九年一貫國民中學英語教科書文法重現情形之分析研究

全文

(1)國立台灣師範大學英語學系碩. 士. 論文. Master Thesis Graduate Institute of English National Taiwan Normal University. 九年一貫國民中學英語教科書文法重現情形之分析研究. Grammatical Structure Recycling in Junior High School English Textbooks for Nine-year Integrated Curriculum. 指導教授: 葉錫南博士 Advisor: Dr. Hsi-nan Yeh 研究生: 洪儷倩 Li-chien Hung. 中華民國 97 年 7 月 July, 2008.

(2) 摘要本研究旨在檢視九年一貫國中英語教科書文法重現之情形，並且提供教科書編者以及英文老師具體建議，以達到有效之文法教學。首先，本研究依據九年一貫課程綱要之基本語言結構參考表設計一問卷，以從三十位中學英語教師的經驗與角度瞭解一般中學生普遍感到困難之文法。而後透過內容及量化分析，深入探討五個主要困難文法在各版本教科書中文法重現情形，其包含:文法重現分布、文法重現量、文法重現率、文法螺旋編纂情形及文法重現之語言環境。研究資料來源涵蓋目前廣為採用之五家出版社所發行的國中教科書(康軒、翰林、朗文、南一、何家仁）。問卷結果顯示現在完成式、關係代名詞、被動式、過去完成式、wh子句、現在/過去分詞作形容詞等文法為目前對中學生較為困擾之文法，由於教科書皆未呈現過去完成式於內容中，因此本研究探討之主要文法為其餘五者。因這些文法困難度較高，所以足夠的文法重現量應於教科書中呈現，以幫助學生了解與應用這些文法。教科書內容分析結果如下: (1) 大多文法重現分佈於複習課及那些呈現相同文法之螺旋課中，(2) 就五個文法在全教科書中的重現量而言，其次序分別為: 現在完成式 > 關係代名詞 > 被動式 > wh子句 > 現在/過去分詞作形容詞，此次序更與老師對此五文法之困難程度看法為相同，顯示各版本教科書對這些文法的重視程度與老師的看法為相同，(3) 就文法重現率而言，康軒、南一、及朗文教科書平均上提供較多的文法重現於教科書中，而佳音及何家仁則相對為少; 然而，根據單字習得之相關研究，一次的重現並未能有效幫助學生習得，至少五次的重現才可能產生習得(Salling, 1959)，因此，如果考量課本中文法重現的品質，南一較其他的版本為優，因其能於大部分的單元課中提供同一文法至少五次的重現次數，而雖然康軒的文法重現率高，其重現品質卻未有相同的結果，(4) 此外，螺旋課提供大量的文法重現予學生，也因為朗文、康軒及南一對文法多以螺旋方. i.

(3) 式呈現，因而與其他版本相較之下，有較多的文法活動及較高的重現頻率，(5) 最後，就各版本教科書所提供的文法重現語言環境而言，只有南一及佳音版傾向提供較大的語言環境(文章或對話)於書中，然而其比例也僅約50%，因此未來在各版本教科書之編纂上仍應多為注意。根據分析結果，本研究提供具體之建議，希望協助教科書編纂者補強英語教材內容之不足處，也期盼能幫助英語教師了解教科書之編纂情形並能從而適切地補充教材，提升其課堂教學。. ii.

(4) ABSTRACT This study aims to investigate the recycling of structures in the junior high school English textbooks and to provide pedagogical suggestions for textbook writers and language teachers. First, a questionnaire designed based on the “List of Suggested Grammar and Sentence Structures” appended to the Curriculum Guidelines was used as an instrument to investigate thirty English teachers’ perceptions regarding the troublesome structures for their students. Further, an in-depth content and quantitative analysis was conducted to investigate the recycling presentation of the five major troublesome structures for students in the textbooks, including (1) recycling distribution, (2) recycling frequency, (3) recycling rate, (4) spiral presentation, and (5) degree of contextualization for recycling. The textbooks being examined are from five publishers, including Longman, Joy, Kang-Hsuan, Nan-i, and Hess. The five troublesome structures for junior high school students included present perfect, relative clause, passive voice, past perfect, wh-clause, and present/past participle as adjective. As past perfect is not targeted in all textbooks, it was excluded in the study; the rest of the five structures were the target structures in this study. Owing to the difficulty of these structures, it was supposed that adequate recycling should be provided in the textbooks. The recycling of the five structures was then examined after they are first taught. The results of analysis can be summarized as follows. First, the distribution of recycled structures falls mostly in two kinds of lessons: lessons that provide spiral learning for the target structure, and review or recycle lessons that aim to review the structures. Second, the overall recycling frequencies of structures in textbooks from high to low are: Present perfect > Relative clause > Passive voice > Wh-clause > Present/Past participle as adjective. This order matches with teachers’ perceptions. iii.

(5) of the level of difficulty these structures are. This indicates that textbooks do emphasize more on the structures that are regarded by teachers to be troublesome. Third, the extent target structures are recycled in textbooks is as follows: Textbook K > Textbook N > Textbook L > Textbook J > Textbook H. Averagely, Textbook K, Textbook N, and Textbook L normally provide more recycling of target structures for learners compared to Textbook J and Textbook H. However, if considering the quality of recycling in the textbooks, Textbook N performs the best among all, for it provides at least a threshold of five exposures to a target structure in most lessons. Although Textbook K has the highest recycling rate, it does not show similar high quality of recycling. Fourth, Textbook L, Textbook K, and Textbook N tend to provide spiral learning for the structures, facilitating the recycling of the structures for students. With the spiral lesson, more recycling of the structures is provided. Fifth, the proportions for recycling structures in passages/dialogues in textbooks range between 30% and 55%. Although Textbook N and Textbook J tend to present the recycled structures in passages or dialogues, the percentages are only around 50%, showing the inadequacies of textbooks for presenting structures in large contexts, like passages and dialogues. Overall, based on the research findings, some pedagogical implications are provided in the study for textbook writers and language teachers.. iv.

(6) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. This thesis would never have been completed without the guidance and support of many people. First of all, my deepest and most earnest appreciation goes to my advisor, Professor Hsi-nan Yeh. His insightful advice and careful guidance helped me get through the difficulties I encountered during my thesis writing. Despite his tight schedule, he still squeezed his time out to read my thesis drafts, discussed with me and gave me insightful suggestions. Were it not for his assistance, this thesis could have never been finished. My gratitude also goes to the committee members, Professor Hao-jan Chen and Professor Hsueh-ying Yu for their invaluable ideas and professional advice. Their comments and suggestions greatly helped me improve the quality of my thesis. I also owe a great deal to my dear college friend, Shawn, for her participation in the study as a rater. She helped me a lot with the sample and formal rating, which was tiring and trivial to finish. I am deeply grateful for her assistance. Special thanks also go to my dear classmates and friends, who ever encouraged me, comforted me and cheered me up during my process of thesis writing. It is a blessing to have so many nice friends to support me. Their company has made my life more colorful. Last but not the least, I am deeply grateful to my parents, sisters and my best friend, Tai-tsun, who were always on my side giving me love, support, and encouragement. Were it not for them, I wouldn’t have gone through all the difficulties. This thesis is especially dedicated to them.. v.

