? Where else in the text d o you find this form used? What conclusion would you draw about when to use and when not to use this form? Finally, students are asked to find a rule that applies to the form under discussion, used in other contexts in the same reading material. They are also asked to find those contexts where this general rule does not apply. The process requires reading the text f over intensively with the purpose o researching the meaning and function of the form used in other contexts. Critical thinking questions, such as Why do you think the author uses this form in the X context and not another form? What contexts help you draw conclusions about the rule formation? How did you arrive at this conclusion?, and so on, will help learners think grammatically and, in the

process, evolve as independent thinkers. In this way, classrooms may be converted into r e search labs where learners make discoveries that they can apply to their writing. Thus, learning grammar becomes a task-oriented process, a task being defined as something done, not just said or speculated about. What is being done here is discovering the rules of grammar-a grammardiscovery task. The technique helps learners analyze critically the input, form and test hypotheses, and in the process, evolve as critical thinkers and learners, taking responsibility for their learning. What is accomplished is consciousness raising-language awareness (LA). Kumaravadivelu explains the difference between LAbased and traditional grammar exercises: The traditional grammar teaching is teacher oriented, linear, and hierarchical; LA-based teaching is learner oriented, cyclic, and holistic. Grammar-based strategies emphasize memory, specific rules, and rule articulation; LA-based strategies emphasize understanding, general principles, and operational experience. (1994,3637)

f Awareness o the three dimension-form, meaning, and function-helps learners recognize the gap in their interlanguage and the need for modification. They may perceive the mismatch between target-like forms and their own incomplete grammars. What it means in application is that in their afterclass readings and writings they focus their attention on that part of their interlanguage grammar that deviates from target norms, or only approximates them. Holistic Grammar Through Socratic Questioning (HGSQ): S t e p Involved Any steps that take into consideration the theoretical framework and ,effectively put to use the teaching materials, method, and technique, as already explained, are valid and a p propriate for HGSQ. The following are the steps 1 usually adopt during a two-hour class period.

FOREIGN LANGUAGE AALS--FALL 1996

Usually, the class is divided into groups of four. There would be a recording secretary to take down notes for reporting to the class when needed. The group leader controls the discussion to see that it does not exceed the time limit and that the members stick to the point.
1. Rereading check on learners content schemata on the selected reading material (group work) Students answer teacher-generated questions (not more than five) on the content of the material (minimum two paragraphs long). The purpose is to facilitate the acquisition o f new content information. The groups recording secretary, helped by other members in the group, will write down the answers agreed upon by the group. These answers may or may not be in full sentences, depending on the students reading and writing level. In either case, students are advised not to spend any time at all on accuracy at this point.

tions on their answers to prereading questions.

2. Silent reading of the material for information-extensive reading Students read the material silently to get an 6. Intensive reading with selective attention overall idea about the content. Looking up words in the dictionary is discouraged, except to specific grammatical features (individual/ for key words. group work) Paying attention to the specific structural 3. Postreading check on content comprehen- features analyzed and discussed, students read parts of the text or the whole text to find sion (group work) Students answer both lower order (eliciting other structures expressing the same meaning. factual-what-information) and higher order, Socratic questions ( eliciting critical in7. Inductive formulation of rule(s) (group formation on the whys, hows, wheres, work) and whens) on the ideas expressed by the Students formulate the rule(s) (of present author. Depending on the reading level o the perfect tense, for example) themselves in their f students, these questions may be teacher- own words, by answering higher order quesand/or student-generated. The recording sec- tions, such as Why is the form used in the s p e retary writes down the answers. cific context? What difference would it make in meaning if another form (e.g., a past 4. Bridging the gap in students content time form) was used in the context? Do all schemata (group work) the examples you found in the text convey the Students compare their answers to preread- meaning o indefinite past time? If they f ing questions with answers to postreading dont, what, according to you, are the other questions and reformulate their content meanings? Can you find other examples o f schemata by making additions to and correc- the form from other readings, such as an arti410

5 Socratic questions on specific grammati. cal item($ to be taught Oeacher-guided) Directing students attention to specific grammatical item(s), the teacher helps students to think grammatically, using the technique o Socratic questions. For example, if f the lesson involves the present perfect tense, the teacher directs students attention to s p e cific paragraphs or sentences in the text where the author uses the present perfect tense and elicits answers to form, meaning, and function-related questions, such as: How does the form o verb X (e.g., has found) differ f from Verb Y (e.g., found)? When d o you think the action expressed by verb X took place? Can you figure out an exact date or time when the action took place? Why or why not? How did you figure it out? Why d o you think the writer uses this form in the specific context(s/? Answers to such questions will lead students to learn inductively the grammatical form that expresses the concept of indefinite time.

