Yue Yang is a third-year PhD candidate in Applied Linguistics based in Canterbury, UK. Before commencing her doctoral studies, she spent four years as an IELTS instructor in a Chinese high school. Her research interests include grammar pedagogy, discourse analysis, academic writing, and practitioner inquiry in ELT contexts.

Email: 731988606@qq.com

 

Introduction

Grammar instruction has long been a contested terrain in the field of TESOL, with ongoing debates about its role, significance, and optimal pedagogical approaches (Larsen-Freeman, 2003). This debate is especially important in IELTS writing classes at Chinese international high schools. Here “international” refers to Chinese students enrolled in programs designed to prepare them for overseas undergraduate study. In these classes, students face two main challenges: they must excel in grammar to succeed in important exams, and they also need to learn to communicate effectively for future studies overseas. The majority of these students are preparing for undergraduate studies at English-medium universities worldwide, making IELTS performance crucial to their educational aspirations (Ma & Chong, 2022).

According to Norrington-Davies (2017), at the heart of this pedagogical challenge lies the distinction between viewing “grammar as product” versus “grammar as process”. He mentioned that the traditional way, which is an important part of Chinese education, focuses on learning separate grammar rules, memorizing them, and avoiding mistakes. It treats grammar like a set of facts that you need to know. However, the “grammar as process” approach sees grammar as a tool used for real communication. This method is more about understanding how grammar helps us talk and share ideas in everyday conversations (Wang, Lee &Park, 2020).

In recent years, people have started focusing more on “grammar awareness”. This means helping students understand grammar rules better. At the same time, students practice using the language in a way that is meaningful and useful to them (Carter, 2003). However, controversy persists regarding the optimal balance between explicit instruction and natural acquisition, form-focused and meaning-focused activities, and decontextualized practice versus contextualized application (Carter, 2003). This paper takes a detailed look at the challenges faced by Chinese international high school students when getting ready for the IELTS writing exam. It explores how teaching methods for grammar could be improved to better support these students in dealing with their complex language needs.

 

Critical discussion of key issues

Explicit vs implicit grammar instruction

The debate between explicit and implicit approaches to grammar instruction represents one of the most enduring controversies in second language acquisition research. Ellis (2006) distinguishes between these approaches by defining explicit instruction as deliberately directing learners' attention to linguistic forms and rules, while implicit instruction aims to create conditions for learners to internalize grammar patterns without conscious awareness of rules. This difference greatly affects teaching methods in Chinese international high schools. In these schools, the traditional ways of teaching often conflict with newer methods that emphasize communication skills.  

Krashen’s (1982) acquisition-learning hypothesis suggests that when learning a language, knowing grammar rules consciously does not turn into using the language naturally. He argues that explicit grammar instruction has limited utility since it only contributes to a learned “monitor” that cannot facilitate spontaneous language production. Instead, he believes in learning through language exposure that you can understand. This implies that for IELTS writing, teachers should focus on providing examples of language that students can easily understand, rather than concentrating on teaching detailed grammar rules. The aim is to help students use the language more naturally in real situations. However, as Spada and Tomita (2010) note, Krashen's strict non-interface position has been challenged by numerous empirical studies demonstrating benefits of explicit instruction.

Many experts now consider a balanced method. The focus-on-form framework is a popular model that says grammar teaching is most effective when it's part of tasks that focus on meaning, with short focus on grammar when necessary (Long, 1991). Research supports this view, showing that clear teaching often results in better and longer-lasting learning. This is especially true when the teaching is personalized to fit how learners are developing and how complex the grammar points are (Norris & Ortega, 2000).

For Chinese high school students preparing for the IELTS writing test, receiving clear teaching on difficult grammar rules could be helpful. This research points out that understanding complex grammar can benefit from specific guidance. However, as Ellis (2006) emphasizes, the effectiveness of explicit teaching depends on how it is implemented—whether through deductive explanation or guided induction, and how it interfaces with opportunities for meaningful communication.

 

Grammar as process vs grammar as product

The discussion about “grammar as product” versus “grammar as process” is an important part of teaching language. Viewing grammar as a product means seeing it as a set of strict rules that students have to learn by heart and use correctly. This way focuses heavily on getting things correct, fixing mistakes, and often involves practice drills and writing exercises to help students learn. In contrast, the idea of “grammar as process,” explained by Thornbury in 2005, sees grammar as a flexible tool used to create meaning during real conversations. This approach aims to help students understand how their grammar choices affect what they want to communicate. It encourages them to use grammar freely and adaptively when they are talking or writing, allowing them to focus more on expressing themselves in different situations.

