Teaching Grammar Form: Direct instruction vs. contextual learning

I would like to share how these both methods can be integrated in a lesson by providing another example: The use of modal verbs for expressing ability, permission, and obligation.First, you could start with direct instruction by introducing the different modal verbs (can, could, may, might, must, have to, etc.) and explaining their specific uses and rules. Provide clear examples and let students practice constructing sentences with each modal verb through controlled activities like fill-in-the-blank exercises or sentence transformation tasks.Then, transition to contextual learning by integrating these modal verbs into a real-life simulation activity. For instance, you could set up a role-playing scenario where students have to plan a group project or a trip. They would need to use modal verbs to discuss what they can do, what they must do, and what they might need permission for. This way, students practice the grammar forms in a practical and engaging context, reinforcing their understanding and use of modal verbs in communication.

Although I don't have teaching experience myself, I believe both methods have their advantages. Direct instruction is clear and straightforward, ideal for beginners. Contextual learning connects grammar to real language use, making it more engaging and practical.While I'm still studying and don't have personal teaching experience, I imagine combining both methods would be effective. For example, teaching conditionals could start with direct instruction on their structures. Then, learners could practice using conditionals in role-playing scenarios, which would make the rules more understandable and relevant.

alista1802 пишет:

Grammar forms and terms are fundamental to mastering any language. However, there's a debate on the most effective way to teach these structures. Should they be taught directly, or is it better to integrate them within context? Let's dive into this discussion and share our insights, experiences, and strategies.

1. Do you believe grammar forms should be taught directly or within context? Why?
2. Can you share an example from your teaching experience where direct instruction or contextual learning of grammar forms was particularly effective (or ineffective)?

In my particular work practice, I work with both younger students and older ones, and the methods I use vary depending on the age group and their learning needs.
In primary grades, I stick more to direct instruction; after all, grammar is generally a new and confusingly complicated system that young students hardly know how to handle without explicit explanations. For instance, the ability to form some simple present tense sentences, explained step by step through repetitive exercises and clear examples.

With older learners, I like to use more contextual approaches. The majority of these learners would already have some grammatical background, so what I need to emphasize is how grammar works in a given context. For example, when teaching conditionals or modals, scenarios involving essay writing or debates can be employed.
I believe that the adaptation of the method to the level and needs of the students is important for their understanding and interest.

which method do you use more in your particular work practice?

I think teaching type of grammar depends on many factors. For example, some students may find it easier and more effective to learn a theme in context, paying attention to the sentence structure. While for other students it may be easier to learn by looking at the full table and the given structures.
For me, teaching in context seems more effective for adult students. But for younger learners I try to first give specific rules and tables for learning grammar