Post on 11-Apr-2017
To be or not to be explicit? Beliefs and Attitudes of General English
Teachers Regarding the Instruction
of Grammar in the L2 Classroom
T. F. Debney
MA Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages
University of Westminster
2013
To be or not to be explicit? Beliefs and Attitudes of General English
Teachers Regarding the Instruction
of Grammar in the L2 Classroom
Author: T. F. Debney
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MA in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages
Supervisor: Richard Paterson
August 2013
i
Acknowledgements
Completing this Master’s Dissertation has been possible only with the help and consideration of a few people that I would now personally like to thank: Firstly, my wife, Mayuna, who has been my emotional rock these past four years, providing me with the focus and determination to see this academic journey through to the very end. To Richard Paterson, my dissertation supervisor, who, in his own unique way, helped keep me on my bicycle when I looked like falling off more than once. And to a great mentor, Michelle Laufer, whose indefatigable optimism has continued to prove me wrong time and again. Thank you.
Dedicated to my inspirational mother and her fine grandchildren, Cocona, Cougar, Bear, and Jet.
I love you all dearly.
ii
Abstract
One issue that continually provokes dissension within the study of SLA, and therefore L2
pedagogy, concerns whether the instruction of grammar should be explicit or implicit. In
an attempt to discover how these theoretical issues affect L2 teachers, the past decade
has seen two studies undertaken that have tried to address the argument. The first was
carried out in the UK by Burgess and Etherington (2002), and focused on the beliefs and
attitudes toward the instruction of grammar from the perspective of EAP teachers
working in British universities; this study was then replicated in New Zealand by Barnard
and Scampton (2008) involving EAP teachers also working in universities. Both studies
found the respective EAP teachers to exhibit remarkably similar attitudes. In order to
examine whether the same kinds of beliefs and attitudes prevail across different teaching
contexts, the present study further replicates the previous two by targeting General
English teachers working in private language schools as the L2 variable. Employing a
survey questionnaire as the means of research instrument, the present study collected
data from respondents via the online networking site LinkedIn. The resultant findings
suggest that although there are differences in the beliefs and attitudes between the
General English and EAP teachers, these are mainly superficial and that, overall, both sets
of teachers maintain mutually compatible beliefs regarding the explicit instruction of
grammar. Such consistent views are attributed mainly to the uniformity in the
professional characteristics of both sets of teachers, particularly in regard to years of
teaching experience and the level of qualification: almost half of the respondents in the
iii
present study hold a Master’s degree. There were, however, major limitations exposed in
the present and previous two studies; namely, that without triangulating the collected
data, generalizing the findings to the wider populations of L2 teachers is neither possible
nor academically permissible. Therefore, recommendations are put forward that any
future research into this particular area of study should incorporate a methodology that
allows for the triangulation of the data collected.
Key:
ALG = Applied Linguists Group
CLT = Communicative Language Teaching
EAP = English for Academic Purposes
EFL = English as a Foreign Language
ELT = English Language Teaching
FFI = Form-‐Focused Instruction
L2 = Second/foreign language
SLA = Second Language Acquisition
iv
Table of contents
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………………………………………i
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………ii -‐ iii
Table of contents…………………………………………………………………………………………………………iv -‐ v
List of Tables and charts…………………………………………………………………………………………………..vi
Chapter 1 -‐ Introduction
1. Background to present study………………………………………………………………………………………..1 1.2 Gap in research…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..3 1.3 Outline structure of dissertation…………………………………………………………………………………4
Chapter 2 -‐ Literature review
2. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………... 7 2.1 Origins of focus on form……………………………………………………………………………………………. 8 2.2 Issues with focus on form ………………………………………………………………………………………. 10 2.3 Key studies in beliefs and practices…………………………………………………………………………. 13 2.4 Summary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 18
Chapter 3 -‐ Research question
3. Background to research question……………………………………………………………………………… 20 3.1 Case study 1 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 21 3.2 Case study 2……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..22 3.3 Rationale for research question………………………………………………………………………………. 25 3.4 Subjects…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 25 3.5 Gap in research…………………………………………………………………………………………………………26 3.6 Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..27
Chapter 4 -‐ Methodology
4. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..28 4.1 Research strategy……………………………………………………………………………………………………..29 4.2 Data collection………………………………………………………………………………………………………….29 4.2.1 Questionnaire format………………………………………………………………………… 30
v
4.2.2 Sampling procedure…………………………………………………………………………….32 4.2.3 Administration of questionnaire/subjects……………………………………………33
4.3 Framework for analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………….33 4.4 Limitations of survey………………………………………………………………………………………………..34 4.5 Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….35
Chapter 5 -‐ Analysis and findings
5. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………37 5.1 Background information of survey respondents……………………………………………………..38 5.2 Description, analysis, and synthesis of S3 results…………………………………………………….41
5.2.1 Explicit grammar teaching………………………………………………………………….43 5.2.2 Instruction versus exposure……………………………………………………………….46 5.2.3 Declarative versus procedural knowledge………………………………………….48 5.2.4 The use of grammatical terminology………………………………………………….49 5.2.5 Error correction………………………………………………………………………………….50
5.3 Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………52
Chapter 6 -‐ Conclusions and recommendations
6. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….54 6.1 Research objectives………………………………………………………………………………………………….55 6.2 Summary of literature review…………………………………………………………………………………..56 6.3 Summary of findings…………………………………………………………………………………………………56 6.4 Limitations and recommendations of present study…………………………………………………63
Chapter 7 -‐ Conclusion
7. Comprehensive overview of present study………………………………………………………………..65 7.1 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….66
Bibliography
Appendices
vi
List of Tables and charts
Table 1……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………10
Table 2……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………13
Table 3……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………16
Table 4……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………39
Table 5……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………41
Table 6……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………41
Table 7……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………43
Table 8……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………43
Table 9……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………44
Table 10………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….46
Table 11………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….47
Table 12………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….48
Table 13………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….49
Table 14………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….50
Chart 1………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….39
Chart 2………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….39
Chart 3………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….40
Chart 4………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….40
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
1. Background to present study
There are fewer ‘hot potatoes’ to be found in the fields of second language acquisition
(SLA) and L2 pedagogy than those pertaining to the instruction of grammar and whether
it ought to be taught explicitly, implicitly, or as a combination of both. Issues such as
these tend to polarise opinions, such that: “It is unlikely that this controversy will be
resolved through research in the near future” (Ellis, 2006: 97). Being this as it may, the
past four decades have seen numerous studies provide sufficient data to persuade
doubters and sceptics that x, y, or z should be the preferred methodological approach to
instruction. For example, Krashen and Seliger (1975) put forward a set of universal value
features (e.g., +/-‐ DISCRETE POINT; +/-‐ DEDUCTIVE; and +/-‐ EXPLICIT etc.) that they
believed were instrumental in providing formal instruction to the adult L2 learner. They
made this point in regard to pre-‐pubic children, whose seemingly effortless acquisition of
an L2 outside the confines of formal education led them to posit: “The adult learner is in
general inefficient in correctly inducing rules from informal environments” (p.176). In
effect, what Krashen and Seliger were advocating was the prototypical PPP lesson, an
approach Harmer (2007) and other researchers disparage for being inherently flawed due
to its teacher-‐centric focus; despite such criticism, PPP can still be found being taught on
2
many L2 syllabi, albeit in different guises (Ellis, 2008). However, SLA research in the 21st
century has now reached a consensus that states language learning is not a linear process
evolving on a continuum of simple-‐to-‐complex forms, but as something far more organic,
thus:
Learners seem to pass through clear developmental stages in their acquisition of grammatical forms. Their progress towards native-‐like command of structures is not unidirectional or immediate, as much traditional grammar-‐based teaching has sought to achieve, but is characterized by stages of non-‐target language use and backsliding. (Klapper and Rees, 2003: 288)
As a result, much L2 learning and teaching today, particularly in the West, has adopted an
approach that was initially championed by Long (1991) as an alternative to the outmoded
PPP approach: this has come to be known as incidental focus on form. For the L2 teacher
wishing to incorporate aspects of focus on form in the classroom, substantive knowledge
of SLA theories is therefore a principal requirement. Furthermore, Borg (1999; 2003)
provides ample evidence to suggest knowledge of pedagogical and theoretical issues
notwithstanding, L2 teachers are driven by more fundamental motives, many of which lie
beyond the parameters of mainstream teacher-‐training methods. Gabillon (2012) refers
to such psychological influences as core beliefs, intimating they are responsible for what
Borg and Phipps (2009) have labeled cognitive tensions. That is, many L2 teachers
commonly profess to holding certain beliefs and attitudes to grammar instruction in
relation to certain teaching contexts, yet when these teachers are presented with
empirical evidence (audio and video recordings) from lessons they have taught, it is not
uncommon for them to feel nonplussed by their manifestly contradictory classroom
behavior.
3
1.2 Gap in research
In an effort to account for such contradictions in stated beliefs and their subsequent
classroom practices, the past decade has seen two studies undertaken to try to account
for this L2 phenomenon. Firstly, in relation to the instruction of grammar, Burgess and
Etherington (2002) examined the beliefs and attitudes of 48 EAP teachers working
throughout UK universities; this study was then replicated in New Zealand by Barnard and
Scampton (2008), similarly using EAP teachers (32) working throughout that country’s
universities. What these two studies revealed was that both sets of EAP teachers tended
to favour a focus on form approach to the instruction and correction of grammar.
Moreover, these studies highlighted, to some extent, how the cultural backgrounds of
their learners directly influenced the teacher’s classroom decision making, e.g., the
degree of explicitness to which the teachers were expected to provide. Consequently, as
these two studies focused only on EAP teachers, a natural gap in research presented
itself, namely: could these beliefs and attitudes toward the instruction of grammar be
found to be consistent within and across different groups of L2 teachers, or were they
uniform among EAP teachers working in universities only? Therefore, by posing the same
set of research questions from the original studies to a different target group, i.e.,
General English teachers working in private language schools, the aim of the present
study thus seeks to address the gap in research.
4
1.3 Outline structure of dissertation
Chapter 1 – Introduction
This chapter presents a background to the whole dissertation project by identifying a gap
in the research area for this particular topic, i.e., the beliefs and attitudes of two different
sets of L2 teachers toward the explicit instruction and correction of grammar in the L2
classroom. It also provides a rationale for undertaking the present study, namely, to
establish whether these beliefs are exclusive to one particular set of L2 teachers, or if
they are consistent among other sets of teachers.
Chapter 2 – Literature review
In this chapter, a framework for understanding the tenets of Long’s (1991) focus on form
is outlined. It thus provides the information needed to evaluate the necessary theoretical
knowledge required of an EAP teacher. This chapter also examines some of the literature
regarding teacher cognition, and how such thinking affects day to day classroom decision-‐
making.
Chapter 3 – Research question
This chapter provides the rationale for the research of the present study. It places the
present study in the context of two previous studies which sought to account for the
phenomenon of beliefs and attitudes toward grammar instruction. It also provides a
detailed explanation of how the research objectives were formulated through identifying
a set of likely premises with which to address the gap in research.
5
Chapter 4 – Methodology
In this chapter, a rationale is offered to justify using a survey questionnaire as both the
research instrument and as the means for collecting the data. In addition, this chapter
provides an in-‐depth summary of the sampling method used, how and to whom the
questionnaire was administered, a framework for analysis, as well as explaining what the
limitations and value of the present study are.
Chapter 5 – Analysis of findings
This chapter presents the findings from the present study in a series of charts and tables.
The findings are first described, then analysed by synthesizing the data with evidence
from the literature review and the findings from the original two studies; incorporating
both quantitative and qualitative methods provides the overall framework for analysis.
Chapter 6 – Conclusions and recommendations
In this chapter, the findings of the present study are summarised in much greater depth
and detail, thus providing a rationale for the respondents’ answers. In light of what was
found in the present study, recommendations are made to ensure that future research is
able to circumvent the inherent limitations that were exposed during the undertaking of
this study.
Chapter 7 – Conclusion
This chapter draws the dissertation to a close by explicating the findings of the present
study in a concise summary. A closing statement from the author provides an objective
denouement to the research objectives as set out in the premises, thus justifying the
6
rationale for the undertaking of this project.
The following chapter will now present evidence derived from several books, articles, and
case studies that are relevant to the research objectives relating to the beliefs and
attitudes regarding the explicit instruction and correction of grammar in the L2
classroom.
7
Chapter 2
Literature Review
2. Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature and
empirical studies that are most pertinent to the aims of the research question. To do so,
the chapter comprises two themes, the first providing a theoretical platform from which
an understanding on the nature of grammar instruction can be gained, whilst the second
looks at the findings taken from some key empirical studies which examine how theory
gets interpreted by teachers in their classroom practices. Both themes, then, are
intended to give an impression of what a highly qualified EAP teacher should know
regarding the theoretical underpinnings of L2 education and pedagogy, specifically
concerning the instruction and correction of grammar. To illustrate these points, an
explication of the tenets of focus on form, as posited by Long (1991), will provide the
necessary framework from which subsequent interpretations of grammar instruction can
be extrapolated (i.e., Norris and Ortega, 2000; Ellis et al., 2002; Ellis, 2008; Spada, 2011).
An in-‐depth study of the aforementioned themes will help to outline the following two
points:
• The depth of theoretical and pedagogical knowledge necessary in becoming a
practising EAP teacher.
8
• How this knowledge is manifested on a personal level by the L2 teacher during a
given lesson.
2.1 Origins of focus on form
"It is no exaggeration to say that language teaching methods do not exist -‐ at least, not
where they would matter, if they did, in the classroom" (Long, 1991: 39). This bold claim
from Long (1991) unequivocally states his position regarding the continued promulgation
of L2 methodologies in many of the teacher-‐training language departments in higher
education. The problem, as he saw it then, was that most language researchers had
recognised that there was no one 'right way of teaching a second language'. In other
words, methodologies may well exist as abstract teaching paradigms, but as far as putting
them into practice, teachers tend to follow their own pedagogic instincts. Klapper (2006)
makes a similar observation:
The point is that the success or otherwise of any method is likely to be determined to a significant degree by the tutor's personal investment in it, which in turn will be determined by the match between the specific features of the method and the tutor's personality, values and beliefs. (p. 122).
Moreover, Larsen-‐Freeman (2000) acknowledges that whichever ‘method’ a teacher
appears to be adhering to, it is inextricably entwined in the memories and intuitions of a
teacher’s lifetime of experiences; therefore, such complex, personal narratives need to be
taken into account when discussing the merits of curriculums that impose a favoured
methodology. The premise, then, for Long’s postulating a focus on form approach to
grammar instruction can be extracted from the following statement:
9
Some points of grammar are difficult to learn, and need to be studied in isolation before students can do interesting things with them. It is no use making meaning tidy if grammar then becomes so untidy that it cannot be learnt properly. (Swan, 1985: 78).
Swan (1985) was trying to make a case for building a pedagogic bridge between two
extremes of L2 learning: Grammar Translation methods and the strong form of CLT. Thus
Long (1991) argued that for learners to improve both fluency and accuracy, their
attention needs to be drawn to the grammatical error in such a way as to alert the learner
to the correct form, but always framing it within the context of a communicative activity.