(7) TABLE OF CONTENTS CHINESE ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................. i ENGLISH ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................ iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................... v TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................... vi LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................... viii LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................... ix CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1 Background ............................................................................................................................ 1 Motivation .............................................................................................................................. 2 Purposes and Research Questions of the Study...................................................................... 4 Significance of the Study ....................................................................................................... 5 Definitions of Terms ............................................................................................................... 7 Organization of the Thesis ..................................................................................................... 7 CHAPTER TWO. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................... 9. The Role of Grammar in English Language Teaching ........................................................... 9 The Role of Grammar in Major ELT Approaches .............................................................. 9 The Role of Formal Grammar Instruction........................................................................ 11 The Nature of Grammar ....................................................................................................... 13 Dimensions of Grammar .................................................................................................. 14 Learning of Grammar ....................................................................................................... 15 The Need of Recycling in Language Teaching .................................................................... 17 Selection and Sequence of Grammatical Structures............................................................. 20 Grammar and EFL Textbooks .............................................................................................. 24 The Evaluation Criteria for Textbook Grammar .............................................................. 24 Contextualization of Grammar Presentation in Textbooks .............................................. 25 Grammar in Taiwan English Textbooks ........................................................................... 27 Teachers’ Perceptions and Teaching ..................................................................................... 29 The Nature of Teachers’ Perceptions ................................................................................ 29 The Impact of Teachers’ Perceptions on their Teaching Practice ..................................... 30 CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY ............................................................................... 32 Participants and Instruments ................................................................................................ 32 Participants ....................................................................................................................... 32 Instruments ....................................................................................................................... 33. vi.

(8) Selection of Textbooks for Analysis ..................................................................................... 35 Procedures and Data Analysis of Textbook Materials.......................................................... 36 Qualitative Analysis ......................................................................................................... 37 Quantitative Analysis ....................................................................................................... 38 Coding Procedures ....................................................................................................... 38 Inter-Coder Reliability ................................................................................................. 40 CHAPTER FOUR. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................. 42. Troublesome Structures and their Distribution .................................................................... 42 Recycling Presentation of Target Structures ........................................................................ 48 Recycling Distribution, Frequency, and Rate of Structures in Textbooks ....................... 48 Recycling Distribution and Frequency of Target Structures ........................................ 48 Comparison for Recycling Frequencies of Structures among Textbooks .................... 59 Recycling Rate of Target Structures ............................................................................. 62 Comparison for Recycling Rates among Textbooks .................................................... 64 Quality of Recycling in the Textbooks ............................................................................. 67 Numbers of Lessons Achieving the Recycling Threshold ........................................... 68 Recycling of Structures in the Subsequent Three Lessons........................................... 70 Recycling in the Spiral Lessons ....................................................................................... 72 Proportions of Recycling in the Spiral Lessons ........................................................... 72 Context Distribution of Recycled Structures.................................................................... 75 CHAPTER FIVE. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 82. Summary of the Major Findings .......................................................................................... 82 Pedagogical Implications ..................................................................................................... 86 Limitations of the Study ....................................................................................................... 87 Suggestions for Further Research ........................................................................................ 88 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 90 APPENDIX A List of Suggested Grammar and Sentence Structures ................................. 102 APPENDIX B Teacher Questionnaire ................................................................................ 107 APPENDIX C. Coding Results of Textbook L .................................................................... 111. APPENDIX D Coding Results of Textbook J ..................................................................... 114 APPENDIX E. Coding Results of Textbook K .................................................................... 117. APPENDIX F. Coding Results of Textbook N .................................................................... 120. APPENDIX G Coding Resultso f Textbook H ................................................................... 123. vii.

(9) LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Detailed Background Information of the Participants ................................................ 33 Table 2. Approved Standard Versions of Junior High School English Textbooks .................. 36 Table 3. The Coding Sheet for the Calculation of Structure Recycling in Textbooks ............. 39 Table 4. Troublesome Structures for Junior High School Students.......................................... 42 Table 5. Distribution of the Grammar Activities for Present Perfect ....................................... 44 Table 6.Distribution of the Grammar Activities for Relative Clause ....................................... 45 Table 7. Distribution of the Grammar Activities for Passive Voice ......................................... 46 Table 8. Distribution of the Grammar Activities for Wh-clause .............................................. 46 Table 9. Distribution of the Grammar Activities for Present/Past Participle as Adjective ....... 47 Table 10. Recycling Frequency of Structures in Textbook L ................................................... 49 Table 11. Recycling Frequency of Structures in Textbook J .................................................... 51 Table 12. Recycling Frequency of Structures in Textbook K .................................................. 53 Table 13. Recycling Frequency of Structures in Textbook N .................................................. 55 Table 14. Recycling Frequency of Structures in Textbook H .................................................. 57 Table 15. Overall Recycling Frequencies of Structures in Target Textbooks .......................... 59 Table 16. Recycling Rate of Structures in Textbook L............................................................. 63 Table 17. Recycling Rate of Structures in Textbook J ............................................................. 63 Table 18. Recycling Rate of Structures in Textbook K ............................................................ 63 Table 19. Recycling Rate of Structures in Textbook N ............................................................ 64 Table 20. Recycling Rate of Structures in Textbook H ............................................................ 64 Table 21. Overall Recycling Rates of Structures in Target Textbooks ..................................... 65 Table 22. Numbers of Lessons Achieving the Recycling Threshold ....................................... 69 Table 23. Percentage of Recycling Frequency of Structures in the Subsequent Three Lessons71 Table 24. Proportions of Recycling in the Spiral Lessons ....................................................... 73 Table 25. Context Distribution of Recycled Structures in Textbook L .................................... 75 Table 26. Context Distribution of Recycled Structures in Textbook J ..................................... 76 Table 27. Context Distribution of Recycled Structures in Textbook K .................................... 76 Table 28. Context Distribution of Recycled Structures in Textbook N .................................... 77 Table 29. Context Distribution of Recycled Structures in Textbook H .................................... 78 Table 30. Comparison for Context Distribution of Recycled Structures among Textbooks .... 79. viii.

(10) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Larsen-Freeman’s Framework of the Dimensions of Grammar ............................... 15 Figure 2. Comparison for Recycling Frequency of Structures among Textbooks ................... 59 Figure 3. Comparison for Recycling Rates of Structures among Textbooks ........................... 65 Figure 4. Comparison for Distribution of Recycled Structures among Textbooks .................. 79. ix.

