Abstract:

With the onset of intense theoretical and empirical interests in the field of language teaching and learning, there has beenananticipatedshift inlanguage professionals’ opinions towardsthe understandings of further effectual language instruction. As the outcome of such instruction, language learners are expected to have a rich repertoire of competency ininternalized second language (L2)knowledge, whetherrule-based or practice-based or both-for having proficiency in theL2. Despite the traditional language instruction for teaching specific language rules through rote-learning, in the recent models suggested for processing instruction, the attempt has beenmade to change the ways of giving input through focused practice and to turn the input into intake coherently by promoting form and meaning correspondence. Accordingly, in the process, a range of occurrences between the input andoutput channel can be expected to flow through various manipulations of instruction, particularly grammar teaching,in many instances.Teachers, teacher trainers, and studentteachers,-as professionals of language teaching-, are aware of both the multifaceted value of grammar teaching and the troubles with teaching grammar;we may even feel unsatisfied when we exclude grammar teaching from the classroom. Therefore,satisfied answers are sought to the questions: Does grammar teaching really work? Does grammar teaching mean language teaching? Which approaches have been suggested, discussed, and criticized in the field? Do we havepast negative or positive experiencesin grammarlearning/teaching?The present study intends to discuss these issues once again to address the challengesin grammarteaching.Key words:processing instruction, input,

Keywords: