Proposing Structured Input Activities for Communicative Grammar Teaching

Sulistyani Sulistyani, Khoiriyah Khoiriyah


Current views of language teaching suggest that grammar is included in communicative activities. The reason is that discrete grammar teaching fails to produce fluent speakers while pure communicative classroom fails to produce accurate speakers. This article aims to share a way of teaching grammar in meaning-focused instruction namely structured input activities consisting of referential activities and affective activities. The activities not only affect learners’ input processing strategies but also affect their underlying system in such a way to be able to incorporate the target forms in their output. Besides containing input that facilitates form meaning connections they also force learners to focus on the target structure and to process it for meaning. This practice is expected to provide EFL teachers with useful practical insight to enhance their teaching practices.


structured input;grammar;communicative grammar teaching

Full Text:



Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown university round table on languages and linguistics: Language, communication, and social meaning (pp. 223–237). Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press.

Celce-Murcia, M., & Olshtain, E. (2000). Discourse and context in language teaching: A guide for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 197–261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2002). Doing focus-on-form. System, 30, 419–32.

Fotos, S. (2002). Structure-based interactive tasks for the EFL grammar learner. In E. Hinkel, & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 135–54). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gatbonton, E. & Segalowitz, N. (1988). Creative automatization: Principles for promoting fluency within a communicative framework. TESOL Quarterly 22, 3, 473–92.

Lapkin, S., Hart, D., & Swain, M. (1991). Early and middle French immersion programs: French-language outcomes. Canadian Modern Language Review, 48, 11–40.

Larsen-Freeman, Diane. (2001). Teaching grammar. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed., pp. 251–85). MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Larsen-Freeman, Diane (2003). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Boston: Thomson Heinle.

Larsen-Freeman, Diane. (2009). Teaching and testing grammar. In M. Long and C. Doughty (Eds.) The Handbook of Language Teaching (pp. 518-542). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Lightbown, P. (2000). Anniversary article: Classroom SLA research and second language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 21, 431–62.

Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nassaji, H & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching Grammar in Second Language Classroom: Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context. New York: Routledge.

Norris, J. & Ortega, N. (2000). Does type of instruction make a difference? Substantive findings from a meta-analytic review. Language Learning 51, Supplement 1, 157–213.

Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative Language Teaching Today. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Roediger, I. & Guynn, M. (1996). Retrieval processes. In E. Bork & R. Bork (eds.), Memory (pp. 197–236). New York: Academic Press.

Segalowitz, N. (2003). Automaticity and second languages. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 382–408). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Thomson, G. (1996). Some misconceptions about communicative language teaching. ELT Journal , 50/1 (pp. 9-15)

Tomasello, M. (1998). Introduction: A cognitive-functional perspective on language structure. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (pp. vii–xxiii). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning, 52, 755–803.

VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5–31). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Article Metrics

Abstract has been read : 612 times
PDF file viewed/downloaded: 0 times



  • There are currently no refbacks.

ETJ Stats


English Teaching Journal: A Journal of English Literature, Language and Education indexed by: