Any doubt about that? Let me repeat. No. No matter how much one individual might wish to sell a grammar-based agenda, and wish to put words in my mouth to support his agenda, TPRS does not support explicit grammar teaching. Nor does it need it. Nor would explicit grammar instruction improve TPRS, as an addition or otherwise. Full stop.
Honestly, I’m getting a little tired of the effort to claim solidarity with TPRS in an attempt to further a grammar-centric agenda, which has been well documented through efforts to sell such a program (literally sell).
The individual recently commented on a mailing list:
What do I personally think about explicit instruction’s value? I pointed this out before: Terry Waltz seems to have had great success with her beginning Chinese students in using tones through her innovative grammar explanation. The results seemed clear, even to the point of surprising her colleagues. These noticeably improved results, appear to be attributable to her explanation/system.
This has been my main point all along: the kind of explanation matters (on the scale of more effective and less effective). Yes, saying “The sound goes up, it’s green like a tree growing up to the sky!” is definitely explicit grammar instruction in phonetics. As I said very early on, this is precisely the kind of explicit grammar instruction we need. From my perspective, she has shown that grammar instruction should be innovative and improved, not abandoned.
From my point of view, she has single-handedly debunked the proscription of explicit explanation, and clearly demonstrated the effectiveness of good explanation. How could anyone disprove, let alone want to disprove, that it doesn’t help acquisition?