The Language Teacher
October 2003

Grammar Instruction for Communication: Focusing on the Present Perfect

Makiko Kanda

Shiga Prefectural Adogawa High School



Introduction

In Japanese senior high schools, there has been a tendency to consider grammar explanation and communicative activities as two independent elements of the curriculum. The former involves an explanation of the forms and rules of English grammar and the translation of English sentences into Japanese. The inherent meaning of the form in the target language is not strongly emphasized, and a comparison of one form with other related forms indicating when and why students should choose a particular structure is generally neglected. The aim of communicative activities is to allow students to use English in communicative situations. In this paper, I suggest that we have to consider the complementary relationship between grammar explanations and communicative activities when attempting to promote effective language learning.

The Roles of Form-Focused Instruction

Some researchers have argued that form-focused instruction is effective and beneficial to second language classroom learners (Ellis, 1990, 1994; Lightbown & Spada, 1990; Spada, 1987). For instance, Ellis' (1990) view of language acquisition is based on the premise that it is through formal instruction that learners become aware of particular features of the target language and form explicit knowledge. According to Ellis, once consciousness of a particular feature has been raised through formal instruction, learners continue to remain aware of the feature and this increases the probability that they will notice it in subsequent communicative input, leading to the eventual acquisition of the feature.

One model of instructed second language acquisition (Fotos & Ellis, 1991) has a number of implications for formal instruction. First, it suggests that the goal of formal instruction should be directed at explicit knowledge rather than implicit knowledge. Second, it suggests that formal instruction should be directed at ensuring that learners know about a target structure and can monitor themselves when they use it; in other words, they can consciously correct their own output. Third, it suggests that formal instruction needs to be accompanied by instruction that provides learners with opportunities for communication with the target structure. Fotos and Ellis (1991) argue that the main mechanism by which formal instruction works is by developing explicit knowledge of grammatical features.

Problems in Grammar Instruction

There seem to be a number of problems in grammar instruction in Japan. The first problem is that grammar instruction in Japan has focused mainly on studying forms and translating sentences into Japanese. The inherent meaning of the target language form has traditionally received little emphasis, and a comparison of one form with other related forms indicating when and why students should choose a particular structure also has been neglected (Takashima, 2000).

Secondly, teachers have focused more on forms and have provided learners with little opportunity to use grammatical knowledge in a meaningful and communicative way. Ellis (1991) has pointed out that many learners have knowledge of the language, but they have little or no idea of how to use this knowledge in meaningful communication. As a result, many students experience difficulties producing the foreign language spontaneously. This suggests a need to expose students to more communicative activities (Celce-Murcia & Hills, 1988; Harmer, 1991).

Thirdly, it is insufficient for students simply to have knowledge of target forms, meanings and functions. In order for real communication to take place, students need a deeper understanding of the language and culture (Larsen-Freeman, 1991). Unfortunately, however, grammar instruction in senior high school does not seem to address these issues (Takashima, 2000). Students must be able to apply their knowledge by negotiating meaning as it is only through the interaction between the speaker and the listener that meaning becomes clear.

Fourthly, the examples in grammar textbooks in use in Japanese high schools have little context or relevance to students' daily lives. As a result, most students have difficulty applying them in meaningful interaction, and this leads the students to see those textbooks as boring.

Suggestions for the Classroom

Celce-Murcia and Hills (1988) have suggested that grammar classes should include four stages: presentation, focused practice, communicative practice, and feedback. Within this framework, I would propose the following. Firstly, in the classroom presentation stage for a new grammar structure, teaching students the core meaning of the structure by comparing one form with other related forms is necessary so that they can form their own hypothesis of when and why to choose a particular form. Secondly, drills and exercises are then valid in a supplementary role for hypothesis formation. Thirdly, in the classroom activities for confirming their hypotheses, communicative activities are needed to promote the acquisition of explicit knowledge that subsequently helps students acquire implicit knowledge. Lastly, feedback should be provided to the students. In this stage, writing, which is often neglected in Japanese junior and senior high schools, also has to take place. Students should write their own sentences using new structures in order to reinforce their learning.

The Present Perfect Tense

The present perfect verb tense was chosen for this study because it is a confusing verb tense for Japanese learners. The aspect system of English is different from that of Japanese. Thus, it is not advisable to rely simply on the translation of an English verb into a Japanese form.

We use a single form, -ta, in Japanese, to refer to past and completed events, but we use two different forms in English, the simple past and the present perfect. Japanese -ta has three usages: the past, completion, and reflection (and it also includes confirmation). Here are some examples:

  1. Kino sono kuruma katta? ("Did you buy that car yesterday?") (past)
  2. Shinsya mo katta? ("Have you bought a new car?") (present perfect)
  3. Kyo wa nannichi deshitaka? ("What was the date today?") (confirmation)

This variety of usages confuses students. That is why they cannot distinguish when to use the simple past or the present perfect. In junior high school textbooks the sentences with the present perfect are classified according to four uses, continuation (keizoku), experience (keiken), completion (kanryo), and result (kekka), and are applied to each sentence mechanically. It is doubtful that this treatment clarifies the core meaning of the present perfect in English. The core meaning of the present perfect is best summarized as follows: we can use the present perfect to say that an event or a state in the past is connected with the present time in some way, or has some results in the present (Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1999; Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, & Svartvic, 1985).

Hypotheses

In this study two hypotheses were tested:

  1. The study of a specific linguistic feature (the present perfect) through performance of proposed grammar instruction is more effective than study of the same feature through standard Japanese high school grammar instruction.
  2. A meaning-focused activity is more effective than a form-focused activity to facilitate the learning of the present perfect for high school students.

Hypothesis 1 was tested by comparison of a control group and experimental groups. Hypothesis 2 was tested by determining any difference between Experimental Group 1 and Experimental Group 2.

Participants

The three classes (n=102) of first-year Japanese public high school students (56 males and 46 females) aged 15 and 16 participated in this study. At the time that this study was conducted, they were taking three 50-minute grammar classes per week.

An overview of the teaching procedures and research design used in this study is shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Teaching Procedures and Research Design

1st lesson 2nd lesson
Standard explanation
Exercises from the textbook		 Exercises from the textbook
Posttest
Enhanced grammar explanation
Exercises from Forsyth and Lavender (1994, 1995)
Form-focused activity		 Form-focused activity
Posttest
Enhanced grammar explanation
Exercises from Forsyth and Lavender (1994, 1995)
Meaning-focused activity		 Meaning-focused activity
Posttest

In the first 50-minute lesson, the control group (n=34) heard a standard explanation in Japanese concerning rules for the present perfect and completed the exercises from the course textbook (Ishiguro, 1999, pp. 8-19). The exercises include the following: to translate sentences into Japanese and English, and to write verbs in a correct form. They do not seem to help participants understand the core meaning of the present perfect. In addition, these participants had no opportunity to engage in communicative activities during the study. A posttest was given in the next class after finishing the exercises.

Experimental Group 1 (n= 34) received the enhanced grammar explanation, completed activities taken from Forsyth and Lavender (1994, p. 51; 1995, p. 54) and engaged in a form-focused activity (see Appendix 1). The enhanced grammar explanation differed from the traditional explanation in that the core meanings of the present perfect and the simple tense were discussed and compared. In addition, the differences between the two verb sentences were illustrated in sentence level contextualized examples. Experimental Group 1 also completed activities in which they could use the present perfect and compare it with the simple past tense in a familiar context that went beyond the sentence level. This activity, which permitted a limited degree of autonomy and meaningful communication to take place, required the participants to change the underlined part of a dialog in order to create an original dialog. Then, they were required to memorize the dialog and perform it with their partner in the next class. Soon after their performances a posttest was given.

The participants in Experimental Group 2 (n=34) received the same enhanced grammar explanation and completed the same activities from Forsyth and Lavender (1994, p. 51; 1995, p. 54) as the participants in Experimental Group 1. In addition, Experimental Group 2 took part in a meaning-focused activity (see Appendix 2). One half of the participants received the instructions for person A, and their partners received the instructions for person B. The instructions were written in Japanese. Compared with the activity completed by Experimental Group 1, this activity provided the participants in Experimental Group 2 with increased opportunities for expressing form-function relations, comparing the present perfect and the simple past tense, behaving autonomously, and using the target forms generatively. As a final activity, the participants in this group memorized their original dialog and performed them in the next class. Soon after the performances a posttest was given.

Assessment Tests and Scoring

A pretest (see Appendix 3), a posttest, and a follow-up test were used to examine the effect of instruction. The order of the questions and proper nouns was changed among the pretest, the posttest, and the follow-up test. The pretest was given one week before the experimental instruction to determine if there were any significant differences between the groups. From a one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA), no significant difference was found among the mean scores of the three groups (F [2,99] =0.473, p 0.01). Therefore, the three classes were considered to be equivalent in their knowledge of the present perfect. The participants were then given a posttest just after the instruction and a follow-up test about three weeks later.

Each test required the participants to apply both knowledge of how to form the structure accurately, and knowledge of when to use the form appropriately. Participants were required to fill in the blanks by putting verbs into their correct form. There were 15 questions and the participants had 15 minutes to answer the questions.

Data Analysis and Results

Table 2 shows the mean scores and the standard deviations of each test, and Table 3 shows the results of a one-way ANOVA on mean scores between groups on each test.

Table 2. Mean Scores of Each Test

N pretest posttest follow-up test
X SD X SD X SD
Control Group 34 5.15 1.65 7.15 2.44 7.21 3.73
Experimental Group 1 34 5.59 2.26 11.24 3.16 11.32 3.06
Experimental Group 2 34 5.56 2.21 11.41 2.77 11.74 3.23

Possible test scores range from 0 to 15.

As seen in Table 3, there was a significant difference in the posttest (F [2,99] =24.664, p 0.01) and in the follow-up test (F [2,99] =18.431, p 0.01). Both the posttest and the follow-up test revealed a significant difference between the scores of the control group and Experimental Group 1, and a significant difference between the scores of the control group and Experimental Group 2 (see Tables 4 and 5).

Table 3. Mean Difference between Groups on Each Test by ANOVA

SS df MS F
Pretest between groups 4.137 2 2.069 0.473**
Within groups 647.999 99 432.883
Posttest between groups 395.901 2 197.951 24.664**
Within groups 794.619 99 8.026
Follow-up test between groups 426.588 2 213.279 18.431**
Within groups 642.698 99 11.572

**p<0.001

From analyses of the results, it should be noted that the groups in which significant differences were found were instructed with the experimental grammar explanation. In comparing Experimental Group 1 with Experimental Group 2, I investigated the effect of a meaning-focused activity. As the results of statistical analysis show, however, I found no evidence for task superiority (see Tables 4 and 5).

Table 4. Multiple Comparison by LSD (Posttest)

Mean differences between groups
Control Group-Experimental Group 1 4.09***
Control Group-Experimental Group 2 4.29***
Experimental Group 1-Experimental Group 2 0.17

df=99, LSD= 1.214, p<0.05 LSD=2.0768, *** p<0.001

Table 5. Multiple Comparison by LSD (Follow-Up Test)

Mean differences between groups
Control Group-Experimental Group 1 4.53***
Control Group-Experimental Group 2 4.11***
Experimental Group 1-Experimental Group 2 0.42

df=99, LSD= 1.255, p<0.05 LSD=2.138, *** p<0.001

Discussion

The present study had two purposes. The first was to investigate whether grammar instruction focusing on the core meaning of the target structure, which was demonstrated by contrast of two different aspects, was more effective than the standard grammar instruction taught in most Japanese secondary schools.

The second was to examine the effect of a meaning-focused activity. I turned my attention to the differences between the groups in which a form-focused activity was involved and the other group in which a meaning-focused activity was involved. The results of the study of the three groups suggest practical applications for the classroom.

In regard to the first hypothesis, I would argue that placing an emphasis on the core meaning of the target structure is an effective means to help students acquire the present perfect form. In addition, using pictures and providing a relevant context is crucial.

Although explanation of the core meaning of the present perfect has the potential for improving students' understanding compared with just giving students the standard explanation, instructions using only explanations might be insufficient. Learners still need opportunities to produce the target form(s) in multiple communicative situations that permit them to clarify and consolidate their knowledge of the form-function relations. This is a key point in Japan, because many Japanese English teachers have conceptualized the teaching of morpho-syntax and communicative activities as independent entities that should not be mixed. In contrast to this way of thinking, I believe that the most crucial types of knowledge can only be gained through the contextualization of morpho-syntactic structures in communicative contexts that allow learners some degree of autonomy.

The second hypothesis proposed that adopting a meaning-focused activity also leads to an effective understanding of the present perfect. That is, it was expected that a meaning-focused activity would develop such explicit knowledge. However, Experimental Group 1's gain in mean scores was larger than that of Experimental Group 2 (see Table 2).

Thus, in the present study it was demonstrated that both form-focused activity and meaning-focused activity effectively provided students with explicit knowledge. In sum, an appropriate use of communicative activities is indispensable in grammar instruction from now on if our goal is to make communication possible.

