Differences in Perceptions of Grammar Instruction
This study investigated the perceptual differences between
students and teachers regarding the role of grammar instruction and error correction in high school classrooms. Results showed most students held a positive view towards these two issues, a greater interest in learning grammar, and a belief in the need to allocate more classroom time for grammar instruction and learning essential grammar terminology. These results echo the observations in several previous studies (e.g., Cathcart & Olsen, 1976; Chenoweth, Day, Chun, & Luppescu, 1983), that students held generally favorable attitudes toward a focus on form in foreign language learning. As for the teachers, they reacted more negatively to grammar instruction than the students.
Two possible factors, revealed in the interview data, may account for the discrepancy between students’ and teachers’ views regarding grammar instruction. Firstly, teachers were deeply influenced by the emphasis on communicative ability, and they seemed to conclude that grammar teaching should be minimized to fit in a more pragmatic pedagogical approach. Secondly, a factor favoring group practice is that group interaction usually resulted in a more harmonious atmosphere, and learners would feel less anxious during interaction. Teachers valued both group and individual grammar practice, but they showed a stronger belief in group grammar practice than the students. They believed group practice not only aroused the students’ interest for learning grammar, but also enhanced the effectiveness of the overall learning. Students’ and teachers’ perceptions also differed in terms of the preferred instructional language for grammar instruction. The students’ key priority was receiving more English input, even when teachers were explaining grammar rules,
thinking that more exposure to English would help them not only think in English, but also prepare them for the listening sections of English exams. However, for teachers, the concern is helping students to understand the teaching point, and they therefore preferred to teach grammar using Chinese, believing that grammar rules are difficult to teach, and therefore to learn, in English. The students’ and teachers’
preferences thus differ in this respect: students believed that teaching grammar in English is better for their holistic learning, while teachers believed that teaching grammar in English is not preferable when it comes to learning complicated grammatical rules.
Differences in Perceptions Towards Error Correction
When it comes to perceptual differences regarding error correction, teacher correction was more favored by students, who saw the teacher as the only authority or knowledgeable person in class and thus expected teacher corrections to be more reliable and worthy than peer correction. Still, our teacher respondents felt that teacher correction could easily hurt students’ feelings and arouse students’ anxiety.
The discrepancy between student and teacher attitudes towards oral and written grammar correction is another focus of our discussion on error correction. Students expressed strong positive attitudes that they want teachers to correct oral grammatical errors, whether it affects communication or not. They also look for teacher corrections for their writing errors. They had negative perceptions of teachers who do not correct the errors in their writing. In contrast, teachers had more conservative attitudes toward correcting speaking errors that do not hinder communication. To the teachers, grammar teaching seems to
avoid a direct focus on grammar, which they believe would otherwise hinder the role of communicative abilities in classrooms. Teachers tend to think highly of peer correction as it saves time and helps to maintain a positive atmosphere in class; they thus avoid correcting errors themselves.
Bridging the Gaps
Based upon the above findings, we have identified four pedagogical implications that could help bridge the gulf between student and teacher views on how grammar teaching and error correction should be integrated into EFL language classrooms.
Embedding grammar instruction in meaningful, communicative activities. As Long (1991) and Ellis et al. (2001) highlighted, form- focused instruction should be incorporated in meaningful, communicative activities. They argued that teaching form in a meaning-based approach for communicative needs helps to develop learners’ grammar knowledge and communicative skills. This approach “overtly draws students’
attention to linguistic elements as they arise incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus is on meaning or communication.” (Long, 1991, pp. 45-46) This study also recognizes the value of embedding grammar teaching into communicative activities. As cited above, our students considered the study of grammar to be an essential foundation to the acquisition of English. They even demonstrated a remarkably higher interest in communicative activities. We thus suggest that a focus-on-form approach deserves EFL teachers’ pedagogical consideration: meaning takes priority, while form is discussed for maintaining smooth flow of communication. This approach may provide
a means of developing learners’ grammar knowledge and communicative skills. Further research must explore implementation of the focus-on-form approach in not only our local context but also other EFL countries. More pedagogical attention should be paid to the questions of what techniques can be used to incorporate grammar teaching into communicative skills or vice versa, and most importantly, how EFL teachers can incorporate the focus-on-form approach in the face of the perennial pedagogical constraints: large class size, tight teaching schedule, and the backwash effects of exams.
Using appropriate language choice during grammar teaching/learning. As reflected in the interview data, our students expressed a stronger need for English input in classrooms. More specifically, in terms of grammar teaching, they demanded more English input from their teachers. Their expectation that grammar teaching be conducted in English instead of Chinese could result from the misconception that more input enhances results. However, Brown (2001) advised teachers to use students’ L1 to explain rules or patterns if students cannot follow explanations in English. Taiwan provides countless examples of grammar rules being explained in Chinese, yet students find these rules confusing and difficult to learn. It is perhaps unnecessary to discuss the difficulties students would further encounter if grammar instruction were conducted in English.
Learners’ desire for more English input during grammar instruction may be derived from their expectations of how an English class should be. In our study, interviews with the students suggest that most of them expect to obtain more English input in class. However, the reality is that English input is often limited; therefore they argued
amount of English input they avail may thus have created a misconception that all classroom activities should be conducted in English. Based on these findings, we propose that English teachers introduce grammar patterns and rules in students’ L1, i.e., Chinese, to ensure that students attain a high level of comprehensibility.
Follow-up grammar practice must provide sufficient English input to students, such as reiterating the focal grammar points briefly in English or conducting grammar activities in English. Subsequent English of this kind can reinforce students’ grammatical knowledge.
In this vein, this moderate use of both Chinese and English during grammar instruction will not only make grammar rules more comprehensible to students, but also ensure the sufficient target language input they desire.
Appropriate use of grammar terminology in the classroom.
A large number of students tend to favor teachers using more terminology in explaining grammar, and they believe their grammar ability will improve if they familiarize themselves with such terminology. This misconception results from the notion that all textbooks and lectures are based on special jargon. Also, as reported in the interview data, some students believed that maintaining that terminology is the optimal route to a better command of grammar.
Most teachers held an opposing view, showing fewer attempts to use grammar terminology during grammar instruction. Influenced by the communicative approach to language teaching and their concern with the possible intimidating effect of grammar terminology, they believe grammar should facilitate communication, and that grammar terminology is little more than a new word for most students. Taking
these views together, we believe that grammar terminology should be referred to in grammar instruction; most students observed that knowing grammar terminology helps them to systematize rules as they learn, but we feel the use of grammar terminology should be limited.
Knowing what errors to correct and when to correct them.
Students in this research reflected a stronger need for both oral and written grammar correction than teachers did. To most students, any grammar error they make should be “debugged” by their teacher, whether it occurs in speech or writing. However, most teachers contend that writing errors need correction, while most speech can be ignored if it does not obstruct communication flow. A gap between students and teachers may be the direct result of the fact that teachers in Taiwan are often regarded as the sole authority dominating classroom learning. Students are largely dependent on the teacher for useful linguistic feedback, maintaining a strong belief that error correction by the teacher is absolutely essential and significant in language learning.
Our study addressed perceptual differences between students and teachers in the need for grammar correction. Though students demonstrated a strong need for both oral and written correction, we contend that it should be offered cautiously in grammar instruction. It is hardly surprising to note that most teachers often find themselves in a pedagogical dilemma as to whether to correct a noticed error or to let it go uncorrected, for fear of over- and under-correction. On the one hand, if correction is overdone, the majority of learners may lose confidence in learning and grow hesitant in attempting their output.
flow. On the other hand, teachers’ excessive tolerance for errors may as well result in the learners’ improper internalization of errors. While this issue is still an intricate one for SLA teachers and researchers, we urge that teachers be prudent enough to strike a balance between letting crucial errors go uncorrected and providing appropriate corrections to avoid fossilization. In addition, through their experience in teaching and interacting with students, they will gradually develop an intuitive sense that helps them determine when errors should be corrected, to maximize the benefit of grammar correction.
This study revealed grammar instruction as being highly valued by EFL students and teachers in Taiwan; error correction, by comparison, was only favored by students. It should be noted that we made no attempt to jump into a debate for or against grammar instruction or error correction. Instead, by probing student and teacher views on these two issues, we have proposed several pedagogical recommendations that can help English teachers balance roles of form and meaning in language classrooms. However, this study does have its limitations. The limited number of participants in such a wide-ranging study could make it difficult to accurately generalize the results. For future research, each of the five regions should incorporate a high-, intermediate-, and a low-proficiency school in order to further validate the results. Also, the fact that teacher and student respondents were not randomly selected could have directly influenced the results of this study. Learner characteristics, such as their academic performance, their major (be it in social science or natural science groups), and English proficiency level, may have been factors in determining how they perceive grammar instruction and
error correction.
Moreover, this study explored students’ and teachers’ views regarding grammar instruction from a holistic perspective, instead of touching upon how both groups might evaluate the study of each individual grammatical rule. Since some particular grammar patterns require more attention from both students and teachers alike, it is recommended that future research focus on grammar patterns that often cause greater difficulties, such as relative clauses and the past perfect progressive tense. Future research might also explore the proficiency level of students as a factor affecting their perception of grammar instruction and error correction. That is, the perception of students across different proficiency levels could be compared so that differences can be identified. On the other hand, with the accumulation of greater learning experience, students’ perception may accordingly vary or change. Despite these limitations, this study hopes to shed some light on revealing students’ needs regarding grammar instruction and error correction, as well as to provide evidence favoring a focus-on-form approach in foreign language teaching pedagogy.
REFERENCES
Borg, S. (1998). Teachers’ pedagogical systems and grammar teaching:
A qualitative study. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 9-38.
Borg, S. (1999). Studying teacher cognition in second language grammar teaching. System, 27, 19-31.
feedback options and responses. Modern Language Journal, 79, 194-211.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd ed.). White Plains, New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Burns, H. (1996). Starting all over again: From teaching adults to teaching beginners. In D. Freeman & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in language teaching (pp. 154-177). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357-386.
Cathcart, R. L., & Olsen, J. E. W. B. (1976). Teachers’ and students’
preferences for correction of classroom conversation errors. In J.
F. Fanselo & R. H. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL 1976 (pp. 41-53).
Washington, DC: TESOL.
Chenoweth, N. A., Day, R. R., Chun, A. E., & Luppescu, S. (1983).
Attitudes and preferences of ESL students to error correction.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 79-87.
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431-469.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Preemptive focus on form in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 407-431.
Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices.
Educational Research, 38, 47-65.
Fotos, S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks.
TESOL Quarterly, 28, 323-351.
Fox, C. A. (1993). Communicative competence and beliefs about language among graduate teaching assistants in French. Modern Language Journal, 77, 313-324.
Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language students. Modern Language Journal, 72, 283-294.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. A. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 70, 125-132.
Johnson, K. (1994). The emerging beliefs and instructional practices of preservice English as a second language teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10, 439-452.
Kagan, D. M. (1990). Ways of evaluating teacher cognition: Inferences concerning the Goldilocks principle. Review of Educational Research, 60, 419-460.
Kern, R. G. (1995). Students’ and teachers’ beliefs about language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 28, 71-92.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications.
London: Longman.
(Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 45-77).
London: Academic Press.
Lai, S.-J. (2004). High school English teachers’ beliefs on grammar instruction in Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan.
Lee, P.-Y. (2004). A study of English grammar instruction in elementary schools in Taipei. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology, Taiwan.
Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response.
In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 57-68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lightbown, P. M. (1998). The importance of timing in focus on form.
In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 177-196). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Long, M., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative evidence in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82, 357-371.
Long. M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C.
Kramsche (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lyster, R., Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1999). A response to Truscott’s
‘What’s wrong with oral grammar correction.’ The Canadian Modern Language Review, 55, 457-467.
Omaggio, H. A. (1993). Teaching language in context (2nd ed.). Boston:
Heinle.
Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schulz, R. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom:
Students’ and teachers’ views on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 29, 343-364.
Schulz, R. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback: USA-Colombia. Modern Language Journal, 85, 244-258.
Sharwood-Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and the second language learner. Applied Linguistics, 2, 159-169.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369.
Truscott, J. (1999). What’s wrong with oral grammar correction. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 55, 437-456.
Tse, K. P. (2004). Pedagogical grammar for EFL teachers. Taipei:
Crane Publishing Company.
VanPatten, B. (1986a). The ACTFL proficiency guidelines: Implications for grammatical accuracy in the classroom? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 56-67.
VanPatten, B. (1986b). Second language acquisition research and the learning/teaching of Spanish: Some research findings and implications. Hispania, 69, 202-216.
VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to content and form in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287-301.