Grammar F
Grammar F
Grammar F
Language
An approach to its effects in Korean ESL Classrooms
TESOL MA
SOOKMYUNG WOMENS UNIVERSITY
FALL 2023
Introduction.
Having as introduction the previous passage, we can affirm that these lesson plans will
try to assess some of the conventional teaching approaches and perspectives that orchestrate the
English education system in South Korea. Furthermore, it will try to give some answers towards
the improvement of learners' overall language competence and communication skills. This self-
evaluation would therefore help in developing a pedagogic environment where both teachers and
students understand that learning a language extends beyond memorizing grammar, textual
structures, and their standardized conventions. Moreover, it will help in supporting the notion
that English education is a hard task extending beyond academic purposes and grades. This
argument emphasizes on the need of a switch from a mechanical way of learning that involves
memorization to one that addresses real communicative needs, and which does not involve any
pressure to avoid mistakes, nor do students require perfect sentences structures, perfectly stressed
words, perfect intonations or good pronunciations and accents.
The lesson plans presented below, have been though to point 3 specific challenges
personally observed in some Korean classrooms: to show the lack of spontaneity when
producing language, the focus of usage over terminology and lastly and to emphasize the
importance of scaffolding to ease the cognitive load and complexity of grammar, which can
sometimes be overwhelming for students, and tries to address it through activities related to
scaffolding. The main purpose is to provide insights of how grammar knowledge could be
applied through activities that showcase spontaneity and creative grammar, but also to call out
the importance of scaffolding learning through real- world application. Lastly but not less
important, these lesson plans have as mission is to create a more effective and engaging way for
students to learn and apply grammar knowledge in day-to-day life in a confident and enjoyable
way.
Learners’ Characteristics
Age. These lesson plans are aimed at teenagers aged 8-14 years old at an English
Hagwon in South Korea. These students are looking to improve their English language skills and
general proficiency. They possess a beginner-level grammatical knowledge. However, when
challenged with 'out-of-the-box' questions and requirements, their overall proficiency decays,
and they are usually not able to finish any given writing or speaking task.
Proficiency Levels. The English proficiency level of the target students has been defined
considering the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), developed
by the Council of Europe (2001), and can be presented as follows: Basic User (A1), (A2),
Intermediate User (B1).
A1:
A2:
B1:
Challenges. Among the challenges that could be considered Grammar and writing are
two of them. As noted by Widodo (2006), grammar enables students to affirm their
understanding of linguistic matters, namely listening, speaking, reading, and writing. It is an
important resource because it facilitates speech comprehension and enables communication
through numerous modes of expression. However, among Korean learners and grammar use, the
problem arises when students, even though mastering grammatical rules, do not have naturalistic
examples or experience of use in naturalistic or spontaneous environments.
The other challenge presented to these lesson plans is related to the confidence of
learners when it comes to English language production. The permanent use of traditional
approaches, in conjunction with preconceived ideas of how the English language should be
learned, replicated, or used, has blocked the authentic role of communication within South
Korean classrooms and users. This has led both educators and learners to lose sight of the
essence of language teaching and usage, which lies in adapting words, gestures, and expressions
to fulfill specific linguistic needs, rather than fixing on an unreachable ideal of linguistic
perfection or a ‘nativeness’ sense. This situation notably affects Koren learners’ performance,
since the moment confidence is lost, overall language production and flow decays.
Goals. Although these lesson plans and their theoretical defense can be presented at first
glance as having generalized objectives, it is important to recognize the use and transcendence
that this tool could have in the pursuit of language learning.
LESSON PLANS.
When it comes to spontaneity, Yule’s (1998) major argument goes around what he calls
real-world language teaching, emphasizing the value of communicative language learning in
students’ skills development. The principle can be concretized in different pedagogical practices
like contextual grammar lessons, task-based learning, interactive grammar lessons, and careful
error corrections, just to mention but a few. Additionally, Thornbury (1999), has a very wide
understanding of how creativity affects language learning and argues in favor of immersive
personalized learning environments. This approach involves freeing learners from grammar
constraints as well as encouraging their spontaneous expression in using the language without
worrying about mistakes. Furthermore, referring to Vygotsky’s perspective (1978), we may add
that an important part of a child’s education occurs in the process of collaboration with a
competent teacher as well as a stimulating environment, and that the benefits of these
interactions increase when the right amount of motivation is offered, since both elements
unconsciously act as models of desirable behavior, providing verbal assistance and input that
may be helpful to the child’s progress in the education process, or else adversely.
Research has repeatedly shown that teaching grammar as an isolated set of terms and
rules to memorize is ineffective and can deter students from writing. You can build grammatical
awareness and improve writing by helping students recognize, practice, and use grammar for
authentic purposes. (“Blog Post: Best Practices for Teaching Grammar,” 2023)
Do not inundate students with a set of rules and practices. Instead, give students time to
learn, practice, and apply one concept at a time. When assessing writing correctness, focus
mainly on the one or two concepts you introduced during the project. (“Blog Post: Best Practices
for Teaching Grammar,” 2023)
The three lesson plans presented in this curriculum embody a tailored approach to
address the unique challenges that South Korean learners often face within the context of their
educational system. Each of these lesson plans is underpinned by the belief that effective
grammar instruction should be responsive to South Korean learners' needs, drawing from
prominent voices in the field of language education.