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS-FALL 1996

cle/short story in your favorite magazine or the reading assignments in your content classes or other ESL classes?What are they? Howdid you find them? What clues helped you find other examples? Did any specific vocabulary words help you identify these examples? The teacher can make up these questions, through which students make discoveries about the different forms o the tense, f the conceptual meaning, and the contexts in which the specific tense forms are used. This step, together with step lf6 (intensive reading with selective attention to specific grammatical features), provides students with the s p e cific grammar tasks to make their discoveries. 8. Grammar learning journal entry (Most of this is done as homework. Students start doing it in class and complete it at home.) This is a grammar awareness task. Students write down the product and process of their grammar discovery, comparing their old and new learning of the grammatical item taughvreviewed, with specific reference to a p plication in their writing. The thinking process involved in this step gives learners a chance to be aware o (notice) the gap in their interlanf guage. For example, if the students were able to formulate the rule that the present perfect tense conveys the concept o indefinite past f time, they enter it in their journal as a grammar discovery. Reviewing a couple of their writing pieces (usually done at home), they can find out what other tense form(s) they had been using to express this concept. For example, if they had been using the past tense form to express this concept, there was a gap in their interlanguage, which should be bridged . Students also analyze the process o f their discovery by asking themselves questions, such as How did I derive this rule (for example, about the present perfect tense)? What context in the reading passage helped me derive this rule? This kind o process f analysis makes students independent thinkers and learners, which in turn helps them extend their process of learning to situations outside the classroom. Students write down the

process of their discovery in their journal, in addition to the product. 9. Application (Individual work done as homework) Students go over one o their written texts f (i.e., prewriting, postwriting, journal entry, essay) and edit it for accuracy on the specific grammatical concept learned (i.e., indefinite time). This exercise induces learners to notice the gap in their interlanguage output (if there is any) and restructure their interlanguage f grammar in conformity with that o the target language.
10. Follow-up teachercheck Students hand in their edited texts, and the teacher gives feedback both on content and accuracy. Students are told in all these steps that, as in the case of any kind o discovery, they may or f may not get accurate results on their first try because learning by discovely may involve some confusion and frustration. However, students are helped by their peers and teacher to get confusions resolved at each step. It is also important to note that the teacher should r e frain, as much as possible, from answering students questions with statements. Instead, the teacher should try to answer students q u e s tions with counterquestions, directing students to the statement. In other words, the teacher should make sure that the students make the discovery themselves. The teachers role is just to aid in this discovery by means o f Socratic questions.

HGSQ: Salient Characteristics HGSQ is compatible with current perspectives on SLA, as discussed in the section HGSQ: Theoretical Considerations. It gives room for both acquisition and learning. The main thrust is that comprehensible input should be presented in such a way, especially to ASL learners, that it helps them be aware o f the structural properties o the target language f and eventually produce acceptably compre hensible output. An examination of the salient features o HGSQ may encourage f

