Formal Grammar Instruction: Theoretical Aspects to Contemplate Its
Teaching
Instrucción
formal de la gramática: aspectos teóricos para considerar su
enseñanza
Carolina
Cruz Corzo*
Universidad de La
Sabana, Colombia
*carolina.cruz@unisabana.edu.co
This article was received on July 1, 2012, and
accepted on April 14, 2013.
With the rise of new tendencies and methodologies in
the English as a foreign language field, formal grammar instruction has become
unnecessary during the last few years. Institutions and educators have made
serious decisions in order to promote a language production which is fluent and
coherent. Thus, grammar instruction has been partially relegated and new trends
have occupied its place. However, based on personal teaching practices, I have
realized that some learners are producing the foreign language in a fluid, but
sometimes inaccurate form. The present reflection is aimed at presenting some
insights for educators that may help them consider the possibility of teaching
formal grammar as part of the curriculum.
Key words: Explicit grammar
instruction, grammar instruction, implicit grammar instruction.
Con el crecimiento
de nuevas tendencias y metodologías en la enseñanza del
inglés, la instrucción formal de la gramática se ha vuelto
innecesaria durante las últimas décadas. Instituciones y
educadores han tomado serias decisiones con el fin de promover una
producción fluida y coherente de la lengua extranjera, lo que ha
generado que la enseñanza formal de la gramática sea relegada de
manera parcial y nuevas tendencias ocupen su lugar. Con base en mis propias
experiencias dentro del aula de clase, he observado que algunos de mis
estudiantes se comunican fluidamente en la lengua extranjera, pero en
ocasiones, de manera incorrecta. En este artículo de reflexión se
presentan algunos elementos teóricos que podrían ayudar a
educadores de lengua extranjera a considerar la posibilidad de incluir la
enseñanza formal de la gramática en el currículo.
Palabras clave: enseñanza
de la gramática, enseñanza explícita de la
gramática, enseñanza implícita de la gramática.
Introduction
The teaching of explicit grammar as part of the
foreign language learning process is an aspect that has been debated for so
many years. Schulz (2001) affirms that “foreign language educators and
applied linguists examining the effectiveness of various approaches for FL
teaching are not all in agreement about whether explicit grammar instruction .
. . is essential or even helpful in learning a new language” (p. 245). In
addition, authors like Terrell (1991), Norris and Ortega (2002), and Ellis
(2006), to mention some, have considered and supported the idea of Explicit
Grammar Instruction (EGI) in the foreign language class, whereas theoreticians
such as Krashen (2003) have defended the idea of avoiding EGI since it may
interfere with a natural acquisition process.
Thus, the approaches implemented in the language class
have varied throughout the years and educators are still looking for the best
option to guarantee an optimal learning process. In the United States for
example, educators have applied current teaching tendencies to achieve the
previously mentioned goal. Terrell (1991) explains this language teaching
evolution by stating:
The role of English
Grammar Instruction in a second/foreign language class in the United States has
changed drastically in the last forty years as the favored methodology changed
from grammar-translation to audio-lingual, then from audio-lingual to
cognitive, and finally from cognitive to communicative approaches. (p. 53)
However, this phenomenon has not only occurred in developed
countries such as the United States. Colombian education has also changed in
the last few years and English Foreign Language (EFL) teaching has not been the
exception to this phenomenon. Language teachers and researchers have been
looking for the specific criteria, methodology, and appropriate approaches that
would help them enhance English teaching. Some decades ago, Colombian teachers
used to place emphasis on the teaching of grammatical forms but, interestingly,
some educators have recently claimed that this methodology was not helpful for
producing spontaneous and authentic language since its main focus was related
to the production of accurate linguistic forms where communication or
interactional situations did not play a primary role. Nassaji
and Fotos (2004) support the previous statement by explaining that “with
the rise of communicative methodology in the late 1970s, the role of grammar
instruction in second language learning was downplayed, and it was even
suggested that teaching grammar was not only unhelpful but might actually be
detrimental” (p. 126). Nonetheless, it is relevant to bear in mind that
the teaching of explicit grammar forms has not been completely relegated and is
still taking place in many EFL settings. Nowadays, some educators still believe
that the formal teaching of linguistic forms is significant in the development
of a foreign language and they also may implement this practice as a complement
to teaching the language as a whole.