Norrington-Davies (2017) questions the typical way people learn grammar, which usually involves memorizing a set of rules. He believes grammar should be seen more flexibly, as a series of choices people make to communicate effectively when speaking or writing. Larsen-Freeman (2003) shares a similar idea with her concept of “grammar as grammaring,” highlighting that grammar is continually evolving. She argues that grammar isn't just about understanding rules but is a skill to be applied, meaning you adjust your language to fit different situations in communication. This perspective aligns with systemic functional linguistics, which considers grammar as “meaning potential.” According to this view, grammar is not just a collection of rules; it also involves how we use language to create and convey meaning, as explained by Halliday and Matthiessen (2014).

Research shows that using a process-oriented approach to teach grammar is very effective. In a study by Myhill et al. (2012), it was found that students' writing improves a lot when grammar is taught as a tool to create meaning in real writing tasks. Similarly, a study by Jones and others(2013) discovered that when grammar is seen as a way to make meaning rather than just a set of rules, students gain a better understanding of how language functions and their writing skills get better. This approach helps students view grammar as a useful tool to express their ideas clearly and effectively.

This process orientation is particularly relevant for IELTS writing instruction in Chinese international high schools, where students must move beyond grammatical accuracy to demonstrate rhetorical effectiveness. Wang and Lee (2020) observe that Chinese EFL teachers often maintain product-oriented beliefs about grammar teaching despite curriculum reforms promoting communicative approaches. This disconnect in understanding causes tensions in classrooms since students not only need to learn how to use grammar correctly, but they also need to practice speaking smoothly and naturally.

 

Pragmatic and task-based grammar pedagogy

Teaching grammar through real-life situations and practical activities is a helpful approach to solving these tensions. Ellis (2003) defines task-based language teaching as instruction focused on meaning where “the target language is used by the learner for a communicative purpose in order to achieve an outcome” (p. 16). Within this framework, grammar is taught not as an end in itself but as a resource for accomplishing authentic communication goals.

The IELTS writing exam helps people use language in everyday situations. It checks how well you can write in different styles, such as when you are describing something or making an argument. Because of this focus, it is a useful tool for learning and practicing grammar through specific tasks. However, as Ma and Chong (2022) note, Chinese IELTS preparation courses often prefer test-taking strategies and formulaic expressions instead of developing students' ability to grasp grammar flexibly. This way of learning is different from the usual preparation for the Gaokao, the Chinese college entrance exam. When preparing for the Gaokao, students often spend more time learning grammar rules without context. They don't focus as much on building strong writing skills.

According to Ma and Chong (2022), Chinese learners present distinctive characteristics that must inform grammar pedagogy. They observe that Chinese students often possess strong declarative knowledge of grammar rules but struggle to use this knowledge in communicative contexts. This “inert knowledge” problem reflects educational traditions emphasizing memorization and analysis over application. They also found that Chinese learners respond particularly well to explicit corrective feedback on grammatical errors, suggesting cultural receptiveness to direct instruction when contextually appropriate.

Grammar instruction for these students should take into account their previous educational experiences while also helping them develop new strategies for learning. Ma and Chong (2022) demonstrate that Chinese students can successfully transition from product-oriented to process-oriented grammar learning when teachers explicitly bridge between familiar analytical approaches and new communicative applications. Similarly, Zheng and Borg (2014) show that task-based grammar teaching can be effective with Chinese learners when tasks are carefully structured to build on their existing strengths in systematic analysis.

The literature suggests that to teach grammar effectively in IELTS writing classes at Chinese international high schools, it is important to combine explicit instruction, a process-based view of grammar, and practical, task-based activities. These methods should be tailored to the specific needs and educational backgrounds of Chinese students who are preparing for academic study abroad.

 

Practical applications

Designing process-oriented grammar strategies for IELTS writing

Implementing “grammar as process” approaches in IELTS writing instruction requires deliberate pedagogical design that connects grammatical forms to rhetorical functions. Based on my previous experience teaching in Chinese high school in international classes, I have developed several specific strategies that effectively associate traditional Chinese grammar instruction with process-oriented approaches.

“Functional grammar analysis” of exemplar texts is a particularly effective strategy. This involves selecting high-scoring IELTS writing texts and guiding students to analyze how grammatical choices contribute to communicative effectiveness. For instance, once when teaching Task 2 argumentative essays, I highlight how conditional structures function rhetorically to present hypothetical solutions. This method follows Coffin’s (2010) advice for teaching grammar by concentrating on different styles of writing or speaking, known as “genre-based grammar instruction.”

