Ellis's Q1: Should we teach grammar?

(1). Should we teach grammar?
Some researchers' findings: (p.85-86)
1. Krashen (1981) argued that grammar instruction could contribute to learning bu tthis was of limited value because communicative ability was dependent on acquisition.
2. Pica (1983), Long (1983), White, Spada, Lightbown, & Ranta (1991): These studies showed that, by and large, the order of acquisition was the same for instructed and naturalistic learners. Instructed learners generally achieved higher levels of grammatical competence than naturalistic learners.
3. Long (1988) concluded that teaching grammar was beneficial but that to be effective grammar had to be taught in a way that was compatible with the natural processes of acquisition.
4. There is also increasing evidence that naturalistic learning in the classroom (as, e.g., in immersion programs) does not typically result in high levels of grammatical competence (Genesee, 1987).

Rod Ellis's conclusion:
1. There is convincing indirect and direct evidence to support the teaching of grammar. Nevertheless, doubts remain about the nature of the research evidence. (p.86)
2. The grammar taught should be one that emphasises not just form but also the meanings and uses of different grammatical structures. (p.102)

Rod Ellis's conerns:
1. How do we measure grammar learning and teaching? constrained constructed responses (e.g., fill in the blanks, sentence joining, or sentence transformation) or free constructed responses (e.g., communicative tasks) (p.86)
2. Learners do not always acquire what they have been taught and that for grammar instruction to be effective it needs to take account of how learners develop their interlanguages. (p.86)