The three lesson plans presented below are a general assessment of the problems that
plague the learner population in South Korea. Problems ranging from the rigidity of an
educational system that considers nothing less than perfect unacceptable and a culture based on
discipline and the comprehensive management of concepts. This and other situations have made
knowledge of grammar more pressing than the fluid management of its forms. This situation in
general has led many English language educators to not only question the teaching system in
general, but also realize that grammar instruction, to be responsive to Korean students and their
needs, must be based more on promote more fluid teaching approaches, related to day-to-day life
and that the general vision of the language should be directed more towards focusing on form
instead of usage.
Lesson Plan 1 is focused on improving the sense of spontaneity and creativity in Korean
students and making them understand in a practical way that the rigidity of form without practice
and without an educational environment that promotes spontaneity in the use of forms It is the
only way to improve your overall performance when it comes to English usage, always focusing
on the approximation that there should be with real-world communication. When we emphasize
the importance of spontaneity and creativity and real-life application, we are equipping our
students correctly and efficiently to face any communicative challenge that may arise in the
future.
Lesson plan 2 changes the focus and tries to go from grammatical terminology to its
practical use. This change aligns with several contemporary teaching approaches, some of those
presented by authors studied during this semester who affirm the importance of authentic tasks
usage and also of meaningful language use, as stated by Willis (2003) and Thornbury (1999).
This approach confirms that students consider the conventional approach of memorizing less
effective, and therefore, gives instructors a gap to transition towards more dynamic learning
styles focused on usage-based comprehension of English and its grammar. In this aspect,
receiving more attention could lead learners to achieve, without a doubt, a deeper, more
meaningful and functional meaning to the use of language.
Lesson plan 3 considers the great cognitive load and complexity of grammar, which can
sometimes be overwhelming for students, and tries to address it through activities related to
scaffolding. This, considering the position of authors such as Vygotsky (1978) and Thornbury
(1998), on the importance of this activity when we talk about successful grammar instruction.
This idea aims to prove that when we use support through stages to supervise and guide our
students in their activities, we make room for gradual, long-lasting systematic learning that has
the capacity to grow exponentially due to its projection of creating motivation and independence
in learning processes.
CONCLUSION
Our experience in the Korean classroom as instructors gives us a glimpse into this
society's way of working, which has greatly enhanced our vision of how grammar should be
taught. Previously, our focus was on form, believing that this would be sufficient for learners to
produce language. However, with the passage of time and practice, we can conclude that the
emphasis should be on communication and that that is the safe way afterwards. This change in
our perspective of what is considered traditional grammar instruction has become considerably
important in its effect on the characteristics and needs of the Korean student population.
When we talk about the importance of grammar instruction, Korean learners are no
exception, as this is considered fundamental in South Korean ESL classrooms. However, the
challenge as educators consists of how to impart grammatical and language knowledge in
general in an effective way, as proclaimed by Tütüniş (2012). The South Korean population
presents very specific challenges to its community due to the abysmal difference that exists
between Korean and English grammar and that is why our duty as teachers is to create specific
plans that meet all these needs. The general objective is to improve Second Language
Acquisition and at the same time mitigate some of the complexities, sometimes unnecessary, that
come by default when teaching the grammar of a language and that usually cause long-term
problems with production. linguistics of SL population.
To objectively see the situations that afflict students in South Korea, it is necessary to
reconsider the traditional approaches that we have been carrying with and from our own training,
and that appear to be invalid when it comes to studying and practicing TESOL. These are
generally influenced by rigid and inflexible points of view that hinder our evolution as educators
and prevent us from adapting to the specific needs of our students. This change in vision would
imply a shift in our paradigms and the way we view the learning process, forcing us to focus
more on the communication needs of our students instead of systematic evaluation and rigid
adherence to the perfect construction of grammatical structures, pronunciation and the avoidance
of mistakes by our students. This approach would lead educators to align themselves with the
vision of authors such as Thornbury (1999), Willis (2003), and Yule (1998), who have
challenged time and again the beliefs of a rigid and unfruitful educational system.
In conclusion, it is important to recognize that grammar is not in a static state within the
language but is probably the most dynamic and unpredictable system that can exist, since its use
will be shaped and adapted to linguistic needs, but also to the social, cultural or historical
changes of the population that speaks it. Kadariyah (2017) points out that the versatility of our
instruction will always emphasize practical application and that it can be used through activities
ranging from games to outdoor activities, songs or poems. All these methods being very useful
for the learner population in South Korea and their correct linguistic performative development.
REFERENCES
Eskey, D. E. (1983). Meanwhile, back in the real world…: Accuracy and fluency in second
language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 315-323. 4
Long, M. H. (1996). The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition.
Mart, A. T. (2013). Teaching Grammar in Context: Why and How? Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.1.124-129
McLeod, S. (2023). Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development and Scaffolding Theory. Retrieved
from https://www.simplypsychology.org/zone-of-proximal-development.html
The role of language in emotion: existing evidence and future directions - PubMed. (2017).
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.07.006
Thornbury, Scott. (1999). How to Teach Grammar. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Tütüniş, B. (2012). Grammar in EFL Pedagogy: To be or not to be: Explicit or implicit grammar
instruction in EFL. Retrieved in October 29, 2023
Widodo, H. P. (2006). Approaches and procedures for teaching grammar. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242295186_Approaches_and_procedures_for_teac
hing_grammar
Willis, D. (2003). Rules, Patterns, and Words: Grammar and Lexis in English Language Teaching
Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child
Psychology and Child Psychiatry, 17, 89−100.