Rather than beginning with the traditional presentation of conditional forms, I selected three high-scoring IELTS Task 2 essays addressing environmental topics. Then I asked students to work in small groups, requiring them to first identify all conditional structures in these model essays and then analyze their rhetorical functions within argumentative writing. For example, I drew students’ attention to this sentence from a Band 8 essay: “If governments invested more in public transportation, carbon emissions would decrease significantly.” Instead of simply labeling this as a “second conditional,” we examined how this grammatical choice serves multiple rhetorical purposes such as presenting a feasible solution, expressing current government underinvestment without directly stating it, and establishing a clear cause-effect relationship that strengthens the argument’s logical structure. Students then collected additional examples showing how conditional structures serve various functions in argumentative writing. For example, one student argues “Unless stricter regulations are implemented, corporations will continue to prioritize profit over environmental protection” (logical consequences establish), and another student notes “Even if renewable energy were more expensive initially, the long-term benefits would outweigh the costs” (policy recommendations).

Following this analysis phase, I guided students through a structured production activity. First, students identified environmental issues relevant to their own communities because localization is essential for engagement. Then, in pairs, they drafted sentences using various conditional structures to express problems about implied causes, hypothetical solutions with predicted outcomes and policy recommendations with conditional benefits. During this process, one student pair transformed a simple statement like “Electric vehicles reduce pollution” into a more sophisticated conditional construction: “Were electric vehicles to become the norm in urban centers, air quality would improve dramatically, leading to significant public health benefits.” As for the assessment, rather than testing students' knowledge of conditional forms through gap-filling exercises which is the traditional “product” approach, I assessed their ability to deploy conditionals strategically in their writing. Students wrote paragraph-length responses to an IELTS Task 2 prompt, receiving feedback not just on grammatical accuracy but on how effectively their conditional structures supported their rhetorical goals. Hence, this assessment approach directly responds to Coffin’s (2010) framework for genre-based grammar instruction. Grammatical features are evaluated based on their contribution to the overall communicative purpose of the text. As Coffin notes, effective grammar teaching “makes explicit how grammar choices are related to the social purpose of texts” (p. 11).

 

 

Balancing examination requirements and communicative competence

Preparing Chinese international high school students for the IELTS writing test can be quite challenging. This test emphasizes accurate grammar and the ability to use language in real-world situations. Therefore, it’s important for teachers to help students not only succeed in the exam but also develop strong communication skills. To address this, I employ a “dual focus” approach that maintains awareness of IELTS assessment criteria while emphasizing authentic communication.

One effective technique is “criteria-referenced revision”, where students apply official IELTS rubrics to evaluate their own writing, specifically identifying grammatical strengths and weaknesses. In a lesson, teachers can guide students to assess a practice essay, identifying how grammatical choices (e.g., complex sentences like conditionals) contribute not only to accuracy but also to coherence, cohesion, and task achievement. For instance, students might analyze whether a conditional sentence strengthens argumentative coherence. Like this sentence “If governments prioritized renewable energy, carbon emissions would decrease,” students need to analyze how the sentence functions in context—does it help present a logical solution, strengthen argument coherence, or make the writing more persuasive? Then ask students to compare it with alternative sentence forms and reflect on why this structure is effective in IELTS writing.

In addition, I implement “authentic audience extension” activities, where grammatical structures practiced for IELTS essays are repurposed for real-world communicative contexts. For example, after using “If governments prioritized renewable energy, carbon emissions would decrease” in an essay, students rewrite it into a persuasive email to an international green committee, proposing collaborative action. This helps them see grammar not just as exam content, but as a strategic resource for real communication. This approach aligns with Liu and Stapleton’s (2018) research showing that students benefit from connecting examination-oriented writing to authentic communicative purposes.

 

Personal reflection

Looking back on my earlier teaching internship, I think this experience has been one of significant transformations, challenging my fundamental beliefs about language instruction. It also pushes me toward more nuanced pedagogical approaches.

When I began teaching IELTS writing, I firmly believed in the effectiveness of explicit grammar instruction, and I often explain rules and expect students to apply them correctly in their essays. I relied on direct explanations of grammatical rules, followed by drills and gap-filling exercises, assuming that a “product” orientation would translate into effective writing. However, I observed that students often found these lessons monotonous, resulting in low engagement and limited ability to apply grammar flexibly in their IELTS Task 2 essays. Even worse, while many students performed well in discrete grammar exercises, their actual IELTS writing samples revealed a stark disconnect—grammatically correct but awkwardly formulated sentences that failed to serve clear communicative purposes. This situation reflects what Larsen-Freeman (2003) describes as the gap between declarative and procedural knowledge.   