(11) CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION. The present study aims to examine recycling of grammatical structures in junior high school English textbooks and to provide pedagogical suggestions for textbook writers and language teachers. This introductory chapter presents the general background, motivation, purposes, research questions, and significance of this study. The definitions of the terms and the organization of the thesis are also described. Background. Textbooks have been playing an important role in the English Language Teaching (ELT) classroom. For both teachers and students, textbooks are an indispensable necessity as well as a vital tool for teaching and learning. In Taiwan, textbooks dominate the content of teachers’ instruction and are the essential sources of students’ learning (Chan, 2004; Chen, 2003; Huang, 2003; Li, 2003; Liao, 1999; Wu, 2002). As both teachers and students put heavy reliance on textbooks, a good set of textbooks for use should be particularly emphasized. In Taiwan, textbooks for junior high school students were limited to only one version, which was nationally centralized and standardized and had long been edited and published by the National Institute for Compilation and Translation (NICT). However, due to the liberalization of education, in September 2002, Ministry of Education (MOE) started to release the right for private publishers to publish textbooks as long as the textbooks follow the principles of Curriculum Guidelines of Nine-year Integrated Curriculum (NIC). Different from the role NICT played a few years ago, NICT is now responsible for the review and approval of the textbooks compiled by private publishers. With the approval of NICT, private textbooks then 1.

(12) can be used and adopted in junior high schools. With this development of the open market in textbook publishing, teachers at junior high school are now faced with the responsibility of choosing an appropriate textbook set from various private textbooks for their students. Consequently, it is necessary for teachers to understand the syllabus design and the characteristics of different textbook series so as to select the one that best matches their needs. Motivated by the privatization of English textbook publishing, some studies have been conducted to explore local English teacher’s beliefs and views on the in-use private textbooks (e.g., Li, 2003; Wang, 2004). Others have been conducted to compare the differences between sets of private textbooks, focusing not only on the presentation of textbook activities, but also on the aspects of textbook grammar, vocabulary, and others (e.g., Chang, 2005; He, 2004; Huang, 2005; Lin, 2007). Chang’s (2005) study, for example, indicates that textbooks differ in their presentation or arrangement of grammar activities even if they were following the principles of the Curriculum Guidelines. According to her findings, there is great difference between textbook sets in their inclusiveness and sequence of structures (Chang, 2005). This research is another attempt to investigate the presentation of structures in junior high school English textbooks in Taiwan. It focuses on one important aspect of structure presentation – the recycling of structures – with a hope to provide a better picture of the textbooks in the market. The next section will discuss the motivation of focusing on textbook grammar recycling in the present study.. Motivation The importance of grammar recycling in teaching has been pointed out by Larsen-Freeman. (2001).. As. she. states 2. (1991),. grammar. involves. the.

(13) three-dimensional knowledge: form, meaning, and use. When learning a new structure, students not only need to know how it is formed, but what it means, and when or why it is used. These aspects of form, meaning, and use of a given structure may be acquired at different stages of second language development; therefore, providing learners with enough exposures to a given structure in different contexts from time to time after its first occurrence will help them recognize different dimensions of a structure and further acquire it (Larsen-Freeman, 2001). Tomlinson (1998, 2003) also highlights the idea of recycling in the instructional materials. He mentions that “materials should take into account that the positive effects of instruction are usually delayed” (1998, p.15). Therefore, materials should occasionally recycle the instruction and provide enough exposures for learners so as to help them better understand and acquire the knowledge. As the need for recycling has been stressed on grammar teaching and materials development, some questions related to it arouse the researcher’s curiosity. First, to what extent are the grammatical structures recycled in junior high school English textbooks? Second, in what ways are they recycled in the textbooks? Just as Lee (1975) has mentioned, “a good textbook will repeat in subsequent lessons the structures already taught” (p. 363). Therefore, in order to find out whether proper recycling of grammatical structures is provided in textbooks, the researcher is motivated to conduct this study. Besides textbooks, teachers also play a vital role in the language classroom. In the classroom, it is the teacher that brings the textbook to life and sometimes it is even the teacher’s responsibility to bring the kind of idea like ‘recycling’ into the classroom as textbooks might not be able to review and recycle all the previous contents (Richards, 2001). Therefore, in order for teachers to have a better picture of the presentation of grammatical structures in textbooks and to have more guidance 3.

(14) for their classroom teaching, the researcher is motivated to conduct the study. According to Martin (1978), the concept of spiraling – systematic revisiting of the same material with increasingly broader and deeper meaning and usage – can be applied to the teaching of grammar. With a spiral treatment, the structure can be briefly taught first and then becomes a lead-in for the later content where deeper meaning and complex usage of the structure is introduced. If spiral learning is provided for a structure, recycling will occur. Therefore, in the study, spiral presentation of structures in the textbooks is also investigated to see to what extent the structures are recycled in the spiral lesson. A fairly large body of literature exists on the teaching and learning of grammar (Celce-Murcia, 1991a; Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1999; Ellis, 2002a, 2002b, 2006; Krashen, 1993; Larsen-Freeman, 2001; Lee& Wang, 2002; Li, 2003; Weatherford, 1997). However, within that literature, though the need for recycling is emphasized, there is a surprising lack of study on the recycling of grammatical structures in language materials, not to mention textbooks. The present study thus aims to supplement this gap and to provide a preliminary investigation of grammar recycling in the five versions of junior high school English textbooks in Taiwan.. Purposes and Research Questions of the Study As mentioned above, grammar pedagogy has long been concerned as a crucial issue in second and foreign language teaching and learning. The way that grammatical structures are presented in textbooks is, therefore, of critical importance that needs further investigation. For the purpose of examining the recycling of structures in depth, only five major structures were targeted in the present study. Due to the reason that the more troublesome a structure is, the more recycling of it may be needed to ensure 4.

(15) students’ learning outcome, the selection of the five target structures was based on teachers’ perceptions. The top five structures identified by teachers in the questionnaires to be troublesome for their students were the targets in the study. Hence the five major textbooks in the market were investigated in terms of their recycling of the five target structures. The frequency of structures’ occurrences after the lesson they are first focused was calculated. Through examining and comparing the ways structures are recycled and presented in the textbooks, it is hoped that the present study can provide both textbook writers and teachers with information on how to improve the existing materials and their teaching. In view of the preceding research purposes, the primary research questions to be addressed in this paper are as follows: 1. How often are the target structures recycled in each set of textbooks? How are they distributed in subsequent lessons in the textbook? 2. If spiral learning is provided for a structure in a separate spiral lesson, to what extent is the structure recycled? 3. How are structures recycled in the textbooks? Are they mostly embedded in a large context like dialogues/passages or mostly in sentences which only provide a minimal meaningful context?. Significance of the Study While the goal of language teaching has moved from grammatical competence to communicative competence, grammar no longer enjoys its prominence in ELT. However, even though it only plays a supportive role in the process of achieving communicative goals, it is considered a crucial component in ELT and is particularly so in Taiwan (Canale & Swain, 1980; Littlewood, 1981; Savignon, 2002; Su, 2003). Not only school teachers put great emphasis on it, but also students themselves regard 5.

