Ooh, nice row of Qs, X Mode. :-D :up: Allow me to add my two cents.
1. What's your approach to students who obviously have enough knowledge of English to speak but seem very uneasy about speaking because their previous experiences in learning English did not require them to speak?
As a language provider you can do only so much for your students. The responsibility to want to learn is the learner's and the learner's alone. We are neither psychologists nor miracle workers, but we are educators, which means knowing your students and most importantly their culture is where it's at. Communicative activities that don't place the learner in the spotlight work wonders with EFL students in Japan, who, by the way, tend to lack confidence in speaking aloud, and not necessarily because of 'previous experiences' but more deeply so because of culture: Make a mistake, just one, and your classmates will snicker and laugh at your apparent need to stand out. Make no mistakes and your classmates will hold you responsible for stepping out of line. If one knows it, then all should know it, and if everyone doesn't know it, then you set a bad example for the rest by answering. Point to "a" student and ask a question, single them out of "the group", and you might as well grab a seat and a newspaper 'cause that students probably won't answer even though s/he knows the answers you're looking for. Japan's culture is based on group cohesion. In order to successfully meet learners' needs the language provider needs to know something about the culture. It's what drives us, all.
2. Whenever I read or hear of viewpoints that promote communication and not grammar, I think, well, one does have to know how to put words together or one simply doesn't speak at all. Grammar does have to be taught. Comments?
Communication houses grammar. Take first language acquisition. The child finds the patterns, the rules of the grammar, without the help of a grammarian. "Grammar", or rather formal grammar, doesn't need to be taught. I was fluent in English at the age of 8, fluent for that age, and yet when my elementary school teacher started talking about nouns and verbs I was terribly lost. Didn't know "Grammar", but was communicatively fluent just the same.
3. Whenever I read or hear of viewpoints that promote grammar, I think that there's no way one will learn how to speak unless one speaks.
Writing, Reading, and Speaking are three separate skills. One could also say, there's no way one will learn to write unless one writes; there's no way one will learn to read unless one reads. Grammar is housed in both methods. One could also teach grammar through oral communication alone--hey isn't that how children learn grammar? Writing, though, provides something concrete, something to remember visually.
I've several friends who took Ancient Greek in university and they formed a Greek Club so they could speak in Ancient Greek. It was their way of being able to remember the language, 'cause as you know Ancient Greek isn't spoken anymore. If a language is dead, what's the point of speaking it? And if a language is alive, what's the point in not speaking it unless that is your instructor doesn't speak it, which is pretty much the case for most EFL students in Asia. Grammar through writing and reading seems to be the best possible method.
4. There has to be a balanced approach. Grammar is necessary, but one must practice what one is learning.
Agreed, X Mode. In Asia, though, there just isn't sufficient opportunity or occasion for the majority of people who want to learn English fluenty. Most importantly, the majority of language providers welcomed into Asia to "teach" English aren't qualified to teach grammar nor do they speak the Standard either. Same holds true for ESL students who learn English as a survival language. Native speakers aren't necessarily qualified teachers of grammar either. If a student is serious about learning "English" then the student needs to know that language encompasses three skills: reading, writing, and speaking.
