In the past, in a traditional school room, grammatical competence and explicit understanding of language rules were emphasized. Grammar teaching held this essential part in terminology coaching that other aspects became either ignored or downplayed. People assumed that if the grammatical rules of a terms were mastered, the success of communication for the reason that dialect was ensured (Richards and Renandya, 2002, p. 145). Therefore, in those days this assumption required learners to pay much attention to grammar guidelines, sentence constructions and varieties. Every leaners, even children at a very young age, were designed to research the complicated guidelines of grammar (Dash, 2007, p. 91).
This point of view inherits alone several weaknesses. Dash also pointed out one of these, expressing that modern educationists imagine although a pupil has known all the grammar rules, she or he still makes the most elementary flaws in grammar. In addition, increased knowledge in grammar doesn’t help students to raise the ability to utilize english properly (p. 92). If learners just spend years learning only the formal properties of the vocabulary, they can not exchange information, exhibit ideas or emotions. To be able to communicate, they need to learn grammatical rules in real communication. That’s the reason why though students can do excellent exercises after learning grammar lessons, their ability to speak may not be improved. It really is traditional grammar teaching that led to inability in communication.
Acknowledging the imperfection of traditional view of grammar, things started out to change in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It is argued that “to be always a competent user of an language, one must understands not only the rules of grammar, but also the way the rules are used in real communication” (Richards and Renandya, 2002, p. 145). During this period, grammar teaching became less important or in some instances was abandoned. A great many other teaching methods that have been sought to replace traditional language teaching such as Communicative Dialect Teaching (CLT), Functional grammar and Consciousness-raising mainly targeted how to put it to use communicatively.
To replace traditional grammar practice, Consciousness-raising emerges. Consciousness-raising, also known as awareness-raising, is area of the process a learner can go through with new language. Students first become aware or aware of the new dialect, then recognise and recognize it, then produce it. Through Consciousness-raising, “learners will establish an explicit understanding of the grammar of the words which helps their potential to talk” (Richards and Renandya, 2002, p. 146. Opposite to traditional solutions, the purpose of instructing grammar in a consciousness-raising is to instil appropriate grammatical habits and habits straight through carefully-designed activities. This implies it is not always a must to teach grammar details explicitly. Learners may also be led to grammatical guidelines implicitly. Nevertheless, this method has its own limitations. Because this method requires thinking much, it might not be befitting young learners and beginners, or other people who prefer learning by practising to thinking may dislike it. Furthermore, the aim of this technique is helping learners to learn about the terminology and it does not highlight on immediate vocabulary use. Consequently, it may take quite a while for the learners to have the ability to speak in L2 spontaneously.
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) mainly centered on the communicative process and the negociation of interpretation between participants. Learners need to find out not only forms but also meanings and functions. That’s, according to Hymes (1971), in CLT they’ll develop communicative competence, knowing when to say what to whom and how. (Freeman, 2002, p. 121). Therefore, the activities in CLT tend to be meaningful jobs which entail real communication such as: terminology games, picture remove story, role play. . etc. Though this is an efficient approach of teaching grammar communicatively, it is believed to fill the distance in traditional grammar between forms and usage indirectly. The reason is that it generally does not necessarily package with grammar sytematically. Actually, when communicative approaches are adopted, they are often represented as a combination of traditional grammar with communicative enhancements. (Hinkel and Fotos, 2002, p. 79)
Another strategy related to CLT is educating functional grammar. It is an over-all theory of the organization of natural terms developed by Simon C. Dik, Michael Halliday and others. Generally, the difference between efficient solutions and traditional strategies is their target. Functional approaches generally focus on the communicative aspect of language in a particular context while traditional grammar concentrate on rules and syntax. Matching to the method, a given terminology form cannot promise an effective communicative skill without discussing the circumstances because some types of appearance may be appropriate while the others aren’t. Therefore, this way of teaching grammar provides leaners with good knowledge of using the right varieties in different situations. Nonetheless, “though representing an important advance in tying grammar to significant functions” (Hinkel and Fotos, 2002, p. 79), it causes some difficulty for learners. For example, systemic functional grammar produced by Halliday mainly handles meaning in framework, it is more complex than traditional grammar in terms of product labels while traditional grammar is more concerned with rules. Therefore, it might take the perfect time to learn practical grammar.
After a period where the role of grammar declined, in recent years it “has regained its rightful place in the dialect curriculum” (Richards and Renandya, 2002, p. 145). Now people recognize that grammar is very important to the leaners’ words development.
In today school room, though there a wide range of methods for educating grammar, some professors still choose traditional grammar because it does not require much of the their language competence beyond the texbook. (Ho, 2007, p. 28). This method is also backed by public attitudes. People suppose that in public high schools teachers will train good grammar for pupil success. Therefore, traditional grammar teaching is still widely accepted. There are others who believe an integrated method may be a good choice. In total, until now there is no finish which is the most practical method in instructing grammar and methodologists are still doing researchs to find as many effective ways as it can be.