Методика преподавания языка | Филологический аспект: Методика преподавания языка и литературы Методика преподавания языка и литературы Декабрь 2020 - Январь 2021, №4 (7)

Применение эксплицитного, имплицитного и дифференцированного подхода к обучению грамматике английского языка с целью развития продуктивных навыков у студентов неязыковых факультетов

Григорьева Екатерина Викторовна
магистрант института международного образования, Московский педагогический государственный университет, РФ, г. Москва
Смирнова Наталья Владимировна
канд.филол. наук, доцент кафедры английского языка и цифровых образовательных технологий, Московский педагогический государственный университет, РФ, г. Москва, Natalia22L2016@yandex.ru

Аннотация: В статье рассматривается исследование по созданию эффективной стратегии использования имплицитных и эксплицитных подходов на занятиях по английскому языку, посвященных формированию продуктивных навыков говорения и письма. Статья посвящена описанию основных методов внедрения имплицитного и эксплицитного подходов при объяснении грамматических структур на занятиях. Авторы предпринимают попытку выявить влияние грамматических навыков на формирование продуктивных навыков при одновременном сбалансированном использовании эксплицитного и имплицитного подходов для повышения эффективности обучения. Статья содержит инструментарий для оценки сравнительной эффективности обучения грамматике английского языка с использованием эксплицитного и имплицитного подходов. Авторы предлагают методику эффективного использования дифференцированного подхода для обучения учащихся разных уровней языковой подготовки. Статья содержит описание результатов эксперимента по использованию данных подходов при обучении английскому языку студентов неязыковых факультетов университетов.
Ключевые слова: имплицитный подход, эксплицитный подход, дедуктивный метод, индуктивный метод, коммуникативный метод, структурный метод, формирование продуктивных языковых навыков.

Grigorieva Ekaterina Viktorovna
Master student of Institute of International Education, Moscow State Pedagogical University, Russia, Moscow
Smirnova Natalia Vladimirovna
Cand. Sci. (Philology), assistant professor of English language and IT technologies department, Moscow State Pedagogical University, Russia, Moscow

Abstract: The article presents a study devoted to creation of an effective strategy for the joint use of implicit and explicit approaches at English lessons dedicated to the developing of students' productive skills: speaking and writing. The article makes an attempt to find out the main methods of implementing explicit and implicit grammar instruction at EFL classes. The study traces the way grammar can influence the development of productive skills and discusses the use of explicit and implicit approaches simultaneously in a balanced and most advantageous way. The article investigates the comparative effectiveness of teaching English grammar by using implicit and explicit teaching models and provide the assessment scale for productive skills. The authors introduce programs based on inductive and deductive methods for each level based on its syllabus. The article introduces the results of the conducted experiment with the use of the stated two fundamentally different approaches at English classes of students of non-linguistic university faculties.
Keywords: implicit method, explicit method, the deductive method, the inductive method, the communicative method, the structural method, productive language skills building.

Introduction

The formation and development of productive skills in students is an integral part of improving their language competence. The present study is aimed at investigating the problems of effective productive skills development of the English language learners by balanced use of explicit and implicit grammar instruction. To achieve the main purpose of the present study, the analysis and implementation of several well-known techniques were carried out. The purpose of this study is to determine an effective strategy for the joint use of implicit and explicit approaches in lessons dedicated to the development of students ' productive skills: speaking and writing and to find out the main methods of implementing explicit and implicit grammar instruction in online classes. The study traces the way grammar can influence the development of productive skills and discusses the use of explicit and implicit approaches simultaneously in a balanced and most advantageous way.

The absence of analogues is the main advantage of this study in terms of theoretical significance. Systematization and integration of information allows this study to stand apart. The scientific novelty of the study consists in the fact that the areas of grammar teaching and development of productive skills were almost never connected before and in this study this connection is subjected to a practical experiment. The explicitness and implicitness have historically been formed as part of the approach to teaching grammar. Their use in the context of developing productive skills makes this research new. Productive skills, which are writing and speaking, are highly valued nowadays, thus, the relevance of the current study is explained by consideration of modern ways to improve the efficiency of the educational process by combining techniques of teaching grammar within implicit and explicit approaches.

