Perception Differences of EFL Teachers and Students
in Grammar Instruction and Error Correction
Ming-chu Liao
National Changhua University of Education bravoclaire@gmail.comHung-chun Wang
Hsin Sheng College of Medical Care and Managementrogerhcwang@gmail.com
Abstract
This comprehensive study investigates differences in EFL teacher and student perceptions regarding the role of grammar instruction and error correction in improving English language competency. The participants were 41 high school teachers and 371 high school students, recruited from five schools in Taiwan. Data were collected from questionnaires and telephone interviews. Based on Schulz (2001) and Borg (1998) and modified by the researchers, the questionnaires for students and teachers consisted of seven focal categories, including error analysis, reference to students’ L1, grammatical terminology, grammar and communicative ability, grammar rules, grammar practice, and error correction. Results indicated that the perspectives high school students and teachers had towards various aspects of grammar instruction and error correction diverged on several points, most markedly in instructional language, grammar practice activities, and the necessity of error correction. Subsequent telephone interviews with 15 teachers and 32 students were conducted to elicit further information resulting in the perceptual differences. Based on the findings, pedagogical implications are provided to bridge the gaps between EFL students and teachers in grammar instruction and error correction. Finally, the idea of a focus-on-form approach in EFL classrooms is suggested.
Key Words: perception difference, grammar instruction, error correction
INTRODUCTION
Foreign and second language pedagogy has witnessed a debate over the past 30 years regarding the effectiveness of explicit grammar teaching and corrective feedback in language classrooms. In line with the changing pedagogical shifts from grammar translation and audiolingualism to communicative language teaching, discussion of these issues has led to presentation of research both supporting and undermining the importance of grammar instruction and error correction. Questions like Can or should grammar be taught? and Is error correction really helpful? compel researchers to rate the value of grammar teaching and error correction (see, for example, Krashen, 1985; Leki, 1990; Lyster, Lightbown, & Spada, 1999; Truscott, 1996, 1999; VanPatten, 1986a, 1986b).
With increased concern for learners’ communicative ability, the role of grammar teaching has declined. As a focus on linguistic form, grammar teaching is often identified as being the opposite of the meaning-based approach. Since “attention to form in the input competes with attention to meaning” (VanPatten, 1990, p. 296), grammar instruction is often regarded as a block hampering learners’ communicative ability, while meaning-based instruction develops communicative skills. In Krashen’s (1981, 1994) Input Hypothesis, he argued that it is comprehensible input and the affective filter that determine the outcome of second language acquisition. He contended having an appropriate learning environment that contains sufficient comprehensible input and results in low learning anxiety facilitates language acquisition more effectively than formal instruction. In
addition, other criticisms of formal grammar teaching point to it being “unhelpful” (Prabhu, 1987, p. 2) and “limited” (Krashen, 1982, p. 112). Objections to direct grammar correction have been debated in the past, particularly in relation to its ineffectiveness and possible harmful side effects. Strong opponents of the effectiveness of error correction include Truscott (1996, 1999) and Krashen (1985). Truscott (1999, p. 437) contended that “oral [grammar] correction does not improve learners’ ability to speak grammatically.” His belief in the problems associated with oral grammar correction and its harmful effects on teaching and learning led Truscott to suggest the abandonment of oral grammar correction altogether. Also, based upon his adherence to the Input Hypothesis, Krashen (1985) concerned himself with the affective problems caused by corrective feedback. He claimed that the correction process increased the risk of heightened learner anxiety and hindered learner performance. Teacher feedback on errors may also result in “embarrassment, anger, inhibition, feelings of inferiority, and a generally negative attitude toward the class” (Truscott, 1999, p. 441). The failure of grammar correction as evidenced by a large body of research (see Truscott, 1996 for a review) has minimized its role in language classrooms.