Similar to the language teaching evolution lived in
the United States (Terrell, 1991), new forms to teach
a foreign language started to grow in Colombian classrooms and, apparently,
these started becoming effective. Thus, by moving from audio-lingual and
grammar-based methods to more communicative approaches, language educators have
evidenced that learning a language is a process that requires constant update
in order to achieve the expected goals and necessities of their populations.
Bearing in mind the aforesaid teaching development,
Colombian educators are regularly looking for methods to promote the most
appropriate language teaching methodologies that help educators create
bilingual individuals who may be able to produce an accurate and fluid foreign
language. Consequently, some institutions are attempting to implement new
bilingual methodologies or approaches such as task—or content—based
programs with the purpose of providing learners with a wider range of
opportunities to experience and learn a foreign language in more authentic or
meaningful ways.
In general, I would assert that Colombian education is
moving forward to become an outstanding bilingual model; however, even though
the abovementioned approaches are expected to be successful, I personally
believe that learning a foreign language is a process that not only requires
natural and bilingual models, but also needs the development of linguistic
accuracy that will allow learners to produce the language in a standard and
coherent form.
Even though language teachers and institutions have
made a big effort to move from traditional to more communicative and meaningful
approaches in the EFL field, and although there has been a constant evolution
in the methodologies implemented in this area, some populations are still not
achieving the final aim: producing the language with fluency and accuracy. This
is evidenced by a study carried out by the Ministry of Education in 2005, whose
final results showed that only “6.4% of students finishing high school
performed in English at an intermediate level, whereas an overwhelming 93.6%
did so at a basic. No students were found to perform at an advanced level”
(Macías, 2011). Equally, the results obtained
in ICFES exams in the last seven years not only evidenced low performance from
learners but also a minimal increase in this area (see Figure 1).
The data in Figure 1 evidences
that even though a variety of methodological changes have been implemented to
enhance the results obtained in a teaching-language process, Colombian students
are still having difficulty in this area. Thus, a personal question arises: If
new trends and approaches are implemented every day in order to help learners
become bilingual, why are Colombian students still not achieving the expected
goals?
From my personal teaching perspective while working
with young adults, I have realized that sometimes linguistic forms are not
promoted explicitly since they may restrict the production of fluent and real
language (Krashen, 2003). Likewise, I have faced classroom situations in which
learners are able to communicate fluently in the foreign language,
however their accuracy is not without its flaws. Considering language learning
theories, a foreign language is expected to be learned following the same
process of the first language and formal grammar instruction should be kept
away (Krashen, 2003), but is it the best way to help our students, who may need
to use L2 for professional purposes, become bilingual individuals?
The two previous questions made me reflect on the
possibility of including formal grammar instruction in the foreign language
class as part of a process in which language should be seen as whole and used
with fluency and, most importantly, with accuracy. In the following section, I
present a theoretical overview in which not only the teaching of linguistic
forms is suggested, but also presents the most appropriate time and techniques
in which it should be incorporated into the EFL curriculum.
Formal
Grammar Instruction: A Theoretical Overview
The most recent approaches for second and foreign language
teaching have principally been focused on meaning and the way language is
developed naturally and as a whole. Considering my experience as a foreign
language teacher, I have observed educators who have decided to employ more
communicative and authentic approaches in order to help individuals develop
competences in order to be able to use the second or foreign language in real
and spontaneous forms. Interestingly, these approaches have replaced the
teaching of explicit grammar for an implicit method in which accuracy is
learned naturally with no pressure or excluding formal instruction. This idea
is supported by the second language acquisition theory (Krashen, 2003), which
explains that formal instruction of grammatical structures should not be taken
into account in language acquisition considering the fact that human beings
learn to understand and produce their first language through natural and
informal communicative contexts.
Krashen (2003) argues that grammar instruction has no
role in second language acquisition. The author explains that language is
acquired as a subconscious process, and he states that conscious learning can
only be considered as a monitor device to correct sentences when the individual
has already produced them. Krashen’s theory not only places emphasis on
self-correction but also suggests that formal instruction does not contribute
to fluency: “While monitoring can make a small contribution to accuracy,
the research indicates that acquisition makes a major contribution. Thus, acquisition is responsible for both fluency and most of our
accuracy” (Krashen, 2003, p. 2). Clearly, Krashen’s theory
is not in accordance with the teaching of explicit grammar in second language
acquisition, but there are other theoreticians and linguists who have defended
opposite ideas.
Even though I personally am a devoted follower of
communicative approaches and virtual environments due to their innovation and
realistic form to focus on language teaching, I have regularly wondered about a
missing ingredient to help my students use the language not only fluently but
also accurately. As a result of my personal teaching disquiet, I found other
perspectives regarding formal and explicit grammar instruction which provided
me with a positive view and therefore helped me change my viewpoints about grammar
as an antiquated teaching practice.
Ellis (2006), for example, resorts to various
researchers including Long (1983) and Norris and Ortega (2002) to support his
idea of the importance of including explicit grammar in a second language
acquisition process. The author explains that grammatical deficiencies may
cause a breakdown in communication and interfere with an intended message,
therefore, it is understood that language learners need to speak fluently, but
they also need to speak accurately. Similarly, and based on the importance of
speaking a standard language which is clear and coherent to the recipient, it
can be suggested that explicit grammar instruction is essential in second
language acquisition.
Correspondingly, Richards (2002) affirms that
grammar-based methodologies have been replaced by communicative approaches
which give more importance to fluency than to accuracy. Due to this phenomenon,
the teaching of grammar has been isolated from language acquisition and is
causing a major issue. Students who are encouraged to speak for communicative
purposes focus their speech on meaning regardless of grammatical accuracy.
Nevertheless, there are grammatical mistakes that can change meanings and
consequently interfere with communication. Richards (2002) explains that there
is a grammar-gap problem in the development of linguistic competence and he
affirms that “what has been observed in language classrooms during
fluency work is communication marked by low levels of linguistic accuracy”
(p. 38). Considering linguistic competences, some feel that language is
supposed to be used naturally, but natural approaches promote students’
participation in communicative tasks that may have resulted in
“communication that is heavily dependent on vocabulary and memorized
chunks of language” (Richards, 2002, p. 39).
The teaching of linguistic forms is not only supported
by theory but also by studies recently conducted. For instance, Norris and
Ortega (2002) have analyzed different studies in which it is demonstrated that
teaching grammar is appropriate and that it may make a difference in the
results obtained in the language learning process. Based on the study conducted
by these authors, Ellis (2002) explains that “not only did Form Focused
Instruction make a difference but also that it made a very considerable
difference” (p. 223) and concludes that there is “ample evidence to
show that form-focused instruction (FFI) has a positive effect on second language
(SL) acquisition” (p. 223).
The assumptions presented above are not the only ones
that contradict Krashen’s view towards grammar instruction. For instance,
Long and Robinson (1998) are certainly in favor of teaching grammar stating
that “formal instruction helps to promote more rapid L2 acquisition and
also contributes to higher levels of ultimate achievement” (p. 18). They
theorize that grammar not only contributes to the development of accuracy, but
it also has a beneficial effect on acquisition of L2. Equally, Ellis and Fotos
(1999) argue that formal grammar instruction can have a positive impact on
acquisition when grammatical structures are shown in context. The authors state: “formal instruction may work best in
promoting acquisition when it is linked with opportunities for natural communication”
(p. 20).
Furthermore, Ellis (2006) has resorted to previous
research in language acquisition in order to find a clear answer related to
grammar teaching. He explains that “some researchers have concluded that
teaching grammar is beneficial, but to be effective it needs to be taught in a
way that is compatible with the natural processes of acquisition” (p.
85). In this way, it is evident that there is sufficient relevant research to
indicate that grammar is worth teaching, but the natural order in which
learners acquire it should be respected.
In brief, and based on the theory previously
presented, it is clear that grammar instruction can be implemented in foreign
language classes but a major recommendation is to bear in mind specific factors
or variables such as students’ age, proficiency level, or needs and goals
they may have (Nassaji & Fotos, 2004).
Accordingly, the following section includes some important aspects to consider
when making the decision of including grammar instruction when planning foreign
language lessons.
