Teaching English in the Priy Classroom | Page 27

through a process of ‘creative construction’, in ‘…a series of stages common to all acquirers of a given language, resulting from the application of universal strategies’. This natural order, however, according to Krashen (1985: 1), does not appear to be determined solely by linguistic factors (such as formal simplicity) and it seems to be independent of the order in which rules are taught in language classes where a grammatical syllabus is being implemented. A number of other weaknesses of grammatical syllabi such as the fact that they present each structure only once and that they present language which some students might not understand (see the ‘comprehensible input’ hypothesis below) make Krashen (1987: 25) argue against the teaching of grammar which he considers not only ineffective but also a frustrating experience which encourages students to avoid using difficult structures for fear of making mistakes. For similar reasons as the ones stressed above, Krashen (1987: 74) considers error correction as a ‘serious mistake’ as, in his view, errors are inevitable and, therefore, their only effect is that they raise the affective filter (see the ‘affective filter’ hypothesis below) especially in beginning stages, and especially in spoken language. Ellis (1997: 47-48) refers to such a view as the ‘zero position’ claiming that it has been challenged on theoretical grounds by a number of researchers (e.g. Stevick 1980; Sharwood-Smith 1981) who have argued that formal grammar instruction can convert, through practice, into implicit knowledge (an approach known as the Interface Hypothesis), but also as a result of empirical studies (see Long 1983a and 1988; Larsen-Freeman and Long 1991 and Ellis 1985, 1990 and 1994) which demonstrate that learners who receive instruction outperform those v