Importantly, when errors do occur, it is vital that the corrective procedure is administered
such that: "The linguistic feature is brought to the learner's attention in a way appropriate
to the student's age, proficiency level etc. before the class returns to whatever pedagogic
task they were working on when the interruption occurred" (Long, 1991: 46). Ellis et al.
(2002) call this type of approach to instruction incidental focus on form. This is in contrast
to what is known as planned focus on form, which is also similar in approach to focus on
forms; that is, both the former and the latter make learning predetermined linguistic
forms the learning objective of the lesson (i.e., the product), whereas Long’s focus on
form keeps meaningful communication as the goal for each lesson (i.e., the process):
In the case of planned focus-‐on-‐form, the teacher elects to use a task to target a specific linguistic feature and this then influences how the task is performed in the classroom. In the case of incidental focus on form, the forms attended to are not pre-‐determined but arise naturally out of the performance of the task. (Ellis et al., 2002: 421).
Table 1, below, provides a template showing the pedagogical characteristics of focus on
form and focus on forms and their possible interpretative classroom implications.
10
Implicit FFI (focus on form) Incidental Explicit FFI (focus on forms) Planned
attracts attention to target form
is delivered spontaneously (e.g. in an otherwise
communication-‐oriented activity
is unobtrusive (minimal disruption of communication
of meaning)
présents target forms in context
makes no use of metalanguage
encourages free use of the target form
directs attention to target form
is predetermined and planned (e.g. as the
main focus and goal of a teaching activity
is obtrusive (interruption of communicative
meaning
presents target forms in isolation
uses metalinguistic terminology (e.g. rule
explanation)
involves controlled practice of target form
2.2 Issues with focus on form
One such implication is highlighted by Fotos (1998), and concerns the problem of ELT
within non western cultures. Focus on form is associated with norms of western
pedagogic ideals, namely, emphasising the importance of communicating in the L2. As a
result, focus on form is a key element of instruction in ESL classrooms, but not so in EFL
classrooms. Given that most ELT takes place in EFL countries where non-‐native teachers
adhere to a mainly teacher-‐centric/traditional style of instruction, when learners from EFL
countries come to study in ESL countries, there is an inevitable clash of pedagogic
expectations between the learner and teacher. Such disparity in pedagogic ideologies
could undoubtedly lead the L2 teacher into making classroom decisions that may run
counter to the beliefs that were instilled during teacher-‐training. Clearly, then, there
seems to be a link between how much explicit input some teachers find necessary and
what lies behind such decision-‐making (Spada, 2011).
Table 1 Ellis (2008, p. 879.)
11
Further, in a meta-‐analysis involving 49 studies between 1980-‐1998, Norris and Ortega
(2000) sought to distinguish what constituted explicit and implicit types of FFI, as outlned
in Table 1, above. The crux of their investigation lay in the theoretical assumptions
concerning whether bringing new L2 forms implicitly to the attention of the learner could
foster greater acquisition, or whether explicit instruction could facilitate in speeding up
the mental processes that converts declarative knowledge into procedural knowledge.
Their findings revealed some interesting and surprising results, suggesting that the
implication for the L2 teacher is knowing when and what kind of learner-‐error warrants
which type of instruction.
On average, instruction that incorporates explicit techniques leads to more substantial effects than implicit instruction, and this a probabilistically trustworthy difference. In addition, instruction that incorporates a focus on form integrated in meaning is as effective as instruction that involves a focus on forms. (Norris and Ortega, 2000: 500).
Finally, Batstone (2011) tackles an issue of focus on form that was raised by Fotos (1998)
regarding the implications of culture. He makes the point that if a learner is to benefit
from focus on form instruction, then there has to be mutual empathy existing between
the learner and the teacher. In other words, both parties should tacitly know when and
how to give and receive instruction, otherwise whichever negotiation strategy is
employed by the teacher to signal that an error has been made, it is unlikely learning will
take place unless the learner is aware of such stratagems. Consequently, a direct
implication for the L2 teacher involved in meaning/task-‐based activities is knowing when
to provide input and when to refrain. This is, effectively, what Schmidt (1990) was
12
highlighting when talking about consciousness-‐raising. That if a learner is not aware of a
particular linguistic item, then s/he is far less likely to notice when that item is being used
incorrectly or inappropriately; conversely, when certain linguistic items are made salient,
the learner is more likely to notice, and thus primed for learning and eventual acquisition.
Moreover, it is advantageous for the learner if the L2 teacher is able to discern between
certain kinds of instruction. For example, within the focus on form paradigm, when a
breakdown in communication occurs during an activity, the teacher generally utilises
either a reactive or preemptive negotiation strategy in order to repair the
miscommunication. In addition, both negotiation options can provide either implicit or
explicit instruction, and depending upon the teacher’s L2 knowledge, these options can
be administered as either input-‐providing or output-‐prompting. Ellis (2008) provides a
rationale for why this distinction is both theoretically and pedagogically sound: "The
distinction between input-‐providing strategies and output-‐prompting strategies is of
theoretical importance because it is related to the nature of the data that learners obtain,
i.e., whether the data afford both POSITIVE and NEGATIVE EVIDENCE or just negative
evidence" (p. 227). Thus knowing when and how to intervene is a vital aspect of L2
pedagogy. For example, Widdowson (1978) advocates that having an extensive
understanding of the complex issues inherent with SLA enhance the chances of learner
acquisition, e.g., being aware that learner-‐errors could actually be signposts of learner
success. Widdowson asserts that some errors are indicative that the learner is adopting a
universal L1 strategy that allows a speaker to simplify his grammar in order to expedite
his message; therefore, if a learner commits an error during a communicative task, it may
13
not solely be down to a lack of L2 competence. Table 2, below, shows the possible focus
on form moves the teacher is likely to use for instruction.
2.3 Key studies in beliefs and practices
The following paragraphs will now examine some key studies that explore the cognitive
relationship between beliefs and attitudes and their subsequent influence on teaching
practices. Borg (2003) undertook extensive research of 64 studies (ranging from 1976-‐
2002) that looked at the underlying factors behind teachers’ decision-‐making processes
during an L2 lesson. The umbrella term teacher cognition was the overarching theme of
the study, which Borg summarises as the: 'Unobservable cognitive dimension of teaching
T: M has an alibi(3.0)T: another name for girlfriend?(laughter)(4.5)T: an alibi is a reason you have for not being atthe bank robbery (.) okay (.) not being at thebank robbery
Example 8: Teacher-initiated focus-on-form (using an advisory statement)
T: okay, now remember this is your plan, so ‘I’m going to, I’mgoing to..’
6. Summary
Table 2 provides a summary of the di!erent options for accomplishing focus-on-form. These options are not ‘either-ors’. That is, any single communicative lesson
Table 2Principal focus-on-form options
Options Description
A. Reactive focus-on-form The teacher or another student responds to an error that a studentmakes in the context of a communicative activity.
1. Negotiation The response to the error is triggered by a failure to understand whata. Conversational the student meant. It involves ‘negotiation of meaning’.
b. Didactic The response occurs even though no breakdown in communication hastaken place; it constitutes a ‘time-out’ from communicating. It involves‘negotiation of form’.
2. Feedback The teacher or another student responds to a student’s error withouta. Implicit feedback directly indicating an error has been made, e.g. by means of a recast.
b. Explicit feedback The teacher or another student responds to a student’s error by directlyindicating that an error has been made, e.g. by formally correctingthe error or by using metalanguage to draw attention to it.
B. Pre-emptive focus-on-form The teacher or a student makes a linguistic form the topic of thediscourse even though no error has been committed.
1. Student initiated A student asks a question about a linguistic form.
2. Teacher-initiated The teacher gives advice about a linguistic form he/she thinks mightbe problematic or asks the students a question about the form.
R. Ellis et al. / System 30 (2002) 419–432 429
Table 2 Ellis et al. (2002, p. 429.)
14
-‐ what teachers know, believe, and think" (p.81). The following four points will serve to
outline the underlying causes which lead to a dichotomy between actual classroom
practices and perceived beliefs about such practices.
• what do teachers have cognitions about?
• how do these cognitions develop?
• how do they interact with teacher learning?
• how do they interact with classroom practice? (ibid: 81)
As can be expected from such a large and diverse study, the findings were many,
complex, and often overlapping; however, by exploring some pedagogic and cognitive
notions, they can be summarised as follows: teachers may make decisions about what
should be taught, when and why, based on their personal view of instructional concerns
or considerations; how they feel about their own pedagogical knowledge; they may have
strong intuitions about particular educational maxims or principles; there could also be
concerns about the levels of context their learners are being exposed to; their decisions
may also be affected by personal practical knowledge, beliefs, and personal convictions. In
sum, the total mental activity of an L2 teacher can be said to account for the
contradictions between beliefs and practices. Interestingly, Borg sees such
incompatibilities as being complementary; that all classroom practice is a manifestation
of myriad competing cognitions, none more so than perhaps: "Beliefs established early on
in life that are resistant to change even in the face of contradictory evidence" (ibid: 86).
There is much evidence to support the findings of Borg’s (2003) study. For instance, if
time is an issue, though teachers may have very clear views regarding the efficacy of
15
using elicitation techniques to underpin the cognitive processes necessary for acquisition,
it was found that using direct corrections was far more an efficient way for learners to
recognise that an error had been committed (Ng and Farrell, 2003). Further, in light of
what has been said about beliefs being resistant, Borg and Phipps (2009) report on a
longitudinal study involving three experienced EFL teachers working in a private language
school in Turkey. Ostensibly focused on the phenomenon of why it appeared common
among L2 teachers to engage in classroom practices contrary to their professed beliefs,
Borg and Phipps introduced the term tensions: essentially, a form of cognitive dissonance
arising when teachers experience conflict between their core and peripheral beliefs.
According to Gabillon (2012), L2 teachers’ core beliefs represent deeply held convictions
about fundamental aspects of the society in which they grew up and received their formal
education. In contrast, L2 teachers’ peripheral beliefs are those which have been intuited
experientially through interacting with the adult world; thus, core beliefs are highly
resistant to change because they are central to the teacher’s personal identity, whilst
peripheral beliefs are subordinate to core beliefs, meaning they are more amenable to
change:
These core beliefs often precede the L2 teacher’s experience in his/her profession. At times, the peripheral beliefs and the core beliefs the L2 teacher possesses on a topic might bear some inconsistent elements that are unclear even for the teacher herself/himself. (Gabillon, 2012: 198).
16
Aspect Stated belief Observed
practice
Explanation given
Presenting grammar
Controlled grammar practice Group-‐work for oral practice
Grammar should be presented in context Learners learn better if they discover the rules Sentence-‐level practice is not beneficial Mechanical practice is not beneficial Group-‐work is beneficial for oral practice
Expository grammar work Sentence-‐level, rule-‐based presentation Sentence-‐level gap-‐fill Mechanical practice Teacher-‐centred/ lockstep oral practice
Student expectations – Assessment Students’ level/responsiveness/motivation Student expectations Classroom management Need to monitor errors Classroom management Student responsiveness
Hence, when confronted with the transcripts from the recorded lessons, the three
teachers in Borg and Phipps’ study all exhibited tensions in their reported beliefs and
classroom practices, leading Borg and Phipps to conclude: “The relationships between
beliefs and practices and between core and peripheral beliefs we have posited are
relevant to, and provide a framework for, continuing language teaching research” (Borg
and Phipps, 2009: 388). Table 3, above, provides a summary of their findings.
In a similar, but earlier study, Basturkmen et al. (2004) carried out an examination of
teachers' stated beliefs about explicit grammar instruction. The study was undertaken in
New Zealand, and was conducted using three participants working at a private English
Table 3 Borg and Phipps (2009: 387)
17
language school. Not surprisingly, given that they were using typical CLT activities, all
teachers believed their L2 objective was facilitating learners in sustaining meaningful
communicative interaction; hence, unless there was a clear breakdown in
communication, i.e., message, not code, the teacher would not instigate focus on form
interventions [code being a focus on grammatical inaccuracies (including vocabulary and
pronunciation), whilst message is a focus on a problem with understanding meaning].
However, as with the other studies discussed so far, when Basturkmen interviewed the
three teachers during a stimulated recall interview, she found that: “A teacher may make
a number of statements that it is best to interfere with the flow of a communicative
activity only when there is a problem of understanding” (p.256). Moreover, the
recordings and full transcripts of the lessons presented empirical evidence that each of
the teachers clearly initiated corrective feedback on a pronunciation error (code) when it
transpired there had been no miscommunication in meaning (message). Clearly, then, a
disjunct between stated beliefs and their classroom realisations is evident. Below is a
table taken from Basturkmen et al. (2004) showing a comparison of stated beliefs
regarding L2 practice (p.256).
18
Finally, two studies that are integral to this dissertation reveal conclusively that highly
qualified L2 teachers, e.g., those teaching EAP in universities, are susceptible to the
incongruences of perceived beliefs and their classroom manifestations. Burgess and
Etherington (2002) and Barnard and Scampton (2008) conducted surveys on 48 and 32
EAP teachers working in British and New Zealand universities, respectively. Differing
slightly in methodological research means, in that Barnard and Scampton replicated the
Burgess and Etherington questionnaire but were also able to conduct post-‐survey
qualitative interviews, both studies, nonetheless, reported remarkably similar findings.
For example, both sets of teachers stated that because many of their learners came from
EFL countries, they felt under pressure to conform to the pedagogical norms of their
learners’ education system. In other words, the teachers abandoned the tenets of focus
on form/CLT and adopted a more teacher-‐centric role, i.e., one in which explicit and
systematic grammar instruction became the norm. Suffice to say, the findings of these
last two studies concord with the data found in the other studies examined throughout
this chapter. A more detailed account of these last two studies will be given in chapters 3
and 5.
2.4 Summary
This chapter has looked in detail at two specific areas related to ELT: 1. Focus on form and
its perceived significance in being seen as a competent L2 teacher; 2. How inherent
beliefs and attitudes toward grammar instruction and correcting influence and affect the
decision-‐making processes of the L2 teacher during a lesson. In relation to point 1., the
literature looked at the origins of focus on form as an alternative approach to grammar
instruction and correction that was introduced by Long (1991). It was further expounded
19
on by Ellis et al. (2002), and then subjected to critical evaluation by Fotos (1998) and
Batstone (2011). With regard to point 2., the review looked at some specific case studies
in which researchers presented evidence supporting Borg’s (2003) assertions that L2
teachers’ cognitions are subject to a whole range of external influences that shape the
decisions made in the classroom. And finally, the chapter concluded with a brief look at
the two studies which inspired the writing of this dissertation. In the following chapter,
there will be a discussion outlining the reasons for choosing the research question for the
present study.