(16) it as a necessity if they want to learn English well. The present study will be of significance to textbook selection, textbook development and classroom teaching. First, the results of this study can lead to a better understanding of how structures are presented in English textbooks and can further provide a reference for teachers to evaluate and select appropriate textbooks. Besides, it is hoped that the findings can provide some pedagogical suggestions for private textbook publishers or material writers when improving the existing materials or designing new textbooks regarding the presentation of structure recycling in textbooks. Furthermore, the study can provide teachers with a reference for adjusting and supplementing their teaching. On one hand, teachers may be more aware of the troublesome areas students may encounter in the process of their learning. On the other hand, with the understanding of the extent and the ways structures are recycled in textbooks, teachers will be able to adjust their teaching. For example, if one grammatical structure is rarely recycled in the textbook or is not provided with enough contexts, teachers can supplement this gap by providing students with more exposures to that target structure occasionally in different meaningful contexts so as to help and facilitate students to apply the rules. Or, if a complex structure is found to be presented in just a single lesson or activity, teachers can make some modifications on their lesson plans and teach their students the target structure with progressive development and complexity instead of exhausting them with too much input in a lesson. In sum, the present study is conducted to examine recycling of grammatical structures in junior high school English textbooks. It also aims to provide illuminating information for language teachers to select the “best possible fit”, as termed by. 6.

(17) Cunningsworth (1995)1, for their students and for textbook writers to pay more attention to their compilation of textbooks.. Definitions of Terms Some important terms in the present study are defined as follows: 1. Recycling: In the present study, recycling refers to “the frequent use of a particular structure in varied lexical setting, not the frequent use of particular sentences as repetition” (McLaughlin & Heredia, 1996, as cited in Lynch & Maclean, 2000). The recycling frequency of a grammatical structure refers to the times of appearances, or exposures that students would receive in their textbooks after the lesson that particular item is focused and taught. It is supposed that more frequently one structure appears, more useful and more important that item is. In the present study, textbooks were examined in terms of their recycling of target structures.. 2. Spiral learning: Spiral learning here refers to the circumstances when a grammatical structure is first taught in a lesson and is brought up and focused again in a later lesson where deeper and more extensive use of the structure is presented. The concept taught in the former lesson is called the lead-in structure for the spiral lesson in the present study. It is assumed that in the spiral lesson recycling will occur.. Organization of the Thesis This thesis consists of five chapters. After an overall introduction in chapter. 1. Cunningsworth (1995) points out, “no coursebook designed for a general market will be absolutely ideal for your particular group of learners, but the aim is to find the best possible fit” (p.5). 7.

(18) one, chapter two presents a relevant literature review of the research topic mainly focusing on the issues of grammar and textbook. Chapter three describes the methodology adopted and the procedures taken for data collection and analysis. Chapter four presents and discusses the results of the study. The last chapter concludes the thesis with a summary of the major findings, pedagogical implications, limitations of the present study and suggestions for further research.. 8.

(19) CHAPTER TWO. LITERATURE REVIEW. In this chapter, the review of literature on the issues of grammar and textbook is presented. The first part looks at issues related to the role of grammar in ELT, the nature of grammar, the importance of grammar recycling, and the selection and sequence of grammatical structures in language teaching. The second part presents relevant literature on textbook grammar. Literature relating to teachers’ perceptions is also discussed in the final section.. The Role of Grammar in English Language Teaching In the field of second language acquisition, the role of grammar has undergone major changes and heated debates (Doughty & Williams, 1998; Ellis, 1985, 1990; Krashen, 1982; Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991; Long, 1983; Thornbury, 1999; Truscott, 1996). It has moved from a major component of language teaching, as in Grammar-Translation, Direct Method, and Audio-lingual Approach, to a minor part, as in Communicative Language Teaching, Natural Approach, and Whole Language Approach. The following sections discuss the role of grammar in major ELT approaches and show the debates concerning the value of formal grammar instruction. The Role of Grammar in Major ELT Approaches In the time between 1800-1900, Grammar-Translation Method (GTM) had dominated language teaching. It, as its name suggests, regarded grammar as the core and the starting point for instruction. Students were expected to develop their language ability through translation of texts from the target language into the native language and through explicit explanation and analysis of the grammar of the target language (Tse, 2004). Little attention was paid to the content of texts. Some 9.

(20) pedagogical situations in GTM classrooms, as described by Celce-Murcia (1991b), are as follows: (1) instruction is given in the native language, (2) the focus of teaching is on the grammatical parsing, and (3) a typical exercise for students mostly involves translation into and out of the native language. In the GTM classroom, students are unable to develop their communicative ability in the language due to the insufficient communicative practice they are exposed to and the much attention they pay to grammatical structures. In the 1940s, the Audio-lingual Approach (AA) gained wide-spread acceptance and largely displaced the GTM, which only emphasized the knowledge of grammar, not the use of it. The AA was firmly based on linguistic and psychological theory and it was believed that language learning was primarily the results of habit formation and over learning (Weatherford, 1997). The mimicry of forms and memorization of sentence patterns to learn grammatical features are the distinguishing features of its classroom practice. Repetition, memorization, and error correction of grammar points are the three basic methods of grammar instruction in the AA. The sequencing of structures is usually from basic to complex (Celce-Murcia, 1991b). Although, in this approach, teachers are not supposed to spend much time explaining grammatical rules of the target language, grammar is still considered to be very important in the AA. The GTM and AA both belong to the approach coined by Long and Robinson (1998) as “focus on forms”. This approach is commonly employed by junior and senior high school classrooms in Taiwan and is featured for its emphasis on translation exercises, error correction, and repetition of practices. In the 1970s, the Communicative Approach became an important movement in the language teaching profession. It advocated that language learning was not confined to the knowledge of grammatical rules (Thornbury, 1999), as in the GTM 10.

(21) and AA. The communicative competence, the appropriate use of language, should be the target of language learning. Communicative competence, as defined by Canale and Swain (1980), involved interaction between grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence, and strategic competence. Based on the definition of Canale and Swain (1980), Bachman and Palmer (1982) further proposed three elements to communicative competence: linguistic competence, pragmatic competence, and sociolinguistic competence. Because of these multiple elements including in the communicative competence, the goal of ELT becomes to help learners obtain these different abilities. Grammatical competence is only one of these abilities. Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), which emphasizes language functions and communication, is a method based on the Communicative Approach. With the shift of the ELT paradigm, it has been the most widely adopted methodology in ELT (Brown, 2000). In this method, the role of grammar becomes as a support in achieving communicative competence. Although it is still a crucial element in communicative competence, it no longer enjoys its prominence as in the GTM or AA in ELT. The Role of Formal Grammar Instruction Despite the role of grammar in different ELT methods, one important issue concerning grammar instruction was whether it makes any contribution to the acquisition of the target language. Arguments concerning the value of grammar instruction were identified as two sides: for and against grammar instruction. Krashen (1982) claimed that form-based instruction did not influence learners’ automatic use of language. He distinguished acquired knowledge from learnt knowledge. According to his statement, the former occurred when the focus was on. 11.

