Statement 1:
Grammar will look after itself, therefore there is no need to teach grammar explicitly. Learners will pick it up themselves. Communication is more important than learning grammar.

Statement 2:
Grammar rules have to be taught first before going into certain topics, exercises are then given to allow learners to practice and understand it better.

Which statement do you agree with? To what extent?

A bit of both really.
There needs to be some form of correction but not necessarily explicit teaching.

The problem with theory #1 is that at some point during the student's academic career, he will need to understand certain concepts such as : subject verb, object, predicate nominative, etc.. Try explaining why a sentence just doesn't work to a high school student who has never been exposed to actual grammar as a separate discipline. It's impossible. I've been there.

The whole idea of "internalizing" grammatical and syntactical concepts is crazy no matter which setting the student finds himself. In an E1 setting, if the child grows up in a family that "internalizes" non-standard grammar, then he will internalize non-standard grammar, thus the perpetuation of non-standard English.

Teaching grammar to E2 and EFL students is the shortest path to grammatical proficiency. For example, the Chinese language has no subjunctive mood (aka mode). There is no way of expressing the idea of "If I were...". Unless the student is made aware of the various moods, it will take him a very very long time to grasp the idea of "If I were...". Worse, the result is circumlocution (i.e., talking around the subject and never getting to the point because the student has no way of expressing the hypothetical).

The fastest and most effective method of teaching the concepts of grammar is through the rote memorization/drill method. Modern education despises this method, but my own experiences with students in middle school, secondary, post secondary, and all levels of EFL reveals to me that frequent drills actually speed the process. Ten minutes per class every class is all that it takes.

I admit to being closed-minded on this subject. I've seen proficiency in the English language among E1 users decline during the past 40 years. When I see the same pointless exercises being used in E2 and EFL classes but nobody really understanding anything except the sentence before him, it tells me that the older methods of learning grammar are the best and fastest way to proficiency.

There are a lot of factors involved when considering this. One of the most important I think is the amount of exposure a student has to English.



I use drilling a lot with my students, but I try to do it ways that put it into context.

@ Streudel

I agree with some of your post, but I don't think you answered the question. When you ask most English learners what they are most concerned about, they would choose communication. And we can all learn to communicate (in the correct circumstances) without knowing grammatical terms.

Communication is for sure at the heart of the issue; however, those who want to learn English to better their station in life will fair far better in an interview if their grammar is accurate and they've not settled for simply communicating.

Teaching grammar is vital, but should in my opinion, be taught as often as possible in relevant, real-life contexts so to maximize the interest and understanding of the learner.

Lyndsey Pratt
Oxford Seminars
www.oxfordseminars.com

To be honest, I think that it really depends on your learners. Some students need the structure in order to learn the language more effectively. Other students, prefer learning the practical uses of the language as opposed to learning the grammar.

Personally, as a second language student, I prefer to just learn how to say phrases and then I come to my conclusions about the rules of the language (with the guidance of an instructor of course).