Consciousness Raising-based Grammar Teaching: Empowering .

Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 579efficient technique in improving the learners’grammatical knowledge.Last but not least, the study was conducted by [6]investigating the application of Consciousness RaisingTasks in teaching three grammatical features;Conditional Sentences, Simple Present Tense and SimplePast Tense of 30 students of English Department of NusaCendana University in Kupang, East Nusa TenggaraIndonesia. The study aimed to examine whether or notConsciousness-Raising Task is more applicable andvaluable in the grammar teaching and learning related tosuch three grammatical components above than that ofthe traditional method Presentation Practice Production(PPP). Analyzing the data from post-test and pre-test, theresult of the study eventually revealed that the studentsgot a better performance working on the post-test than onpre-test after learning with consciousness raising tasks.Consciousness raising approach is more effective thanPPP.The researches about CRGT would be still beingestablished considering how it maintains longer relevantapproach improving the effectiveness of formalinstruction. Most recent studies have also tried toinvestigate the effectiveness of Consciousness Raisingcorrelated to other language elements and skills, such asto listening, reading, writing, lexical mastery, etc.2.1. Grammar TeachingGrammar teaching is certainly an integrated partof the language teaching that has specific aims to beachieved through undertaking better use of the attainablemethodological resources. Before the twentieth century,along the history and development of the availablelanguage teaching methodological resources, languageteaching was in the condition of one single methodbound, such as manifested in the old classical oneGrammar Translation Method (GTM), bound togrammatical rules and translating target language andnative language. This method used grammar as thestarting point for instruction. The class under this methodbegan with explicit grammar rules presentation, followedby practices of applying those rules in sentences and thentranslating the sentences into and out of the learners’mother tongue, between the target language and nativelanguage. The instruction only was restricted on suchrepeated practices without facilitating the learners to thecommunicative language use. Thus, GTM had becomecontroversial and claimed as a traditional method withoutgiving significant contribution to the learners’ languageacquisition. It had been a derogatory label for a certainway on teaching languages [1]. Nevertheless, it has beenapparently meaningful to the golden history of thegrammar teaching implication since its essence isgrammar focus.Moving into the middle of the twentieth century,the language teaching methods were still method-boundviews. The old Direct method required that all languageteaching should be mediated through the target languagecaused generations of teachers go to through contortionsto avoid translation and to forbid the students to usebilingual dictionaries. Consequently, the grammarteaching while using this method became less emphasis.This was followed by the Audiolingual method then inwhich it was bound to the conformity to the behavioristprinciples of ‘mimicry-memorization’ and ‘overlearning’ through drilling [1]. Therefore, the grammarteaching also got less emphasis. There were also fringemethods in the late twentieth century such asSuggestopedia, Counselling Learning or Silent Way thatthey required almost an almost religious type ofobservance from their devotees. As a result, thesemethods had no strength to teach the grammar intensely.Similarly, some versions of the communicative approachhave severely discouraged specific teaching activities,not mirroring real life communication so grammarteaching went through decontextualized sentence-leveldrills.In this twenty first century, as the languageteaching methodologies are in the motion of post -methodera. They become free from method-bound constraints.They are able to adopt a more promising approach tolanguage teaching, including the factors linguistics,psychology, and sociology that shape the teachers’activities and that of the learners. However, in this era,the language teaching results are not as great as expectedsince the language teaching practices go to the centrifugalmuddle with biases. Even, the grammar teaching whichis crucial to help the learners to gain the grammaticallinguistic factor deviates from the target. Such this postmethod condition finally entails the decisions about theimportance and earnestness to return to method. As aresult, the grammar teaching also falls into a deepconsideration by the teachers to encourage them tochoose applicable grammar teaching type, more optimaltype of instruction that matches the individual learnershave preferred approach to language acquisition.Therefore, the primary question for the grammarinstruction emerges that is to what extent the grammarteaching directed at teaching specific linguistic items orrule wok.2.1.1Focus on Forms versus Focus on FormFocus on Forms and Focus on Form are twocontrastive grammar-teaching approaches with severalexact distinctive features. In [1], it is explained that Focuson Forms refers to instruction that seeks to isolatelinguistic forms in order to teach and test them one at atime. The language teaching is based on a structural244

Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 579syllabus whose instruction built around is counterproductive. It focused on accuracy with error avoidingand explicit corrective feedback in any forms. Thelearners’ attention is drawn to language use in discretegrammar rules or other metalinguistic information sinceit is rule-oriented instruction. In addition, [9] states thatFocus on Forms emphasizes the role of explicitknowledge in the acquisition process, including present,practice, produce (PPP) and explicit language instructionwith consciousness‐raising activities and input‐basedinstruction.In contrast, Focus on Form involves alternating insome principled way between a focus on meaning and afocus on form. Language teaching is based on a taskbased syllabus with faster learning and higher levels ofproficiency. It focused on integrating fluency andaccuracy with implicit corrective feedback during thecourse of communication activities. It is a meaningoriented instruction [9]. It assumes that acquisitionoccurs best when learners' attention is drawn to languageitems when they are needed for communication so thismeans that it emphasizes the role of implicit knowledgein the acquisition process including input flood, inputenhancement, and corrective feedback, and involvingactivities that also based on consciousness raisingapproach.2.1.2. Implicit Instruction versus Explicit InstructionAnother contrastive pair of grammar teachingapproach is implicit and explicit instruction types.Implicit instruction is the instruction includes an implicittreatment requiring the learners to induce the rules fromthe input examples given to them while explicitinstruction involves an explicit treatment where thelearners are given rules then followed up to practice usingthe rules [1].Besides, [10] defines "explicit instruction as ruleexplanation comprised part of instruction in which thelearners are asked to attend to particular forms and to tryto arrive at metalinguistic generalizations on their own.”It is overt error correction, intend to first and secondlanguage contrast and metalinguistic terminology.Therefore, it can be referred to as rule- or form-basedteaching Instruction, but the instruction is defined asimplicit if “neither rule presentation nor directions toattend to particular forms. The instruction provides inputflood (i.e., high-frequency input), interaction, and recasts(i.e., “rephrasing an erroneous learner utterance whilestill referring to its central meaning).”Furthermore, the effects of both instructions canbe understood from studies [1]. There were no overalldifferences between the two approaches but explicitinstruction seemed to work better for adult and femaleadolescent learners of above average intelligence. Theyretained knowledge of a rule better after they had gotgrammatical lesson explicitly. Some grammaticalstructures were more amenable to a deductive approach,while other were better suited to an inductive method. Inconclusion, both of these approaches have advantagesand disadvantages so the teachers can combine them tomake a flexible learning for the learners’ languageacquisition.2.1.3. Practice versus Consciousness RaisingPractice grammar instruction has similarcharacteristic with focus on forms approach. The learnersare required to produce sentences containing the targetstructure. They must do such activities repetitively andare expected to do so correctly, which is aimed atdeveloping explicit knowledge of the rule of languageproduction. Meanwhile, consciousness-raising approachdoes not expect the learners to produce the targetstructure but try to understand the target structure byformulating some kinds of cognitive representation howit works. It is directed only at explicit knowledge withoutexpecting the learners to use the rule in communicativelanguage comprehension [1]. This consciousness raisingapproach will be the central discussion topic of thispaper.2.1.4. Interpretation Versus PracticePractice grammar instruction approach is alsocontrasted to interpretation grammar teaching approach.Practice much concerns with the learners’ output to causethem change in developing interlanguage systems andproduction tasks. Interpretation approach emphasizes thelearners’ ability to identify the meanings realized by aparticular grammatical structure. It brings the learners tonotice the presence of specific feature in the input andcomprehend the meaning of the feature. Interpretationcorrespond the learners to the stage of input processing(intake) and require them to display their comprehensionof input. It constitutes the comprehension-basedapproach to grammar teaching to lead the learners to theway perceiving and processing the input.2.1.5. Deductive Versus Inductive InstructionDeductive approach to grammar teaching, whichis commonly called rule-driven learning [11] starts withpresentation of rules, practicing the rules and producingsentences based on the rules. This is the approach likeGrammar Translation Method where teaching beginswith presentation of grammar rules and proceeds topractice of the rules involving the translation of L1/L2,native and target languages. It puts too heavy emphasison written language and practically almost no orallanguage so it receives less support than inductive245

Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 579approach. However, it is in line with explicit instructionand practice and focus on forms approaches.Inductive approach is data driven learning [11]adopting implicit instruction, inducing the rules from theinput examples given to them. The learners are exposedto comprehensible language input and they will acquirethe system of the rules subconsciously through peripheralattention to language forms.2. 2. Consciousness Raising Grammar TeachingConsciousness Raising Grammar teaching is thegrammar teaching based on consciousness raisingapproach. Thus, it is namesd here in this paperConsciousness Raising-based Grammar Teaching(CRGT). It is something uncountable since much studieshas put consciousness raising into their different variableitems such as tasks, strategy, method, techniques, andactivities. Hence, consciousness raising are found underthe terms; grammar consciousness raising task,consciousness raising strategy, consciousness raisingmethod, and consciousness raising activities. What isconsciousness raising? It was first introduced byRutherford and Sharwood Smith (1985) and it refers toincreasing learners’ awareness through interactivecomponents and opportunities to engage in meaningfulinteraction and to negotiate meaning with the idea thatinteraction is essential to language acquisition [12] [13].In addition, CRGT allows the consciousnessraising activities for the learners with advantages such asallowing the learners; to understand the examples of thelanguage properties that are provided in different formsbefore they construct their own sentences and to obtainthe grammatical items in context, established by thelearners themselves [6]. CRGT is significant to apply inteaching grammar to increase the learners’ grammaticalcompetence.Furthermore, the latest theoretical concept aboutconsciousness raising in grammar teaching is stated topresent particular emphasis on three senses;consciousness as noticing, consciousness as monitoring,and consciousness as control. This is based on [14] whocalled for considerably using consciousness raisingapproach to grammar teaching rather than traditionaldrills in teaching activities since it is done under threesequentialsenses of consciousness; noticing,monitoring, and control. Consciousness as noticing isstressed on drawing students’ attention to specificgrammar items that is normally called as textenhancement and interpretation task. In consciousness asmonitoring, there is an interactive teaching learningactivity between the learners and teachers since itprovides grammar explanation and monitoring activitiesin which the former one focuses on teachers’ explanationof grammar rules explicitly and the latter is the learners’self-generated analysis of the grammar rules. Inconsciousness as control, eventually there are ongoingmonitoring activities toward the learners’ engagement inlanguage output tasks.2.3. CRGT Approach: An Implication to EmpowerLearner’s Metalinguistic Awareness in SecondLanguage AcquisitionOne important factor involved in learners’ SecondLanguage Acquisition (SLA) is metalinguisticawareness. It relates to explicit or conscious knowledgeabout language. Metalinguistic awareness means “theconsciousness or awareness of the linguistic aspects of alanguage” [16]. Meanwhile, the concept of consciousnessincludes attention, awareness, intentionality and control[17]. To conclude, metalinguistic awareness is a crucialfactor for learners’ SLA because it bridges them to obtainthe ability to be aware of the language and understand thelanguage. What is the CRGT’s implication to empowerthe learners’ metalinguistic awareness then? Languageacquisition reflects one’s gaining of the ability to beaware of language and understand the language. In fact,CRGT provides the learning stages make the learnersimmersed in the language with the whole processesempowering their metalinguistic awareness, such asdrawing attention, monitoring, and control rcumstantially empowers the learners’ metalinguisticawareness.3. RESEARCH METHODSThe study was descriptive study. The data wereobtained from the 32 ninth graders of UPT SMPN 1Lengayang responses toward illustrating activitiesinvolved in the three senses of CRGT. In the sense ofconsciousness as noticing, the learners’ activities wereprovided by a narrative text enhancement andinterpretation used to draw their attention to the fivemajor narrative tenses. Meanwhile, in the sense of theconsciousness as monitoring, it focused on grammarexplanation and monitoring activities, explanation of fivegrammar rules, and the learner’s self-generated analysisof them. Moreover, in the sense of consciousness ascontrol, they were engaged in language output tasks. Thedata were analysed inductively based on the concretefacts of the procedures applied in the three senses ofCRGT.4. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION4.1. FindingsIn the first sense, the percentage of the learners’attention and comprehension about the five majornarrative tenses when they were provided by narrativetext enhancement and interpretation was only 6.2 % of246

Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 579the 32 learners. After The learners having explanationand monitoring activities while empowering theirmetalinguistic awareness, they became aware ofincreasing their comprehension about the five tenses withsignificant increase in the output tasks that was 62.5 %.This means that CRGT is significantly contributive to thelearners’ acquisition of the five narrative tenses. Thelearners learn and work best under their awareness in thewhole stages of CRGT approach.The 32 ninth graders of UPT SMPN 1 Lengayangwere acquiring the grammatical items concerning thenarrative tenses through the implementation of CRGTapproach based on these following illustrating activitieslasting around the three senses of the consciousnessraising activities; noticing, monitoring, and control.4.2. Consciousness as NoticingIn this sense, the learners were provided anarrative text as the input enhancement andinterpretation. The narrative text conveyed entitled “TheGolden Star Fruit Tree” The learners were asked to noticeand drawn their attention on the five major narrativetenses. They identified them and filled in the table. In thiscase, two learners were able to notice and interpretsentence construction belong to each tense. The twostudents submitted the table completion before steppingforward to the second sense.4.3. Consciousness as MonitoringIn this sense, the learners got the explanationabout the tenses as triggering their self-generated analysisof them. They learned and referred the summary of thetenses. They actively and consciously focused onlearning the grammar lesson of the five tenses.4.4. Consciousness as ControlThe sense of consciousness as control engaged thelearners in language output tasks. They were tested withthe five narrative tenses as the control awareness of theirattempts to induce the grammatical rules of the fivetenses. Then they were asked to refill the table in noticingactivity as well. Twenty learners were finally able tocomplete the table.5. CONCLUSIONThis paper presents the effectiveness of CRGTapproach used for teaching some grammatical items insecondary schools or for high school students. Severalresearch findings before showed that CRGT mostly hadbeen applied in university or college level for grammarteaching with significant contribution in helping learnersbuild their consciousnessConsciousness Raising Grammar Teaching(CRGT) approach can work best helping the learnersconsciously acquiring their explicit knowledge,accuracy, and comprehension of the narrative tenses.CRGT has provided a logical way to avoid thegrammatical pedagogical problems about the narrativetenses faced by the ninth graders of UPT SMPN 1Lengayang in Narrative Text Comprehension. CRGT isconsidered effective to be applied in teachinggrammatical items in ELT classrooms since it canencourage the learners to be aware of what grammaticalfeatures exactly they are learning about and whatactivities they are involved in. CRGT approach enablesthe learners to empower their metalinguistic awareness asits three senses are awareness-based processes.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSA very sincere gratitude primarily goes to Prof. Dr. M.Zaim, M. Hum, for his meaningful learning andguidance, leading to notable self-development for all ofhis students to be highly motivated in initiating ascientific writing. The writer is very grateful to any kindhearted colleagues for any suggestions, views, andreviews in order to make this paper writingaccomplished.REFERENCES[1] R. Ellis, The Study of Second Language Acquisition,Oxford University Press, 1994, pp. 643-646[2] V. Roza, “A Model of Grammar Teaching ThroughConsciousness Raising Activities”, InternationalJournal on Studies in English Language andLiterature (IJSELL) Volume 2, Issue 3, March 2014,PP 1-5 ISSN 2347-3126 (Print) & ISSN 2347-3134(Online) www.arcjournals.org[3] S. M. R. Amirian, M. F. Sadeghi, “The Effect ofGrammar Consciousness- Raising Tasks on EFLLearners Performance”, International Journal ofLinguistics ISSN 1948-5425 2012, Vol. 4, No. 3,URL : http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v4i3.2392[4] D. Moradkhan, R. Sohrabian, Grammatical“Consciousness-Raising Tasks and the Improvementof Iranian Students’ Knowledge of Gram

grammar teaching based on consciousness raising approach. Thus, it is namesd here in this paper Consciousness Raising-based Grammar Teaching (CRGT). It is something uncountable since much studies has put consciousness raising into their different variable items suc