Examination of explicitness and implicitness

Since the main idea of this study is to compare and reflect on the two branches of teaching, the main scientific method is comparative analysis. Using this method, we identify the principles of working within an approach, and this information serves as a guide for developing lessons and techniques for explaining the material. In addition to identifying similarities and differences between the two methods, it is necessary to identify crucial elements that affect language acquisition. Taking everything into account we can further develop an effective strategy for lessons aimed at productive skills. Grammar teaching holds a crucial role in English as a Foreign Language teaching, as without good command of grammar, the language use will be constrained. In the grammar learning process, there are two major processes that might happen, namely explicit and implicit grammatical knowledge. Explicit grammar knowledge “refers to a conscious knowledge of grammatical forms and their meaning” [6, p. 42]. This knowledge helps the intake and the development of implicit language and is used to monitor language output. Explicit knowledge is commonly accessed slowly through controlled processing although at some extent it can be automatized.

Explicit grammatical instruction involves the explanation of rule or request to focus on grammatical feature. The instructions can happen both deductively, where the learners are taught rules and asked to apply them in practice; or inductively, where the learners are presented examples first then to generate rules and make generalizations. In other studies of this topic there is a suitable example for a situation that is very common in language teaching. Widodo [8, p. 125] puts an example of a student, who knows the rules of past tense, can explain how present tense sentences look like (he has explicit grammatical knowledge about simple present tense). However, in speaking and writing, the student often makes mistakes, in spite of his ability to explain deductively from present tense rules to the examples. This example reflects the essence of our experiment: the role of teaching approach in the formation of productive skills. The case very frequent but sometimes causing the greatest difficulty in overcoming the language barrier: knowing the rule, students do not know how to apply it and vice versa.

On the other hand, implicit grammatical knowledge refers to “the knowledge of a language that is typically manifest in some form of naturally occuring language behavior such as conversation” [2, p. 84]. DeKeyser [1, p. 42] posits that implicit grammatical instruction does not involve any explanation of rule presentation or a request to focus on form in the input. Again, Widodo [8, p. 125] gives an example of Jack, who speaks and writes well in simple present tense, cannot explain how present tense sentences should be. He has no idea about the grammatical rule behind it. This example leads to a logical question, is it so important to be able to recognize and explain grammar structures, having good productive skills and fluency?

Mostly, explicit grammatical knowledge is instructed to second or foreign language learners, while the implicit grammatical knowledge is acquired by the native language learners. Generally implicit approach can be implemented through a communicative and structural methods, while the explicit approach is reflected in inductive and deductive methods. Techniques for teaching methods are systematized in the same way by different researchers only according to the most radical parameters, there may be deviations in interpretations. For example, Iskanderov and Ponomareva proposed to depict the scheme by sorting them into implicit, explicit, and mixed [5, pp. 214-222]. According to the authors, the three groups of methods are characterized by the following features and principles used: implicit methods are characterized by empathy, emotional influence, encouragement, punishment, reflection, visuals, analogies, stimulating and motivating. Explicit verbalization, reproductive methods, controlling, autonomy, induction, deduction, systematizing (generalization and systematization). The third group which is preferred to be called “mixed” is characterized by explanatory and illustrative techniques, problem presentation, didactics, research.

When teaching English, the teacher chooses the most appropriate approach based on the age, level of training of students and the topic being studied. It is believed that the implicit approach is more applicable at the initial stage of learning, since it is easier for children to remember a speech pattern than the entire rule that explains a particular grammatical phenomenon. Two methods provide this approach: communicative and structural.

The communicative method involves the following stages of working on grammar:

1) listening to the material being studied in a specific speech situation (listening to dialogues, monologues, songs, poems, etc.);

2) imitation of a new grammatical phenomenon in speech, which will help avoid mechanical repetition;

3) combining similar phrases into a single story;

4) the use of games and the creation of speech situations for drilling new voice samples;

5) use of ready-made cliches in similar communication situations.

The communicative method is effective because students' motivation increases since they have the opportunity to apply their recently acquired knowledge in a communication situation.

The structural method is based on a system of exercises for working out structural models. With this method, the work can be performed as follows:

1) listening to speech samples with grammatical structure;

2) repeating speech samples of the speaker or the teacher;

3) use of the studied phenomena when composing dialogues in pairs or with a teacher.

This method can be effectively used because the grammatical structure becomes the object of a long and careful development, and students have the ability to use a new grammatical structure in speech. On the other hand, the exercises look rather monotonous and quickly become boring for students.

When using the explicit approach, two opposite methods are applicable: deductive and inductive.

