Inglés (pdf)
Articulo en XML
Referencias del artículo
Traducción automática
Enviar articulo por email
Citado por SciELO 
Citado por Google 
Similares en
SciELO 
Similares en Google 
Permalink
Introduction
Acknowledging the need for pre-service teachers (PSTs) to learn to support their students with the production of texts in their disciplines, many teacher preparation programs (TPPs) have incorporated traditional grammar courses in their curriculum. Recently, there has been a push from Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) scholars to switch to more functional views of grammar in these courses (Brisk & Zisselsberger, 2010; Gebhard, 2010; Schleppegrell, 2004). Such an approach, scholars claim, can help PSTs see grammar not as a system of rules but as a system of choices made according to the purpose and audience (Butt et al., 2000; Knapp & Watkins, 2005; New London Group, 2000; Schleppegrell, 2007). It could also allow them to focus on the meaning of their grammatical choices instead of on their correctness (Schleppegrell, 2004, 2007) and better prepare them to challenge traditional discourses that are reproduced through language (Fang et al., 2006). Finally, it could better equip them with the linguistic tools they need in order to help the new generations of students (Correa & Echeverri, 2017) since these students could potentially be more aware of the power of language to construct different representations of the world (Fang et al., 2006).
In spite of the potential benefits for PSTs in the different disciplinary areas, many TPPs are still cautious about providing instruction on SFL. Faculty in these programs feel that PSTs will not be able to understand the terminology, that SFL genre-based instruction may become prescriptive in terms of the textual characteristics that PSTs ought to understand and produce (Gebhard, 2010), and that the complexity of the metalanguage could generate frustration in PSTs and a sense of not understanding grammar topics effectively (Schleppegrell, 2007).
This caution is less noticeable in elementary and secondary tpps focused on areas such as science (Cardozo-Gaibisso & Harman 2019; de Oliveira, 2011; Harman et al., 2020; Palincsar & Schleppegrell, 2014), math (Accurso et al., 2017; de Oliveira et al., 2018), history (Carpenter et al., 2015; Schall-Leckrone & McQuillan, 2014); social studies (de Oliveira & Avalos, 2018); English Language Arts (Achugar & Carpenter, 2018; Brisk & Parra, 2018; Schleppegrell & Moore, 2018; Simmons, 2018), and Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) (Gebhard et al., 2011; Gebhard et al., 2013; Gebhard et al., 2014; Willett & Correa, 2013), where a considerable amount of work is being done to promote SFL views of language among pre-service and in-service teachers.
Salient among these works, is the one done by Fenwick et al. (2014) in Australia, and the ones by de Oliveira & Avalos (2018), Gebhard et al. (2013), Willett & Correa (2013), and Achugar & Carpenter (2018) in the United States. Fenwick et al. (2014) developed a unit in which PSTs in Australia were exposed to both traditional and functional grammar. The research focused on “the extent to which the teaching and learning strategies used during the 12-week unit were successful” (p. 11) and how they moved PSTs “beyond surface levels of knowledge to deeper understanding” (p. 13). The researchers found that although most PSTs got this deeper understanding, a small group of PSTs within the unit did not move beyond surface levels and seemed to need more time and practice working with this new complex body of knowledge.
De Oliveira & Avalos (2018), on the other hand, taught two graduate level courses-a social studies methods course and a reading course-in which PSTs learned how to identify language features that make texts complex and how to apply SFL constructs to their teaching practice. They found that the PSTs, at first, experience resistance to the complexity of the theory but that, if they are given time, they surpass it and when they do, they are empowered to learn more and therefore do more in their classrooms (p. 120).
Also, Gebhard et al. (2013) taught a Language and Language Learning course focused on SFL theories to pre-and in-service teachers in an MATESOL program in the United States. They found that through instruction on SFL, teachers’ conceptualizations of grammar shifted “from a traditional, form-focused, sentence-level perspective to a broader, more functional understanding operating in interconnected ways across register and genre features of texts” (p. 113).
Similarly, Willett & Correa (2013) taught an SFL course to in-service teachers pursuing a MATESOL program. The authors found that the in-service teachers gained many insights but also had some challenges which were related to the following SFL premises: authors aim to make sense, texts are situated and dialogic, purpose and audience influence linguistic choices, and feedback needs to be targeted and specific. Finally, Achugar and Carpenter (2018) taught ELA PSTs a grammar course based on a set of functional grammar premises and asked PSTs to analyze “grammar in the wild” (p. 96). That is, they had them analyze “examples of language that represent current usage or explore language choices they encounter outside the class” (p. 97). Although they did not report results of their study yet, they claim their interest now is on their responses or on how the PSTs “appropriate” in their everyday practices the apprenticeship they provide (p. 106).
The caution to incorporate SFL theories of language is, however, very visible in English as a foreign language (EFL) TPPs, both worldwide and in Colombia. Indeed, worldwide, in the last ten years, we can only find a handful of studies where SFL is being used in these programs (see Aidinlou, 2012; Emilia & Hammied 2015; Zhang, 2018). Of these studies, two focus on the effectiveness of SFL knowledge on the reading comprehension of Iranian PSTs (Aidinlou, 2012), and on whether SFL genre-based instruction can help PSTs develop their writing ability in English (Emilia & Hammied 2015). Only one study focuses on EFL PSTs’ responses to SFL instruction (Zhang, 2018). The study found that one of the in-service teachers in the study, John, responded with caution, or with what Zhang called an “interesting yet realistic” attitude, as he was motivated by the knowledge he was gaining but not sure about how useful it could be in his classroom (p. 244). Nonetheless, the study was conducted with in-service teachers who made part of a distance education program, not EFL PSTs in a regular program.
As for Colombia, a considerable amount of research is being produced by researchers from different universities on how to use SFL theories to improve both the reading and writing skills in Spanish among university (Barletta et al., 2020; Rojas et al., 2016) and school students (Chamorro et al., 2013; Moss et al., 2013) and the English proficiency of public school students, (Herazo, 2012; Padilla de la Cerda, 2016; Sagre & Herazo, 2015). However, very little is being done in terms of incorporating these theories to EFL TP. In fact, the only three studies reported by the literature on the use of SFL with this population are those conducted by Correa & Echeverri (2017), García et al. (2014), and Nieto-Cruz (2019). Of these, the only one that reports on results obtained during a grammar course is the one by Nieto-Cruz (2019). However, she focuses on a very different issue: the impact of SFL instruction on PSTs’ production of complex nominal groups in the written texts produced as part of a functional grammar course (Nieto-Cruz, 2019). The other two studies report on the reading difficulties EFL PSTs experienced while analyzing written texts in a reading strategies course (García et al., 2014), and the gains and challenges PSTs experienced with SFL views in an EFL writing course (Correa & Echeverri, 2017).
Considering this gap, this study explored the responses provided by a group of Colombian EFL PSTs to a pedagogical unit that promoted SFL views of grammar within a grammar course offered to them at a public university in Medellín, Colombia. The specific research question that guided this study was: How do EFL PSTs taking an English grammar course respond to the implementation of a unit that tries to promote SFL views of grammar? The unit used a model proposed by the New London Group (NLG), called the Multiliteracies model. The following sections provide more details about the unit, the method employed to collect and analyze the data, and the main findings, conclusions, and implications of the study.
Theoretical Framework
This study is informed by SFL theories and the NLG’s Multiliteracies Model for teaching, which aims to provide a framework for engaging students in critical literacy practices. The following paragraphs first present a brief overview of SFL and some of its main differences with traditional grammar, and then move on to a description of some relevant studies and the NLG’s Multiliteracies model.
SFL and Traditional Grammar
SFL is a meaning-based theory of language developed by Halliday (1978). It is different from traditional grammar not only in the way it conceives of grammar and grammatical elements and structures but in its foci and in its pedagogical approach. In regards to conceptions of grammar, traditional grammar sees grammar as a system of rules that are supposed to work in every text indistinctively of its context, purpose, and audience. As such, it does not emphasize different choices that language users have and make depending on these variables. Besides, it discriminates right from wrong structures (Bavali & Sadighi, 2008; Derewianka & Jones, 2010). Conversely, functional grammar, conceives grammar as a “system of choices” (Thompson, 2013) made according to context, purpose and audience, which means that language usage responds to the necessities of users to reach specific ends, for specific purposes (Butt et al., 2000; Knapp & Watkins, 2005; NLG, 2000; Schleppegrell, 2007).
In regards to grammatical elements and structures, while traditional grammar understands adjectives, for example, as what modifies a noun; nouns as the way to name people, animals, or things; and verbs as actions (Butt et al., 2000; Derewianka & Jones, 2010); functional grammar understands them as flexible categories. In this sense, a verb can act as a noun (e.g., swimming is fun), a noun as an adjective (e.g., I am taking swimming lessons), and so on (Bavali & Sadighi, 2008). Also, in functional grammar, a verb is not an action, as it can also denote behavior, relation, a mental activity, and so on (Bavali & Sadighi, 2008; Butt et al., 2000). Additionally, in functional grammar, verbs and other parts of speech (e.g., nouns, adjectives and adverbs) are believed to have graduation, which is used to express how strong or weak the feeling is; and to have force, which signals intensity (Martin & White, 2005). This means that words are not easily replaceable by any synonym, but they should be chosen according to the effect that the writer wants to produce in the reader. On the other hand, while traditional grammar presents modality as a feature that allows speakers and writers to express capability, permission, request, and advice (Martin & White, 2005; Thompson, 2013); functional grammar is concerned with how modality can be used to position the author and the receiver of a message by indicating not only capability or permission but beliefs and desires (Martin & White, 2005; Young & Fitzgerald, 2006). Finally, while traditional grammar presents passive voice as the omission of the subject, and active voice as the inclusion of it (Thompson, 2013); functional grammar presents it as a mechanisms which allows students to analyze how speakers and writers use passive and active voice to place or avoid responsibility, to give more relevance to the object than to the subject, and to eliminate the perpetrator (Young & Fitzgerald, 2006).
In relation to foci, traditional grammar focuses on form; that is, on the patterns the forms create, not on what these mean (Cruz, 2016; Derewianka & Jones, 2010). Functional grammar, on the other hand, centers its attention on meaning and how people turn words into messages; that is, how they select and combine language in order to create a texture that allows effective communication with specific audiences (Butt et al., 2000). For example, while traditional grammar makes emphasis on the rules for identifying and producing different sentence types (e.g., simple, complex, compound; Thompson, 2013), functional grammar emphasizes how clauses, not sentences, are common to different registers and how some of them serve to not only pack information into small units (e.g., compound-complex sentences often used in science) but also to exclude and marginalize certain groups of people from the discourse (Schleppegrell, 2004) as they are easily produced and understood only by the members of particular discourse communities.
