The role that grammar should occupy in the teaching of the Spanish language, and of languages in general, has varied throughout history. From taking a central role in the grammar-translation method to positioning grammar on the periphery and implicitly teaching it in the communicative approach. The teaching of grammar is part of the training of students once they pass the introductory and most basic level of the language, so we will study how this process occurs in the classrooms of a couple of schools in the region of Skåne. For this we will make a distinction between the teaching of grammar explicitly and the implicit teaching of it. Our research is based on the testimonies of two professors with extensive academic competence on the subject and with a large number of years of experience. Through semi-structured interviews, we had access to detailed information about the choice of the way in which they work, and we corroborated that they favor explicit grammar teaching because, according to our informants, this provides solid knowledge, saves time and effort to students to form grammatical structures, students request it and have a positive attitude towards it and it motivates them. It is also the form that gives the best results for learning the language, in combination with the advantages of the communicative approach, affirm the teachers interviewed. Another aspect in our research that our informants confirm is the lack of materials for the formal teaching of grammar, since said material is almost non-existent in manuals for language teaching, so the responsibility to find, and in many cases create these materials rests with the teachers. This aspect together with the fact that the choice to teach explicit grammar in class may lead to more research that has an echo in the Skolverket curricula so that materials that cover these needs are developed. On the other hand, based on the information collected by our informants, we can say that it does not seem necessary to us that there is a sharp dichotomy between the grammar-translation method and the communicative approach, but rather that both methods be reconciled in a harmonious way. That is to say, that the best of both methods is taken advantage of without having to choose between one or the other in a clear way. Our research can serve to guide such future research.

No description available.

Written and oral material produced by a group of low-achieving learners of English from the 2-year lines of the Swedish upper secondary school was analysed from the perspective of grammatical correctness and communicative ability. The grammatical analysis focussed on the verb phrase and tests included both free production in speech and writing and elicitation tests. Communicative ability was assessed ‘ ‘objectively* ’ by identifying such parameters as fluency, copiousness and span, and “holistically” by using non-expert evaluators.The scores thus obtained were correlated. Grammatical correctness was correlated with communicative ability both in speech and in writing and writing proficiency was correlated with speech proficiency with respect to both grammatical correctness and communicative ability.Our findings are that there is a positive correlation between grammatical correctness and communicative ability. A remarkable finding is that the percentage of correct verb phrases correlates very weakly with communicative ability in written data. In oral data, the correlation is in fact slightly negative. The learner’s competence in grammar is reflected in both his written and oral performance. On the other hand, there is no correlation between communicative ability in writing and communicative ability in speech.The study shows that a working command of a set of syntactic rules is essential for communication. Errors are, however, an integral part of the learning process. The major part of errors are accounted for by the learner’s use of compensatory strategies. Among these low-achievers, communicative ability in conversation is distinct from writing ability. / digitalisering@umu