Conclusion

The present Course of Study for Foreign Languages by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Cultures, Sports, Science and Technology has placed an emphasis on fostering practical communicative competence. However, in high school, grammatical accuracy is considered the most important instructional goal, and which grammatical structure should be taught is still determined by a graded structural syllabus that focuses on one form at a time. Although the ideas may appear contradictory at first, grammatical accuracy and communicative ability can be compatible if certain improvement in grammar instruction is carried out. The present study has been focused on this situation.

I propose that effective grammar instruction in senior high school is a grammar explanation that is communication-oriented, coupled with structure-based tasks that are designed to foster communicative competence. That is, focusing on the core meaning of the form and encouraging comparisons with other forms are necessary aspects of grammar explanations. Furthermore, communicative activities should follow the grammar explanations so that students can have opportunities to test their hypotheses. In doing so, output and interaction will be enhanced and this will help students acquire communicative competence.

The availability and effectiveness of such instruction have been tentatively demonstrated in this experimental study. I hope my findings and suggestions can serve as an effective means of modifying classroom grammar pedagogy, allowing it to become more communication-oriented.

References

Makiko Kanda has been teaching English for 20 years at public high schools in Shiga. She currently teaches at Shiga Prefectural Adogawa High School.

Appendix 1

Form-Focused Activity

Change the underlined words into your own words.

Anne: Hello, David. How have you been?
David: Pretty good. I flew to Cheju Island on Friday, and I came back last night.
Anne: I've been to Korea a couple of times. In fact, I visited Seoul earlier this month. But I haven't been to Cheju Island. I've heard it's a very nice place.
David: I think it's one of the most beautiful islands in the world.

Appendix 2

Meaning-Focused Activity

(The cards are written in the students' native language, Japanese.)

[CARD A]
In the next situation have a conversation with your partner (B)
You made a plan to go to see a movie with (B) on Sunday. This is the situation in which you have a conversation with (B) at your meeting place. Decide which movie you are going to see. The conversation should proceed as follows:

  1. Now you are in front of Parco, which is your agreed meeting place. The meeting time was 1 pm. But you have lost your watch and you don't know the time, so you are late. What do you tell (B) to make an excuse?
    (You start the conversation.)
  2. Next, decide which movie you are going to see. You saw Green Mile last week and you want to see Mission Impossible 2 today. Discuss it with (B).
    (Your partner starts the conversation.)
  3. You have decided which movie you are going to see. Now you should decide the session you are going to see. You have checked the starting time in the newspaper and know what time the movies start. Tell (B) the starting time. But you don't have your watch. Ask (B) if he or she has a watch.
    (You start the conversation.)

Green Mile 1:10 2:15 3:50
Mission Impossible 2 1:15 2:00 3:45

[CARD B]
In the next situation have a conversation with your partner (A).
You made a plan to go to see a movie with (A) on Sunday. This is the situation in which you have a conversation with (B) at your meeting place. Decide which movie you are going to see. The conversation should proceed as follows:

  1. You came to the front of Parco at exactly 1 pm. But (A) didn't show up. After 10 minutes or so (A) came. (A) tried to make an excuse but you got upset with (A) and complained "I have been waiting for you for ten minutes."
    (Your partner starts the conversation.)
  2. Next, decide which movie you are going to see. You want to see Green Mile or Mission Impossible 2. Ask (A) if he or she saw those movies. Tell (A) that you want to see Mission Impossible 2.
    (You start the conversation.)
  3. You have decided which movie you are going to see. Now you should decide the session you are going to see. You don't know the starting time. Do you think (A) knows about it? You have a watch you bought yesterday and know the present time. Tell (A) what time it is and be boastful about your new watch.
    (Your partner starts the conversation.)

Appendix 3

Section of Pretest
(from Forsyth & Lavender, 1994, 1995; directions are written in Japanese)

  1. Write the verb in the parenthesis in the correct form.
    1. A: Are you taking English 101 this year?
    2. B: No, I (take, already) ________________________________ it.I (take) ________________________________ it last year.
      take-took-taken
  2. Looking at the picture, write the verb in the parenthesis in the correct form.
    1. It (grow) to a huge size. ________________________________
      grow-grew-grown
    2. It (grow) to a huge size. ________________________________
    3. In 1969, they (land) on the moon. ________________________________
    4. This is the first time I (drive) since my driving test! ________________________________
      drive-drove-driven

All materials on this site are copyright © by JALT and their respective authors.
For more information on JALT, visit the JALT National Website