I think it depends on the age of the students. If they are very young learners, I  there shouldn �t be grammar explanations in my opinion. For adults, it is necessary, but always in a context. I think that grammar drill exercises are useful. But instead of a simple exercise, a game might be better. I use grammar games even with adults, because everyone likes competition. I agree with yanogator that at a certain moment, ( when the students are more advanced) fluency won �t be develop without grammar.

The main objective of the communicative lesson is to provide students with an authentic native-like situation which they are likely to encounter in real life. In the proceedings of the teaching/learning act, students are no more stopped for errors nor taught deductively the linguistic input of the target language. Teachers are forcedly asked to avoid the old audiolingual techniques such as drills, repetition and grammar exercises.Undoubtedly, the fluency-oriented trend, via its emphasis on the smooth flow of English as a second language, has minimized pausing and hesitation in speech as well as writing.

Yet, this approach has got its blemishes and constraints. 

Students are lacking that firm grasp of grammatical structures (accuracy) which are necessary for the production of well-formed utterances and texts (fluency). So, the approach which came into existence to show that �accuracy� was achieved at the expense of �fluency� with the audiolingual theory can be similarly criticised for its favouring �fluency� at the expense of �accuracy�.

In my present research, I will try to shed the light on the elusive facet of the communicative approach applied in Tunisia and its direct effect on students� mastery of certain aspects of the English verbal system. I will delimit my research on �THE MISUSE OF TENSES� as they represent the axis around which the English grammar is built and without which it would be impossible to reach �fluency� and �accuracy�.   

For 17 years � as a teacher- I�ve come across several hardships in trying to implement the communicative approach in class. Having a strong belief that this approach would be a complete failure unless it were adapted to its specific environmental factors, I will try in my present research to make some contributions to the teaching domain so as to reach a compromise between conflicting concepts. L2 teachers have been bombarded for decades with so many �NEW � methods, from the Direct Method, Grammar-Translation Method, Audiolingual Method and Cognitivism to the more recent Suggestopedia, Delayed Oral Response, Silent Way and the Communicative Independent-learning Approach.  To make it worse for teachers, the literature is always full of contradictories such as integrative vs. instrumental motivation, deductive vs. inductive grammar, teacher-centered vs. learner-centered class, etc. Why is it so confusing? Who is right? Are linguists and teachers really just repeating themselves year after year, perhaps under a different name? Or is what they are doing really �New � and different?

            Shifting from one �Method � to another, teaching English as a second language has encountered various ups and downs. Over the past two decades, the most unresolved controversial issue has been whether to shift radically from the classical audio-lingual/ grammar methods in teaching English as a second language towards the idea of students � independence. Proponents of the �learner-centered � approaches, such as Pit Corder and Stephen Krashen, claim that the old regime is totally teacher-centered and that students are no more than empty vessels filled with the magic �competence � of their teachers.  To make it clear, let �s quote Pit Corder: "efficient language learning must work with rather than against natural processes, facilitate and expedite rather than impede learning." The idea of the �learner-centered � approach seemed so great during the last two decades of the 20^th century that classrooms almost all over the world turned into research labs for linguists, teaching pedagogues and syllabus designers.

       I wonder whether it was for my best luck or a handicap to my career as a teacher that my first days in class co-existed with the launching of the modern �Communicative Approach � in Tunisia. It was really amazing to monitor students via real-life activities, pair work and group work. All I needed to proceed my lessons was just motivation. So, it seemed easy to foster the principles of independent learning. Yet, the outcome has always been so confusing that all L2 teachers have been trapped in an extremely inevitable and �incurable � dilemma. On one side, students could reach not only a native-level comprehension both in listening and reading but also an excellent accent. But, "this �Independent Learning � did not seem to give them the firm grasp of grammatical structures that were necessary for the production of well-formed utterances and of texts at native-speaker level," (David Nunan). It was clear then that independent learning should have its restrictions and limits. Nunan, when asked about such borders, claimed that teaching-learning activities are very much context-dependent- "This really depends on the context. In some contexts, the degree to which we can foster independent learning is restricted by either cultural factors or the prior learning experiences of the students." Nunan has been well aware of the discrepancies of the new approach, that �s why he has insisted in his studies on dealing with �Learner-centeredness � as an aspect of teaching situation which can be applicable in class if and only if certain circumstances were available. Communicative approach proponents, however, have always objected to any kind of reconciliation. Stephen Krashen strongly claims that "Language acquisition does not require extensive use of conscious grammatical rules, and does not require tedious drill." He also puts forward that "The best methods are therefore those that supply �comprehensible input � in low anxiety situations, containing messages that students really want to hear. These methods do not force early production in the second language, but allow students to produce when they are �ready �, recognizing that improvement comes from supplying communicative and comprehensible input, and not from forcing and correcting production."  Such a theory has been criticized, sometimes harshly, by the New Chomskian Grammar school advocates such as Wilga Rivers, who blames Krashen for minimizing the value of accuracy in the learning process. In a particularly rich metaphor, she compares a language programme without teaching grammar to a chicken walking around without bones.

As a teacher of English, I feel ensnared in such a tricky maze that no solution seems possible other than being �eclectic � even though the idea of �eclecticism � seems to be a double-edged weapon. Within this confusing atmosphere, L2 teachers have several questions in mind.