The deductive method is based on studying a grammatical rule using specific grammatical terms and constructing a speech cliché with a conscious use of this rule, that is, from the general to the specific. It is more applicable at the first steps in learning the language. There are some principles of the deductive method:

1) learning the rules with the use of grammatical terms;

2) search for the specified grammatical phenomenon in the text, its voicing and explanation;

3) performing substitution exercises based on a sample;

4) performance of exercises on transformation;

5) translation exercises from Russian to English.

Some possible activities in deductive approach are rule-explanation, translation, doing worksheet, self-study grammar.

It should be mentioned that this method implements the principle of consciousness and science, provides a step-by-step development of grammatical skills, students have the opportunity to use this method for independent work.

An inductive method starts with some examples from which a rule is inferred. In grammar teaching, teachers present the examples at the beginning then generalizing rules from the given samples. Inductive grammar learning commonly happens for native speakers of English, where they can produce a grammatically correct utterance, but they do not know the rules underlie it. Inductive approach is often correlated with direct method and natural approach in English teaching. In both methods, grammar is presented in such way the learners experience it. In direct method, therefore, the rules of the language are supposedly acquired out of the experience of the understanding and repeating examples which have been systematically graded for difficulty and put into a clear context.

The inductive method is a method of explaining from the specific to the general. Students are invited to form the rules themselves, based on the grammatical phenomenon or context. E. N. Solovova [7] suggests the following sequence of work with this method:

1. Students are offered a text or set of sentences with examples for the new rule. Working in groups, students need to study examples, find common ones, and use the teacher to deduce a rule. The context should be clear to students, and the task is feasible for students. Also, with this type of work, you can highlight the grammatical structures being studied in color or font, which will make it easier for children to work.

2. Students independently formulate a rule that can be adjusted by the teacher.

3. Performing substitution exercises.

4. Performing transformation exercises.

5. Translation exercises.

Strategies for developing productive skills

By breaking down the skills into components, we can describe speaking and writing in this way:

Speaking ® Production of well-formed examples in speech ® Use of the structure to convey meanings in speech.

Writing ® Production of well-formed examples in writing ® Use of the structure to convey meanings in writing.

When considering the general notion "skill", we should look at the components elaborately, so a lot of attention should be given to micro and macro skills, strategies, and skills of the student.

Productive language skills consist of the learner’s abilities to efficiently write and speak in a foreign language. Language skills are usually divided according to the type of communication process into receptive (listening and reading) and productive (speaking and writing). According to the form of the communication process, they are divided into oral and written. The purpose of teaching English is to use language skills not separately, but in their interaction.

It seems a great deal more difficult to accurately produce language forms, whether in oral or written form, than simply to understand a language. While producing a language, learners must be simultaneously aware of the message they are conveying, of the style and vocabulary they are using, and ultimately of the correct grammatical construction. These are all the reasons why so many advanced learners still feel inhibited when they speak in front of native speakers or their teachers. They are self-conscious about all the mistakes they can say or write, which can significantly slow down their improvement. To prevent this unnecessary impediment, it is a teachers’ job to make their students practice speaking and writing as much as possible. The more they practice, the easier it becomes to express themselves freely and without fear.

When teaching both productive language skills (i.e. it is necessary to take into account all the characteristics of the student, especially his age and the level of his competence in these training situations and conditions. Speaking is easy to develop with children of preschool age, as it has been proven that up to the age of seven, the right and left hemispheres of the brain develop equally, and the child has the opportunity to learn a foreign language in the same way as their native language. In primary schools speaking is systematically taught in three stages:

1) controlled speaking (this is not only the repetition of acquired vocabulary, but also the study of short dialogues or poems by heart);

2) directed speaking (the student can retell the content of the text or answer some questions);

3) free speaking (the student uses a foreign language in a certain communicative situation, determines the meaning of their own words and their forms, for example, it can be a short monologue about their summer vacation).

In high schools and higher education institutions, the problem-setting method can be used, since it allows students and students to solve problems in the real world. The lesson usually consists of the following stages: preliminary problem setting, problem solving, planning, reporting, analysis, and practice [9, p.3-6].