20
Chapter 3
Research question 3. Background to research question:
Lightbrown and Spada (1990) wrote an article reviewing the benefits and efficacy of focus
on form with regard to learnability and acquisition as a means of explicit grammar
instruction in ESL. Interestingly, in the introduction to their article, they mentioned that
over the course of the previous two decades, attitudes toward L2 instruction and
methodology had undergone a paradigm shift, i.e., that the traditional methods involving
the explicit instruction of discrete grammatical items, generally taught out of context, had
been jettisoned in favour of more psychological approaches borne of the new theories
emerging out of the study of linguistics (Chomsky, 1965). Consequently, the 1970s saw a
new approach to L2 learning and teaching being developed, one that was soon heralded
as a panacea to the traditional, behaviourist methods of L2 instruction; thus, the
approach of communicative language teaching (CLT) was introduced into the world of L2
pedagogy (Allwight, 1979; Brumfit, 1979).
Almost a decade after the Lightbrown and Spada (1990) article was published, the
efficacy of focus on form was still being discussed by researchers and teachers alike. Fotos
(1998), for example, looks at the benefits and problems of integrating focus on form in
21
relation to ESL and EFL contexts. Presently, however, though the argument remains to a
large extent partisan and unresolved, focus on form is broadly embraced as an approach
for instruction and correction within L2 pedagogic settings (Fotos and Nassaji, 2011). The
crux of the debate rests not on whether CLT as an approach to L2 instruction is justified
pedagogically, but rather on the degree(s) of explicitness to which focus on form as a
means of L2 instruction should be employed (Long, 1991). The prognosis for such
unresolvedness stems from the vague definition CLT has come to represent. Depending
on the context and level of learner, CLT, particularly in the West, has become a catch-‐all
approach to second language learning and teaching, with both novice and experienced
teacher grappling with aspects of its paradigm (Pennycook, 2001; Widdowson, 1992);
none more so than the concept of focus on form within CLT (Basturkmen et al., 2004).
Such divergent interpretations has engendered focus on form with a surfeit of beliefs and
attitudes about the nature of L2 instruction; namely, whether it is better to be explicit
when giving instructions and corrections, or whether being more implicit better facilitates
learner acquisition. It is to these two latter issues, beliefs and attitudes regarding focus on
form in the classroom that inform the research question of this dissertation. The question
itself is an adaptation of the following two case studies.
3.1 Case study 1-‐ Burgess and Etherington:
Burgess and Etherington (2002) report on a study they set up in order to record how 48
EAP teachers working in British universities felt about the explicit teaching of grammar
during their L2 lessons. All of the above 48 teachers were involved in teaching on pre-‐
sessional EAP courses in the UK, and whose teaching experience averaged above five
years. Importantly for the present study, Burgess and Etherington make an assertion
22
about this particular target group being the crème de la crème of L2 English teachers: "It
could be argued that this group of teachers represent some of the most sophisticated
within the TESOL profession; certainly they tend to be well-‐qualified and teachers of long-‐
standing. Thus, their views may provide something of a benchmark for the profession"
(p.436). Moreover, it can be tacitly assumed that learners studying EAP are, in some way,
more capable and proficient than their counterparts studying General English; the logical
corollary being EAP learners require more explicit attention to grammar, and therefore
are more expectant and demanding of it. The implication here is that in comparison to
their EFL General English counterparts, teachers of EAP possess the greater theoretical
knowledge about grammar due to their having to make more precise and frequent
decisions regarding its instruction in order to satisfy the high expectations of their
learners. One presumes this is because there appears to be far fewer demanding and
expectant learners studying General English due to the nature of its context and genre,
i.e., non academic. Further, Burgess and Etherington report that, on the whole, and in
relation to certain contexts (outlined in the previous chapter), the respondents favoured
a focus on form approach, both instructionally and correctively. For example, 56% of the
respondents were inclined to administer corrective feedback using methods associated
with form-‐focused instruction, a clear indication of this being the normative approach:
“The majority of the teachers represented here appear to see grammatical knowledge as
important for their students and to have a sophisticated understanding of the problems
and issues involved in its teaching” (ibid: p.450).
3.2 Case study 2 – Barnard and Scampton: Similarly, in a survey undertaken by Barnard and Scampton (2008), which was based on
23
the Burgess and Etherington (2002) study, the beliefs and attitudes of the respondents
concurred to a greater than lesser extent with the EAP teachers in UK universities. In the
Barnard and Scampton study, the authors interviewed 32 EAP teachers working
throughout the higher education system in New Zealand. In keeping with the first study,
most of the respondents had an average of five years’ teaching experience or more, and
most were qualified up to Masters level. The only difference between the two EAP target
groups was that those teaching in New Zealand taught exclusively to already-‐enrolled
undergraduates: this difference was noted by the authors as being minor. However, there
is one difference between the two studies, and although it does not really affect the
actual data findings, qualifies mentioning. Barnard and Scampton were able to gather
some post-‐study qualitative data via email correspondence with eleven of the
respondents, which they felt added to and consolidated their quantitative findings.
Burgess and Etherington, on the other hand, distinctly felt their lack of follow-‐up
interviews slightly undermined the import of their study, and acknowledge had they been
able to conduct post-‐study interviews, the study would have been a more substantive
piece of research. Overall, though, the two studies demonstrate far more similarities than
differences. For example, the following quotations of two EAP teachers taken from the
respective studies reveal that their beliefs and attitudes are influenced, not
inconsiderably, by their learners’ own cultural experiences and expectations of education,
especially with regard to explicit attention to grammar instruction:
"Within the language centre our courses cater for a large number of Asian students particularly from Japan and Korea and student expectations regarding grammar teaching obviously affect teaching (T17)" (ibid: p.448); and:
24
"From experience, it has always been the non Asian students that do not know the grammar rules (the Pacific Island students or the Middle Eastern students) whereas the Chinese, Malaysians, Japanese, and Koreans know them and are able to answer the questions." (Barnard and Scampton, 2008: 69).
With regard to corrective feedback, the New Zealand EAP teachers were unanimous in
their administering a focus on form approach to alerting the learners to their errors:
“All of the interviewees agreed that from-‐focused correction helps students to improve
their grammatical performance, and most did not find any particular difficulties in
correcting grammar errors in either written or oral communication” (Barnard and
Scampton, 2008: 72).
And finally, of the many pertinent issues to emerge out of these two studies, one which
may turn out to be integral to the relevance of the research question is the one that
caused particular consternation for both sets of EAP teachers. It concerns the learners’
continued inability at transferring their linguistic competence into intelligible
communicative competence (Hymes, 1979). This particular concern has generated much
research into the psychological mechanisms involved in SLA, and is centered around the
learner’s interlanguage. The issue of not being able to transfer linguistic competence into
communicative competence is a universal issue that affects all learners at the various
stages of language acquisition, especially at lower levels, and as such, is significant to the
present study (Long, 1991). As a result, being metalinguistically literate, possessing
metacognitive awareness, as well as having sound theoretical knowledge of the many
(often controversial) issues within the field of SLA, will undoubtedly inform and influence
an L2 teacher’s beliefs and attitude towards his learners and the broader issues
25
concerning L2 teaching, e.g., declarative and procedural knowledge, usage and use,
periods of interlanguage remediation etc. (Widdowson, 1978).
3.3 Rationale for the research question:
The original research questions that informed the Burgess and Etherington study, and
which were subsequently adopted for the Barnard and Scampton study were:
• Which beliefs about grammar and grammar teaching are most widely held by EAP teachers?
• Is there a bias towards decontextualized presentation of grammar and away from
the discourse-‐based, unified approaches? (Burgess and Etherington, 2002: 437).
For the present study, the above questions will also serve as the research template. By
asking the same questions, it is hoped that whatever the findings may be, they will not be
distorted by being semantically misinterpreted, thus making it possible to compare
accurately the General English teachers’ beliefs and attitudes with those of the EAP
teachers. The aim of this present study, then, seeks to explore the hitherto unexamined
beliefs and attitudes of a different target group of L2 teachers regarding grammar
instruction in relation to focus on form intervention. Given that the data from the two
previous studies clearly indicate cohesion in both quantitative and qualitative findings
between the two groups of EAP teachers, the purpose of this research question is to
identify if similar beliefs and attitudes hold between a comparable group of English
language teachers.
3.4 Subjects:
In order to obtain answers that would be comprehensive enough to take into account the
26
many differing contexts in which ESL and EFL are taught, the target group chosen for
carrying out the primary research will be General English teachers presently working in
private English language schools in multiple international locales. The type of English to
be investigated will, therefore, be that of General English, distinct from EAP by the
conventions of genre, though not necessarily by the methods or approaches to its
instruction (Hutchinson and Waters, 1987; Swales, 1990). The primary objectives are to
carry out a examination of a) how teachers of General English feel about the instruction
and correction of grammar; b) how they come to hold such beliefs and attitudes; and c)
to what degree are such beliefs and attitudes responsible for their day to day decision
making when practising in the L2 classroom. And as with the two studies upon which this
present one is based, there is one open-‐ended question which aims to gather some
qualitative data in order to support the closed-‐ended questions.
3.5 Gap in the research:
There is plenty of research available which looks at beliefs and attitudes of L2 teachers in
relation to teacher cognition in various teaching contexts. For example, in a
comprehensive review, Borg (2003) examines over 60 such studies relating to the
unobservable cognitive dimension of teaching – what teachers know, believe and think.
But there is very little, if any, empirical data correlating two different sets of L2 teachers,
teaching in different L2 pedagogic contexts, and reacting to the same cognitive
phenomenon, i.e., beliefs and attitudes to the explicit instruction and correction of
grammar. Hence, by comparing the two different ELT groups in their respective L2
teaching environments, the research question aims to establish whether any disparity in
beliefs and attitudes between these two groups, in relation to FFI, is symptomatic or
27
indicative of the following premises:
a) English being taught as ESP/EAP as opposed to it being taught as General English
(genre).
b) English being taught in universities or other academic environments as opposed to
private language schools (context).
c) The result of greater theoretical knowledge and higher-‐level academic teacher-‐
training as opposed to ELT industry-‐standard qualifications, e.g., Masters vs. CELTA
(education).
3.6 Summary
By asking whether two different groups of L2 teachers, working in different L2
environments and instructing In different English genres have similar or dissimilar beliefs
and attitudes to focus on form instruction, the research question of this present study
hopes to provide evidence that answers the following ELT inquiry:
• Do the beliefs and attitudes of L2 teachers of academic English (EAP) in some way
make them better teachers than L2 teachers of non-‐academic General English?
• Does having greater L2 theoretical knowledge and training give EAP teachers a
classroom advantage over their General English contemporaries?
• Does the cultural educational background of General English L2 learners influence
the beliefs and attitudes of General English L2 teachers to the same degree as it
does with the EAP teachers?
The above criteria as set out in this chapter form the rationale for the research question.
The following chapter will set out the research methods undertaken for carrying out the
primary research for this current project.
28
Chapter 4
Research Methods
4. Introduction
The main aim of this chapter is to set out the objectives of the present study in terms of
its research methodology. As was mentioned in detail in the preceding chapter, the goal
of this present study is to discover whether L2 teachers of General English working in
private language schools hold a set of similar beliefs and attitudes towards the instruction
and correction of grammar as their EAP contemporaries teaching in universities. In
addition, the two original studies highlighted in the previous chapter identified a series of
pedagogical intuitions related to explicit and implicit grammar instruction, which marked
the EAP teachers as holding very similar views, particularly with regard to the educational
background of their learners vis-‐à-‐vis classroom influences, ergo teacher cognitions. To
see if this was in any way a uniform pattern among other sets of L2 English teachers, a
replication of the original studies was undertaken using a different target group and a
different teaching context: these are the variables that will be used to draw inferences
and make distinctions between the two sets of L2 teachers.
To clarify how the research objectives were met, the outline of this chapter is as follows:
• section 4.1 will look first at the research strategy used to obtain the necessary
data.
29
• section 4.2 provides justification for the methods employed in collecting the data,
e.g., research instrument, sampling procedure etc.
• section 4.3 provides a framework for data analysis.
• section 4.4 will address any limitations the research strategy may expose, i.e.,
whether data collected by means of the particular research strategy chosen for
the present study is reliable, thus valid.
4.1 Research strategy
The decision to use a survey as the means of carrying out the primary research was based
emphatically on the two studies upon which the present one is intending to replicate, and
because, also: "Surveys have been used in the second language teaching and learning
literature. There are articles about individual learning differences like motivation, learning
styles, personality, anxiety and language learning, attitudes toward language learning,
and so on" (Brown and Rodgers, 2002: 117). Therefore, choosing a survey satisfied three
core criteria: 1. By following the same research strategy as the two studies upon which
this present one is based, it keeps to a minimum any possible variables that could affect
the final analysis; 2. Using a survey is a recognized and common research strategy within
the field of L2 learning and teaching, and is therefore trustworthy and reliable; and 3. It
makes it possible to reach a sample group large enough to be representative of the target
population to which the survey is generalising.
30
4.2 Data collection
Again, in keeping with the original two studies and therefore minimizing extraneous
variables, a questionnaire was used as the instrument with which to collect data: using a
different research instrument may inadvertently effect a different type of response,
which could ultimately lead to discrepancies in the final analysis. Thus, in accordance with
what Dörnyei and Csizér (2012) say about: "Producing an attractive and professional
design is half the battle in motivating respondents to produce reliable and valid data"
(p.78), considerable effort went in to producing a model questionnaire. Consequently, to
ensure the questionnaire met the requisite standards for an academic study, it was
decided that the reputable online survey provider, Survey Monkey, would be used to
design a bespoke questionnaire, as well as providing the necessary logistics needed for
collecting the data once the respondents had completed the survey. The procedure for
collection was relatively straightforward. Upon completion, the respondents clicked the
‘done’ icon on the final page of the survey questionnaire, and the data was automatically
uploaded to the Survey Monkey site, where it was processed into a series of charts
showing percentages and Likert-‐type ratings scales. These were subsequently
downloaded by the author to be used as the basis for data description and analysis.
4.2.1 Questionnaire format
As the present study is replicating two previous studies, it is important to reiterate that
the original studies surveyed EAP teachers in universities, and therefore the teaching
context necessitated that learners receive greater attention and instruction in the written
medium than learners of General English in private language schools. Thus, fifteen of the
original forty (quantitative) questions were deemed superfluous to the present study and
31
were accordingly omitted, making the present questionnaire smaller in size (26 as
opposed to 41 questions), but narrower in terms of research aims, i.e., the spoken
medium. The overall design of the questionnaire thus had the same format as the original
ones, in that it began by asking non-‐personal background questions about age, gender,
years as a General English teacher, whether they were full-‐time teachers and the level of
their teaching qualifications. These questions were prefaced with an introductory
disclaimer promising complete anonymity and utmost ethical confidentiality, as well as
informing them of the duration of the questionnaire (10-‐12 minutes) and that their
participating added to the value of an important academic study within their field. *All
three survey questionnaires and their subsequent results will be published in the
appendices.
The remaining twenty-‐six questions appeared in the same sequential order as the original
ones, and as with the original studies, the final question required the respondents to
comment on any salient aspects they felt were not addressed in the preceding questions,
and/or simply to reflect on their own experiences as language teachers. Mackey and Gass
(2005) outline what is usually found within a mixed-‐methods questionnaire: "Two types of
questionnaire items may be identified: closed and open ended. A closed-‐item question is
one for which the researcher determines the possible answers, whereas an open-‐ended
question allows the respondents to answer in any manner they see fit" (p.93). Overall,
though, the questionnaire was predominantly quantitative in nature, and is thus
presented in a Likert-‐type scale format. However, unlike the Burgess and Etheringtion
study which offered a five-‐point scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly
agree, with (3) being the neither/nor option, the present study used the four-‐point scale
32
(purposely omitting option 3) employed by Barnard and Scampton in their questionnaire.
The rationale given for adopting a four rather than five-‐point scale was that: “ A four-‐
point scale facilitates a clear analysis of positive and negative responses; there is a
tendency for many respondents to regress to the central point (#3 – no opinion, or
neutral) in a five-‐point scale” (Barnard and Scampton, 2008: 64).
4.2.2 Sampling procedure
"Sampling allows the researchers to select a subset of the objects or members of a
population to represent the total population" (Brown, 2013: 5045), hence, for the present
study to be deemed credible and thus academically valid, it should be prudent to have at
least a similar sample size to the original studies, both of which comprised 48 and 32
respondents, respectively. The method by which the respondents of the present study
were sampled was a procedure known as non-‐probability purposive sampling. This
technique allows the researcher to select and invite a sample group that satisfies
particular criteria to participate in the proposed survey. For the original studies, the
criteria were that the L2 teachers had to teach EAP in university; for the present study,
the criteria are that the respondents have to be teachers of General English teaching in
private language schools. Moreover, the present study differs from the original studies by
sampling a heterogeneous target population comprising respondents from America, Italy,
Serbia, Korea, Japan, UK, Bangladesh, Canada, China, Dhaka, and Saudi Arabia; whereas in
the original studies, the samples were taken from a far more homogeneous target
population. Though having such an international sample group would still make
generalising to the target population a negligible proposition due to the extremely small
33
sample size, it was thought the diversity in geographical regions would be proportionally
more representative (Dörnyei and Csizér, 2012).
4.2.3 Administration of questionnaire/subjects
The next step, and perhaps the biggest obstacle to carrying out primary research, was
knowing where to find such a sample group and how to contact them. As mentioned in
the preceding section 4.2.2, the justification for choosing an international sample group
was that by persuading enough non-‐native speaker teachers to participate in the survey,
they could be thought of as being fairly representative of the study population of that
particular region, thus giving the present study greater scope in terms of validity. It was
then decided that the online professional networking site, LinkedIn, would be the ideal
place to select from, as its database caters to thousands of members working within
various language-‐oriented professions. The procedure for the selection process involved
seeking out members of the LinkedIn Applied Linguists Group (ALG), singling out only
those whose ALG profiles satisfied the pre-‐specified survey criteria. In the end, 215
members of the ALG were identified as being eligible for participation; each individual
member was then emailed a request, kindly asking for their willingness to complete the
questionnaire. Of the 215, forty members of the ALG replied positively, and duly
completed all of the quantitative questions; 28 of the 40 respondents left meaningful
qualitative answers.
4.3 Framework for analysis
The intended framework for analysing the collected data will be mainly qualitative in
approach, however, as most of the questions are quantitative in nature, a provision of
34
charts and tables showing percentages will be used to add numerical support to the
qualitative commentary. According to Friedman (2012), certain considerations need to be
thought about when attempting to analyse data qualitatively. She makes the following six
points about the processes involved:
a) collecting data, b) thinking about how the data relate to the research purpose, c) categorising the data, d) reflecting on the process of analysis, e) organising the data to look for patterns and themes, f) connecting emergent themes to larger concepts and theories (p.191).
The intention, then, is first to present the findings from the present study in the form of
percentages in a series of individual tables. These will be presented alongside the
percentages from the original studies, creating the necessary framework that allows for
quick and easy reference and comparisons to be made. The data will then be described in
more detail in accordance with guidelines set out by Friedman, above, and will thus entail
a qualitative analysis that involves cross-‐referencing (i.e., synthesising) the data from the
present study with the findings that were presented in both the Literature Review and
the original two studies (Biggam, 2011). The analytical approach used here fully concords
with the methodological analyses of the original studies, thus providing a rationale for the
reliability and validity of the survey findings. However, Hart (2005) warns of the dangers
of researcher bias when it comes to analysing the data, such that only the exciting
findings that support initial preconceived notions get reported. Spada (2011), too, offers a
similar caveat with regard to employing narrative synthesis for data analysis: "This
process is considered to be incomplete and biased, however, because of the observed
tendency for researchers to give more attention to studies that report results that are
35
similar to their own…" (p.227). Both pieces of advice are borne in mind during the
analysis.
4.4 Limitations of the survey
As with the original studies, the limitations of the present survey are evident. The data
collected can only be viewed as snapshots of how the respondents answered a set of
predetermined questions on that particular day, and in accordance with how they were
emotionally and psychologically disposed at the time. As a result, answers given could
vacillate enormously depending on each respondent’s individual circumstances and
disposition. For example, respondents may answer too quickly, or answer with a certain
bias, that is, giving an answer they presuppose the researcher is looking for. This can
inevitably make the data far from trustworthy. Furthermore, as with the Burgess and
Etherington study, there was no opportunity to triangulate the respondents’ answers
using another means of data collection, e.g., observed teaching, post-‐lesson interviews
etc. (Basturkmen et al., 2004; Borg and Phipps, 2009). In addition to the above issues,
Dörnyei (2010) warns of the dangers of respondent self-‐selection: “Volunteers may be
different from non-‐volunteers in their aptitude, motivation, or some other basic
characteristic…consequently, the sample may lose its representative character, which of
course would prevent any meaningful generalizability” (p.64). There is also the issue
regarding generalisations in relation to using a non-‐probability sampling procedure.
Nevertheless, though the limitations of the present study preclude it from being an
authoritative piece of academic writing, the targeting of a different group of L2 teachers
adds a new perspective to the existing research, and can, therefore, be considered to be
of value as a piece of independent research in its own right.
36
4.5 Summary
This chapter has systematically presented each procedure necessary for undertaking
primary research in order to answer the dissertation research question. Section 4.1
outlined the reasons for choosing a survey as the research strategy, namely, that it
satisfied certain prerequisite criteria. In section 4.2, a detailed account of the rationale
behind using a questionnaire as the research instrument for data collection was given,
i.e., that it was the instrument used in the original studies and it could, therefore, be
inferred to authenticate, and thus validate, the present study. Justification was also
provided for why the online companies Survey Monkey and LinkedIn were logistically
appropriate and necessary for questionnaire design and administration. In addition, the
reasoning behind using a non-‐probability sampling procedure was clearly explained.
Section 4.3 outlined the procedural steps involved in analyzing the collected data and
finally, in section 4.4, the limitations of the research methods were exposed, as was the
value for its initial undertaking. The following chapter will now present the findings from
the present study as a series of data descriptions integrated with in-‐depth, qualitative
analysis.
37
Chapter 5
Analysis of Findings
5. Introduction
Thus far, the research of the present study has replicated the following aspects of the
original studies: research strategy (survey); research instrument (questionnaire); format
of questionnaire (quantitative/qualitative); sampling procedure (non-‐probability
purposive); and questionnaire administration (online distribution and data collection).
Importantly, since the Burgess and Etherington study was the first of its kind to account
for the beliefs and attitudes of EAP teachers relative to the explicit instruction of
grammar, it set a precedent, resulting in Barnard and Scampton’s replication study six
years later. Therefore, this chapter aims to explicate the findings of the present study by
endeavouring to replicate the same analytical procedures undertaken in the original two
studies. The format for analyzing the findings in the original studies involved presenting
the quantitative data as percentages, which were then integrated qualitatively in relation
to the following sequence of survey themes:
• The role of grammar in language
• Explicit grammar teaching
• Instruction vs. exposure
• Declarative and procedural knowledge
38
• The use of grammatical terminology
• Error correction
Further, only the answers given in relation to the above themes will be considered for
analysis in this chapter. Correlating the findings in the present study with the
corresponding results in the original studies will enable a direct comparison to be made
between the two sets of L2 teachers, thus minimising the potential risk of researcher bias,
as alluded to in the previous chapter (Hart, 2005; Spada, 2011). The following referents
for each respective study will henceforth apply throughout this chapter: S1 (Burgess and
Etherington, 2002); S2 (Barnard and Scampton, 2008); and S3 (Present Study, 2013).
5.1 Background information of the respondents
Before analyzing the quantitative results, a series of pie charts will be presented in order
to show how S3 respondents answered the non-‐personal background questions. No data
was available to correlate the respondents’ demographics with their geographical
regions; their individual locations were known only through their ALG profiles. Thus, in
accordance with the advice from Survey Monkey about not transgressing the boundaries
of privacy, none were asked to reveal their names or where they taught, hence making all
answers completely anonymous with regard to the respondents’ individual backgrounds.
Table 4, below, shows that the mean age of S3 respondents was 40.
39
20-‐29 30-‐39 40-‐49 50-‐59 60+
3 21 11 3 2
Mean age: 40
Charts 1 and 2, above, show the characteristics of S3 respondents in terms of gender and
years teaching General English. There was no gender question in the original studies, but
a comparison for years teaching over five (S3, 85%) shows S1 recorded 83.3%, and 16.7%
for those teaching less than five years. There were no figures presented for S2
respondents’ background, but they were reported as being: “largely comparable with the
British teachers reported by Burgess and Etherington” (Barnard and Scampton, 2008: 65).
It should be taken that in S2, the background questions also revealed comparable
answers to the S1 study.
Table 4
������������ �������������������������������������������������
������
&� ��
�� �
� "
�'�(�% ����� ���� )�����*���
�� +�����"���� ��,������
������������ ����������
�2��* ��� �2%�* ��� &�������%* ���
�#,-�.
%,-".
(%,-��.
#����� ������ ��
�-'��� ��
'-���� ��
����� �#
���/��0����� 1��������
������������ �������������������������������������������������
������
����� "�
�!��� �
���"�����
������������ ����������
&��� ������
%"+%#,-"�.
�!+%#,-� .
# ��
$�% ��
����� �#
���/��0����� 1��������
Chart 1 Chart 2
40
With regard to chart 3, above, the corresponding answer in S1 revealed that 54.8% of the
teachers taught full-‐time, again, showing very similar percentages with S3, which has
52.5% teaching full-‐time. Chart 4, above, reveals an interesting statistic. It shows that
almost half the teachers, 47.5%, are qualified to Masters level, meaning that a significant
percentage of the respondents from S3 are as highly qualified as those respondents in the
original studies. The import of this is that it implies that nearly half of the General English
teachers possess as much theoretical knowledge about SLA and L2 teaching/learning as
the EAP teachers in the S1 and S2 studies, thus dispelling the tacit implication that EAP
teachers are arguably some of the most sophisticated within the TESOL profession.
������������ �������������������������������������������������
%�����
����� "�
�!��� �
���������� �.���-��%��"���� ��,������
�� +���
������������ ����������
3�� 4�
%"+%#,-"�.
�!+%#,-� .
/��
0
����� �#
���/��0����� 1��������
������������ �������������������������������������������������
)�����
�!��� �
'!��� �%
�����
�!��� !
����� %
����� %
���1��+���� +�����2� ��.�+ ���3�4�����
�������������
������������ ����������
#, "#, �#, )#, (#, �##,
'5
&��-��67�.
5����
0����
�
7��
�"+%#,
�!+%#,
�"+%#,
""+%#,
�!+%#,
�!+%#,
#��35,�674
8�
9���
6����
:��
����
������1����������$��#
���/��0����� 1��������
Chart 4 Chart 3
41
5.2 Description, analysis, and synthesis of S3 results: the role of grammar in language.
Table 5, above, shows that the respondents in S3 have a majority agreement of 78% in
regard to how they think of grammar relative to its overall function within the language
system. It is slightly lower in both S1 and S2, with respondents in agreement at 60.9% and
68.8%, respectively.
Q 6c. The role of grammar in language is as something which is added on to language proficiency: a refinement of more basic language knowledge. S1 % S2 % S3 % 1 strongly disagree 51.1 28.1 23.6 2 disagree 36.2 40.6 34.2 3 agree 0 25.0 28.9 4 strongly agree 0 6.3 13.1 Central point 3 in S1 12.8
Table 6 reveals quite an interesting statistic regarding those respondents in agreement.
Respondents in S1, S2, and S3 are all in majority disagreement, with 87.0%, 68.2%, and
57.8%, respectively. However, while the respondents in S1 vehemently disagree with the
stated proposition, the respondents in S2 showed that 31.3% agreed with the statement,
whilst an even greater percentage of respondents in S3, 42.0%, also agreed. Why there
were so many in agreement in S3 compared to S1 and S2 could be accounted for by the
fact the EFL teachers of General English, especially those adhering to a syllabus promoting
Q 6a. The role of grammar in language is as a framework for the rest of the language – a basic system to build everything else on S1 % S2 % S3 % 1 strongly disagree 8.7 0 2.2 2 disagree 10.9 31.3 17.5 3 agree 45.7 46.9 57.5 4 strongly agree 15.2 21.9 22.5 Central point 3 in S1 19.6
Table 6
Table 5
42
a CLT approach, feel that grammatical inaccuracies are an unavoidable consequence of
encouraging learners to communicate verbally in the classroom, and, therefore, not
something to be too preoccupied with. In contrast, grammatical accuracy is something
that is expected of EAP learners; consequently, EAP teachers feel that proficiency in
grammar is fundamental to achieving academic success in the L2. However, there is far
greater emphasis on written proficiency in EAP, and this could account for why there was
so much disagreement in S1 and S2 compared to S3. A respondent in S3 offers a similar
explanation for Q6c:
It is difficult to determine how important grammatical knowledge is for students. In the written language explicit knowledge of grammar is very useful, but when speaking in natural conversation this seems not to be the case. Some students know that they are unable to use their grammatical knowledge when speaking but still feel that learning grammar is a 'must'. T11
Similarly, in response to Q6a, a respondent in S3 had this to say:
It’s the skeletal framework of language. Has to be taught explicitly for Far East, Middle East SS who don't have same point of reference. Problem is not grammar, it’s the way it’s taught. T15.
From the above statements of the respondents in S3, it seems they grasp the importance
of grammar, not only from a pedagogical perspective (T15) but also from the learner’s
point of view. It is evident that they (the learners) are aware of the importance grammar
plays in speaking in the L2, and as a result, the teacher makes allowances accordingly
when issues of accuracy arise. The majority of respondents in S3 understand that
grammar is a necessary tool for good communication, but they also recognise that
grammatical accuracy is subordinate to communicative fluency. For example:
43
I think that learning grammar is important to be accurate and master the English language. However, it is more important to be able to communicate than to be completely accurate. T24.
5.2.1 Explicit grammar teaching
Unsurprisingly, statements about explicit grammar instruction drew most of the
qualitative responses in S3. Although many L2 teachers involved in CLT profess to
champion fluency, hence a disinclination to interrupt learners unless the grammatical
inaccuracies interfere with meaning, the S3 respondents in Table 7, above, seemingly
disagree, with 69.0% agreeing with the proposition in Q 23. With regard to the EAP
teachers in S1 (68.8%) and S2 (80.7%), it is more understandable that explicit discussions
on grammar are deemed agreeable, as academic excellence hinges on grammatical
accuracy, especially in the written medium.
Q 23. Explicit discussion of grammar rules is helpful for students.
S1 % S2 % S3 % 1 strongly
disagree
2.1 0.0 5.0 2 disagree 4.2 19.4 25.0 3 agree 43.8 35.5 46.5 4 strongly agree 25.0 45.2 22.5 Central point 3 in S1 25.0
Q 25. My students expect teachers to present grammar points explicitly.
S1 % S2 % S3 % 1 strongly disagree 2.1 9.4 0.0 2 disagree 2.1 18.8 25.0 3 agree 59.6 40.6 45.0 4 strongly agree 31.9 31.3 30.0 Central point 3 in S1 4.3
Table 7
Table 8
44
However, the responses to the propositions in questions 25 and 26 in Tables 8 and 9,
above, are crucial to understanding the classroom dilemmas faced by L2 teachers
regarding the explicit v implicit arguments, which are encapsulated in the focus on form v
focus on forms approaches. In Table 8, the respondents in S3 have a majority agreement
of 75.0%, as do the respondents in S1 (90.0%) and S2 (71.9%). Likewise in Table 9, S3
respondents are in 77.5% agreement, whilst S1 and S2 respondents have almost identical
agreement with 69.9% and 68.7&, respectively. Such overwhelming agreement among all
three studies suggests that regardless of the theoretical and practical components of L2
teacher-‐training, teachers concede that because many learners hail from countries where
approaches to teaching are much more pragmatic, explicitly discussing grammar now
appears to be an openly accepted pedagogical norm in the L2 classroom. The following
statements from S3 support the quantitative data shown in the previous three Tables:
In my experience, 85% of EFL learners believe that they most need to improve in their language skills is grammar. However, in reality, it is their vocabulary and fluency that need most work. Nevertheless, I still think it is useful to teach grammar explicitly, not only to respond to the learners' wish, but also because it can be beneficial for some types of learners. T3
Students who are fluent speakers but not accurate can benefit from explicit grammar instruction. Understanding why we say things the way we do should provide them with the necessary tools to self-‐correct or understand their mistakes. T8
Q 26. A lack of explicit grammar teaching leaves my students feeling insecure.
S1 % S2 % S3 % 1 strongly disagree 2.2 6.3 0.0 2 disagree 11.1 25.0 25.5 3 agree 55.6 40.6 52.5 4 strongly agree 13.3 28.1 25.0 Central point 3 in S1 17.8
Table 9
45
Grammar is important. It isn't the most important thing, but it is still important. It seems like many people are promoting a lesser role of explicit grammar teaching recently, but I disagree with this. Explicit grammar teaching still has a place (and is necessary!) T22
Moreover, though the preceding three statements generally concur that, for various
reasons, explicit grammar instruction fulfills both pedagogic and personal requirements,
the following statement shows that for some L2 teachers, explicit instruction is a
necessary impediment:
I have come to regard explicit grammar instruction as analogous to "floaties" for swimming. Floaties (water wings, whatever) give the non-‐swimmer some confidence, but actually interfere with learning how to swim. T14
It is evident from both the quantitative and qualitative responses that S3 respondents are
aware of two major points: 1. That for many learners, grammar is the biggest obstacle to
learning and acquiring communicative competence; and 2. The cultural backgrounds of
learners is instrumental in assuaging any guilt experienced in breaching the tenets of CLT,
as they are seen to be giving their learners not only what they want but also what is
expected of them (though whether this has any long-‐lasting linguistic benefits is an on-‐
going argument). Furthermore, as was mentioned by Borg and Phipps (2009) and Gabillon
(2012), acting contrary to an attested set of beliefs is not unusual. It is clear from the
word ‘floaties’, chosen by T15 to describe explicit instruction, that this teacher is
experiencing conflict between core and peripheral beliefs, such that s/he is prepared to
sacrifice certain peripheral beliefs in favour of satisfying core ones. As a result, when
faced with pedagogical decisions that require teachers to call upon theoretical knowledge
gained during teacher-‐training (peripheral beliefs), extraneous factors, such as context
46
or/and time, can very often lead to ‘tensions’ subconsciously arising (Ng and Farrell,
2003). Consequently, as was highlighted by Basturkmen et al. (2004), teachers may revert
to more deeply held convictions about teaching, encompassing ideals that reflect a more
personal approach to L2 pedagogy. These ideals are then manifested in the decision-‐
making processes that lead teachers like T15 to connote ‘floaties’ as a less than positive
metaphor with regard to explicit instruction.
5.2.2 Instruction versus exposure.
Q 7. Students can learn grammar through exposure to natural use.
S1 % S2 % S3 % 1 strongly disagree 6.3 6.3 5.0 2 disagree 18.8 31.3 30.0 3 agree 31.3 43.8 42.5 4 strongly agree 20.8 18.8 22.5 Central point 3 in S1 22.9
Table 10 shows that 65% of S3 respondents agreed that if learners have the opportunity
to be exposed to usage by native speakers, they can filter aspects of grammar, which may
ultimately lead to learning and acquisition. S2 respondents evidently felt the same, with
62.6% agreeing, and though respondents in S1 had a majority agreement of 52%, this
showed that some had reservations about exposure ultimately leading to grammatical
knowledge. This could be accounted for by those S3 respondents working in ESL
countries, whose learners have more of an opportunity to hear standard usage outside
the L2 classroom. However, EAP learners, regardless if they are studying in ESL countries,
are much less inclined to encounter the type of academic English that is most applicable
to their learning situation, hence respondents in S1 feeling a little more cautious about
the proposition stated.
Table 10
47
The proposition presented in Q8, in Table 11, above, produced overwhelming agreement,
with 87.5% of those in S3 agreeing, followed by 80.5% and 77.1% agreeing in S2 and S1,
respectively. Again, such conclusive agreement across all three studies reveals that L2
teachers are generally comfortable administering formal instruction, although this does
not necessarily entail that all of them are happy about it. For instance, one S3 respondent
clearly accepts that instruction has a place in the L2 classroom, but that it comes at a cost,
namely, stealing time from more beneficial activities:
I believe that we should use whatever way helps the students "get there" and for some students grammar instruction can be a kind of support mechanism. I do not feel that there is much value (particularly in terms of using our limited student contact time) in explicitly teaching grammar. T27
However, the following two S3 comments evidently see instruction as a means to an end
rather than its being the raison d’être for teaching:
It's obviously useful and more natural to have grammar taught within a context (text, listening etc) but sometimes they do like straightforward explanation and presentation. T1
I have been a strong advocate of grammar teaching in EFL classes-‐-‐particularly in non-‐native contexts. In my country (Bangladesh), where English is just a classroom language and lacks socio-‐cultural applications, grammar teaching is the key to students' English proficiency. T12
Q 8. Formal instruction helps learners to produce grammatically correct language.
S1 % S2 % S3 % 1 strongly disagree 0 3.2 7.5 2 disagree 8.3 16.1 5 3 agree 52.1 41.9 50 4 strongly agree 25.0 38.7 37.5 Central point 3 in S1 14.6
Table 11
48
Clearly, from such a high percentage of agreement, S3 respondents fully accept that
formal instruction plays a significant role within the L2 classroom, especially when correct
usage through exposure is not a viable option, as is the case for the learners of T15.
5.2.3 Declarative versus procedural knowledge
Q 24. My students find it difficult to transfer their grammatical knowledge into communicative language use. S1 % S2 % S3 % 1 strongly disagree 0 6.3 10.2 2 disagree 6.5 28.1 23.8 3 agree 39.1 43.8 53.8 4 strongly agree 13.0 21.9 12.8 Central point 3 in S1 41.3
Questions pertaining to declarative and procedural knowledge were hoped to provide the
dividing-‐line that would separate the ‘sophisticated teachers’ from the ‘run of the mill’
teachers alluded to earlier. Therefore, as voiced by Widdowson (1978), possessing
substantive theoretical knowledge about SLA could be argued as being one factor that
affects teacher cognition, which ultimately influences classroom decision-‐making.
Knowledge of such theory generally requires Masters-‐level education, thus could be seen
as being beyond the pedagogic remit of a CELTA-‐qualified General English teacher.
However, this assumption can be negated by the following two points: 1) The level of
qualifications recorded in Chart 4 match those needed to teach EAP in university, and 2)
Table 12 reveals that S3 respondents have the highest percentage of the three studies,
with 66% agreeing. Although 41% chose option 3 in S1, there was still a majority
agreement with 52%, as was the percentage in S2, which is almost identical to that in S3,
with 65.7% in agreement. Unfortunately, qualitative statements from S3 respondents
needed to support the quantitative findings related to the stated proposition were
Table 12
49
insufficient, and because of this, a conclusion cannot be reached which would indicate
parity between the two sets of L2 teachers with regard to SLA theoretical knowledge.
More studies that exploit this particular language area would undoubtedly benefit further
research.
5.2.4 The use of grammatical terminology
Q 30. My students find it difficult to use grammatical terminology S1 % S2 % S3 % 1 strongly disagree 13.0 3.1 2.5 2 disagree 34.8 46.9 47.5 3 agree 19.6 37.5 42.5 4 strongly agree 2.2 12.5 7.5 Central point 3 in S1 30.4
Remarkably, Table 13 shows S3 and S2 score exactly the same in overall disagreement
and agreement, with 50% for each category. As expected, S1 respondents have majority
disagreement at 51.4%, with only 21.8% in agreement. A plausible explanation why S3
have equal percentages of dis/agree could be to do with a) learners coming from EFL
countries where curriculums use a synthetic-‐type syllabus, i.e., one that: “relies on
learners' assumed ability to learn a language in parts (e.g., structures and functions)
which are independent of one another” (Long and Crookes, 1992: 28); and b) non-‐native
General English teachers who are now working in ESL countries whose learners are mainly
immigrants with very little formal education, and would therefore be oblivious to such
metalinguistic terminology; such reasoning could account for why an extra 5.0% of S3
disagreed than those who agreed. Also, It is no surprise to find that learners in S1 do not
have much difficulty with metalinguistic terminology, given that such language is
abundant within academia, though this answer fails to account for the respondents in S2.
The following comments from S3 respondents shed a little light on the preceding
Table 13
50
hypothesis:
The majority of foreign students are familiar with grammatical terms and find it easier/more natural than native English speakers to 'deal' with the terms. T1
From my experience I think grammar structures need to be taught explicitly but perhaps introduced through context and 'noticing' activities. I think it is useful if students have a knowledge of the system, and the metalanguage. It enables them to discuss the grammar too. T19 Understanding why we say things the way we do should provide them with the necessary tools to self-‐correct or understand their mistakes. This does not mean that they need to master metalinguistic terms (even if as a non-‐native speaker I believe it can help them better understand their mistakes). T8
The above comments show that the teachers are aware that having a grasp of
metalanguage can be beneficial, though it is certainly not detrimental to the learners if
they are unacquainted with such terminology, as T8 makes clear in the second sentence.
5.2.5 Error correction
Q 21. Form-‐focused correction helps students to improve their grammatical performance. S1 % S2 % S3 % 1 strongly disagree 2.1 6.5 5.0 2 disagree 18.8 9.7 25.0 3 agree 50.0 58.1 60.0 4 strongly agree 6.3 25.8 10.0 Central point 3 in S1 22.9
The final theme to be analysed is perhaps the one that will reveal whether General
English L2 teachers are theoretically and pedagogically equal to the supposedly superior
EAP teachers. Firstly, the percentages in Table 14, above, show majority agreement
among all three studies, but there is considerable disparity between the highest (S2,
83.9%) and lowest (S1, 56.3%); S3 sits comfortably in the middle, with 70% agreeing.
Table 14
51
Providing appropriate corrections is a key aspect of a focus on form approach, and is
therefore an adequate barometer for judging an L2 teacher’s pedagogical competence in
relation to their knowledge. The high percentage in S3 initially indicates that the
respondents are, at the very least, au fait with one aspect of focus on form, namely, that
correction helps to improve performance. A look at some of the S3 qualitative statements
may offer some support to the quantitative findings:
I think that there are essentially 2 key cases for error correction. 1) When it is correction of the form being practised at the time. 2) When the errors are persistent or at typical of L1 interference. T2 I used to only correct grammatical mistakes when the focus of the lesson was grammar. Recently I find myself occasionally correcting mistakes in communicative activities as well. T7
It's a challenge but without any correction, students (unless very, very motivated) do not improve. I think that whether or not to correct depends on the students' motivation for learning language in the first place. T18 While I was trained to give correction reservedly, I find that students expect a certain amount of explicit correction in the classroom. Therefore, I correct more than I "should", but not so much as to disrupt the flow of the class. It's almost an art to correct students enough to satisfy them but not too much to disrupt the flow of the class. T16
All four of the above S3 comments provide differing motives for correcting their learners,
though none conclusively reveal whether it conforms to Long’s (1991) definition of focus
on form. T2’s comment seems to apply more to a focus on forms approach, exemplified
by the heavily criticised PPP approach, with only T16’s comment alluding to the skill
necessary in carrying out corrections that occur incidentally. Interestingly, the final part of
52
T16’s comment to correct students enough to satisfy them is redolent of Batstone’s
(2011) argument about teacher and learner being pedagogically in tune; that is, a teacher
may very well think that s/he is correcting appropriately, but if the method used fails to
bring the error to the attention of the learner, then the teacher has failed and the learner
ceases to improve. Moreover, there is nothing in the above comments that hint of the
subtleties required to promote the levels of noticing needed to make self-‐corrections.
Ellis (2008) advanced his rationale for applying either input providing or output prompting
strategies that alert learners to an error, thus enabling them to self-‐correct, but all of the
above comments suggest that correction is either arbitrary, as in T18, or unsystematic, as
in T7. However, due to there being only qualitative comments supporting the quantitative
data, thus no contingency for triangulation, it would be injudicious to criticise S3
respondents for being inconspicuous with regard to focus on form corrective strategies.
5.3 Summary
This chapter has presented the empirical data that was collected for this present study.
The findings were analysed by incorporating both a quantitative and qualitative method,
as was used in the original studies, and found some interesting and often unexpected
answers to the questions put forward to the respondents. Section 5.1 looked at the non-‐
personal backgrounds of the respondents and found there to be surprisingly little
difference in terms of years teaching, full-‐time General English teacher, and most
importantly, ELT qualifications. Section 5.2 then looked at how S3 respondents
considered the role of grammar in language, and here, too, there were many similarities
among all three studies to be found. In section 5.2.1, S3 respondents revealed themselves
to be as knowledgeable and accepting as the EAP teachers of the needs for their learners
53
to have grammar be explained explicitly. The following section, 5.2.2, highlighted the first
(minor) differences between the respondents in S3 and S1; those in S3 believing that
exposure could lead to grammar knowledge, while those in S1 answered more
circumspectly. It was hoped that section 5.2.3 would reveal an SLA theoretical schism
between the two groups of L2 teachers, but, unfortunately, the qualitative data from the
S3 respondents were inadequate to support making such conclusive statements. In
section 5.2.4, again, minor differences in beliefs surfaced with regard to the benefits of
learners having knowledge of metalinguistic terminology and finally, section 5.2.5
provided a hint that S3 respondents may not be as methodologically conscientious with
regard to administering appropriate corrective feedback as their EAP peers.