41 1

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS--FALL 1996

teachers, teacher trainers, program designers, course coordinators, and material writers to consider the method in their search for nonf traditional ways o teaching grammar. To enuf merate the salient characteristics o HGSQ: (1) It is whole-leaming-oriented.Since language is presented as a whole piece, not f piecemeal, learners d o not lose sight o the primary goal of learning, namely, to acquire new global knowledge. Thus, learning grammar is put in the right perspective-a means of receiving and disseminating information, not an end in itself. ( 2 ) It is content-based because grammar learning takes place in the context o global f learning. In other words, grammar is not taught or learned for grammar per se but as a means o gathering information and sharing it f with others. As steps 1 show (see the section 4 Steps Involved), the lesson never begins with grammar, but with reading for building up new content schemata. (3) It is discourse-oriented in the sense that the materials used involve models consisting of discourselevel prose. Even sentence analysis takes place in the context o the discourse f presented. (4) It is context-based because all grammatical analyses and grammar exercises are done in the context of the reading information p r o vided in the text material. (5) It is meaning- and function-related.The technique o higher order, Socratic questions f helps learners discover the meaning and function of grammatical structures, which, c o n s e quently, will aid in comprehension. (6) It is task-based. Students are not passively listening to the teachers presentations on the structural properties o the language. f Instead, they are, in groups and individually, assigned tasks, such as analyzing specific data, in order to discover the rules and conf ventions o the language by finding answers to Socratic questions. (7) It is nonthreatening. Learners are not r e quired to put their learning into immediate practice. Neither is there any pressure o n learners to prove their mastery by any kind of performance tests. All that is required of them

is language awareness (LA). (8) It is learner- centered because students (in groups and/or individually) take responsibility for analyzing data and formulating rules. (9) It is teacher-guided, not teacher-dominated. The Socratic questions used in HGSQ just direct learners attention to problemsolving tasks (e.g., analyzing data to discover structural rules). Thus, the teacher does not dominate learners thinking. S/he just directs them to think grammatically, thereby helping them become critical thinkers. (10) Finally, HGsQ encourages self disciplining, selflmonitoring, and selkorrecting, which is what critical thinking is about. The kind o f responsibility and autonomy provided in making grammar discoveries motivates learners to be grammatically inquisitive to read and learn outside the classroom. This inquisitiveness, in turn, helps them to discipline themselves in their written performance by monitoring the gaps in their interlanguage and correcting their grammatical errors themselves. After all, students should not limit their learning to what is being taught in the classroom.

HGSQ:Outcome The learners enjoy learning grammar by making discoveries, which improves their analytic thinking ability. Inductive learning of rules helps them retain what they learn which, in effect, means grammar-awareness when reading and writing outside specific classroom situations. Teachers become Socratic teachers, meaning they do not tell the students what the rules (facts) are, but have students discover the rules (facts) themselves by analyzing the context(s) in which the structures are used in the reading passage.
REFERENCES
Allen, P., M. Swain, B. Harley, and J. Cummins. 1990. Aspects o Classroom Treatment: Toward f a More Comprehensive View of Second Language Education, 57-81, in B. Harley, P. Allen, J. Cummins, and M. Swain, eds., The Development of Second Language Proficiency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Anderson, J. R. 1985.Cognitive Psychology and its

412

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS--FALL 1996

Implications (2nd ed.). New York W.H. Freeman. Arnold, J. 1991. Reflections on Language Learning: An Interview with Wilga Rivers. English Language Teaching Forum 29, 1: 2-5. Bialystok, Ellen. 1979. Explicit and Implicit Judg ments o L2 Grammaticality.Language f Learning 29,3: 81-103. . 1981. The Role o Linguistic Knowledge in f Second Language Use. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 4, 1: 3145. . 1982. On the Relationship Between Knowing and Using Linguistic Forms. Applied Linguistics 2, 3: 181-206. CelceMurcia, Marianne. 1990. Discourse Analysis and Grammar Instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 11: 135148. . 1991. Grammar Pedagogy in Second and Foreign Language Teaching. TESOL Quarterly 25, 3: 459481. Ellis, Rod. 1990. Instructed Second Language Learning. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. . 1991. Grammaticality Judgments and Second Language Acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13,2: 161-186. . 1993a. Talking Shop: An Interview with Rod Ellis.EnglishLanguage Teaching Forum 47, 1: 3-11. . 1993b. The Structural Syllabus and Second Language Acquisition. E O L Quarterly27, 1: 91-113. Fortune, Alan. 1992. Self-studyGrammar Practice: Learners Views and Preferences. English Language Teaching Forum 46,2: 16@171. Fotos, Sandra. 1993. Consciousness Raising and Noticing through Focus on Form: Grammar Task Performance versus Formal Instruction. Applied Linguistics 14,4: 385-407. Fotos, Sandra, and Rod Ellis. 1991. Communicating about Grammar: A Task-Based Approach. 7ESOL Quarterly 25,4: 605-628. Hammerly, Hector. 1987. The Immersion A p proach: Litmus Test o Second Language Acquif sition Through Classroom Communication. Modem Language Journal 19,4: 395-401. Harmer, J. 1987. Teaching and Learning Grammar. London: Longman. Hedgcock, J., and Natalie Lefkowitz. 1993. Tuning in on Prime Time: Channel Effects in L2 Gram-

maticality Judgment Tasks. Foreign Language Annals 26,3: 297-307. Higgs, T. (ed.). 1984. Teaching forProficiency:7he Organizing Mnciple. Skokie, IL National Textbook. Higgs, T., and R. Clifford. 1982. The Push toward Communication, 57-79, in T. Higgs, ed., Curriculum, Competence and the Foreign Language Teacher. Skokie, IL: National Textbook. Krashen, Stephen, D. 1981. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon. . 1982.Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon. . 1985. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications,Torrance, CA Laredo. . 1992. Fundamentals of Language Education. Torrance, CA: Laredo. Kumaravadivelu, B. 1992. Microstrategies for the SecondJForeign Language Teacher. Modem Language Journal, 76,l: 4149. . 1994. The Postmethod Condition: [El merging Strategies for SecondForeign Language Teaching. E O L Quarterly 28, 1: 27-48. Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 1989. Pedagogical D e scriptions o Language: Grammar, Annual Ref view ofApplied Linguistics, 10: 187-196. Long, Michael, H. 1983. DoesSecond Language Instruction Make a Difference? A Review o the f Research. I D O L Quarterly 17,3: 359382. . 1988. Instructed Interlanguage Develop ment, 115141, in L. Beebe, ed., Issues in Second Language Acquisition: Multiple Perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. McLauglin, Barry. 1978. The Monitor Model: Some Methodological Considerations. Language Learning. 28,2: 309332. . 1990. Consciousversus Unconscious Learning. E O L Quarterly 24,4: 617-624. McLeod, B., and B. McLaughlin. 1986. Restructuring or Automaticity? Reading in a Second Language. Language Learning, 36,2: 109123. Rutherford, William E. 1987. Second Language Grammar: Learning and Teaching. London: Longman. Rutherford, William E., and M. Sharwood Smith. 1985. Consciousness Raising and Universal Grammar.Applied Linguistics 6 , 3 274-282. Scarcella, Robin C., and Rebecca L. Oxford. 1992.

413

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS-FALL 1996

The Tapestry of Language Learning: The Individ- Sharwood Smith, Michael. 1981. "Consciousnessual in the Communicative Classroom. Boston: Raising and the Second Language Learner." A p Heinle & Heinle. plied Linguistics 2,2: 159169. Schmidt, Richard. 1992. "Awareness and Second . 1986. "Comprehension versus Acquisition: Language Acquisition." Annual Review of A p Two Ways o Processing Input." Applied Linguisf plied Linguistics, 13: 20G226. tics 7,3: 23956. . 1990. "The Role o Consciousness in Sec- f . 1991. "Speaking to Many Minds: On the Relond Language Learning."Applied Linguistics, 11, evance o Different Types o Language Informaf f 2: 129158. tion for the L2 Learner." Second Language Research 7: 118132. Schneider, W., and R. M. Shiffrin. 1977. "Controlled and Automatic Processing: I. Detection, Search, Shiffrin, R.M., and W. Schneider. 1977. "Controlled and Automatic Human Information Processing: and Attention." Psychological Review 84: 164. Scott, Virginia M., and Sarah A. Randall. 1992. "Can 11. Perceptual Learning, Automatic Attending, and a General Theory." Psychological Review Students Apply Grammar Rules after Reading 84, 2: 127-190. Textbook Explanation?" Foreign Language Annals 25,4: 357-367. Swain, M. 1985. "Communicative Competence: Selinker, L. 1972. "Interlanguage." International ReSome Roles o Comprehensible Input and Comf view of Applied Linguistics in Language and prehensible Output in its Development," 235253, in S. Gass and C. Madden, eds., Input in Teaching 10,3: 209230. Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Shaffer, Constance. 1989. "A Comparison o Inducf Newbury House. tive and Deductive Approaches to Teaching Foreign Languages." The Modern Language Journal 73,4: 395403.

414