Formal
Grammar Instruction: How, Where, and When
In the previous section, the importance and relevance
of including grammar in the foreign language class were discussed and it was
concluded that the teaching of grammar forms are worth teaching. However,
educators might need to make decisions regarding the most effective techniques
and moments to include this aspect in their lessons. Before starting to answer
questions regarding the how, where, and when of incorporating linguistic forms
in the foreign language class, it is relevant to take a closer look at the
definitions or expectations regarding grammar teaching. Ellis (2006) presents
an interesting definition in which he asserts that it “involves any instructional
technique that draws learners’ attention to some specific grammatical
form in such a way that it helps them either to understand it
meta-linguistically and/ or process it in comprehension and/or production so
that they can internalize it” (p. 84). Similarly, Celce-Murcia (1991)
explains that “if learners are presented with many fully illustrated and
well-demonstrated examples and then asked to describe other similar situations,
they have a basis for understanding and practicing the correct use of these
forms” (p. 467).
Bearing in mind the previous characteristics which can
be considered when presenting linguistic forms in a foreign language
environment, one can be state that EGI can be implemented in language classes
by taking into account, as previously suggested, its significance and
usefulness to learners.
How Should Grammar
Be Presented?
Besides the concern about the use of formal grammar
instruction in foreign language learning, it is also relevant to be acquainted
with the most appropriate grammar techniques in order to present grammatical
structures to language learners. Many educators may have been concerned with
the idea of teaching grammar explicitly in their classes since they could
acquire a teacher-centered perspective where students do not have an active
participation. For instance, Blaauw-Hara (2006)
explains that grammar teaching is visualized as a negative technique where
“the teacher lectures on grammatical concepts, diagrams sentences on the
board, or gives a quiz” (p. 166) and unfortunately, many foreign language
educators share this same viewpoint and they may see grammar as a boring and
meaningless process where learners acquire isolated grammar forms that are
rarely produced in authentic conversations.
However, grammar instruction can be presented from
different perspectives in which learners play a more dynamic role and become
active participants of their language learning process. To begin with, using
guessing or discovery techniques is an opportunity for students to identify and
understand linguistic forms on their own that can be used later in context;
secondly, applying practice activities allows participants to put the language
learned into practice; and lastly, using presentational techniques in which
practice is not required but the full attention of learners is necessary
(Ellis, 2006). In addition, Brown (2007, p. 421), who has summarized the
research of various linguists, explains that grammar can be included in the
language class if the appropriate techniques are used. The author summarizes
five important characteristics as follows:
• forms that are embedded in meaningful, communicative contexts,
• forms that contribute positively to communicative goals,
• forms that promote accuracy within fluent, communicative language,
• forms that do not overwhelm students with linguistic terminology,
and
• forms that are as lively and intrinsically motivating as
possible.
In addition, there is a wide range of possibilities in
which to present grammar. For instance, Brown (2007) proposes charts as a
useful tool for clarification, the use of authentic objects to engage learners,
maps and drawings used as visual aids, dialogues for students to practice
linguistic forms in context, and written texts to process selected forms.
Considering the previously mentioned aspects, teachers
can propose a variety of activities and techniques in order to present explicit
forms which, according to linguists such as Fotos (1994), Celce-Murcia (1991),
and Ellis (2006), if used and presented appropriately, become essential to the
learning process. In general, grammar can be seen as an aspect that can be
included and presented in a variety of forms in which students are expected to
use the language in context and with the intention of developing an accurate
production.
When Should Grammar
Be Presented?
The second question regarding the most appropriate
time to present linguistic forms in the language class is related to the
proficiency level of the learner. Brown (2007), for example, explains that
grammar focus at beginning levels may block acquisition or fluency skills and
asserts that “research agrees that at the intermediate to advanced
levels, a more explicit focus on form is less likely to disturb communicative
fluency, and can assist learners in developing accuracy” (p. 422).
Likewise, Ellis (2006), who has evaluated the most influential theories
concerning the teaching of grammar in second language acquisition, proposes
grammar instruction to those individuals who have already acquired an
intermediate level of English. He explains that it is recommended to
“emphasize meaning-focused instruction to begin with and introduce
grammar teaching later, when learners have already begun to form their interlanguages” (p. 90).
