Consciousness Raising Grammar Tasks in an Advanced Learner Class Essay Example

grammar and allow them to ‘notice’ grammar so that they can use it correctly outside the classroom.

This really peaked my interest and I thought that this could be the answer to teaching grammar to a high level class. I started researching as much as I could about this particular approach and the more I researched, the more I thought that this could be the answer. In this paper I want to look at consciousness-raising as an approach to teaching grammar and see if this could help in teaching a high-level class. I must first identify some principles of consciousness-raising.

What is consciousness-raising? In Gary’s PowerPoint presentation it was defined as a cognitive approach to grammatical instruction and also as a learner centred approach, where the learners rely on their own intellectual capacities. Thornbury defines the aim of consciousness-raising as being ‘to provide the kind of data that is likely to become intake, which, when the time is right, will have the effect of triggering the restructuring of the learner’s mental grammar’ (2005:38).Ellis describes consciousness-raising as ‘an attempt to equip the learner with an understanding of a specific grammatical feature - to develop a declarative rather than procedural knowledge of it’ (Richards & Renandya 2002: 168). Both Ellis and Thornbury seem to agree that consciousness-raising allows the learner to ‘know grammar’ (Ellis 1997) or as Thornbury might say ‘notice grammar’ (2005).

This I think might be a useful way of teaching to a high level class.The class has been taught grammar for a long time, they know the structure and they know the terminologies, but can they ‘notice grammar’, as in, do they know when they have

made a mistake, or even know why they are using it? Can they then apply it when necessary? Ellis mentions that consciousness-raising aims towards an ‘explicit knowledge’ of grammar (Richards and Renandya 2002:171) and that this may interfere with the learner’s ability to communicate, ‘explicit knowledge is not much use when it comes to communicating’ (Richards and Renandya 2002:171).Rutherford and Sharwood-Smith seem to agree with Ellis, they state that ‘CR is considered as a potential facilitator for the acquisition of linguistic competence and has nothing directly to do with the use of that competence for the achievement of specific communicative objectives’ (1985). However if the class that is being taught is already able to communicate, and communicate well, then an explicit knowledge of grammar might not interfere. It might even help them. In fact Ellis does continue by saying that ‘although consciousness-raising does not contribute directly to the acquisition of implicit knowledge, it does so indirectly.

In other words, consciousness-raising facilitates the acquisition of the grammatical knowledge needed for communication’ (Richards and Renandya 2002:171). I tend to agree with Ellis, I have had an experience in my high level class which I believe could have been solved if the learner had an explicit knowledge of grammar; during a discussion one of the learners made a mistake, which might be considered as a ‘basic error’, and even after I had pointed out that they had made a mistake, they could not see where they had made a mistake or why it was wrong as we all had understood what they meant.Had they had an ‘explicit’ knowledge of grammar, which might have allowed them to ‘notice’, then I

believe that they would have been able to self-correct. Which in turn might help their communication, or at least prevent any ‘misunderstanding’ in the future. Ellis states two ways in which consciousness-raising can help with acquiring ‘implicit’ knowledge, these are ‘it contributes to the processes of noticing and comparing’, and ‘it results in explicit knowledge’ (Richards and Renandya 2002:172).

Therefore allowing the learner to ‘notice the effect that grammatical choices have on meaning’ (Thornbury 2005:38).So as to help the learner achieve this, some consciousness-raising tasks need to be implemented. Ellis states that ‘ a consciousness-raising task can be both inductive and deductive’ (Richards and Renandya 2002:172). I believe that a more ‘inductive’ task would benefit my learners more than a ‘deductive’ task, Ellis does state that ‘we do not know, as yet, which type results in the more efficient learning of explicit knowledge- probably both’ (Richards and Renandya 2002:172), however I believe that ‘inductive’ might be better because this would allow the learner to formulate his or her own opinion about the grammar.

By not ‘boring’ the students with rules, that they have heard many times before, and allowing them to theorise their own rules with little or no guidance from me, then I believe the learners might become more interested in class and find that they can ‘notice’ grammar and self-correct when necessary. Thornbury states that ‘you can lead a student to grammar but you can’t make him learn’ (2005:37) I believe this statement to be true, especially for my high-level class. They come to class and want to improve their English, but as soon as the word ‘grammar’ appears their enthusiasm lapses.I think it

is then possible, through the use of consciousness-raising tasks, to regain the learners’ enthusiasm. There are a couple of action points that I therefore need to implement so as to allow the learner to ‘notice’ the grammar, and therefore to achieve a better understanding of the language, without me spoon feeding them rules.

‘The best sort of consciousness-raising activities should attempt to raise the learner's awareness as to how form and meaning are connected - not through tedious explanation, or even demonstration, but in such a way that the connection is seen to matter’ (Thornbury 2005:38).One, which I believe is important, is preparing an appropriate consciousness-raising task that would allow the learner to ‘inductively’ learn about grammar. ‘Through carefully designed consciousness-raising activities the learners will develop an explicit knowledge of the grammar’ (Richards and Renandya 2002:146), through these activities the learner will become aware of the structures and thus be able to ‘keep an eye, as it were, on the structures that are being manipulated in the process’ (Ur: 1988:9).Ellis lists some different characteristics (1997:152/3) on what a good CR activity should do, they are also repeated in Thornbury (2005) they are: 1. To enable learners to identify the meaning(s) realized by a specific grammatical feature. 2.

To enhance input in such a way that learners are induced to notice a grammatical feature that otherwise they might ignore. 3. To enable learners to notice the gap between the way a particular form works to convey meaning and the way they themselves are using it.By following these criteria it is possible to help the learner identify and theorise about a particular grammatical feature. I need then

to create and plan appropriate tasks, taking care to follow the said criteria. A second action point to follow would be to hold back on error correction, it is important to let the learner arrive at their own conclusion, because of this errors are more likely to occur ‘Errors are seen as a natural phenomenon’ (source unknown, taken from Gary’s presentation on consciousness-raising).

Thornbury (2005:38) states that ‘consciousness-raising is like a slow-release pill that affects the system over time. The effects may not even be very direct’. So by allowing them the time to think and ‘notice’ grammar then the learner should be able to use it correctly. I would to finish off with a quote ‘anything that promotes noticing, after all, must be of enormous benefit to the learner’