(22) meaning and can be used automatically and naturally while the latter occurred when the focus was on formal properties of the target language and was used only for monitoring output. Due to the difference of the two kinds of knowledge, learnt knowledge could not be converted into acquired knowledge and could not thus be used automatically and naturally in communication. According to Krashen, the only way for students to acquire grammar was to get exposure to the comprehensible input. Krashen’s Monitor Model and the Natural Approach by Krashen and Terrell (1983) were the two representatives of this position. Different from the position of Krashen (1982), abandoning the grammar instruction, other researchers disputed his claim. Bialystok (1979) and Sharwood-Smith (1981) claimed that explicit (learnt) knowledge might gradually become part of the implicit (acquired) knowledge through adequate practice on the target structures. Schmidt (1990) proposed “noticing hypothesis” and argued that learners must be aware of the forms and the meanings in the input in order for acquisition to take place. In the Spada and Lightbown’s (1993) study, they found that teachers who integrated grammar into their communicative lessons were more effective than those who never did or who only did so in decontextualized grammar lessons. These view points toward the effect of grammar instruction further admit the value of grammar instruction in facilitating SLA. In sum, although grammar has undergone its ups and downs with the shift of language teaching approaches, and no consensus has been reached as to whether grammar instruction facilitates language learning, its importance to second or foreign language learning has never been denied. Savignon (2002) stated, “Communication cannot take place in the absence of structure, or grammar, asset of shared assumptions about how language works, along with a willingness of participants to cooperate in the negotiation of meaning” (p.7). Without some 12.

(23) knowledge of grammar, communication is limited (Littlewood, 1981). Grammar, namely, grammatical competence, occupies a prominent position as a major component of communicative competence and is especially helpful for writing skills (Brown, 2001). As Canale and Swain (1980) has put:. Although focus on grammatical competence in the classroom is not a sufficient condition for the development of communicative competence, it would be inappropriate, however, to conclude from these studies that the development of grammatical competence is irrelevant to or unnecessary for the development of communicative competence. (p.13) Even Krashen, advocate of the total abandonment of grammatical instruction, recognized that some knowledge of grammar rules was necessary, even for beginners (Weatherford, 1997). Larsen-freeman (2002) stated, “grammar affords speakers of a particular language a great deal of flexibility in the ways they can express propositional, or notional meaning, and how they present themselves in the world” (p. 104). For most instructors and students, grammar is a necessity in learning a second language and they believe that grammar instruction is indeed helpful in the acquisition process. According to Su (2003), the ELT in Taiwan should focus more on grammar than communicative functions due to the EFL environment in Taiwan.. The Nature of Grammar As grammar plays a significant role in language learning, it is crucial to clarify what grammar is and the multi-dimensional knowledge of grammar identified by researchers to be important in learning. The following sections discuss the dimensions of grammar involved in the grammatical knowledge and further review. 13.

(24) the students’ learning process of interpreting and producing grammatical structures informed by insights of second language acquisition.. Dimensions of Grammar As grammar is a crucial component in achieving communicative competence, Larsen-Freeman (1991) pointed out that grammar is not a discrete set of meaningless, decontextualized, static structures and nor is it a collection of prescriptive rules about linguistic forms. She stated that grammar involves the three dimensions as form, meaning, and use. When dealing with a grammatical structure, students not only need to know how it is constructed, but what it means whenever it is used and why it is used by the speaker in communication. Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999) also noted: Grammar is not merely a collection of forms but rather involves three dimensions of what linguists refer to as (morpho)syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Grammatical structures not only have a morphosyntactic form, they are also used to express meaning (semantics) in context-appropriate use (pragmatics). We refer to these as the dimensions of form, meaning, and use. Because they are interrelated- that is, a change in one will involve a change in another. (p. 4) Figure 1 below illustrates the framework of the three-dimensional grammar. With this view on grammar, it was proposed that teachers should teach grammar with respect to the three dimensions so as to help students learn to use grammar structures accurately, meaningfully, and appropriately (Brown, 2001; Celce-Murcia, 1991a; Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1999; Chen, 2001; Ellis, 1993, 2006; Harmer, 1987; Larsen-Freeman, 1991; Nunan, 1999). This was similar to what Celce-Murcia and Hilles (1988) has pointed out that grammar should be taught with reference to meaning, social, or discourse factors instead of being taught in isolated, 14.

(25) unconnected sentences that present an unrealistic picture of how English is used in real communication.. Figure 1. Larsen-Freeman’s Framework of the Dimensions of Grammar (Larsen-Freeman, 1991) Learning of Grammar Although teaching students the three dimensional knowledge of grammar could help them better use the structures accurately, meaningfully, and appropriately, it would be unreasonable for teachers to present all the information to students at once. According to the research of second language acquisition, there are a few points regarding students’ learning process of grammatical structures that need to be paid attention to. First, learning is a gradual process; therefore, learners do not learn structures one at a time. Different dimensions or aspects of a particular grammatical structure may be acquired by students at different stages of L2 development. Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999) stressed, “The process of language acquisition is not a matter of simply aggregating one structure after another in linear fashion. The process is a gradual one” (p.8). Nunan (1999) also pointed out the misinterpretation of the way that second language grammar is acquired. He noted:. 15.

(26) One thing that both grammar-translation and audiolingualism shared was an assumption that acquiring a second language was a linear process that learners learn one item at a time, mastering the simple items first, and then moving on, in a step by step fashion to more complex items. This is an oversimplification or a misinterpretation of the way that second language grammar is actually acquired. Learners do not acquire information, perfectly, one thing at a time. They learn numerous things imperfectly at the same time. They structure and restructure their understanding of the language in complex nonlinear ways... (p.78) As a result, a learner’s mastery of one grammatical structure occurs in the long term. A structure may only be partially acquired before a new one is introduced (Ellis, 1993; Larsen-Freeman, 1991). In order to facilitate learners to acquire the grammatical items taught, teachers may need to recycle the structures time by time to present new functions and possible uses of those items (Hedge, 2000). Second, learners do not always apply the rules consistently; they may make errors. Although sometimes students may seem to have acquired a grammatical structure, it is not absolute that they will apply the rules consistently. Teachers may find backsliding occurring in students’ interlanguage when new forms are presented (Brown, 2000, Hedge, 2000; Larsen-Freeman, 2003; Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991). The evidence is from the research of second language acquisition showing that sequence of acquisition of a particular structure follows a U-shaped course of development (Ellis, 1997). That is to say, learners may display a high level of accuracy at the beginning stage, then regressing later with errors occurring, and at last once again performing the correct forms. This process is referred as ‘restructuring’ since learners are reorganizing their existing knowledge to accommodate the new one. Therefore, as learner’s interlanguage develops and restructuring occurs, they may start to make errors in an item that is thought to be. 16.

(27) had acquired. Teachers should not require students to achieve accuracy at once for well-formedness will finally occur when knowledge is reorganized and restructured. Third, second language learners depend on the knowledge they already have. In other words, learners may rely on the knowledge of English they have acquired along with the knowledge of their first language and their experiences to formulate hypotheses to see how L2 works (Hedge, 2000; Larsen-Freeman, 1991). Teachers, as a result, do not have to provide all the information of an item for the students. Instead, they should teach based on the knowledge that students already have. The learning process of the second language or foreign language may be complicated; however, it is worth noting that language acquisition is not a linear progression but is a gradual process, or it is more wavelike than linear stagelike (Larsen-Freeman, 2003). Structures will not be fully developed at one time and students may make errors in developing and restructuring their grammatical knowledge. As Rutherford (1987) has stated, “The learner is constantly engaged in reanalyzing data, reformulating hypotheses, recasting generalizations, etc.” (p.159). Hence, recycling various aspects of the target structures over a period of time may be necessary in order for acquisition to take place.. The Need of Recycling in Language Teaching Due to the insights of second language acquisition, the need of recycling for second or foreign language learning has also been stressed in materials development as well as course syllabus design. Tomlinson (1998) has indicated that “materials should take into account that the positive effects of instruction are usually delayed” (p.15). Since acquisition is a gradual and dynamic process rather than an instantaneous one, learners cannot be expected to learn a new feature and be able to use it in a lesson. Therefore, it is 17.