As for the teaching of productive skills, there is a basic methodology for teaching both writing and speaking [3, p.275]. Since the students’ task is to produce sentences in foreign language, which includes premeditating both the content and grammatical structures, they may hesitate to express themselves. That is why teachers need to mentally prepare them for speaking/writing by introducing the topic of discussion. The basic steps for teaching productive skills are proposed by Harmer:

1. leading-in (which means introducing students to the topic of the text, activating their background knowledge, and asking them to predict what the text is going to be about),
2. setting the task (at this point students are already familiar with the topic of, the teacher explains exactly what they need to do and demonstrates an activity if necessary, e.g. a role-play),
3. monitoring the task (the teacher is actively involved, walking around the class, helping or directing the assignment),
4. directing feedback (the teacher responds to the outcome of the task, helps students realize what they did right and what they need to improve),
5. repeating the process (the meaning of repetition is to ensure the student’s learning progress; the same or similar exercise may follow the previous one).

Experiment

In general, the empirical part of this study can be characterized as an assessment of the effectiveness of grammar presentation methods and their impact on the tasks of language production. Since this study is devoted to the preparation and conduct of a series of lessons using several radically different strategies, this part will cover the basic principles of the methodology and the description of the experiment. For the most relevant experiment, participants, procedure, data analysis and limitations should be taken into account. As a result, several aspects related to the organization and interpretation of the results are considered when the entire procedure is carried out.

Participants

The participants were 11 the second-year undergraduate students of the Physical Education Department of MSPU. The type of instruction they were exposed to could be described as the “weak” version of communicative language teaching: students were taught by both implicit and explicit instructions of English grammar combined with a variety of practice and communicative activities. There were 6 females and 5 males in the group. Their average exposure to the mentioned instruction was 3 months. The participants’ classes in English as a foreign language were limited to one and a half hours per week and no one was involved in additional educational courses to improve the level of the language.

Their English program is not assigned with any specializations, so at this educational stage their main goals are to increase the overall level, improve all kinds of skills, expand vocabulary, and develop grammar literacy. Their level at that moment of the experiment was lower but aspired to Pre-Intermediate. In accordance with the entrance survey and placement test carried out at the beginning of the term, as well as on the basis of oral and written responses of the students, it was concluded that the students ' productive skills were at a low level, while their receptive skills allowed them to understand the main idea in the incoming information, to perceive the teacher's instructions, and to do well in gist tasks. During the term, some additional problems were identified, such as self-doubt under the conditions of an online format and the inexperience of the lessons conducted only in English.

Procedure

The experiment was conducted with the use of the stated two fundamentally different approaches. By testing students' knowledge, it is possible to evaluate the impact of each method. The experiment was performed in the following way: the teacher conducted a lesson on the same topic with several groups of students. The relevance of the experiment was checked by preliminary testing of the language level and the sustainability of teaching techniques and content (observers are present at the lesson). At the same time, the implicit and explicit approaches are used separately, the next stage was a combination of both approaches. After each experimental session, testing was performed.

The main teaching methods were explicit: formal instruction, PPP (Presentation – Practice – Production), grammar translation and drilling; and implicit: guided discovery, ESA (Engage – Study – Activate), and CAP (Context – Analysis – Practice) methods. The lessons were designed in accordance with the New English File Pre-Intermediate textbook content, with the use of additional materials like interactive presentations, pictures, and videos.

One of the most important aspects to mention is the format of the lessons. Due to the forced transition to distance learning during pandemics, the experiment took place in an online format, carried out in the Zoom program. A prerequisite for the experiment was the participants’ full-fledged presence from the beginning to the end of the lessons, initial testing, working on the learning material, following the teacher's instructions and the lesson progress, and final testing. In the field of productive skills, the assessment data was tested in the form of a personal letter, an essay, a monologue with an expression of personal opinion, a dialogue.

As for the eclectic way, the most difficult task was to plan the lesson. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that strategies and methods can never be universal for all students of all ages, levels, backgrounds, etc. After averaging the knowledge about the eclectic, mixed, balanced approach to learning, studying the advantages and disadvantages of the implicit and explicit methods, the authors presented a strategy that combines several elements of all the above and evaluated their impressions after working with this approach.

Testing

The criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of the implicit and explicit methods and their impact on the development of productive skills were made using the original framework, while paying attention to both variables.

This assessment framework is based on the principles of international assessment of the performance of students at the A2-B1 level. The ideas were selected from the Cambridge and Pearson International scales, as their tasks and tests are designed universally, can be adapted to most curriculums, and pursue basic competencies.