Ellis (2006) bases this assumption on previous
research in immersion programs where students are able to develop both fluent
and proficient communication without formal instruction. The results suggest
that grammar should be presented later in order to develop grammatical
accuracy. In general, the author proposes to teach “explicit grammatical
knowledge as a means of assisting subsequent acquisition of implicit
knowledge” (p. 102). In the same vein, Lightbown (2004) agrees with
Ellis’ suggestion explaining that “some linguistic features are
acquired incidentally without intentional effort, conscious awareness or
teacher’s guidance” (p. 75). This statement refers to the teaching
of grammar as a mechanism to enhance features that need to be developed with
formal instruction. In consideration to the explanations offered before, it can
be concluded that grammar should certainly be incorporated in language
curriculum, but it is advisable to be presented to those individuals who need
or are prepared to receive formal grammatical instruction in the second or
foreign language.
What Kind of
Grammar Instruction?
Thus, the final question regarding EGI is related to
the most appropriate manner for incorporating it into the foreign language
class. First, it is relevant to identify the differences between extensive and
intensive grammar teaching; the former refers to the teaching of a specific
grammatical structure during a continued period of time, whereas the latter
refers to a variety of grammatical structures that are presented in a shorter
term. Once again, Ellis (2006) provides relevant information to compare these
two types of instruction. The main characteristic of intensive grammar
instruction is the opportunity that is given to the learner to put into
practice what s/he has learned. Therefore, this type of instruction is
presented with drills and task opportunities to practice the target structure.
Conversely, extensive grammar teaching should be developed within learning
activities that may be focused either on form or meaning. Finally, the author
provides a definite answer about these types of grammar teaching:
“Learning grammar is best conducted using a mixture of implicit and
explicit feedback types that are both input based and output based” (p.
102).
Besides an extensive and intensive focus, explicit and
implicit instruction can be considered. The former refers to a conscious mental
process learners need to overcome in order to internalize grammar rules and later
put into practice. Ellis (2010) explains that through explicit grammar
instruction learners are:
Encouraged to develop metalinguistic awareness of the rule. This can be achieved deductively, as when a rule is
given to the learners or inductively as when the learners are asked to work out
a rule for themselves from an array of data illustrating the rule. (p. 4)
On the contrary, implicit instruction is aimed at
promoting a further thinking process where learners infer and deduce the rules
and accurate use of the language. Thus, Ellis (2010) explains that
“implicit instruction is directed at enabling learners to infer rules
without awareness. Thus it contrasts with explicit instruction in that there is
no intention to develop any understanding of what is being learned” (p.
4).
Additionally, Housen and Pierrard (2005) present a clear differentiation between
explicit and implicit instruction (see Table 1).
Table 1 offers an interesting
perspective that can be considered when making decisions regarding the most
appropriate type of instruction to present grammar. However, it is important to
bear in mind that educators need to have a clear focus and intention when
deciding on the type of instruction to be implemented since students respond to
the instructions accordingly (Ellis, 2010).
Decisions on whether to use an implicit or an explicit
focus have also been a controversial issue. Some educators prefer to use an
implicit methodology since it invites students to deduce grammar uses and
structures on their own whereas others prefer the idea of being explicit and
help learners to develop awareness on the uses of linguistic forms. Norris and
Ortega (2002) offer an explicit answer by stating “that focused L2
instruction results in large target-oriented gains, that explicit types of
instruction are more effective than implicit types, and that Focus on Form and Focus
on Forms interventions result in equivalent and large effects” (p. 417).
In addition to the types of instruction discussed
previously, Long and Robinson (1998) present two main options to be considered
in language teaching: focus on forms and focus on meaning. The authors explain
focus on meaning as an incidental or implicit learning that is sufficient for
successful second or foreign language acquisition. Analytic approaches such as
natural, communicative, and immersion are the best representation for this
method. On the contrary, synthetic methods such as audiolingual,
grammar translation, and total physical response give specific emphasis to
grammatical structures that are not usually presented in context; it means
these approaches are mainly focused on forms. The decision about how grammar
should be taught in language teaching should be made based on learners’
needs. However, taking into account previous research, neither fluency nor
accuracy must be separated, but should be integrated and developed
concurrently.
Conclusions
Founded on relevant research and theory, a final
conclusion about the teaching of formal grammar instruction can be provided.
Certainly, language acquisition is a process that requires informal and natural
input (Krashen, 2003), but research has demonstrated the significance of
grammar instruction in foreign language learning and second language
acquisition that serves not only to develop a fluent, but also an accurate use
of language. Consequently, it has been corroborated that explicit grammar
instruction can be presented to learners who have already acquired an
intermediate level of language by integrating extensive and intensive
approaches that can be focused either on form or meaning. Finally, language
should be considered as a vehicle of social and educational communication that
needs to be used in formal and informal settings, but it is relevant to bear in
mind that the decision about where, when, and how to use it is primarily made
by speakers. Thus, language teachers are encouraged to provide students with
the necessary tools to produce not only fluid speech in certain contexts, but
also to produce standard and coherent statements in formal and informal
settings.
Certainly, it is not the intention of this paper to
disapprove teaching approaches which have demonstrated success for years or
acquisition theories that have enhanced the teaching practice of many
educators, but the objective was definitely to learn what theory and research
had to say regarding accuracy in language teaching. I personally believe that
it is unnecessary to qualify or disqualify teaching trends, but identifying the
most significant characteristics of each method might be an interesting
eclectic process to be considered for further teaching practices in which an
accurate, fluent, and communicative-authentic language can be promoted
concurrently.
References
Blaauw-Hara, M. (2006). Why our students need instruction in grammar, and how we should go
about it. Teaching
English in the Two-Year College, 34(2), 165-178.
Brown, D. (2007). Teaching
by principles. An interactive approach to language pedagogy. New York, NY: Pearson Longman.
Celce-Murcia, M. (1991). Grammar pedagogy in second and
foreign language teaching. TESOL
Quarterly, 25(3), 459-480.
Ellis, R. (2002). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition
of implicit knowledge? Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 24(2), 223-236.
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA
perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1),
83-107.
Ellis, R. (2010). Does explicit grammar instruction work? NINJAL Project Review, 1, 3-22.
Ellis, R., & Fotos, S. (1999). Learning a second language through
interaction. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Fotos, S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and
communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 323-351.
Housen, A., & Pierrard, M.
(2005). Investigating instructed second language acquisition.
In A. Housen, & M. Pierrard (Eds.), Investigations
in instructed second language acquisition (pp. 1-27). Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Instituto Colombiano para la
Evaluación de la Educación. (2011). [Figure ICFES results in English test 2005-2011]. Retrieved from
http://www.icfesinteractivo.gov.co/historicos/
Krashen, S. (2003). Explorations in
language acquisition and use. Portsmouth, UK: Heinemann.
Lightbown, P. (2004). Commentary: What to teach? How to teach? In V.
Patten (Ed.), Processing instruction:
Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 65-75). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers.
Long, M. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of the research. TESOL Quarterly, 17(3), 359-382.
Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research,
and practice. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language
acquisition (pp. 15-41). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Macías, D. F. (2011). Towards the use of focus on form instruction in
foreign language learning and teaching in Colombia. Íkala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 16(29), 127-143.
Nassaji, H., & Fotos,
S. (2004). Current developments
in research on the teaching of grammar. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 24(1), 126-145.
Norris, J. M., &
Ortega, L. (2002). Effectiveness of L2
instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417-528.
Richards, J. (2002). Accuracy and fluency revisited. In E. Hinkel, & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms
(pp. 35-50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher
perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback:
USA-Colombia. The Modern Language
Journal, 85(2), 244-258.
Terrell, T. D. (1991). The role of grammar instruction
in a communicative approach. The
Modern Language Journal, 75(1), 52-63.
About the Author
Carolina Cruz Corzo holds a BA in
Modern Languages from Universidad Distrital Francisco
José de Caldas (Colombia), a Specialist Degree in Applied Linguistics
from Universidad La Gran Colombia (Colombia), and an MA in TESOL from
Greensboro College, North Carolina, USA. She currently works as a full time
teacher at Universidad de La Sabana (Colombia).