(28) important for materials to recycle instruction and to provide frequent and ample exposure to the instructed language features in communicative use (Tomlinson, 2003).. Tomlinson (1998) suggested one way to promote durable learning. He. stated: The conventional textbook approach of PPP (PresentationPractice-Production) could be used to promote durable learning if the objective of the Production phase was seen as reinforcement rather than correct production and if this was followed in subsequent units by more exposure and more representation relating to the same feature. (p.16) Therefore, if the structures targeted in the lesson are recycled in the subsequent lessons, students’ retention and recall of the structures will be enhanced and strengthened. Howatt (1974) also noted the need of recycling in the teaching materials. He pointed out the need of revision in the language course. As he mentioned: Revision should be both cumulative and recurrent. When a learning point has been introduced into the materials, it should be used again and again in the succeeding units. Of course, some points are more important than others and it would be physically impossible to bring back every single item in every unit, so choices have to be made. However, if the notion of cumulative recurrence were to be applied to teaching materials in even the most limited way, the effect would be startling. (p.19) According to Howatt (1974), repeated experience of same features of language should always be in context and preferably in different contexts so that students might not get bored and could always be reminded of what they have learned. In course syllabus design, one is faced with a choice between two approaches to the sequencing of items in the course, namely a linear, and a cyclical or spiral 18.

(29) gradation (Dubin& Olshtain, 1986; Richards, 2001; Stern, 1992). The linear approach would be to teach grammatical structures from start to finish through a syllabus covering each item thoroughly before the next items appear, while the cyclical or spiral approach would be to reintroduce and recycle structures occasionally with each time at a more complex or difficult level. Researchers have recommended a cyclical or spiral treatment of grammatical structures rather than a linear one due to the reason that the cyclical approach allows for the kind of gradual acquisition that is compatible with what is known about interlanguage development (Bai, 2001; Foppoli, n. d.; Howatt, 1974; Larsen-Freeman, 1991; Martin, 1978). With a spiral approach, a lot of recycling will be required. That is, a new item will not be introduced once and then dropped; instead, it will be revisited in different manifestations at various times in the course so that learners might become aware of its relevance and might gradually grow into the language as their experience of it increases. Studies on vocabulary acquisition have also shown the need of recycling in language learning (Horst, Cobb, & Meara, 1998; Kanchroo, 1962; Liu, 2002; Nation, 1990; Salling, 1959; Saragi, Nation, & Meister, 1978; Schmitt & Schmitt, 1995). They indicated that multiple exposures to a word could benefit acquisition and suggested that the exposures ranging between five to sixteen times to a word could better ensure vocabulary acquisition. For example, Salling (1959) reported that at least five times of exposures were required in order to acquire a word. Kanchroo (1962) suggested that words encountered seven or more times in a textbook could facilitate vocabulary acquisition. Saragi, Nation, and Meister (1978) found that words appeared fewer than six times were learned by half of the participants, whereas words presented six times or more were learned by 93% of them, suggesting a threshold of six encounters of a word. In a study by Horst, Cobb, and 19.

(30) Meara (1998), students were required to read a book over a 10-day time frame. Results indicated that words repeated eight times or more had a higher pick-up rate. Focusing on Taiwanese senior high school learners, six encounters were found to be beneficial for vocabulary acquisition although an increase from six to twelve encounters was not proved to be significant (Liu, 2002). Gu (2003) later summarized that the number of exposures needed for the mastery of a word actually involved many other factors, such as the salience of the word in context, the richness of contextual clues, or the learner’s existing repertoire of vocabulary. Although there is no definite answer to the number of exposures needed for vocabulary acquisition to take place, the need of multiple exposures to a word can never be overemphasized. Although no research has been done to examine the number of exposures needed for the acquisition of a particular structure, it is without doubt that recycling is a necessary part for the learning of grammar. Just as Doughty and Williams (1998) has suggested, “although a single encounter with a form may lead to an acquisition breakthrough, we do not know whether it is the tenth, fifth, or thousandth encounter that will be the crucial one” (p. 253). Until we know more, it can be assumed that multiple encounters are required for engaging learning process, such as testing, comparison, or restructuring. As a consequence, in order to facilitate second or foreign language acquisition, recycling various aspects of the target structures over a period of time for learners is undoubtedly essential.. Selection and Sequence of Grammatical Structures Although research on second language acquisition and second language curriculum development has stressed the importance of grammar recycling in language materials, there’s still a crucial issue as to what grammatical structures should be taught and in what order they should be taught. Several criteria for 20.

(31) determining the selection and sequence of grammatical structures have been suggested and they might be summarized as: their inherent learning difficulty, their relations to learners’ native languages, their markedness, their relations to learner errors, and their utility and frequency in the input (Doughty, 1998; Doughty & Williams, 1998; Ellis, 1993, 2006; Larsen-Freeman, 1991, 2003; Savignon, 1983; Yalden, 1983). The first criterion for selecting and sequencing structures for instruction was the inherent learning difficulty of different grammatical structures. According to Ellis (2002b, 2006), two different learning difficulties needed to be distinguished: (1) the difficulty learners have in understanding the grammatical structure, and (2) the difficulty learners have in internalizing the structure. Krashen (1982) also made a distinction between these two as he believed that there are rules that are easy to learn but hard to acquire and rules that are easy to acquire but hard to learn. Structures that are easy to learn but hard to acquire are the best choices for instruction. One example, as he mentioned, is the rule of third person-s in English, which is normally taught very early in a course. Another criterion was the relations between learners’ L1 and the target language. It was believed target structures that are similar to those in the native language should be taught first as learners transfer at least some of the features of their L1 into L2 (Lado, 1957). Therefore, a contrastive analysis of structures may be conducted so as to identify the troublesome areas for learners (Larsen-Freeman, 1991). Regarding the markedness of structures, Richard, Platt, and Weber (1985) noted that a grammatical structure which is in some sense infrequent, unnatural, and deviant from a regular pattern is usually more marked than the other ones. Therefore, sentence structures such as passives, inversions, or cleft sentences are usually 21.