It is customary to differentiate the productive assessment using a wide range of criteria and covering all the aspects. For a relatively complete assessment scale, in the generally accepted international proficiency exams the main following aspects are considered: Content, Organization, Communicative achievement, Language. However, the results of a specific strategy require specific evaluation. Therefore, we have selected some indicative criteria and proposed a summary table for evaluating productive skills. A detailed description of the grades and criteria for student productivity is included in Table 1.

Table 1. Assessing scale for productive skills

Grade
A	Speaking In monologue speech the student fully managed with the assigned speech tasks. The speech was coherent and logical. The range of language tools used is quite wide. The language tools were used correctly, there were practically no errors that disrupt communication, or they were insignificant. The student demonstrated sufficient fluency, pace, and correct pronunciation. The student produced his/her own opinion. During the dialogue, the student skillfully used communicative strategies, there were no errors in the speech that disrupt communication. Writing The communicative task is solved, the basic rules of text design are observed, a very small number of spelling and lexical and grammatical errors are observed. The text is logical and coherent. The student used a wide range of vocabulary, a correct word order. The student uses writing strategies effectively. The division of the text into sentences is observed.
B	Speaking In monologue speech the student generally managed with the assigned speech tasks. The speech was coherent and logical, but the range of language means was limited. Some grammar and phonetic mistakes were made that disrupted communication. The pace of speech was somewhat slower. Despite some minor mistakes, the ability to think critically and express one's own opinion was demonstrated. During the dialogue, there were pauses in the speech associated with the search for means of expressing the desired meaning, but some of the partner's remarks caused difficulties. Writing The communicative task is solved, but there are lexical and grammatical errors. The thoughts are mostly logical. Some shortcomings are allowed when dividing the text into paragraphs and when using coherence devices. The student used enough vocabulary, allowing some inaccuracies in the use of words or a limited vocabulary.
C	Speaking In monologue speech the student only partially coped with the communicative task. There was a narrowness of the vocabulary. There were no elements of their own opinion. The student made a large number of mistakes, both linguistic and phonetic. During the dialogue, the student found it difficult to respond to their partner's remarks. The communication did not take place. Writing The communication problem is not solved. There is no logic in the statements. Thoughts are not always presented logically. The student has not been able to properly use the vocabulary to express his thoughts or does not have the necessary vocabulary. There are many errors, spelling and punctuation, some of which can lead to misunderstandings of the text. The rules of spelling and punctuation are not followed.

It should be mentioned that the main indicator of the effectiveness of a properly applied teaching strategy is the student's ability to distinguish and produce grammatically correct sentences. For a more detailed grammar assessment, the analytic scale devised by Alderson and observed by Hughes (2002) was also used in the experiment.

Table 2. Analytic scale for assessing grammar in productive skills (by J. Alderson)

Writing: Errors of grammar or word order so severe as to make comprehension virtually impossible. Errors of grammar or word order very frequent; reader often has to rely on own interpretation. Errors of grammar or word order frequent; efforts of interpretation sometimes required on reader’s part. Errors in grammar or word order fairly frequent; occasional re-reading necessary for full comprehension Some errors of grammar or word order which do not, however, interfere with comprehension. Few (if any) noticeable errors of grammar or word order

Speaking: Grammar almost entirely inaccurate phrases. Constant errors showing control of very few major patterns and frequently preventing communication. Frequent errors showing some major patterns uncontrolled and causing occasional irritation and misunderstanding. Occasional errors showing imperfect control of some patterns but no weakness that causes misunderstanding. Few errors, with no patterns of failure. No more than two errors during the interview.

The emphasis of the assessing scale is placed on the student's achievement of the communicative task. Since developing of productive skills is aimed to promote the communicative competence of students, all data should be observed and analyzed.

Thus, the overall result of the student was influenced by two grades – productive skills (A, B, C) and grammar (1-6). In this experiment, grades A and B were considered as positive, since they reflect the complete or partial achievement of the communicative task, in contrast to grade C.

Results

The experiment was conducted in three training sessions, where students were taught according to three different approaches - implicit, explicit and mixed. According to the results of the experiment, influenced by the student’s test results, we received the following data:

The indicator of the experiment is the percentage of positive grades, which is calculated as the ratio of the sum of the number of students who received grades A and B to the total number of students (eq. 1).

The grammar results are also included in the summary table 3. The group result in grammar is the sum of the scores of eleven students, assessed on a scale from 1 to 6, where the maximum score is 66.