The turning point in my teaching method came after engaging with Larsen-Freeman’s (2003) concept of “grammaring”, which reframes grammar as a skill rather than a body of knowledge. This perspective really helped me understand why my previous approach—treating grammar as a product to be transferred to students—was fundamentally limited. Actually, grammar is not merely something to know but something to do. Learners need to learn to deploy a set of meaning-making resources in different communicative contexts. These theoretical perspectives have profoundly transformed my teaching practice. I think we need to prioritize what I call "rhetorical grammar instruction." As described in practical applications, when teaching conditional structures, I no longer begin with form explanations but with analyzing how conditionals function rhetorically in high-scoring IELTS essays. In this way, students are allowed to present solutions and establish logical relationships, or put forward counterarguments.

This transition has not been without challenges. Some students initially expressed confusion and even resistance to this approach, because they are accustomed to expecting grammar teaching to consist of clear rules and organized exercises. One student remarked, "I already know how to form conditionals. Why are we analyzing them in IELTS writing texts?" This reaction highlights the strong product-oriented mindset that many Chinese students have developed through years of exam-focused learning. However, as students began to see improvements in both their writing fluency and the clarity of their arguments, initial skepticism gradually transformed into engagement.

Reflecting on these experiences also raises important ethical questions about the role of teachers. It is not enough to teach students how to score well , and teachers must also help them develop as independent, confident communicators. Another challenge is the mismatch between my teaching and assessment practices. While I aim for communicative, function-based grammar instruction, I sometimes revert to traditional grammar tests due to pressure for quantifiable results(IELTS score). The limited class time also makes it hard to fully implement process-based tasks, especially with the heavy IELTS syllabus.  

Looking ahead to my future role as an English teacher after getting Master degree, I plan to further redesign my grammar tasks with an even stronger focus on student agency and authentic relevance. I also plan to attend more student-led grammar discovery activities, where learners analyze authentic texts to identify how grammatical patterns create specific meanings. This approach, advocated by Bolitho et al. (2003) as “language awareness”, positions students as investigators rather than recipients of grammatical knowledge, potentially addressing the procedural knowledge gap I have observed.

 

Conclusion

In conclusion, this exploration of grammar teaching in IELTS writing classes at Chinese international high schools highlights the tension between traditional product-oriented methods and more modern process-oriented approaches. Through review with theoretical frameworks such as Ellis’s explicit/implicit instruction dichotomy, Thornbury’s “grammar as process” concept, and Larsen-Freeman's notion of “grammaring”, I have come to understand that effective grammar instruction is absolutely significant.

The journey from viewing grammar as a fixed product to embracing it as a dynamic process transforms both teaching and learning. When teachers reconceptualize grammar as a meaning-making resource rather than merely a system of rules, they help students develop the linguistic flexibility needed while respecting their educational backgrounds.

Future research could examine how students become aware of their grammatical choices and how this awareness influences their writing voice in different cultural settings. It could also explore how grammar instruction shapes students’ confidence as writers, particularly in transnational academic environments. Investigating how teachers balance exam requirements with communicative competence in diverse classrooms would offer practical insights for improving grammar instruction.

 

References

Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83–107. https://doi.org/10.2307/40264512

Carter, R. (2003). Language awareness. ELT Journal, 57(1), 64-65. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/57.1.64

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday's introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). Routledge.

Jones, S., Myhill, D., & Bailey, T. (2013). Grammar for writing? An investigation of the effects of contextualised grammar teaching on students' writing. Reading and Writing, 26(8), 1241-1263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9416-1

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press.

Ma, H., & Chong, S. W. (2022). Predictability of IELTS in a high-stakes context: A mixed methods study of Chinese students’ perspectives on test preparation. Language Testing in Asia, 12(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-021-00152-3

Wang, L., Lee, I., & Park, M. (2020). Chinese university EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices of classroom writing assessment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 66, 100890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100890

Norrington-Davies, D. . (2017). Teaching grammar: from rules to reasons. Humanising Language Teaching, 19(3).

Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). John Benjamins.

Myhill, D., Jones, S., Watson, A., & Lines, H. (2012). Re-thinking grammar: The impact of embedded grammar teaching on students' writing and students' metalinguistic understanding. Research Papers in Education, 27(2), 139-166. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2011.637640

Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417-528. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00136

Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 263-308. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00562.x

Zheng, X., & Borg, S. (2014). Task-based learning and teaching in China: Secondary school teachers' beliefs and practices. Language Teaching Research, 18(2), 205-221. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813505941

Coffin, C. (2010). Language support in EAL contexts. Why systemic functional linguistics? NALDIC Quarterly, 8(1), 6-17.

Bolitho, R., Ellis, G., & Tomlinson, B. (2003). Language awareness: An approach to language teaching. Oxford University Press.

Thornbury, S. (2005). Uncovering grammar. Macmillan.

 

Please check the Pilgrims in Segovia Teacher Training courses 2026 at Pilgrims website