The following chapter will expand on the points outlined in this summary in much greater
detail, and will also put forward a recommendation for future research.
54
Chapter 6
Conclusions and recommendations
6. Introduction
In this chapter, the aim is to summarise in detail the findings of the previous chapter and
based on what was found make recommendations that might aid any future research into
this particular area of study. There will also be further mention on the limitations of this
study in addition to what was said in chapter 4. To recap: the objective of this research
project was to discover by survey questionnaire if L2 General English teachers could be
distinguished from a group of L2 EAP teachers based solely on the beliefs and attitudes
they expressed in relation to the explicit instruction and correction of grammar. If it is
found that L2 learners studying general English are at a learning disadvantage due to their
teacher’s pedagogic beliefs, then an important discovery will have been made;
conversely, if it is found that the difference in beliefs between the two sets of teachers is
negligible, then it should be indicative that most learners of a particular English genre are
being taught conscientiously, with equal amounts of pedagogical bias. To see if this was
the case or not, a set of research objectives were formulated to discover whether
differences in beliefs and attitudes could be attributed to the following three premises:
55
1) English being taught as EAP as opposed to General English
2) English being taught in universities as opposed to private language schools
3) The consequence of higher-‐level L2 teaching qualifications
The following paragraphs will provide a detailed summary of the findings from the
present study in relation to the premises outlined above. The referents S1, S2, and S3 will
continue to apply throughout this chapter when appropriate.
6.1 Research objectives
Two studies set out to examine the beliefs and attitudes of a group of EAP teachers in
relation to the explicit instruction of grammar. These studies were undertaken firstly in
the UK by Burgess and Etherington (2002), followed by the second study, which was
undertaken in New Zealand by Barnard and Scampton (2008). The context in which the
teachers’ beliefs and attitudes were being researched applied to EAP taught in
universities. The present study sought to replicate the previous studies by carrying out
the same research but with a different target group of L2 teachers, namely, General
English teachers working in private language schools. Although the present study
replicated almost every aspect of the original studies, the major difference between them
was to be found in the heterogeneity of the respondents taking part in the studies. For
the original two studies, the respondents came mainly from the countries where the
studies were being undertaken, meaning that the surveys could only be generalised, if at
all, to British and New Zealand teachers of EAP: in other words, a very small percentage of
the global population of EAP teachers. The present study, on the other hand, surveyed
General English teachers from eleven different global locations, including America, Italy,
Serbia, Korea, Japan, UK, Bangladesh, Canada, China, Dhaka, and Saudi Arabia. It was felt
56
that by surveying a broader sample group, a more accurate set of beliefs and attitudes
could be established, giving the present study a more balanced and generalised account
of the findings.
6.2 Summary of Literature review
The literature consulted for the present study examined explicit instruction mainly from
Long’s (1991) focus on form approach. It was also found that more explicit than implicit
approaches to the instruction and correction of grammar were marginally favoured
(Norris and Ortega, 2003). However, because the dividing line favouring one approach
over the other was inappreciable, how grammar in the L2 classroom was administered
was seemingly left to the individual teacher’s own discretion and interpretation of L2
learning theories about SLA (Batstone, 2011). Consequently, by analysing how the two
groups of teachers approached the instruction and correction of grammar, it was hoped
that their individual beliefs and attitudes could be inferred, thus giving an insight into the
cognitive processes behind such decision-‐making. Borg (2003) provided a list outlining the
many possible reasons why teachers choose one approach over another, and found the
following factors to be affective: instructional concerns or considerations; pedagogical
knowledge; educational maxims or principles; levels of context; personal practical
knowledge; beliefs, and personal convictions (p. 91).
6.3 Summary of findings
Thus, in relation to question 23 Explicit discussion of grammar rules is helpful for students,
S3 respondents were found to share almost identical agreement with the respondents in
S1, with those in S2 agreeing slightly more. Similarly, questions 25 My students expect
57
teachers to present grammar points explicitly and 26 A lack of explicit grammar teaching
leaves my students feeling insecure showed there to be considerable concordance in
agreement among S1, S2 and S3 respondents. Therefore, if teaching EAP necessitates
holding particular beliefs about how learners should be instructed with regard to
grammar, it should be evident in the responses given by the teachers in S1 and S2, but as
they mainly concur with those of the teachers in S3, one can conclude that in regard to
explicit grammar instruction, both sets of L2 teachers hold similar beliefs. Question 7
Students can learn grammar through exposure to natural use, however, produced the
first minor differences in beliefs between the two groups of teachers, with S3
respondents having the highest percentage of agreement at 65%, while S1 had the
lowest, with 52% agreeing. Although the difference in agreement between S3 and S1 was
only 13%, this may actually be more significant than first perceived, as it has wider
implications related to the theoretical rationale provided by Ellis (2008), who stated that
depending on whether input data is positive and negative, or just negative, exposure to
such evidence is a crucial factor in deciding whether a) salient forms are noticed by
learners, and b) if noticing subsequently effects learning. Consequently, knowing such
theory would suggest a well-‐developed understanding of SLA, insofar as Schmitd (1990)
pointed out that just because a learner is exposed to the L2 in everyday usage (as he
himself was when learning Portuguese in Brazil), it does not entail that what is heard or
seen via natural exposure is automatically noticed, and then learned.
It would seem, then, that a disparity of 13% could be interpreted as S3 respondents being
slightly less knowledgeable about the psycholinguistic processes involved in ‘picking up’
aspects of grammar through exposure, and that the slightly more circumspect view from
58
S1 concords more with what theory has to say about learning through exposure. There
are, however, two important aspects that need to be considered before concluding S3
respondents are less theoretically informed than either S1 or S2, and these are: that 22%
of S1 respondents chose the neutral option for question 7, and that less than 3%
separates S2 and S3 respondents sharing the same belief. The relevance of these two
variables means that any suggestion of S3 respondents being pedagogically or
theoretically inferior to either S1 or S2 respondents would be ill judged. This view is
strongly supported by the findings regarding the S3 respondents’ non-‐personal
background characteristics, which unequivocally show them to be equal to the EAP
respondents in terms of L2 teaching experience, full-‐time employment, and perhaps most
importantly, the level to which they have been educated, i.e., predominantly Masters.
Themes that addressed notions of grammatically, i.e., usage, with particular regard to
communicative competence in S3, found overwhelming agreement, not just among the
three studies, but also within each individual study. Question 8 Formal instruction helps
learners to produce grammatically correct language provided sufficient data to assert
that S3 respondents believed that, like respondents in S2 and S1, formal instruction
satisfied the needs of their learners rather than satisfying any pedagogic purposes. Such
formal instruction does not generally cohere with Long’s (1991) focus on form approach,
to which the authors of S1 and S2 studies claimed their respective respondents broadly
adhered; thus the high percentage of agreement with the proposition in Q8 (S3 = 87.5% /
S2 = 80.5% / S1 = 77.1%) can be said to be symptomatic of teacher cognitions to which
Borg (2003) alluded. As a result, when teachers are faced with having to make classroom
decisions based not on theories of L2 pedagogy but on more existential principles, what
59
Gabillon (2012) calls core beliefs, then often the decision-‐making reflects the context of
the lesson rather than the contents of the lesson plan; qualitative comments from all
three studies lend support to this hypothesis.
Question 24 My students find it difficult to transfer their grammatical knowledge into
communicative language use examined the theme related to declarative and procedural
knowledge. As was mentioned in the analysis of the previous chapter, it was hoped that
this particular question would reveal a schism within the two groups of teachers, as
knowledge regarding this particular area of L2 pedagogy requires a teacher to be abreast
of SLA theories. The fact that S3 respondents had the highest percentage in agreement
(66%) should suggest that they also possess the greater theoretical knowledge regarding
Q24’s proposition; the corollary being that as S1 respondents recorded the lowest
percentage (52%), they also possess the least theoretical knowledge. Proving such an
assertion would have been relatively straightforward had S3 respondents provided
supporting qualitative comments, e.g., use of metalinguistic terms regarding aspects of
declarative and procedural knowledge would have been indicative of the underpinnings
of SLA theory; sadly, there were no qualitative comments to support such assertions.
However, this does not mean that a lack of metalinguistic comments entails a dearth of
SLA theoretical knowledge. For example, Barnard and Scampton (2008) remarked on the
poverty of metalinguistic terminology found in the comments from the respondents in S2.
Moreover, that they recorded an almost identical percentage of agreement (65.7%) to
Q24 as the respondents in S3 shows once again that it is not a prerequisite for teachers
teaching EAP in universities to have recourse to a set of beliefs and attitudes on how to
teach grammar that teachers teaching General English in private language schools do not.
60
Questions and themes that addressed the role grammar plays in language provided
evidence of both agreement and disagreement, although, as will become apparent, this is
not evidence of the two groups holding contradictory beliefs. The first question, 6a The
role of grammar in language is as a framework for the rest of the language – a basic
system to build everything else on, showed respondents in S3 with the highest percentage
of 78%, and S1 with the lowest at 60%. This was a reasonably large difference, even with
19.6% choosing neutral option 3 in S1, to suggest that attitudes regarding the importance
of grammar differed not inconsiderably. The answer to such differences in belief may lie
in the genre of English being taught. For the respondents in S1, grammar is a vital
component in getting learners up to the standard required for academic study at
university level; hence, EAP teachers placing a premium on learners mastering, or at least,
competently managing, grammar. General English teachers on the other hand, though
recognizing grammar as the conduit without which meaningful communication could take
place (Swan, 1985), also recognize that for many EFL learners, speaking in the classroom
is paramount in building their confidence in using the L2. As a result, General English
teachers afford their learners far greater margins for error than EAP teachers allow their
learners. Therefore, rather than ascribing the differences in percentage to differences in
belief, it is important to remember the role that context plays in language-‐learning, not
just the role grammar plays. The comments made by T15 attest to this point. Likewise
with question 6c The role of grammar in language is as something which is added on to
language proficiency: a refinement of more basic language knowledge, the fact that
respondents in S1 had 0% in agreement with this proposition, while 42% of S3
respondents were in agreement, is not necessarily indicative of conflicting beliefs borne
of theoretical ideologies. For as the previous hypothesis stated, context rather than
61
curriculum is a probable explanation for the different percentages of those in agreement
and disagreement: EAP teachers demand far greater grammatical accuracy in L2 usage;
General English teachers demand far greater fluency in L2 use. The different demands
placed on usage and use is an important one, as it reflects the sentiments Widdowson
(1978) made regarding language simplification, i.e., that for many EFL learners of General
English, expediency of message often necessitates a forfeiting of grammatical accuracy;
thus when errors are inevitably made, especially when the learners are speaking, teachers
should be aware that the cause of the error may be symbolic of more than just a lack of
communicative competence, i.e., the learner’s interlanguage having to cope with
multimodal input and output data (Klapper and Rees, 2003).
The theme relating to learners having the ability to understand and use metalinguistic
terminology revealed an interesting statistic, namely, that S2 and S3 respondents
recorded the exact same percentages for those who agreed and those who disagreed,
with 50% for both groups, respectively. S1 had a very similar percentage for those in
disagreement, 51.4%, but had a much lower percentage, 21.8%, for those respondents
who agreed. It is therefore quite difficult to draw a conclusive statement, especially given
that 30.4% chose neutral option 3 in S1. The qualitative comments made by S3
respondents, however, suggest that even though it may be beneficial to the learners if
they are able to use such terminology, learning an L2 can still be achieved without
employing such metalanguage. In this particular instance, there is nothing to indicate EAP
teachers being more skilled or knowledgeable in using instructional language in the
university lecture rooms than General English teachers are in private school classrooms.
62
The final question in the analysis chapter addressed the theme related to correction. It
was found that in both S1 and S2 studies, the respective authors reported that the
respondents’ beliefs and attitudes toward learner correction generally favoured a focus
on form approach. Consequently, Q21 Form-‐focused correction helps students to improve
their grammatical performance would be key to finding out how much of Long’s (1991)
theory S3 respondents understood, and subsequently utilised in the classroom. In the
Literature Review, Basturkmen et al. (2004) discussed how common it was for L2 teachers
to collate certain types of beliefs with regard to certain types of classroom practices, yet
when the same teachers were being observed putting their beliefs into practice, their
behavior was manifestly contradictory. A look at the percentages regarding agreement
reveals enough disparity among S1 (56.3%), S2 (83.9%), and S3 (70%) for it to be
considered evidence of differing attitudes in relation to corrective feedback. It is
understandable that the EAP teachers in S1, with a majority of 56%, are still more inclined
to concentrate on academic activities involving written English, hence much less of a need
for incidental focus on form intervention. Teachers and learners involved in more typical
CLT-‐type activities, however, consider meaningful dialogue to be a major learning
objective, hence respondents in S3 being more likely to incorporate elements of focus on
form negotiation strategies. Conversely, the corresponding qualitative comments from S3
did little to support a focus on form approach to error correction, with T2 seemingly
promoting a focus on forms PPP approach, while the other comments suggested that
classroom corrections were administered to appease learners’ anxiety. This last point is a
clear reference to what Fotos (1998) and Batstone (2011) were saying in regard to the
cultural implications of promoting CLT in EFL countries, and whether the subtlety
required to carry out the strong version of focus on form is too implicit for learners more
63
used to direct and explicit intervention. The consequences of these latter two points can
be seen in the way both General English and EAP teachers accommodate the exigencies
of their learners’ pedagogic, thus cultural, expectations.
6.4 Limitations and recommendations of the present study
One of the major drawbacks of carrying out research using a survey questionnaire as the
sole means of data collection is that whatever the findings present, one has to accept
them for what they are, i.e., the personal opinions and beliefs of a particular (and
frequently small) sample group. For the present study, the data collected indicated that
both sets of L2 teachers could not truly be distinguished from one another by means of
the quantitative and qualitative findings. This would suggest that it would be reasonably
easy for both sets of teachers to trade places without too much disruption to either
learner or teacher; however, this could not be the case in the real world. Even though
both sets of teachers are equally well qualified, making the classroom transition from one
genre to another would undoubtedly take considerable pedagogic acclimation, especially
with regard to teaching methods, e.g., techniques and materials. But as it is, the findings
of the present study have to be taken at face value, regardless of what they indicate or
suggest. One suspects, though, had the respondents from S1, S2, and S3 been subjected
to the same stringent research procedures as the teachers in the longitudinal studies
undertaken by Basturkmen et al. (2004) and Borg and Phipps (2009), the conclusions
reached would probably indicate a much greater disparity in beliefs and attitudes. This is,
however, mere speculation, and with no supporting evidence remains an unsubstantiated
hypothesis. Furthermore, if triangulation of data were made available for the present
64
study, it could very well reveal the two sets of teachers being even closer in their shared
beliefs than the present study already suggests.
Thus, for any future research intending to compare, define, and calibrate the beliefs and
attitudes of one, or even two, sets of L2 teachers, on the evidence of this present study, it
is recommended that the researcher ought first to make the necessary methodological
provisions that allow for the data collected to be triangulated, thus being assured that the
findings, whatever they may be, are trustworthy and reliable. Also, because it was not
really possible to find any compelling data to support Long’s (1991) incidental focus on
form from the S3 teachers’ comments, future survey questionnaires may have to be more
direct in how they word the questions. It was felt that the questions in the present study
may have been a little too imprecise to ascertain certain beliefs conclusively. And finally,
the benefit of using a four rather than five-‐point rating scale should be encouraged, as
too many respondents choosing option three in S1 made analysing the findings in relation
to S2 and S3 haphazard, thus less reliable and accurate.
The following chapter will now draw this dissertation to a close by presenting a conclusive
overview of the preceding relevant chapters.
65
Chapter 7 Conclusion
7. Comprehensive overview of present study
There were two aims to this research project: 1) to discover what kinds of beliefs and
attitudes a group of EFL General English teachers held in relation to the explicit
instruction and correction of grammar; and 2) to what extent were these beliefs and
attitudes consistent with the same research carried out on two groups of EAP teachers
working in universities. In order to account for the likely variables that would differentiate
these two groups of English teachers, a set of research objectives contingent on a set of
credible premises were presented.
The Literature review provided plenty of evidence to suggest there was a lot of interest
with regard to beliefs and attitudes in relation to explicit and implicit methods of
grammar instruction; in addition, literature that examined the myriad external influences
which affect the cognitive processes during an L2 lesson was also consulted.
Consequently, those who participated in the survey had their beliefs and attitudes
evaluated according to a) what the literature presented regarding a focus on form
approach to grammar instruction, and b) the corresponding data found in the original
studies.
66
The methodology used in carrying out the research for the present study involved
accurately replicating the research strategy employed in the original two studies, which
entailed using a survey questionnaire to gather the required data. Once the data had
been collected, it was then analysed following the same procedures of the previous
studies, which utilised both quantitative and qualitative means of analysis. The resulting
analysis of the original two studies found the two groups of EAP teachers to be broadly
sympathetic in their beliefs and attitudes towards the instruction and correction of
grammar. In light of this, the subsequent findings of the present survey allowed for the
following conclusions to be reached.
7.1 Conclusion
Thus, with regard to premises 1, 2, and 3 of the research objectives, there was nothing in
the results from this present study to suggest that EAP teachers working in universities
hold beliefs and attitudes that are markedly different from those held by General English
teachers working in private language schools. Furthermore, both sets of teachers had
comparable personal characteristics in terms of L2 experience and ELT qualifications. The
result of such closely related backgrounds proved to be a defining factor in showing the
two groups of teachers being both theoretically and pedagogically similarly disposed.
Therefore, any differences that were recorded should be attributed and generalised to
the individual respondents participating in the studies, not to the wider communities of
which the respondents are representatives. Importantly, whether S3 respondents fully
engaged with, and thus understood, the fundamental aim of Long’s (1991) focus on form
approach remains a point of conjecture, as this could not be established from the findings
alone; hence the need for future research to incorporate triangulation methods when
67
collecting and analysing data. Overall, then, based solely on the findings from the present
study, it is not unreasonable to conclude that in relation to genre (premise 1), teaching
environment (premise 2), and education (premise 3), General English teachers in S3 have
shown themselves to be the equal of their EAP contemporaries in S1 and S2. Moreover,
the findings are such that they categorically refute Burgess and Etherington’s claim that
EAP teachers are a class above General English teachers.
[Word count: 16,500]
68
Bibliography: Allwright, R., (1979). Language Learning Through Communication Practice. In: Brumfit, C.J., and Johnson, K., (eds.) The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 167-‐182. Barnard, R., and Scampton, D., (2008). Teaching Grammar: A Survey of EAP Teachers in New Zealand. New Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics. 14 (2), 59-‐82. Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., and Ellis, R., (2004). Teachers' stated beliefs about incidental focus on form and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics. 25 (2), 243-‐272. Batstone, R., (2011). Recontextualising Focus on Form. In: Fotos, S., and Nassaji, H., (eds.) Form-‐Focused Instruction and Teacher Education: Studies in Honour of Rod Ellis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 87-‐99. Biggam, J., (2011). Succeeding with your Master's Dissertation: A step-‐by-‐ step handbook. 2nd ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Borg, S., (1998). Teachers’ Pedagogical Systems and Grammar Teaching: A Qualitative Study. Tesol Quarterly. Vol. 32 (1), 9-‐37.
Borg, S., (1999). Teachers' theories in grammar teaching. ELT Journal. 53 (3), 157-‐167.
Borg, S., (2003). Teacher Cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching. 36 (2), 81-‐109. Borg, S., and Phipps, S., (2009). Exploring tensions between teachers’ grammar teaching beliefs and practices. System. 37 (3), 380-‐390. Breen, M. P., Hird, B., Milton, M., Oliver, R., and Thwaite, A., (2001). Making sense of language teaching: Teachers' principles and classroom practices. Applied linguistics. 22 (4), 470-‐501.
Brown, J. D., (2013). Sampling: Quantitative Methods. In: Chapelle, C. A., (ed,) The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguists. Volume VIII Pr-‐Se. Oxford: Wiley-‐Blackwell. pp. 5045-‐5050. Brown, J.D., and Rodgers, T.S., (2002). Doing Second Language Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brumfit, C., (1979). Communicative Language Teaching: An Educational Perspective. In: Brumfit, C.J., and Johnson, K., (eds.) The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 183-‐191. Burgess, J., and Etherington, S., (2002). Focus on grammatical form: explicit or implicit? System. 30, 433-‐458.
69
Chomsky, N., (1965). Aspects of The Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dörnyei, Z., (2010). Questionnaires in Second Language Research: Construction, Administration, and Processing. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. Dörnyei, Z., and Csizér, K., (2012). How to Design and Analyse Surveys in Second Language Acquisition Research. In: Mackey, A., and Gass, S., (eds.) Research Methods in Second Language Acquisition: A Practical Guide. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. pp. 74-‐94. Doughty, C., (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 13 (4), 431-‐469.
Ellis, R., (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System. 33 (2), 209-‐224.
Ellis, R., (2006). Current Issues in the Teaching of Grammar: An SLA Perspective. Tesol Quaterly. 40 (1), 83-‐107. Ellis, R., (2008). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S., (2001). Preemptive focus on form in the ESL classroom. Tesol Quarterly. 35 (3), 407-‐432.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., and Loewen, S., (2002). Doing Focus-‐on-‐Form. System. 30, 419-‐432. Fotos, S., (1998). Shifting the focus from forms to form in the EFL classroom. ELT Journal. 52 (4), 301-‐307. Fotos, S., and Nassiji, H., (eds.) (2011). Form-‐Focused Instruction and Teacher Education: Studies in Honour of Rod Ellis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Friedman, D. A., (2012). How to Collect and Analyse Qualitative Data. In: Mackey, A., and Gass, S., (eds,) Research Methods in Second Language Acquisition: A Practical Guide. Oxford: Wiley-‐Blackwell. pp. 180-‐200. Gabillon, Z., (2012). Revisiting Foreign Language Teacher Beliefs. Frontiers of Language and Teaching. 3, 190-‐203. Golombek, P. R., (1998). A study of language teachers' personal practical knowledge. Tesol Quarterly. 32 (3), 447-‐464.
Harmer, J., (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching. 4th ed. Essex: Pearson Education Ltd. Hart, C., (2005). Doing your Masters Dissertation. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
70
Hutchinson, T., and Waters, A., (1987). English for Specific Purposes: A learning-‐centred approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hymes, D.H., (1979). On Communicative Competence. In: Brumfit, C.J., and Johnson, K., (eds.) The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 5-‐27. Klapper, J., (2003). Taking communication to task? A critical review of recent trends in language teaching. Language Learning Journal, 27(1). 33-‐42.
Klapper, J., and Rees, J., (2003). Reviewing the Case for Explicit Grammar Instruction in the University Foreign Language Learning Context. Language Learning Research. 7 (3), 285-‐314.
Klapper, J., (2006). Approaches to language teaching. Understanding and Developing Good Practice: Language Teaching in Higher Education. London: CILT. pp. 103-‐125. Krashen, S. D., and Seliger, H.W., (1975). The Essential Contribution of Formal Instruction in Adult Second Language Learning. Tesol Quaterly. 9 (2), 173-‐183. Larsen-‐Freeman, D. (2000) Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lightbown, P., and Spada, N., (1990). Focus-‐on-‐form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching. Studies in second language acquisition. 12 (4), 429-‐448. Long, M.H., (1991). Focus on Form: A Design Feature in Language Teaching Methodolgy. In: de Bot, K., Ginsberg, R., and Kramsch, C., (eds.) Foreign Language Research in Cross-‐Cultural Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. pp. 39-‐52 Long, M. H., and Crookes, G., (1992). Three approaches to task-‐based syllabus design. Tesol Quarterly. 26 (1), 27-‐56. Lowen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thompson, A., Nakatsukasa, K., Ahn, S., and Chen, X., (2009). Second Language Learners’ Beliefs about Grammar Instruction and Error Correction. The Modern Langauge Journal. 93 (1), 91-‐104.
Lyster, R., (2001). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning. 51 (s1), 265-‐301.
Lyster, R., (2004). Research on form-‐focused instruction in immersion classrooms: implications for theory and practice. Journal of French Language Studies. 14 (3), 321-‐341.
Mackey, A., and Gass, S. M., (2005). Second Lnaguage Research: Methodology and Design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
71
Ng, J., Farrell, T.S.C., (2003). Do teachers’ beliefs of grammar teaching match their classroom practices? A Singapore case study. In: Deterding, D., Brown, A., and Low, E., (eds.) English in Singapore: Research on Grammar. Singapore: McGraw Hill. pp. 128–137 Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L., (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-‐analysis. Language learning. 50 (3), 417-‐528. Panova, I., and Lyster, R., (2002). Patterns Of Corrective Feedback And Uptake In An Adult ESL Classroom. Tesol Quarterly. 36 (4), 573-‐595.
Pennycook, A., (2001). Critical Applied Linguistics: A Critical Introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Richards, J. C., Gallo, P. B., and Renandya, W. A., (2001). Exploring teachers’ beliefs and the processes of change. PAC Journal. 1 (1), 41-‐58.
Saito, H., and Ebsworth, M. E., (2004). Seeing English language teaching and learning through the eyes of Japanese EFL and ESL students. Foreign Language Annals. 37 (1), 111-‐124.
Schmidt, R.W., (1990). The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning. Applied Linguistics. 11 (2), 129-‐158.
Schulz, R. A., (2001). Cultural Differences in Student and Teacher Perceptions Concerning the Role of Grammar Instruction and Corrective Feedback: USA-‐Colombia. The Modern Language Journal. 85 (2), 244-‐258.
Sheen, R., (2003). Focus on form – a myth in the making? ELT Journal. 57 (3), 225-‐233.
Skehan, P., (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Spada, N., (2011). Beyond form-‐focused instruction: Reflections on past, present and future research. Language Teaching. 44, (2). 225-‐236. Swan, M., (1985). A critical look at the communicative approach (2). ELT Journal. 39 (2), 76-‐87. Swales, J., (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic Research Settings. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. Widdowson, H. G., (1978). The significance of simplification. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 1 (1), 11-‐20. Widdowson, H.G., (1992). Perspectives on Communicative Language Teaching: Syllabus Design and Methodology. In: Alatis, J.E., (ed.) Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1992. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
72
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Appendix(A.((((((((((((((((((((Summary(responses(to(all(questions(from(S3(
80
!
! 4!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Appendix A. Questionnaire for course tutors
SECTION ONE: APPROACHES TO THE TEACHING OF GRAMMAR.
Please indicate how far you agree with the following statements about the role andteaching of grammar on a typical pre-sessional EAP course. If you agree stronglymark a5 on the scale, if you strongly disagree mark a 1 on the scale. Please feel freeto add any comments you wish to make.
Disagree Agree
1. The role of grammar in language is as: (please answer for each option)a) a framework for the rest of the language—
a basic system to build everything else on.1 2 3 4 5
b) the building blocks of language which arecombined to form a whole.
1 2 3 4 5
c) something which is added on to languageproficiency: a refinement of more basiclanguage knowledge.
1 2 3 4 5
d) an equal pillar in supporting languageproficiency. (Other pillars could beknowledge about pronunciation,appropriacy or culture etc.)
1 2 3 4 5
2. Students can learn grammar throughexposure to language in natural use.
1 2 3 4 5
3. Formal instruction helps learners to producegrammatically correct language.
1 2 3 4 5
4. Student use of language does not involveconscious knowledge of the grammaticalsystem and how it works.
1 2 3 4 5
5. Students can improve their grammaticalaccuracy through frequent practice ofstructures.
1 2 3 4 5
6. Students need a conscious knowledge ofgrammar in order to improve their language.
1 2 3 4 5
7. Practice of structures must always be withina full, communicative context.
1 2 3 4 5
J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458 451
Appendix!B.!!!!!!!Summary!responses!to!all!questions!from!S1!
81
!
!
! 5!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
8. Separate treatment of grammar fails toproduce language knowledge which studentscan use in natural communication.
1 2 3 4 5
9. Students need to be consciously aware ofa structure’s form and its function beforethey can use it proficiently.
1 2 3 4 5
10. The separation of work with a grammarfocus from the rest of the language syllabusis useful for students.
1 2 3 4 5
11. Decontextualised practice of structures hasa place in language learning.
1 2 3 4 5
12. Productive practice of structures is anecessary part of the learning process.
1 2 3 4 5
13. Grammar is best taught through workwhich focuses on message.
1 2 3 4 5
14. Participating in real-life tasks with languageis the best way for students to develop theirgrammatical knowledge.
1 2 3 4 5
15. Students learn grammar more successfullyif it is presented within a complete text.
1 2 3 4 5
16. Teachers should only correct studenterrors of form which interfere withcommunication.
1 2 3 4 5
17. Comparison and contrast of individualstructures is helpful for students learninggrammar.
1 2 3 4 5
18. Form-focused correction helps studentsto improve their grammatical performance.
1 2 3 4 5
19. Grammar is best taught through a focuson individual structures.
1 2 3 4 5
20. Explicit discussion of grammar rules ishelpful for students.
1 2 3 4 5
452 J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458
8. Separate treatment of grammar fails toproduce language knowledge which studentscan use in natural communication.
1 2 3 4 5
9. Students need to be consciously aware ofa structure’s form and its function beforethey can use it proficiently.
1 2 3 4 5
10. The separation of work with a grammarfocus from the rest of the language syllabusis useful for students.
1 2 3 4 5
11. Decontextualised practice of structures hasa place in language learning.
1 2 3 4 5
12. Productive practice of structures is anecessary part of the learning process.
1 2 3 4 5
13. Grammar is best taught through workwhich focuses on message.
1 2 3 4 5
14. Participating in real-life tasks with languageis the best way for students to develop theirgrammatical knowledge.
1 2 3 4 5
15. Students learn grammar more successfullyif it is presented within a complete text.
1 2 3 4 5
16. Teachers should only correct studenterrors of form which interfere withcommunication.
1 2 3 4 5
17. Comparison and contrast of individualstructures is helpful for students learninggrammar.
1 2 3 4 5
18. Form-focused correction helps studentsto improve their grammatical performance.
1 2 3 4 5
19. Grammar is best taught through a focuson individual structures.
1 2 3 4 5
20. Explicit discussion of grammar rules ishelpful for students.
1 2 3 4 5
452 J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458
82
!
! 6!
!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
SECTION TWO: STUDENT AND TEACHER DIFFICULTIES WITHGRAMMAR.
These are questions about how students and teachers deal with grammar in theclassroom. Again please indicate your agreement or disagreement with these state-ments as above.
Disagree Agree
1. My students find it di!cult to transfer their grammaticalknowledge into communicative language use.
1 2 3 4 5
2. My students are motivated by problem-solvingtechniques for learning grammar.
1 2 3 4 5
3. My students expect teachers to present grammarpoints explicitly.
1 2 3 4 5
4. My students prefer to learn grammar from one-sentence examples.
1 2 3 4 5
5. My students prefer to find matches between meaningand structure for themselves.
1 2 3 4 5
6. My students find it di!cult to handle grammarpresented within authentic texts.
1 2 3 4 5
7. My students find authentic texts di!cult because ofthe wide variety of structures which appear.
1 2 3 4 5
8. My students find authentic texts di!cult because theyare too culture bound.
1 2 3 4 5
9. My students find authentic texts di!cult because ofthe vocabulary used.
1 2 3 4 5
10. My students cannot find form-function matches inauthentic texts without explicit direction from teachers.
1 2 3 4 5
11. Teachers find the use of authentic material tootime-consuming.
1 2 3 4 5
12. Teachers find it di!cult to produce tasks of asuitable level from authentic texts.
1 2 3 4 5
J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458 453
83
!
! 7!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
SECTION TWO: STUDENT AND TEACHER DIFFICULTIES WITHGRAMMAR.
These are questions about how students and teachers deal with grammar in theclassroom. Again please indicate your agreement or disagreement with these state-ments as above.
Disagree Agree
1. My students find it di!cult to transfer their grammaticalknowledge into communicative language use.
1 2 3 4 5
2. My students are motivated by problem-solvingtechniques for learning grammar.
1 2 3 4 5
3. My students expect teachers to present grammarpoints explicitly.
1 2 3 4 5
4. My students prefer to learn grammar from one-sentence examples.
1 2 3 4 5
5. My students prefer to find matches between meaningand structure for themselves.
1 2 3 4 5
6. My students find it di!cult to handle grammarpresented within authentic texts.
1 2 3 4 5
7. My students find authentic texts di!cult because ofthe wide variety of structures which appear.
1 2 3 4 5
8. My students find authentic texts di!cult because theyare too culture bound.
1 2 3 4 5
9. My students find authentic texts di!cult because ofthe vocabulary used.
1 2 3 4 5
10. My students cannot find form-function matches inauthentic texts without explicit direction from teachers.
1 2 3 4 5
11. Teachers find the use of authentic material tootime-consuming.
1 2 3 4 5
12. Teachers find it di!cult to produce tasks of asuitable level from authentic texts.
1 2 3 4 5
J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458 453
13. A lack of explicit grammar teaching leaves mystudents feeling insecure.
1 2 3 4 5
14. My students find grammatical terminology useful. 1 2 3 4 5
15. Teachers find it di!cult to correct student errorsof grammar within a written communicativecontext.
1 2 3 4 5
16. Teachers find it di!cult to correct student errorsof grammar within a spoken communicative context.
1 2 3 4 5
17. My students find it di!cult to improve the accuracyof their grammatical language within a totallycommunicative writing activity.
1 2 3 4 5
18. My students find it di!cult to improve theaccuracy of their grammatical language withina totally communicative speaking activity.
1 2 3 4 5
19. My students find it di!cult to use grammaticalterminology.
1 2 3 4 5
20. My students are frustrated by problem-solvingtechniques for learning grammar.
1 2 3 4 5
! Please add any further comments which you have about your approach to theteaching of grammar and any problems with grammar which occur in the classroom.
SECTION THREE: INFORMATION ABOUT YOU AND YOUR TEACHINGSITUATION.
Name of department:
Name of course you are teaching at present:
Number of students in class:Do you teach general or subject-specific EAP? If you specialise in one area,please indicate what this is (e.g. Science, Economics, Law, Social Science etc.)
454 J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458
84
!
! 8!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Section!2!from!the!BE!study.!
!
!
How long have you taught academic English?(please tick one)! less than one year! 1–3 years! 3–5 years! more than 5 years
Are you a full-time EAP teacher? yes/no
What other types of teaching do you do? (please tick as appropriate)! General English! Business English! English for Science and Technology! ESL support in schools! Other (please specify)
Please add any other information about your teaching situation which you feel maybe of interest to this survey.
MANY THANKS FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION.TABLE OF RESULTS
Itemnumber
Frequency of responses(1=Strongly disagree;5=strongly agree)
Valid percentages(1=Strongly disagree;5=strongly agree)
1 2 3 4 5 0missingvalue
1 2 3 4 5
1.1a 4 5 9 21 7 2 8.7 10.9 19.6 45.7 15.21.1c 24 17 6 0 0 1 51.1 36.2 12.8 0 01.12 2 2 8 24 11 1 4.3 4.3 17.0 51.1 23.41.2 3 9 11 15 10 0 6.3 18.8 22.9 31.3 20.81.3 0 4 7 25 12 0 0 8.3 14.6 52.1 25.01.4 9 13 18 4 2 2 19.6 28.3 39.1 8.7 4.31.5 0 1 11 30 6 0 0 2.1 22.9 62.5 12.51.6 1 11 14 17 5 0 2.1 22.9 29.2 35.4 10.41.9 12 11 8 10 7 0 25.0 22.9 16.7 20.8 14.61.14 1 6 16 14 10 1 2.1 12.8 34.0 29.8 21.31.15 0 6 15 19 8 0 0 12.5 31.3 39.6 16.71.16 5 17 16 7 2 1 10.6 36.2 34.0 14.9 4.31.17 0 2 16 23 7 0 0 4.2 33.3 47.9 14.61.18 1 9 11 24 3 0 2.1 18.8 22.9 50.0 6.31.20 1 2 12 21 12 0 2.1 4.2 25.0 43.8 25.0
J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458 455
2.1 0 3 19 18 6 2 0 6.5 41.3 39.1 13.02.2 1 3 12 26 5 1 2.1 6.4 25.5 55.3 10.62.3 1 1 2 28 15 1 2.1 2.1 4.3 59.6 31.92.6 3 21 14 6 1 3 6.7 46.7 31.1 13.3 2.22.9 0 7 15 18 7 1 0 14.9 31.9 38.3 14.92.11 10 18 11 7 0 2 21.7 39.1 23.9 15.2 02.13 1 5 8 25 6 3 2.2 11.1 17.8 55.6 13.32.14 0 1 19 23 4 1 0 2.1 40.4 48.9 8.52.15 9 27 7 3 0 2 19.6 58.7 15.2 6.5 02.16 5 20 8 12 2 1 10.6 42.6 17.0 25.5 4.32.19 6 16 14 9 1 2 13.0 34.8 30.4 19.6 2.22.20 3 23 17 1 1 3 6.7 51.1 37.8 2.2 2.2
References
Batstone, R., 1994a. Grammar. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Batstone, R., 1994b. Product and process: grammar in the second language classroom. In: Bygate, M.,
Tonkyn, A., Williams, E. (Eds.). Grammar and the Language Teacher. Prentice Hall, Hemel Hempstead.pp. 224–236.
Block, D., 1998. Tale of a language learner. Language Teaching Research 2.2., 148–176.Blue, G.M., 1993. Noting succeeds like linguistic competence: the role of language in academic success. In:
Blue, G.M. (Ed.), Language Learning and Success: Studying through English. Review of English Lan-guage Teaching 3/1. MET/British Council.
Borg, S., 1998. Teachers’ pedagogical systems and grammar teaching: a qualitative study. TESOL Quar-terly 32 (1).
Borg, S., 1999a. The use of grammatical terminology in the second language classroom: a qualitativestudy of teachers’ practices and cognitions. Applied Linguistics 20 (1), 95–126.
Borg, S., 1999b. Teachers’ theories in grammar teaching. ELT Journal 53 (3), 157–167.Borg, S., 1999c. Studying teacher cognition in second language grammar teaching. System 27 (1), 19–31.Brindley, G., 1984. Needs Analysis and Objective Setting in the Adult Migrant Education Program. NSW
Adult Migrant Education Service, Sydney.Celce-Murcia, M., Dornyei, Z., Thurrell, S., 1997. Direct approaches in L2 instruction: a turning point in
communicative language teaching? TESOL Quarterly 31 (1), 141–152.Celce-Murcia, M., Hilles, S., 1988. Techniques and Resources in Teaching Grammar. Oxford University
Press, Oxford.Cohen, L., Manion, L.C., 1994. Research Methods in Education. Routledge, London.Davies, L., 1997. Interviews and the study of management. In: Crossley, Vulliamy (Eds.), Qualitative
Educational Research in Developing Countries. Garland, London.Doughty, C., Varela, J., 1998. Communicative focus on form. In: Doughty, C., Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus
on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.114–138.
Doughty, C., Williams, J. (Eds.), 1998a. Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Doughty, C., Williams, J., 1998b. Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In: Doughty, C., Williams, J.(Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, pp. 197–262.
Ellis, R., 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
456 J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458
87
!
! 3!
Barnard á Scampton
Appendix 2: Responses to online questionnaire.
Quest
0
n
naj
re
1tem
s
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
g
2
1.3
1 1
..44
4
•4
••i
4
•-•i
- i
-i•f
• • !
"i-4
•Á
-i
• i
• • !
- • <
• • Í
•iNMMMMOBM
.• i
••Í
• ^
4-i
Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
"i
- Í
- f
4
0
•
mm
MBa
î
i
ît
!
î
i
F"
f
5 10
!
\
!
i
î
>
í
.
( ^
î
i
'ií
ϣs3^ ^ ^ ^
t
f
it
:
i
1
i
15 20
Respondents
\
i
25
___^__!
CI Disagree
a Agreesa,
Ij
!
î
30 35
80
88
!
Page 1
EFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar Instruction
This is a survey to find out what you, the professional English L2 teacher, feel, think and know, or feel you think you know, on the theme of grammar instruction in the L2 classroom. Your answers will be treated with absolute confidentiality, and would in no way be made public without your full consent first being approved. By participating in this survey you will: ➢ increase research in an area of ELT that is sometimes unclear and problematic ➢ raise awareness of issues within the industry that are often overlooked, e.g., affective factors, such as personal experience of education ➢ reflect on your own teaching habits and style ➢ add value and credibility to an academic study of your profession The survey is in three parts and takes approximately 10-12 minutes to complete. Part 1 is about you and requires a yes/no response Part 2 is about how you feel with regard to teaching grammar Part 3 is for you to give your own opinion on such matters. Questions 8 to 32 in Part 2 require you to choose one of the numbered options 1 - 4 in response to the proposition stated. However, for this survey to have greater research validity, it is most important that you comment to the question in part three as honestly as you can. Thankyou.
Introduction
Appendix(D.(((((((((((((S3(Survey(Questionnaire(
89
!
Page 2
EFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar Instruction
1. Age: how old are you
2. Gender
3. How many years have you been teaching General English
4. Are you a full-time General English teacher
5. Which teaching qualification(s) do you presently hold
Part one: Information about you and your teaching situation
Male
Female
1-3 years
3-5 years
More than 5 years
Yes
No
PhD
MA (TESOL)
Delta
Celta
BA
Other
90
!
Page 3
EFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar Instruction
The following 25 questions seek your opinion on a whole range of pedagogic issues that concern standard L2 classroom practices. Depending on how you feel to the proposition stated, choose one of the numbered options 1 - 4. The rating is as follows: 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree 4 = Strongly Agree
6. The role of grammar in language is as:
a) A framework for the rest of the language, i.e., a basic system to build everything else
on.
b) The building blocks of language which are combined to form a whole.
c) Something which is added on to language proficiency: a refinement of more basic
language knowledge.
7. Students can learn grammar through exposure to language in natural use.
8. Formal instruction helps learners to produce grammatically correct language.
Part two: How you feel about teaching grammar
1 2 3 4
a)
b)
c)
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
91
!
Page 4
EFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar Instruction9. Student use of language does not involve conscious knowledge of the grammatical
system and how it works.
10. Students can improve their grammatical accuracy through frequent practice of
structures.
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
92
!
Page 5
EFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar Instruction
11. Students need a conscious knowledge of grammar in order to improve their
language.
12. Separate treatment of grammar fails to produce language knowledge which
students can use in natural communication.
13. Students need to be consciously aware of a structure’s form and its function before
they can use it proficiently.
14. The separation of work with a grammar focus from the rest of the language syllabus
is useful for students.
15. Decontextualised practice of structures has a place in language learning.
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
93
!
Page 6
EFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar Instruction
16. Productive practice of structures is a necessary part of the learning process.
17. Grammar is best taught through work which focuses on message.
18. Participating in real-life tasks with language is the best way for students to develop
their grammatical knowledge.
19. Students learn grammar more successfully if it is presented within a complete text.
20. Teachers should only correct student errors of form which interfere with
communication.
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
94
!
Page 7
EFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar Instruction
21. Form-focused correction helps students to improve their grammatical
performance.
22. Grammar is best taught through a focus on individual structures.
23. Explicit discussion of grammar rules is helpful for students.
24. My students find it difficult to transfer their grammatical knowledge into
communicative language use.
25. My students expect teachers to present grammar points explicitly.
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
95
!
Page 8
EFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar Instruction
26. A lack of explicit grammar teaching leaves my students feeling insecure.
27. My students find grammatical terminology useful.
28. Teachers find it difficult to correct student errors of grammar within a spoken
communicative context.
29. My students find it difficult to improve the accuracy of their grammatical language
within a totally communicative speaking activity.
30. My students find it difficult to use grammatical terminology.
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
96
!
Page 9
EFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar Instruction
Please use the space provided to tell us anything else that you may want to add in relation to the questions that you have just answered, or anything else about L2 grammar instruction that you can think of, e.g., whether the cultural background of your students influences your decision-making in the classroom. Please be as candid as you wish.
31. From your own experience, please add any comments about how you personally
feel about L2 grammar instruction and correcting.
Part three: In your own words