(32) identified as marked. In general, teachers should teach the marked forms and leave the learners to learn the unmarked ones naturally by themselves (Ellis, 1993). Although this criterion can be used as a basis for determining which linguistic forms to introduce early and which late, the concept of markedness is still opaque. Another alternative for organizing structures was to base on the learner errors. Teachers may need to observe the learners’ errors in order to further draw learners’ attention to errors and then help them compare the errors with the correct target forms (Ellis, 1993, 2006). Utility and frequency of structures were also important criteria for choosing and grading structures (Mackey, 1965). ‘Utility’ refers to the relevance of structures to learners’ daily life or the coverage value of the structures. Usually when the communicative utility of the structures was concerned, structures such as the possessive determiners or the verb to be and basic word order were usually chosen to be taught earlier so that students might be able to introduce themselves and others at the beginning of the class, saying “My/his/her name is...” Besides, when certain structures were considered to be needed to form more complex structures, they might be put earlier or be put together with the complex one in a course (Larsen-Freeman, 2003). The verb be, which is basic to the language must be presented early and recycled often (McIntosh, 1979). Frequency was helpful not only for deciding whether an item shall be selected for inclusion but also for deciding the sequence of the items for teaching (Halliday, McIntosh, & Strevens, 1964; White, 1998). Frequency was related to learner attention and was claimed that when a form appeared more frequently in the input, there’s more likely that learners would acquire and notice it (Bardovi-Harlig, 1987). George (1963, cited in White, 1998) and his colleagues did several studies on frequency of structures based on their chosen English corpus. They found that the 22.

(33) most frequently occurring tenses in the corpus were the Simple Past narrative, the Simple Present actual, the Simple Past actual and the Simple Present neutral. As he defined, tenses ‘actual’ refers to at this or that time, ‘neutral’ refers to no specific time reference, and ‘narrative’ refers to a sequence of events. George’s finding (1972) also revealed that Simple Present tense referring to ‘now’ was much more frequent than the Present Progressive. This was a conflict with people’s expectation. In fact, high frequency did not necessarily lead to acquisition of all structures. According to Doughty and Williams (1998), articles and third person-s in English were the examples of frequently encountered structures that students often failed to acquire. This might because that they are less salient or because that they carry less important communicative functions. To sum up, no one actually knows what the most ideal way is for selecting and sequencing structures as there are still other factors, such as learnability or student readiness, need to be considered. Larsen-Freeman (2001, 2003), therefore, emphasized that it might be helpful to see structures in a checklist, not a sequence. As she stated, “it would be a teacher’s responsibility to see that students learn certain grammatical items by the end of a given course or period of time, but not by following a prescribed sequence” (Larsen-Freeman, 2001, p. 263). In the context of Taiwan, no fixed selection or sequence of English grammatical structures has been provided for junior high school textbook publishers or textbook writers. Mostly, they followed the principle suggested in the Curriculum Guidelines, that is, to cover basic structures in textbooks and to teach grammatical items in order from easy to difficult. Nevertheless, this still caused divergences among different sets of textbooks in their syllabus design.. 23.

(34) Grammar and EFL Textbooks Textbooks are a key component in language teaching and learning. They are not only considered a significant factor for effective teaching in the second language classroom but also considered the core of students’ language learning (Chen, 2000; Davison, 1976; Olson, 1985; Richard, 2001). The following section discusses issues related to the grammar in the EFL textbooks. It consists of three parts: the evaluation criteria for textbook grammar, contextualization of grammar presentation in textbooks, and grammar in Taiwan English textbooks. The Evaluation Criteria for Textbook Grammar The literature on textbook selection and textbook evaluation is vast. Different scholars have provided various evaluation criteria or even checklists to help teachers become more objective and systematic in selecting and choosing textbooks (Ansary & Babaii, 2002; Breen & Candlin, 1987; Cunningsworth, 1995; Daoud & Celce-Murcia, 1979; Garinger, 2002; Miekley, 2005; Sheldon, 1988; Shih, 2000; Skierso, 1991; Tucker, 1975; Williams, 1983; Ur, 1996). Within these studies, the evaluation criteria for the grammar or structures in textbooks have been stated. Daoud and Celce-Murcia (1979) highlighted three aspects for evaluation of grammar in textbooks: the appropriateness of the number and the sequence of grammar points, the suitability of increasing complexity of structures, and the meaningfulness of the situations where structures are introduced. Sheldon (1988) listed questions regarding the criteria for textbook grammar as the recycling of new linguistic items, selection and grading of the items (e.g. on the basis of frequency counts, or on the basis of useful comparisons between learner’s mother tongue and English) and the appropriateness of the linguistic inventory for the teaching purposes. Skierso (1991) proposed even more categories for determining whether grammar is well presented in the coursebooks. For example, he was concerned about number and sequence 24.

(35) appropriacy, accuracy, context meaningfulness, text inclusiveness, and recycling for reinforcement and integration. Tucker (1975) also provided four criteria for textbook grammar, including adequacy of pattern inventory, appropriate sequencing, adequacy of drill model and pattern displays, and adequacy of practice. In his criteria for content evaluation, he further pointed out the importance of ‘re-entry’, called ‘recycling’ in the present study, of a word or structure. He stated: Once a word or structure has been introduced, it should continue to play an active role. Some vocabulary and some structures are capable of much more frequent use than others. However, even the less adaptable items should reappear from time to time. Although introduction formulas need not be a part of every lesson, they can occasionally reappear in different dialogues and narrative contexts....When items reappear, they should often do so in somewhat different contexts and situations in order to facilitate learning their range of applicability in English. (p. 357-358) This corresponded to Shih’s (2000) checklist suggesting that structures should be occasionally recycled and integrated into the subsequent lessons for reviewing. Overall, according to these studies, the foci for textbook grammar evaluation can be summarized into four: context meaningfulness, coverage appropriacy, sequencing appropriacy, and recycling for reinforcement. In the present study, the recycling of structures and the context meaningfulness for recycled structures in the textbooks were examined. Contextualization of Grammar Presentation in Textbooks Context meaningfulness is one criterion that has been pointed out for textbook grammar evaluation. It has been stressed by researchers to be beneficial for learning and necessary for teaching second language grammar (Celce-Murcia, 2002; Chen, 2001; Hedge, 2000; McIntosh, 1979; Nunan, 1998; Paulston& Bruder, 1975; Stern,. 25.

(36) 2001; Yeh, 1999). With the context, the appropriate use of the grammatical structure is revealed. “All naturalistic learning of first or second language languages take place in context at the level of discourse rather than the abstract sentence level”, as stated by Celce-Murcia (2002). Nunan (1998) argued that, in real communication, grammar and context are often closely related and that the choice of grammatical items for use highly depends on the context and the purpose of communication. Therefore, if learners are not given opportunities to explore grammar in context, it will be difficult for learners to see how and why alternative forms exist to express different communicative meanings. For example, as Nunan (1998) pointed out, although providing learners with a set of sentences in the active voice and then transforming them into passives is a standard step for teaching passive voice, it is crucial for teachers to supplement the lesson by providing learners tasks that give them opportunities to explore when it is communicatively appropriate to use the passive voice instead of the active one. If communicative value of the alternative forms, like passives, is not made clear to the learners, they may think of passives as only one difficult form to learn. “Contextualization is not merely a nice decoration but a necessary and integral part of any effective lesson” (McIntosh, 1979, p.235). Therefore, a good textbook is usually expected to present grammar in context. With appropriate context, students may be motivated to learn and it may also become easier for them to interpret meanings (Hedge, 2000). Hence, when presenting grammar, providing learners with appropriate and meaningful context will indeed help them recognize the appropriate use of the forms. Due to the above reasons, the researcher supposes that learners can better acquire the language when there’s meaningful context for learning. In the present study, in addition to the recycling of structures, she also examined the 26.