Finally, in terms of pedagogy, traditional grammar puts all of its efforts on students’ understanding of isolated words and sentences. In this sense, as Ellis (2006) explains, traditional grammar instruction “can be conducted simply by exposing students to input contrived to provide exemplars of the target structure” (p. 84). These exemplars are usually evaluated through quizzes where the role of the word is limited to a narrow context (Cruz, 2016). Contrarily, functional grammar deals with texts which, according to Butt et al. (2000), are a “whole, harmonious collection of meanings that [have] unity of purpose” (p. 15). Indeed, SFL scholars do not separate the language from whole texts where different ideals and meanings are expressed (Schleppegrell & Go, 2007). Besides, traditional grammar has students either memorize formulas or discover the grammatical rules by themselves, so that they can then get corrective feedback, which is supposed to help them master the codes (Ellis, 2006). Functional grammar, on the other hand, provides a “visible pedagogy,” in which “what is to be learnt and how it is to be learnt […] is made explicit to students” (Emilia & Hamied, 2015, p. 159). In it, instead of memorizing rules, students explore aspects such as how grammar choices position the author and the audience, and how they express ideological leanings, wider interests, and relations of power (NLG, 2000; Wallace, 2003), and how grammar choices include or exclude certain types of populations (Schleppegrell, 2004, 2007). Additionally, grammar errors that students make are seen as valuable since they provide information about students’ background knowledge, which is the first available grammar source when expressing ideas. As Schleppegrell (2007) states, “clearly, every student’s way of using language should be valued and developed, and in no way should a focus on grammar be used to belittle the language students bring to school” (p. 126).
In sum, traditional grammar puts a high premium on form, on fixed rules that discriminate right from wrong structures, and on isolated sentences, all of which are taught uncritically. Contrarily, functional grammar prioritizes meaning and centers on: (a) the choices people make, (b) texts as a whole, and (c) how grammar choices position people, show relations of power, and include or exclude different types of populations. To do this, it does not rely on students’ memory but on students’ “explicit rhetorical understanding of texts and a metalanguage by which to analyze them” (Hyland, 2003, p. 25).
The New London Group’s Multiliteracies Model
A pedagogical framework that seems suitable for promoting a functional and critical approach to grammar among PSTs is The NLG’s (2000) Multiliteracies Model. According to the NLG (2000), this model “creates a different kind of pedagogy: one in which language and other modes of meaning are dynamic representational resources, constantly being remade by their users as they work to achieve their various cultural purposes” (p. 5). The model allows for a smooth transition from traditional grammar to SFL, as it starts with situated practice, a stage which explores what students know about the topic and allows them to express their pre-conceptions about specific grammar aspects, their functions, and traditional rules.
The model continues with overt instruction, a stage in which students are provided an explicit explanation of the concepts to be learned during the sessions (Cope & Kalantzis, 2015) and in which they are able to conceptualize and practice the proposed topics with classmates. The third stage is critical framing. In this stage, students deconstruct what had traditionally been presented as fixed (e.g., the grammar topic) in order to understand the hidden intentions behind the choices made in particular types of texts and their social implication. Finally, the fourth stage is transformed practice. In this stage, students take an informed stand on a controversial topic and use grammar choices consciously to achieve certain effects on specific audiences. Hence, they become active participants not only of their learning process but also of society, as they take tangible actions to transform discursive practices.
Method
The study presented here is qualitative in nature, as it takes “an interpretive, naturalistic approach to the world […] studying things in their natural setting, attempting to make sense of or to interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008, p. 5). The following paragraphs describe its context and participants, the pedagogical unit that was implemented, and how data were collected and analyzed.
Context and Participants
The context for this study was a Contrastive Grammar course offered to EFL PSTs on their fifth semester of the program at a public university in Medellín, Colombia. At the time of the study, the program was undergoing a deep restructuring which included a movement from cognitivist to more socio-critical views of language learning and teaching. This meant not only revising the entire EFL TP curriculum to make it more in line with these theories but also offering professional development to faculty on how to incorporate these theories and approaches in their courses and providing spaces for them to try out these new approaches in their courses.
The Contrastive Grammar course was one of the courses that faculty considered key in the TPP’s transition to more socio-critical approaches to language learning and teaching, as it had previously sponsored traditional views of grammar such as those described in the theoretical framework. The course was redesigned by the main author of this article under the guidance and supervision of the second author who was also her thesis advisor. The new course incorporated SFL views of grammar and followed the NLG’s Multiliteracies Model for lesson design. As seen in the theoretical framework, the model offered instructors the possibility to implement not only a new way of teaching that was more situated and critical but also a new way of assessing PSTs, as these were asked to demonstrate knowledge not by applying rules but by transforming texts in ways that agreed with the various contexts, purposes and audiences chosen by them.
The 21 PSTs taking the course, nine women and twelve men, came from various social class backgrounds (mainly working class) and were between 17 and 37 years old. Although most of them of them had never taught in a classroom in their lives, some were already teaching English classes privately and in various language centers of the city.
The Pedagogical Unit
The unit was taught in 16 two-hour sessions. These sessions took place twice a week from February to April, 2018. The unit was structured so that PSTs could work simultaneously on grammar topics included in the official syllabus and on four main SFL principles or premises, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1 Topics in Original Syllabus and SFL Premises
| Classes | Topics proposed in original syllabus | Premise | NLG Model |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1-2 | General views of grammar | Grammar is a system of choices made according to the context, purpose and audience | Situated Practice: What PSTs knew Overt Instruction: |
| 3-6 | Parts of speech | Grammar is a system of meanings with intention - Word choices have force (graduation) | Topic explanation Critical Framework: SFL premise, exercises to see the topic in a new light Transformed Practice: Transform, respond to or analyze a text |
| 7-11 | Sentence organization patterns (SV, SVO, SVOO, SVC, SVOC) Passive voice Modality | Grammar choices position both the author and the audience | |
| 12-16 | Sentence types: simple, compound, complex and complex compound | Grammar choices include certain types of populations and exclude others |
As can be seen in Table 1, Classes 1 and 2 focused on the first premise: grammar is not a system of rules but a system of choices made according to context purpose and audience. This premise was addressed with varied texts that used “incorrect” grammar but that responded to context, purpose, and the audience, and through texts that used “correct” grammar but did not match the context, purpose and the audience. The texts consisted of informal conversations via WhatsApp, songs such as Gangsters’ Paradise, by Coolio, and excerpts from films such as The Help, by Tate Taylor.
In situated practice, the texts were explored in terms of linguistic appropriateness; that is, PSTs identified what had traditionally been seen as grammatical errors (omission of words, indistinct verb tenses, contractions, replacement of phoneme by grapheme, etc.) and discussed whether the texts were written properly from a traditional grammar point of view. In overt instruction, language features which are traditionally associated with non-standard uses of grammar (e.g., abbreviations, acronyms, omission of words, replacement of phoneme for grapheme, omission of letters and punctuation) were explained. In critical framing, the above-mentioned texts were first read without a context and then analyzed in terms of their social impact through questions such as the following: What do these grammar choices mean in this context? Do they make sense for the sender of the message? How is the author’s own cultural background represented through these grammar choices? What is the power behind the message? Finally, in transformed practice, the PSTs were asked to transform those same texts by imagining different contexts and audiences.
Classes 3-6 revolved around parts of speech such as nouns, adjectives, verbs and adverbs, and on the second premise: grammar is a system of meanings. This premise was addressed using texts such as a political speech called A Call to Arms, delivered by the president of the United States of America, George W. Bush in 2001, right after the tragedy of September 11th (Young & Fitzgerald, 2006). In these texts, nouns were not always persons, animals, or things; verbs were not always actions; and words had different graduation (i.e., focus and force). In situated practice, PSTs were asked about what was traditionally understood as parts of speech and as nouns, adjectives, verbs, and adverbs. Then, traditional and functional definitions of these grammatical categories were explained. In overt instruction, PSTs were asked to read the political speech in small groups, and to classify nouns, adjectives, verbs, and phrases using the SFL categories of participants, processes, and circumstances. In critical framing, as a group, PSTs were guided to see the patterns, recurrences, and lexical chains in the political speech, and to deduce who was being represented as powerful or powerless and through which parts of speech. Finally, in transformed practice, PSTs were advised to analyze a text in a similar way and to replace specific parts of speech with different stronger or weaker words to contest the text’s initial version.
Classes 7-11 concentrated on sentence organization, passive voice, modality, and on the third premise: grammar choices made in texts serve to position not only the author but also the audience. This premise was addressed through a series of texts, such as the following: (a) the news reports called Colombia Wants Love from Washington (Schwab, 2009), published by the USNews, and Colombian Community Leader Allegedly Murdered for Standing Up to Palm Oil (Volckhausen, 2017), published by Mongabay News; (b) a letter to the editor of USNews about an article published by the Latin American Working Group (2018); and (c) a review about the TV show Narcos, published by the NY Daily News (Hinckley, 2015). In these text types, it is common to omit the subject, and to use modality to position the audience in specific ways.
In situated practice, PSTs’ previous knowledge of sentence organization patterns, passive voice and modality was explored by asking PSTs what they knew about the topic in terms of structure and function. In overt instruction, an explanation of the above-mentioned linguistic resources was provided considering the terminology and examples from traditional grammar; that is, through sentences. They were asked to notice the way sentences were organized, the subjects, the verbs, the complements and the objects, the verb forms, the omission of the subject, and the different degrees of modal verbs. In critical framing, the group was asked to do a critical analysis of how passive voice and modality positioned participants in the above-mentioned texts, and of the impact these structures had on the message and on the readers. For example, with the text Colombian Community Leader Allegedly Murdered for Standing Up to Palm Oil (Volckhausen, 2017), PSTs were first guided to discover how the use of passive voice helped the author of the text present the perpetrator of a crime as not responsible, and minimize the importance of knowing who the perpetrator was and what she or he had done to the victim. Second, PSTs were invited to analyze how the two types of modality used by the author, deontic (usually expressed through rules and desires) and epistemic (usually expressed through reasoning, evidence and beliefs), were not simply words that expressed mode but powerful tools used to position the audience and reflect the author’s interpretation of the world. Finally, in transformed practice, PSTs were required to first read an article called Being a Woman, published by MediBiz TV (n. d.), and then write a letter to the editor expressing their opinion about how the author used language to position women in negative ways.
Classes 12-15 centered PSTs’ attention on simple, compound and complex sentences and on the fourth premise: grammar is a system of choices that includes some and excludes others. This premise was addressed through academic texts such as Transforming Lives: Introducing Critical Pedagogy into ELT classrooms (Akbari, 2008), which deployed a complex kind of language that would be difficult to understand by people who are not part of that academic discourse community. In situated practice, PSTs’ previous knowledge of sentence types, conjunctions, and clauses was explored by asking them to identify these features in different sentences. In overt instruction, the texts were used to explain how simple, compound, and complex sentences worked; that is, how dependent and independent clauses were linked by conjunctions and how some sentences could have more than two clauses. Then, in critical framing, PSTs were asked to analyze how meanings were packed in compound, complex, and compound-complex sentences and the function of this. They were also guided to understand the following: (a) that there are discourses that are not accessible to certain people who do not manage the codes of a specific discourse community because of the way they compact ideas in a clause, (b) that to be accepted by those discourse communities, authors need to make choices that are consistent with the ways members of that discourse community write (c) that not abiding by these ways of communicating has implications in terms of whether they can be considered legitimate members of that community or not. Finally, in transformed practice PSTs were asked to, based on a text they read, create a text where they explained an issue related to education to a person who they felt needed to access that information. To do this, they had to transform complex-compound sentences into compound or simple ones, and make other linguistic choices that allowed them to present the information in simple terms.
