Teaching Grammar in Situational Contexts  - Using a generative situation

The generative Situation is a situation which the teacher sets up in the lesson in order to “generate” several example sentences of a structure.

Advantages:

A situational context permits presentation of a wide range of language items. The situation serves as a means of contextualising the language and this helps clarify its meaning. At the same time the generated examples provide the learners with data for induction of the rules of form. Students can be involved in the development of the presentation as well as in solving the grammar 'problem': this makes it less dry than a traditional grammar explanation. Moreover, the situation, if well chosen, is likely to be more memorable than a simple explanation. All these factors suggest that this approach rates high in terms of efficacy.

Disadvantages:

If students are in the wrong mind-set they are unlikely to do the kind of cognitive work involved in the induction of grammar rules.

This kind of presentation also takes more time than an explanation. Time spent on presenting language is inevitably time spent at the expense of language practice, and it is arguable that what most students need  is not the presentation of rules but opportunities to practise them. Thus, the generative situation loses points in terms of its economy. And it also requires a resourceful teacher who not only is able to conjure up situations that generate several structurally identical sentences, but who has also the means (and the time) to prepare the necessary visual aids.

Example:

Teaching should have done using a generative situation

Step 1:

By means of a picture on the board (a drawing, photo, or picture cut from a magazine) the teacher introduces a character she calls Andy. She draws a rough map of Australia, placing next to it a picture of a four-wheel drive vehicle. She elicits ideas as to how these pictures are connected, establishing the situation that Andy has decided to drive across the Australian desert from the east to the west. She elicits the sort of preparations a person would need to make for such a journey. Students suggest, for example, that Andy would need a map, a spare wheel, lots of water, a travelling companion, food, a first aid kit, and so on. The teacher selects some of these ideas, and writes them in a column on the board, and one or two ideas of her own:

To do this kind of journey, you should:

take a map

take water

not travel alone

advise the police

not travel in the wet season

Step 2:

The teacher then explains that Andy made no preparations. He didn't take a map, he didn't take water, he travelled alone, etc. She asks the students to imagine what happened. Using their ideas as well as her own, she constructs the following story:

Andy set off, got lost, got very thirsty, set off in search of help (leaving his vehicle behind), got trapped by sudden flood waters, etc. The police set out in search of him but couldn't find him because he had abandoned his vehicle and left no note. The teacher checks these facts by asking one or two students to recount them.

Step 3:

The teacher asks the class: Well, what do you think of Andy?, eliciting answers like He was stupid. Teacher: Why? At this point, students may venture sentences, like He must take a map. Having thus established the idea of disapproval of past actions, the teacher models the sentence: He should have taken a map, repeating it two or three times. The students repeat the sentence in unison and then individually. The teacher reminds the students of the concept of disapproval by asking Did he take a map? (No). Was that a good idea? (No) So ...? The students respond: He should have taken a map.

She then repeats this process using the example of travelling alone, eliciting, modelling, drilling, and concept-checking the sentence: He shouldn't have travelled alone.

Further prompting elicits example sentences, such as:

He should've taken water. He shouldn't have left his car.

At strategic points, the teacher recaps the sentences that have been generated, using the words on the board as prompts. So far, nothing has been written on the board.

Step 4:

The teacher then clears the board and writes up the following table:

He                          should have                          taken water.

                               shouldn’t have                    traveled alone.

She asks students, working in pairs, to add further sentences about tze situation t the table. Individual students read sentences aloud from the table.

Step 5:

The teacher then asks students to imagine the dialogue when the police finally find Andy. She writes the following exchange on the board:

Police:                   You should have taken a map.

Andy:                     I know I should. I didn’t think.

Students, working in pairs, continue writing the dialogue along the same lines, and then practice it aloud, taking it in turns to be the police officer and Andy.