Although previous research has shown grammar teaching and error correction to be ineffective or even harmful, a handful of studies (e.g., Brandl, 1995; Doughty, 1991; Fotos, 1994; Lyster et al., 1999; Omaggio, 1993) have stressed the importance and efficacy of grammar teaching and feedback on errors. Sharwood-Smith (1981) argued that grammar teaching facilitated the development of communicative skills by raising learners’ consciousness. Once taught
use rules subconsciously in real-life communication. As for teacher feedback on errors, Omaggio (1993) argued that it allows a learner to modify his/her inter-language grammar. In a response to Truscott’s (1999) work, Lyster et al. (1999) also highlighted the feasibility and effectiveness of corrective feedback. Citing empirical studies, they argued not only that “learners benefit only from developmentally matched instruction and feedback,” (p. 459; also see Lightbown, 1998) but that feedback on errors is “pragmatically feasible, potentially effective, and, in some cases, necessary” (p. 457).
As the debate over explicit grammar teaching and error correction goes on, the practice of grammar instruction and feedback on errors continues to receive wider recognition in ESL/EFL pedagogy. Increasing evidence (e.g., Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986; Schulz, 1996, 2001) has shown that explicit grammar instruction and error correction are often considered by students to be largely helpful in language learning. Schulz (1996) examined North American students’ and teachers’ views regarding grammar instruction and error correction. Results of the study demonstrated that a focus on form is largely favored by students. His follow-up study (2001) dealt with socio-cultural influences on student and teacher perceptions of grammar instruction and corrective feedback. The primary focus was whether students and teachers held different beliefs towards the role of grammar across North American and Colombian cultures. Data were collected from 122 EFL teachers and 607 EFL learners in Colombia using a questionnaire, and these data were then compared with Schulz’s earlier study in 1996. Schulz discovered that, for both ethnic groups, both teachers and students preferred and had faith in
formal grammar instruction and error correction. Based upon these two exploratory studies by Schulz (1996, 2001), grammar instruction and error correction are now considered common practice in second/foreign language pedagogy.
More recently, SLA researchers have called for the need to rethink how grammatical knowledge could be taught in a communicative classroom (e.g., Doughty & Williams, 1998; Ellis, Basturkmen, & Loewen, 2001). Substantial attention has been paid to conflating a former dichotomy (form-teaching vs. meaning-focused instruction) into one complementary model that allows grammar to be taught in a meaningful, communicative way. One of the pioneering contributors is Long (1991), who recognized the necessity of teaching form in the language classroom and suggested that it be incorporated into meaning-based activities. He termed this pedagogical approach focus-on-form instruction. Following Long, Ellis et al. (2001) used different labels to draw a distinction between the traditional focus-on-forms approach and the novel focus-on-form instruction, arguing for the need to teach grammar in a communicative way. The focus-on-forms approach teaches pre-selected specific grammatical rules, while focus-on-form instruction addresses grammatical forms in a meaning-based communicative task. In addition, the purpose of focus-on-form instruction is to help learners shape communication, “achieved through attention to form when learners are performing a communicative task.” (Ellis et al., 2001, p. 411)
Following the recent trend of focus-on-form instruction in communicative language teaching (CLT), Brown (2001) also proposed essential guidelines for grammar instruction, which placed
and learners’ intrinsic motivation. Another vital notion, as Brown made clear, is that grammar instruction in CLT should “promote accuracy within fluent, communicative language.” (p. 363) Grammar instruction, combined with meaningful, communicative activities, seems to promise a resolution to the perennial dispute over whether to teach grammar.
Rationale for the Current Study
The effect of grammar instruction and error correction, still remains inconclusive; we hypothesized that grammar teaching and error correction facilitated foreign/second language learning, as evidenced by a large body of research (e.g., Carroll & Swain, 1993; Long, Inagaki, & Ortega, 1998; Sharwood- Smith, 1981; also see Lyster et al., 1999 for a review of effects of oral grammar correction). Our belief in the indispensable nature of grammar teaching and error correction laid the groundwork for the current study. As reflected by Schulz (1996, 2001), a majority of ESL/EFL students and teachers consider grammar instruction and error correction to be extremely valuable. It is therefore important not only to recognize appropriate grammar teaching techniques that stand on the compromise of form-focused instruction and the meaning-based approach, but also to explore how teachers and students perceive grammar teaching and correction. In Taiwan, little is known about student and teacher views on grammar instruction and error correction. For this reason, we borrowed the research frame of Schulz’s two exploratory studies, to scrutinize how local students and teachers perceived roles of grammar teaching and correction, in hope of providing pedagogical
implications for teaching grammar in EFL contexts.