Lastly, class sixteen provided PSTs the opportunity to express their final thoughts about grammar after the implementation of the unit. As a preparation for this session, PSTs were given four questions to which they needed to respond in a written way. The following questions were asked:
What is your vision of grammar now?
What did you learn about grammar in this course?
Why is it important to learn grammar?
How would you approach grammar in your classes when you become a teacher?
Why?
The questions were intended to uncover how the unit implementation had pervaded their visions about grammar and if they saw it possible to adopt these visions in their profession as language teachers.
Data Collection
This study used video recordings of all class sessions, interviews to salient cases, reflection tasks, and samples of PSTs’ work as main sources. To collect these data, written consent was procured from both the TPP Committee and the PSTs, who were reassured all ethical procedures would be followed, including the preservation of their anonymity. A summary of all data collected is inserted in Table 2.
Table 2 Data Collected Throughout the Project
| Premise 1 | Premise 2 | Premise 3 | Premise 4 | Total per instrument | |
| Video recordings | 2 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 16 |
| Interviews | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| Reflection tasks | 21 | 21 | 21 | 21 | 84 |
| Final reflection | 0 | 0 | 0 | 21 | 21 |
| Samples of psts’ work | 21 | 21 | 21 | 21 | 84 |
| Total per premise | 45 | 47 | 48 | 68 |
The interviews happened after completing the cycle of implementation for Premises 1, 2 and 3. They were conducted with the PSTs that showed salient responses to the unit whether of openness, caution or resistance. Their purpose was to get a deeper understanding of the PSTs’ responses to the different tasks proposed during the lessons. Reflection tasks were collected also after these cycles and at the end of the whole implementation. They were intended to uncover PSTs’ self-assessment of their understanding of the premises, except for the final reflection task, which intended to get an overall picture of their views of grammar upon completion of the course. Finally, samples of PSTs’ work were collected during the stage of transformed practice and contained the texts that the EFL PSTs created as a response to the ones they had read.
Data Analysis
To analyse the data, video recordings and interviews were first transcribed in individual Word files, and then put in pdf format along with samples of PSTs’ work and reflection tasks. Once in PDF format, they were uploaded onto Nvivo10 in different folders and analysed both deductively and inductively (Richards, 2003). That is, four categories were created initially, corresponding to the four main premises discussed throughout the course. Then, data collected for each premise (samples of PSTs’ work, reflection tasks, video-recordings, and interviews) were read at least three times by the main author to identify how PSTs had responded to the premises. As these were read, it was evident that PSTs’ responses fluctuated between openness, caution, and resistance. Therefore, the researchers decided to create three codes under each premise corresponding to each of these types of responses and to start classifying PSTs’ responses using these.
As they did this, they realized that while some PSTs might be resistant to one premise, they might be open to the next. To be able to track changes in PSTs’ responses, they created a chart which showed each student’s response to each premise. This allowed them to see that while some PSTs responded consistently with openness, some responded consistently with caution or resistance, and some swung back and forth in their responses depending on the premise.
To make sure that what was put under each category/code was a strong evidence of it and not forced into the category/code, the second author would always read the evidences uploaded by the first author onto each category/code. To consider a piece of evidence as strong, researchers considered linguistic markers such as really, totally, undeniably, for openness; a little bit tricky, maybe, could be; and never, impossible, for resistance. They also took into account the number of evidences. That is, a student’s response to a premise was considered open or resistant only if at least two sources of data clearly showed that response. Anything that was not considered a strong evidence of openness or resistance was moved to the category of caution.
Openness, then, grouped reflections, statements, or work in which PSTs expressed direct agreement with the premise and the SFL view of grammar that it implied. Caution clustered PSTs’ reflections, statements, or work that neither challenged nor supported the premise or the view of grammar that it intended to promote, and which was too general to reflect a commitment to the premise. Finally, resistance assembled those reflections, statements or work in which PSTs showed direct opposition to the premise, by disagreeing with it or relying heavily (and almost exclusively) on traditional views of grammar.
Although the category openness was the strongest category, with 14 PSTs locating themselves within it, we decided to incorporate the category swinging back and forth, because it contained a considerable amount of PSTs as well (five). Although the resistance category only had two PSTs, this category was maintained as it was very salient.
Findings
Data analysis revealed that PSTs responded mostly with openness to the SFL views of grammar to which they were being exposed, although some of them swung back and forth in their responses and some others showed sustained resistance.
Sustained Openness
A first and prominent group of fourteen PSTs responded with consistent openness to the new views of grammar being explained. An example of these PSTs was Daniel. As the other 13 PSTs, from the beginning of the course, he showed openness to all the premises and a disposition to not oppose the new ideas or fight for his former views of grammar. Indeed, during the first activity, which was a whole class discussion about the implications of deploying certain types of grammar in certain contexts (e.g., formal grammar in a familiar context), he made it clear that he agreed that grammar had to be modified according to the audience.
Daniel1 (22:34): I think it is a matter of not offending someone else. It is subjectivity2. If I know my friend, I am not going to be so polite because I know who she or he is [….] I can say stupid to a person without being that explicit, something like “you seem like you don’t have background” (Video Recording 2, Class 1, February 20, 2018).
His statement, “If I know my friend, I am not going to be so polite because I know who she or he is” showed his agreement with the fact that there are different ways of expressing a message that are determined by context and audience, and that using formal grammar does not necessarily work for all contexts and audiences; in this case, a familiar conversation with a friend. In other words, he showed he had no problem seeing grammar as constrained by context and audience rather than as a fixed system of rules.
Additionally, during the study of premise three (grammar is used by authors to position both themselves and the audience), for example, when writing a letter to the editor in response to the article “Being a Woman,” Daniel showed that he had no trouble accepting the fact that words position people, or in this case, that authors position characters with their choice of words. Below are some excerpts from Daniel’s letter.
Daniel: First of all, at the beginning of the text, I could find a very sexist saying. “behind every successful man there is a woman,” which let me think of two intriguing language choices. First one, the preposition behind. Why behind? Why not next to or alongside, for example? This shows how women and men’s relations of power are positioned […] What I am actually concerned about is that these two words (successful and behind) are depicting women as dependent and mediocre (Sample of PSTS’ Work 3, Daniel, April 3, 2018).
As can be seen, Daniel was able to see that some of the linguistic choices being made by the author represented women as weak and needy and dependent (Why behind?). He was also able to suggest a better choice of words which would provide a fairer representation of women (next to or alongside). Additionally, he noticed that the word successful, used by the author to qualify men, depicted women as mediocre.
Daniel’s openness, not merely to the premise but to the course, was confirmed in the interview with his instructor at the end of the unit. In this, when asked how he had felt in the course, he did not hesitate to confess that he was not very fond of grammar but that the course had helped him see the social impact grammar could have.
Daniel: […] I actually feel so connected to it [the grammar course] because, I don’t know if I am a socialist, but I really like discussing things. Not because you tell me something I have to believe it, why? I really like to demonstrate what I see and what other people see and really get to a conclusion or a consensus of things (Interview with Daniel, April 12, 2018).
His statement “I like to demonstrate what I see and what other people see” suggests that, to him, grammar had provided him concrete tools that he could use to prove the text did carry the meanings that he intuitively identified.
Swinging Back and Forth
A second group of five PSTs swung back and forth in their responses to the SFL views of grammar to which they were being exposed. An example of these PSTs was David. Below are some examples of his fluctuating resistance, openness and caution, and of how these varied depending on the premise.
Temporary resistance
David’s resistance to the SFL view of grammar being presented was evident during the first activity proposed in the course, which intended to address the first premise: grammar is a system of choices constrained by context, purpose and audience. As mentioned before, in this activity, PSTs were presented with some texts that, while deploying unconventional grammar, served the communicative purposes they intended: to negotiate with a friend (WhatsApp conversation), to express feelings (a song), to give advice and leave a message (a movie). When asked in class about the pertinence of using these unconventional grammar forms in those contexts, David’s answer was rather radical.
David (25:23): I would not answer to someone who speaks like this. It makes my eyes bleed. However, there is not a problem with the message because both of them seem to be not very well educated people, so they chat like that (Video Recording 1, Class 1, February 20, 2018).
David’s answer showed that even though he agreed that those grammar choices were made for a specific context (“so they chat like that”), he did not accept the idea that he could make those choices when talking to a friend (“I would not answer to someone who speaks like this. It makes my eyes bleed”), and he believed that regardless of the context, situation, purpose or audience, the use of those unconventional grammar forms was an indicator of people’s low socio-economic status.
David’s resistance to the premise was confirmed in the responses he provided to the questions included in the first reflection task. Indeed, when asked what he had learned about grammar, he let the instructor know that, for him, grammar was still a fixed system of rules to be applied in every context.
Q1. What have you learned about grammar up to this point in the course?
A1. I have learned that grammar is a set of rules that compose any language (Reflection Task 1, David, February 27, 2018).
Then, when asked if his views of grammar had evolved, he again resisted the premise by implying that there is only one accepted way to communicate that works for all situations and that consists of using standard grammar forms.
Q2. Have your views of grammar changed/evolved/been transformed after this unit? How?
A2. I am one of those people attached to grammar rules in every situation. I am aware of my own mistakes, even so I always try to connect them in order to speak and write as “perfect” as possible (Reflection Task 1, David, February 27, 2018).
As can be seen, David was not only attached to grammar rules but was convinced there was a right way of writing that could be applied to every writing situation regardless of context, purpose and audience.
Temporary Openness
David’s resistance to the premises was not consistent throughout the course, as was obvious during class discussions of Premises 2 and 4. As previously mentioned, the second premise intended to show that authors do not only make structural choices, but they make meaning choices which express their intentions. Among the activities proposed to foster understanding of this premise, PSTs were asked to do an analysis of a political speech by George Bush which was presented in the work of Young & Fitzgerald (2006) using SFL tools such as participants, processes, and circumstances. During the socialization of the analysis of this speech, David’s comments denoted much more openness to the ideas of grammar being promoted in class than he had expressed ever before.
David (28:00): I think it is important to dissect these types of articles to identify the real intention of the article or the people who is performing the speech. This technique is very relevant for me (Video Recording 1, Class 5, March 6, 2018).
David’s insistence on “dissecting” the articles to identify “the real intention” of the author indicated that even though he did not explicitly acknowledge that grammar choices were determined by context, purpose, and audience, he was willing to acknowledge that grammar choices were based on intentions, not rules alone.
David also showed openness to the fourth premise which stated that grammar choices can include or exclude readers who do not manage the same type of discourse. This was very evident during the reflection task for this premise. Indeed, when, he was asked what he could say about grammar (specifically simple, compound, complex, and compound-complex sentences) excluding people, he responded the following:
David: The way a text is written influences the range of people that will be able to understand it. Thus, the more complex you write using complex sentences, the more limited your audience will be. Of course it does not mean that all texts must be written using simple sentences, but the public we want to address is something we must take into account before writing any text (Reflection Task 4, David, April 19, 2018).
As can be seen, he had no trouble accepting that complex grammar forms can limit the audience that a text can reach and that writers need to think of their audience before deciding whether to write in complex or simple ways.