(37) contexts where recycling occurs; that is, she examined whether the recycled structures are presented in passages, dialogues or the uncontextualized sentences in the textbooks so as to see if proper meaningful context is provided for students to learn grammar. Grammar in Taiwan English Textbooks Textbooks in Taiwan were limited to one version compiled by NICT. However, due to the educational reform since 1994, NICT withdrew from the market of compiling and publishing. In 2002, private publishers got the right to compile junior high school textbooks and teachers began to be responsible for selecting their own textbooks. NICT then plays the role of a censor. Commercial textbooks compiled by private publishers need to be approved by NICT, licensed by the MOE, and then evaluated, selected, and used in schools. The Nine-year Integrated Curriculum Guidelines issued by the MOE are the principles followed by textbook publishers for the textbooks design and compilation. In the Curriculum Guidelines, grammatical structures in textbooks are suggested to be basic and useful. They should be gradually developed from simple to complex with sufficient and meaningful context provided. Moreover, they should be occasionally recycled or be arranged in cyclical fashion so as to help learners better acquire the structures and further apply them in their daily lives (MOE, 2000). Although private publishers followed the principles suggested in the Curriculum Guidelines, the arrangement of grammatical structures or activities in different sets of junior high school English textbooks varied (Chang, 2005; Cheng, 2004). Chang (2005) investigated and compared five standard sets of junior high school English textbooks with the MOE textbook regarding their proportion of grammar activities, the explicitness and communicativeness of grammar activity. 27.

(38) presentation, and the coverage and sequencing of grammar points. The major findings of her study can be summarized as follows: 1.. The proportions of grammar activities in most commercial textbooks are reduced in comparison to the MOE textbook. Only Textbook H, which has the greatest proportion (56%) of grammar activities, has larger proportions of grammar activities than the MOE textbook (42%). Textbook N has the smallest proportion (27%).. 2.. As for the explicitness of grammar activities, the textbooks all have over 50% of grammar activities adopting explicit methods of grammar teaching. Except Textbook J (74%), the rest of the four textbooks have smaller proportions of explicit grammar activities than the MOE textbook (70%).. 3.. The grammar activities in the commercial textbooks are mainly meaningful activities. The MOE textbook is the one with the fewest meaningful activities and the most mechanical activities. As for the communicative activities, Textbook L has the greatest proportion of communicative activities whereas Textbook J has the smallest.. 4.. The commercial textbooks differ in grammar sequencing from the MOE textbook to a certain degree. Textbooks N and K are the most similar to the MOE textbook while Textbook L is the most different.. 5.. Regarding the coverage of grammatical items in the textbooks, Textbook J covers the most grammatical items whereas Textbook H covers the fewest. Only 59% of all the grammatical items presented in textbooks are covered in more than four textbooks.. Chang’s study (2005) has made clear that approved commercial textbooks did vary not only in their presentation of grammar activities but also inclusiveness of grammatical items. Due to these divergences existing between private textbooks and 28.

(39) that the importance of recycling of grammatical items has been emphasized by scholars and stressed in Curriculum Guidelines, the researcher thus aimed to examine the commercial textbooks from the point of grammar recycling so as to provide some useful information for school teachers to select one suitable set of textbooks for students and further make proper adaptations to their teaching.. Teachers’ Perceptions and Teaching The focus of this section moves to a review of teachers’ perceptions and their teaching practices. The first part discusses the nature of teachers’ perceptions. The second part addresses the literature on the impact of teacher perceptions on their teaching practices.. The Nature of Teachers’ Perceptions Teachers are believed to be a crucial role in the classroom, and so are their perceptions of teaching. Clark and Peterson (1986) defined teachers’ beliefs as “the rich store of knowledge that teachers have that affects their planning and their interactive thoughts and decisions” (p.258). Pajares (1992) also described teachers’ beliefs as “teachers’ attitudes about education, schooling, teaching, learning, and students” (p.316). Perceptions or beliefs served as the background to much of the teachers’ action and decision making (Richard & Lockhart, 1994; Tilema, 2000). Different sources of teachers’ beliefs would influence the results in making decisions. Kindsvatter, Willen, and Ishler (1988) identified six sources of teachers’ beliefs: (a) their own experience as a language learner, (b) experience of what works best, (c) established practice, (d) personality factors, (e) educationally based or research-based principles, and (f) principles derived from an approach or method. Due to these past. 29.

(40) experiences or knowledge, teachers form their beliefs on teaching and may therefore put their own principles or theories into their classroom practices.. The Impact of Teachers’ Perceptions on their Teaching Practice According to many studies, teachers’ beliefs indeed have a great impact on their pedagogical practices (Bowie, 1996; Ross & Dereshiwsky, 1993; Shavelson & Stern, 1981). What teachers choose to do regarding schooling is guided by their internalized beliefs. Understanding teachers’ perceptions seems to be vital to predicting and improving their teaching practices. Ng and Farrell (2003) investigated the effect of teachers’ theoretical beliefs on their classroom practices and they found that what teachers said or did in the classroom were governed by their beliefs. Ross and Dereshiwsky (1993) stated that seven instructors in his study were found to base their writing instruction on pedagogical beliefs to guide their students’ writing. Similarly, Richard, Gallo, and Renandya (2001, cited in Farrel & Patricia, 2005 ) discovered that although many teachers stated that they followed a communicative approach to teaching, a large number of them still held to the belief that grammar is central to the language learning and direct grammar teaching is needed by their students. These findings show the close relationship between teachers’ perceptions and their classroom practices. According to Olson and Singer (1994), a lot of teachers who are willing and eager to improve their pedagogical skills are “often unaware of how their beliefs about teaching specific subjects, or about teaching in general, affect the kinds of changes they might take” (p.97). In the present study, the researcher investigated teachers’ perceptions of the troublesome grammatical structures for their students. It is hoped that through. 30.

(41) understanding this from the teacher’s perspective, not only teachers can reflect on their beliefs about grammar, and make some adaptation to their teaching practices, but the researcher can do a further examination of the recycling of these structures in the textbooks so as to see if proper recycling is presented for students.. 31.

(42) CHAPTER THREE. METHODOLOGY. This chapter presents the overall research design of the study. It starts with an account of the participants and introduces the instrument used in the study, including the analysis of the questionnaires. Then it moves to a description of the textbook materials selected for analysis. The data analysis procedures of the textbooks are presented in the last section.. Participants and Instruments This section consists of two sub-sections. The first sub-section concerns the participants in the present study. The second sub-section describes the instrument used in the study.. Participants The participants of the study were a total of thirty junior high school English teachers from ten different schools in Taiwan, with three teachers from each school. Fifteen of them taught in north district, 6 in central, and 9 in south. Twenty-seven of them (90%) were females and 3 of them (10%) were males. In addition, most of them (83%) were in their twenties or thirties while only 5 of them (17%) were over forty. As for the seniority, 9 of them (30%) have taught for less than five years in junior high schools. 9 (30%) have taught for five to ten years. 8 (27%) have taught for ten to fifteen years and 4 (13%) have taught for over sixteen years. As for their educational background, 23 (77%) graduated from university. The rest (23%) graduated from graduate schools. Table 1 shows the detailed background information about the participants.. 32.