Research on teacher cognition and student perception has received increasing attention from SLA researchers in recent years. Teacher cognition can be defined as a teacher’s understanding of how a language is learned and should be taught, which has a significant impact on the teacher’s actual instructional practices (Borg, 1999; Fang, 1996; Kagan, 1990). Burns (1996) and Johnson (1994) also recognized the importance of studying teacher beliefs, attitudes, and theoretical knowledge and assumptions in educational research. In common with teacher perception, student perception has received a growing interest in SLA research. A handful of exploratory studies have tied student perception to learner motivation and learning strategies (e.g., Fox, 1993; Horwitz, 1988; Kern, 1995). That is, there is a close bond between students’ beliefs and how students learn and how well they learn. In this study, the desire to understand teacher and student perception motivated the researchers to investigate how differently teacher and students perceived the role of grammar instruction and error correction.
Discussion of teacher and student perceptions towards grammar instruction and error correction is not a new idea, yet little attention has been paid to this issue, particularly in EFL settings. In Taiwan, some local studies have concluded that grammar teaching is unavoidable (Lai, 2004; Tse, 2004), but very few researchers (e.g., Lee, 2004) have investigated and compared student and teacher views on these two issues. Most studies have so far focused primarily on either the teacher or student side. However, any mismatches between student and teacher perceptions about learning may negatively
raising of bilateral awareness of each other’s perceptions is necessary in order to achieve a balance that can establish teaching-learning correspondence. This study, with a direct focus on both teacher and student views, aimed to uncover any perceptual differences regarding the role of grammar instruction and error correction.
METHOD
ParticipantsIn order to obtain a more complete picture of EFL senior high school teachers’ and students’ perceptions of grammar instruction and error correction, the researchers aimed to include student participants of high-, mid-, and low-proficiency levels, instead of narrowly focusing on one specific proficiency level. Following this prerequisite, we selected five senior high schools based on their students’ performance in the Basic Competence Test (BCT), as well as on nationwide school rankings. These two factors may be considered as effective predictors of participants’ proficiency levels. These schools, of which three are public schools and two are private schools, are located in the northern, central, southern, eastern, and off-shore regions of Taiwan. The language proficiency of the students covered the high-, mid- and low-level range.
With two whole classes selected from each school, a total of 41 English teachers and 371 students were recruited (Table 1). Of the 371 students, 247 participants (66.58%) were in their third-year, 79 (21.29%) were in their first-year, and 45 (12.13%) were in their second-year. Less than half (44%) held a GEPT certificate at the
elementary level, whereas 21% of them had earned a GEPT certificate at the intermediate level, and 35% of them had no certification. Of the 41 teachers, 8 were selected from northern regions and 12 from central regions, with 7 teachers drawn from each of the southern, eastern and off-shore regions. Aged between 27 and 48 years, the English teachers were non-native speakers of English, with an average of over 5 years of teaching experience in senior high schools. With respect to their educational background, they were all English majors. Nearly one third of them (33 %) had obtained a master’s degree, 30% of them had completed a 40-credit certificate program, 28% had completed a summer TESOL Certificate program, and only 9% held just a bachelor’s degree.
Table 1
Demographic Data of the Respondents
North Central South East Off-Shore Total
Student 87 65 72 72 75 371
Teacher 8 12 7 7 7 41
Instruments
Student and teacher questionnaires. Two survey questionnaires
were designed for students and teachers respectively to elicit their perceptions of grammar instruction and error correction in the EFL context. The student questionnaire was written from learner’s perspective, whereas the teacher questionnaire was phrased from instructor’s viewpoint. Both questionnaires were initially constructed based upon Schulz (2001). Schulz investigated cultural influences on teacher and
student perceptions of grammar instruction and error correction. In his study, perceptual differences were measured by rating 13 statements adapted for the student and teacher versions. In addition to the 13 statements taken directly from Schulz’s study (2001), we further added 17 statements, totaling 30 statements in our questionnaires. The items on the two questionnaire forms addressed identical concepts, with the only difference being in the actual wording. Questions on the student questionnaire (S) were rewritten to reflect a teacher’s perspective on the teacher questionnaire (T).
Our designs were grounded in Borg’s (1998) study, which characterized six teacher behaviors concerning grammar teaching: Error analysis, reference to students’ L1, grammatical terminology, grammar rules, practicing grammar, and grammar and communicative ability. One additional dimension, general perceptions towards grammar teaching and error correction, was also central to this study. Therefore, all 30 statements investigated these seven constructs. The questionnaires were constructed on a four-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1), to disagree (2), agree (3), and strongly agree (4).
Telephone interviews. For data triangulation, post-data collection
telephone interviews were conducted with 15 teachers and 32 students. Those teacher and student interviewees participated in the interviews voluntarily, and they were informed that telephone interviews would be recorded for research purposes. Each interview followed the format of a semi-structured interview, with questions posed to identify reasons that determined student and teacher views. The nature of a semi-structured interview allowed our interviewees to clarify their views in detail, which may have been ignored in the questionnaire.
Data Collection and Analysis
Data were collected in spring 2008. Aiming at a comprehensive investigation, the researchers contacted English teachers in five regions of Taiwan. After giving their consent to participating in the study, the teachers helped distribute the teacher questionnaires to their colleagues in their five respective senior high schools. They then helped distribute the student questionnaires to their students. To increase the validity of the responses, all the students completed the questionnaires in class, under the supervision of their English teachers. The response rate was high for both teacher and student questionnaires. A total of 50 teacher questionnaires were distributed, with 41 returned (82%), and 380 student questionnaires were distributed, with 371 returned (97%). The researchers then began the task of analyzing the responses. To further investigate the reasons behind respondents’ differences, one researcher conducted individual telephone interviews with 15 teachers and 32 students on a voluntary basis. In analyzing the produced data, the researchers focused not only on the differences in the students’ and teachers’ views, but also on the causes behind their perceptual differences.
To evaluate differences between student and teacher perceptions, the results of both questionnaires were analyzed by running an Independent Samples t-test. This analysis would highlight any differences in statements on both questionnaires. Recorded telephone interviews were transcribed verbatim. Following transcription, through careful reading of the transcribed data researchers identified features that could represent teacher and student beliefs towards grammar instruction and error correction.
RESULTS
The questionnaire statements which indicated statistically significant differences between teacher and student perceptions are discussed in this section. The interview data was cross-checked to identify factors that influenced their perception differences based upon seven dimensions that underpinned our questionnaire design: general perceptions towards grammar teaching and error correction, error analysis, reference to students’ L1, grammatical terminology, grammar rules, practicing grammar, and grammar and communicative ability.
Questionnaire Data
Perceptions of grammar instruction. As Table 2 depicts, on the
whole both teachers and students regard the teaching of grammar as problematic to say the least. Only 38.3% of the students expressed great interest in learning grammar, and even fewer teachers (17.1%) believed that students enjoy learning grammar. There is significant divergence in the perceptions of the students and teachers, with students being more interested in learning grammar than was assumed to be the case by their teachers.
In Table 3, less than half of the students and teachers agreed that more time should be allocated to teaching grammar rules. A mere 43.7% of students and 29.3% of teachers supported spending lots of class time on the explanation of such rules. Once again, significant divergence in perception between students and teachers indicated that students were more supportive of increasing time spent on this area of study than their teachers.
Table 2
Interest in Grammar Instruction
#5: (S) I enjoy learning about grammar.
(T) I think students usually enjoy learning about grammar.
Agreement Rate (%) M SD t-value Student 38.3 2.28 .786 5.07** Teacher 17.1 1.78 .571
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01
Table 3
Allocation of Time for Teaching Grammar Rules
#6: (S) (T) English classes should allocate plenty of time to teach grammar rules.
Agreement Rate (%) M SD t-value Student 43.7 2.40 .723 3.94** Teacher 29.3 2.02 .570
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01
As shown in Table 4, students and teachers hold comprehension of grammar terms in high esteem. Nearly two-thirds of teachers (65.9%) and the majority of students (80.9%) believed terminology to be an important aspect of grammar learning. A significant level of statistical dissimilitude indicates that once again students were more in agreement with the statement that it is important to understand grammar terminology than their teachers were.
Table 4
Importance of Terminology in Grammar Instruction
#8: (S) (T) Understanding grammar terminology is very important to the study of grammar.
Agreement Rate (%) M SD t-value Student 80.9 2.95 .713 2.77** Teacher 65.9 2.63 .581
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01
As for the role of grammar in teaching reading skills, Table 5 outlines the rates of perception difference between students and teachers. In response to lectures on reading texts given by teachers, a higher percentage of students (74.1%) and comparatively fewer teachers (51.2%) perceived the study of grammar structures in the text as being of most benefit to them. Significant disparity in results also suggests that it was students rather teachers who considered study of grammar structures in reading texts to be a much more helpful form of instruction.
As can be seen in Table 6, the students and teachers demonstrated a similar trend of perspectives toward the need for group grammar practice. A large proportion of students (72.5%) and an even higher percentage of teachers (95.6%) agreed teachers should design activities to have students practice in groups after the lecture on grammar rules. A statistically-significant difference in results between students and teachers illustrates that students favored group grammar practice after grammar instruction more than teachers.
Table 5
Role of Grammar in Reading Instruction
#11: (S) (T) When the teacher lectures on a reading text, the study of grammar structures in the text is most helpful to me/students.
Agreement Rate (%) M SD t-value Student 74.1 2.84 .692 3.62** Teacher 51.2 2.44 .550
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01
Table 6
Need for Group Grammar Practice
#18: (S) (T) Teachers should design activities which enable students to practice in groups after the lecture on grammar rules.
Agreement Rate (%) M SD t-value Student 72.5 2.89 .715 -2.91** Teacher 95.6 3.22 .475
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01
With respect to the need for individual grammar practice, the salient rating of perception difference between students and teachers is specified in Table 7. Despite over half of the students (60.7%) believing teachers should design activities to have students practice alone after the lecture on grammar rules, the overwhelming majority of teachers (90.3%) thought they should have students practice individually. Looking at such a significant statistical difference, it is clear that compared to their students, the teachers placed greater value on individual grammar practice after explanation of grammar rules.
Together, Tables 6 and 7 seem to reveal a tendency of group grammar practice being favored by both students and teachers over individual grammar practice.
Table 7
Need for Individual Grammar Practice
#19: (S) (T) Teachers should design activities which allow students time for solo practice after the lecture on grammar rules.
Agreement Rate (%) M SD t-value Student 60.7 2.70 .754 -3.60** Teacher 90.3 3.02 .524
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01
In Table 8, the apparent differences between students and teachers regarding how use of a first language can assist grammar instruction are presented. Slightly over half of the students (55.8%) considered the use of Chinese instead of English to teach grammar as being more beneficial to students. However, an overwhelmingly greater number of teachers (95.1%) believed that using Chinese was
Table 8
The Role of First Language in Assisting Grammar Instruction
#22: (S) (T) It is more useful to teach grammar in Chinese than English. Agreement Rate (%) M SD t-value Student 55.8 2.59 .795 -5.41** Teacher 95.1 3.10 .539
more helpful to the study of grammar than not doing so. Significant dissimilarity in their perceptions evidences that teachers valued the use of their native language in assisting grammar instruction more than their students did.
Perceptions of error correction. As Table 9 shows, students
and teachers hold clearly different attitudes towards teacher correction. More than half of the teachers (68.3%) felt that most students do not like to be corrected by teachers in class, yet only a small number of students (22.4%) thought this way. Significant differences suggest that students, as opposed to teachers, greatly agreed that they preferred to be corrected by teachers in class.
Table 9
Attitudes Towards Teacher Correction
#23: (S) I don’t like to be corrected by teacher in class.