Temporary Caution
As opposed to what happened with Premises 1, 2 and 3, David’s reaction to the third premise, that grammar is a way of positioning both the author and the audience, was one of caution. That is, he did not strongly agree or oppose this view. An example of this is the letter he wrote to the editor of the article “Being a Woman” that he wrote responding to the way grammar forms (e.g., voice and modality) were used to position women in specific ways. In this letter, even though David acknowledged that the text was unfair to women, he did not mention the role of grammar in how the author was positioning women, which suggests that he is not in agreement or disagreement with the premise. Here is an excerpt from his letter:
David: I agree with you that “women face many injustices and inequalities globally”. However, dear sir or madam, I must say that your article positions women as defenseless victims from a social and biological perspective (Sample of psts’ Work 3, David, April 3, 2018).
hen, when asked what he could say about the relation between grammar and positioning, he demonstrated that it was clear for him that “grammar is more than a simple set of rules.” However, he did not say anything about grammar as a way of positioning:
Q2. What can you say about the relation between grammar and positioning after this unit?
A2. Grammar is more han a simple set of rules. Its use is handy for the writer to express and idea in a very specific way depending on their standpoint
(Reflection Task 3, David, April 3, 2018).
In sum, David showed varied responses to the premises. These responses ranged from resistance to openness to caution, depending on the premise, and showed that, to the EFL PSTs in this course, not all premises were equally difficult or easy to accept.
Sustained Resistance
Finally, a small group of only two PSTs showed continuous resistance to the premises or the SFL views of grammar that were being presented. One of those two PSTs was Felipe. He was older and more set in his ways than the other PSTs. His responses to the activities throughout the course demonstrated a resistance to the new views of grammar that was difficult to overturn.
As mentioned before, the first premise showed grammar as a system of choices made according to context, purpose and audience. Among the activities proposed to foster this SFL view of grammar was the analysis of a WhatsApp conversation between friends which PSTs had to transform so that it would be more reachable to wider audiences. In his transformed text, Felipe replaced the features that are common in WhatsApp messages (e.g., omission of letters; use of idioms, emojis, acronyms, and unconventional punctuation; lack of capitals; replacement of word for unconventional graphemes, of phonemes for graphemes, and of letter for word; and use of slang) with more conventional forms. However, what was most remarkable about his work was not the fact that he modified these expressions since the modifications would indeed make the text more reachable to wider audiences, but his answer to some of the questions posed afterwards. Below are the questions and his responses:
Q1. What audience(s) do you think it can reach now (after the changes)? Why is it important?
A1. Now it can reach all native audiences. It is important because anybody can learn how to negotiate with a friend.
Q2. How does the writer of the message represent her/himself before and now?
A2. It would seem that the author belongs to a higher socioeconomical strata (Sample of psts’ Work 1, Felipe, February 22, 2018).
As can be seen, Felipe refused to see that native speakers’ grammar choices also vary depending on the purpose of the message and who the receiver is and not only on their socioeconomic status. His response (“It is important because anybody can learn how to negotiate with a friend”) suggests not only that he still believed everybody negotiates the same way regardless of where they come from, who they are, their purpose, or their audience. It also suggests that he had not realized that there are circumstances and media, such as a conversation through WhatsApp, that permit the deployment of a different type of grammar.
After the first premise was explored, Felipe was invited to an informal interview where he confirmed his resistance to the premise and to the course. Indeed, when asked about his experience in the course in terms of challenges and gains, he responded:
Q1. How have you felt in this course? (in terms of challenges and gains)
A1. I also think that I should be making more contrast from my Spanish perspective of English. That is to erase some Spanish interferences that I have in my English. I think I should be doing that (Interview with Felipe, April 3, 2018).
Finally, at the end of Premise 2, which promoted the idea of grammar as a system of meanings and word choices made purposely, Felipe’s reflection task showed his sustained resistance to the premise. For this task, PSTs were asked questions that intended to decipher how the activities and discussions carried out in class had influenced PSTs’ views of grammar. Felipe’s answers showed resistance to the premise in at least two ways: (a) by refusing to tie parts of speech to meaning in spite of the insistence on this point throughout the unit and (b) by his denial that his views of parts of speech had been influenced by the unit.
Q1. What have you learned about parts of speech up to this point (end of unit 2)?
A1. I reexamined how parts of speech can generally be identified by context. I need to constantly engage in discourse analysis, so I can use English in context
Q2. Have your views of parts of speech changed after this unit? How?
A2. I don’t think so, but I did see that It is really necessary analyses words inside a context, not alone.
By using the word reexamined in the answer to the first question, it could be inferred that the unit had actually had some impact on his views of grammar. However, he responded the opposite, “I don’t think so,” when inquired about this issue. This was a form of resistance since he denied, once again, that the unit had had any impact on his views of grammar. Besides, in this first answer, he did not mention anything about parts of speech having the potential to adopt different meanings, which was the central idea with this premise.
Discussion and Conclusions
The above-mentioned findings are significant in several ways, but most importantly, in that they prove that it is possible to teach SFL views grammar in EFL TPPs in Colombia. As mentioned in the introduction, EFL TPPs in the country are still very cautious in terms of fostering these views, either because of lack of familiarity with them or because of the idea that SFL views of grammar are too difficult to understand (Derewianka & Jones, 2010). The results of this study demonstrate that, in spite of their complexity, PSTs in general are open to these views of grammar and do not have a problem with them or with their being different from the ones with which they have been in contact during most part of their academic life. They also suggest the need to (a) expect different types of responses to SFL views of grammar on the part of the PSTs, (b) be prepared for having PSTs fluctuate in their responses to the different premises, and (c) anticipate sustained resistance from some PSTs before they get the full extent of these views.
These findings are consistent with those of other studies such as the ones conducted by Fenwick et al. (2014) in terms of the pedagogical movement from traditional to functional grammar not being problematic and allowing PSTs to move from surface levels of knowledge to deeper understandings. Moreover, they are aligned with results from Zhang (2018), de Oliveira & Avalos (2018), and Correa & Echeverri (2017) in terms of PSTs being generally open to the new theories but also cautious about their application potential (Zhang, 2018), and at times even resistant to their complexity (de Oliveira & Avalos, 2018; Correa & Echeverri, 2017), and the need to give them time and sustained support. They also echo results from Gebhard et al. (2013) in the sense that they confirm that PSTs’ conceptualizations of grammar not only do shift through time, as PSTs get engaged in the different text analysis and production activities that usually make part of these language courses, but become more functional and situated.
Nonetheless, results from this study also complement or further previous studies by making evident aspects that are not brought up by them. These aspects include the fact that PSTs’ responses do not always move in a straight line from resistance, to caution, to openness; but they may very well vary depending on the SFL concept or premise that is being taught. Therefore, SFL instructors need to be attentive to which concepts and premises it is that PSTs are finding more difficult to understand or accept. Besides, as opposed to other studies, this study shows that the NLG’s Multiliteracies Model is an effective tool in helping PSTs make that move from traditional (in situated practice and overt instruction) to more functional and critical views of grammar (in the critical framing and transformative practice stages).
Finally, this study presents, as others do not, concrete evidence of how functional grammar courses can serve as spaces to discuss issues of positioning, exclusion, intentions, and power. In this course, as they studied grammar functionally, PSTs engaged in critical analysis of topics such as “nativespeakerism,” non-standard ways of speaking, indoctrination from politicians, representations of women in discourse, etc. Although the response to this methodology was not total openness from all the PSTs, the course did get enough positive responses to be considered a good starting point in the search for how to teach grammar in a more functional and critical way. Nowadays, when English is no longer considered the property of the “native speakers” but the property of all English users (Jenkins, 2015; Love & Ansaldo, 2010), it is vital that EFL teachers adopt new views of grammar as contextual, situated, critical, and intentional. That way, they can stop seeing contextualized uses of the language as mistakes and start seeing them as necessary to express not only feelings but cultural backgrounds, resistance, and political leanings depending on the situation and the audience.
In spite of its significance to the field of EFL TP, the study had some limitations. First, it was restricted in the functional grammar topics it could cover as the contents of the course (e.g., parts of speech, passive voice, modals, sentences types) were already established and could not be changed. As a consequence, this study did not help EFL PSTs understand how other traditional grammar topics (e.g., verb tenses and verb moods) could also work for understanding the premises. Also, it did not produce a series of strategies that could be used to address causes for caution or resistance on the part of EFL PSTs. Besides, the study was not designed in a way that causes for openness, caution, and resistance on the part of EFL PSTs would be explored in depth. As such, the researchers can only speculate about what caused some of the PSTs to have these responses.
Openness, for example, seemed to be connected to PSTs’ social ideals for teaching languages. Indeed, the fourteen PSTs who showed sustained openness to SFL views of grammar were mostly young eager language learners with evident preference for teaching languages with a social focus: one of the researchers taught them a course the semester before the implementation of this unit where they proposed language classes that included valuing diversity, reflecting about what happens in the world and social justice. Caution, on the other hand, seemed to be connected to two factors: (a) PSTs’ lack of familiarity with the theories and (b) lack of time to address each premise in a relaxed way. In terms of the first, as mentioned earlier, the PSTs had not been exposed to these theories before, a phenomenon that was made worse by lack of continuity in the process as the five PSTs who showed it had not been very constant in their attendance to the sessions. In regard to the second one, throughout the unit, the instructor felt the time allotted to each premise was not enough to provide sufficient examples and sustain proper discussions on the topics. Finally, resistance seemed to also be connected to both the previous phenomena and PSTs’ status, as both of the PSTs who showed it were working as in-service teachers and receiving pressure by their institutions to prepare students for standardized exams that basically asked them to demonstrate knowledge of traditional grammar rules.
Given all this, further research could explore how the model would work if the instructor/researchers were not so restricted in terms of the traditional and functional grammar topics they could cover or the time to allot to each premise. Second, it could delve into the reasons why EFL PSTs might be open, cautious, or resistant to these new views so that it could offer more insights in terms of how to address this caution and resistance. Third, it could investigate how the approach works with PSTs who have different language proficiency levels, not an intermediate level, as was the case with the participants in this study. Finally, further research could also identify some specific strategies that could be followed with PSTs who show caution or resistance to SFL views of grammar and identity how these worked with PSTs with different ages, from different programs, and with different language proficiency levels; not merely with adult PSTs with an intermediate level of proficiency, as the participants in this study.
While not focused on this particular aspect, findings from this study suggest these strategies could include analysis of a wider variety of texts in terms of context, purpose, and audience, and how these affect grammar choices, as this course was very limited in the number of hours it could dedicate to this and, therefore, in the number of texts analyzed. They could also incorporate a more robust analysis of specific participants, processes, and circumstances in terms of how their switch could affect the meaning of the clauses, as this was also a topic that the instructor of this course had to swift through. Besides, these strategies could comprise having PSTs find audiences that are positioned in negative ways by texts, such as Colombian victims of conflict, and discuss with them which linguistic choices they find problematic and why, so that PSTs can more clearly see the power of language to position audiences. Finally, they could expose PSTs to a wider range of interdisciplinary texts (e.g., medical, legal, scientific) so that PSTs have more instances of inclusive and exclusive grammar.