Table 3. Group results

Findings

Writing and speaking do not stand alone, it is an amalgamation of lots of language skills, starting with syntactically and semantically accurate statements to end in good punctuation or pronunciation check. Thus, the acquisition of productive skills in interaction with receptive language skills is undoubtedly one of the priorities in the methodology of teaching English. The development of productive skills is facilitated by clear instructions from the teacher, motivation of students to complete the task. However, there is no balance in the development of all four language skills. That is why methodologists, teachers, and teachers should present their developments, lessons, and recommendations, and share experiences in developing productive language skills and interacting with all four skills in teaching English.

During the experiment, the following preliminary conclusions were drawn. The concepts of all three approaches to teaching grammar were tested and confirmed. Based on the results obtained, there is a tendency of effective developing communication and productive skills when using eclectic approach that combines implicit and explicit teaching techniques. Speaking skills developed with the implicit method (63%) and writing skills tested after using the eclectic method (72%) were particularly significant results. The implicit method showed the least effectiveness in teaching writing (36%), which confirms the need to follow the eclectic way of teaching.

The results of grammar testing do not vary much after applying all three methods, but there is a slight advantage towards the explicit method, which can be explained by the usual learning style of students. Also, none of the methods lowered the students ' performance in grammar knowledge, the average score of students was more than 50% (33 points).

We found out that implicit approach is different in that it is quick and easy for the teacher, does not require much training. According to the results of some informal surveys of students, this way of presenting language is preferred especially by those who want to know how the language works and have no interest in discovering rules themselves. Another argument for explicit grammar instruction is that difficult grammar point has to be presented and explained because the concept is not the one that is in the mother tongue.

In implicit approach, the following is crucial: it requires the students to identify the rule for themselves, so there is an advantage of involving the students much more, thus developing their autonomy. Moreover, it is a better approach for grammatical regularities which are easily perceived, understood, and applied, as opposed to the former one. In line with this, we agreed that “Implicit knowledge involves conscious awareness and intention” (Brown, 2007). This process is commonly unconscious and accesses quickly. It occurs “without intention to learn and without awareness of what has been learned.” (Brown, 2007). It was found that age and language level have no relevance for the successful use of the inductive strategy, but the competent preparation of the teacher and the emotional state of the students can be the key points.

Finally, considering the eclectic approach to language teaching, where both of the above-mentioned methods of teaching are used in a balanced way, the following was deduced: the “mixed” approach is easy to fit the lesson into the time available, as well as enabling teacher to suit the differing needs and learning styles of the students. Mainly, this approach allows all students to master the program and also acquire complex aspects of grammar more easily, because its main feature is flexibility. Following eclectic approach enables to draw the attention of the group to certain grammar points as they occur in a text but not to deliberately practice them.

In this article, the authors proposed an assessment scale for evaluating the productive performance of students, based on which teachers can conclude about the effectiveness of various strategies of grammar instruction they use. This assessment system is of value and novelty, as it integrates the assessment of productive skills alongside the assessment of grammar. The first results of the experimental group were obtained. The proposed method of evaluating and choosing the necessary teaching strategy can be used by other teachers.

1. DeKeyser in Purpura, J.E. Assessing Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 42.
2. Ellis, R. Current Issues in the Teaching of Grammar: An SLA Perspective. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 1, Mar., 2006, p. 84.
3. Harmer J. The Practice of English Language Teaching. London: Longman, 1999. 296 p, p.275
4. Hughes, A. Testing for Language Teachers. 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, 2002.
5. Iskanderov N. F., Ponomareva E. A. "Didakticheskie osnovy eksplicitnoj i implicitnoj metodiki obucheniya" Istoricheskaya i social'no-obrazovatel'naya mysl', vol. 7, no. 5-2, 2015, pp. 214-222.
6. Purpura, J.E. Assessing Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 42.
7. Solovova E. N., Metodika prepodavaniya inostrannyh yazykov. Bazovyj kurs lekcij. M.: Prosveshchenie, 2005. 267p.
8. Widodo, H.P. Approaches and Procedures for Teaching Grammar. English Teaching: Practice and Critique. May 2006, Volume 5, Number 1, p. 125.
9. Willis D., Willis J. Doing Task-Based Teaching. Oxford: International House Journal, 2010. P. 3-7., p.3-6