(T) I think most students prefer not to be corrected by teachers in class. Agreement Rate (%) M SD t-value Student 22.4 2.05 .761 -5.90** Teacher 68.3 2.78 .652
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01
As can be seen in Table 10, students and teachers differently perceived the necessity of oral grammar correction on a large scale. Only a fifth of students (21.0%) agreed that teachers should not correct students if those errors do not hinder communication. However, based on the same statement, the majority of teachers (80.5%) chose not to correct grammar errors made by their students. Significant divergence in results
evidences that, compared with students, teachers felt that grammar errors should not be corrected if communication is not obstructed.
Table 10
Need for Grammar Correction in Speaking
#24: (S) (T) When students make grammatical errors in spoken English, as long as those errors do not hinder communication, teachers should not correct students.
Agreement Rate (%) M SD t-value Student 21.0 1.99 .787 -9.43** Teacher 80.5 2.85 .527
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01
On the other hand, Table 11 demonstrates the similarity in perspectives held by students and teachers in terms of the necessity of grammar correction in writing. Around two thirds of students (68.5%) felt cheated when their writing errors were not corrected by teachers, whereas slightly fewer teachers (56.1%) thought students would react negatively if they avoided correcting grammar errors in writing.
Table 11
Need for Grammar Correction in Writing
#25: (S) I feel cheated when teachers do not correct grammatical errors in my written work.
(T) I think most students feel cheated if teachers do not correct grammatical errors in their written work.
Agreement Rate (%) M SD t-value Student 68.5 2.85 .788 3.23** Teacher 56.1 2.44 .594
As shown in Table 12, there is a great division between students and teachers in their attitudes toward grammar correction in speaking. The vast majority of students (90.8%) want teachers to correct their grammatical errors in speech, whereas only a minority of teachers (39.0%) supported this approach. This complete lack of correlation suggests that many more students than teachers assume such corrections are appropriate.
Table 12
Attitudes for Grammar Correction in Speaking
#26: (S) When I make grammatical errors in spoken English, I wish for teachers to correct them.
(T) When students make grammatical errors in spoken English, their errors should be corrected.
Agreement Rate (%) M SD t-value Student 90.8 3.22 .648 9.61** Teacher 39.0 2.20 .641
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01
However, the similarly positive perspectives of students and teachers towards grammar correction in writing can be seen in Table 13. An overwhelming majority of students (95.7%) and marginally fewer teachers (90.3%) indicates that both groups believed teachers should correct students’ grammatical errors in writing. Despite this similarity, a significant statistical difference between the students and teachers shows that students held stronger attitudes towards grammar correction in writing than their teachers.
Table 13
Attitudes for Grammar Correction in Writing
#27: (S) When I make grammatical errors in written English, I hope that teachers will correct them.
(T) When students make grammatical errors in written English, their errors should be corrected.
Agreement Rate (%) M SD t-value Student 95.7 3.34 .596 4.32** Teacher 90.3 2.95 .545
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01
With respect to the preference for peer correction versus teacher correction, Table 14 presents the response difference between students and teachers. A majority of students (60.7%) and relatively more teachers (78.0%) responded in the same way. Significant divergence in the results demonstrates that, a greater degree, teachers agreed that students preferred peer correction to teacher correction.
Table 14
Preference for Peer Correction vs. Teacher Correction
#28: (S) I like to be corrected by peers in groups more than being corrected by the teacher in front of the class.
(T) I think students like to be corrected by peers in groups more than being corrected by the teacher in front of the class.
Agreement Rate (%) M SD t-value Student 60.7 2.71 .783 -3.26** Teacher 78.0 2.93 .346
In Table 15, the statement pertains to the influence of grammar correction on self-learning. Both students and teachers tended to believe that grammar correction benefited the student being corrected. A majority of students (96.5%) and slightly more teachers (97.6%) felt correction was of benefit to the student being corrected. Significant statistical disparity once again indicates that students placed more importance on the impact of self-correction in assisting self-learning than teachers did.
Table 15
Impact of Self-Correction on Assisting Self-Learning
#29: (S) When teachers correct my grammatical errors, it is beneficial to my learning.
(T) When teachers correct a student’s grammatical errors, it is beneficial to his/her learning.
Agreement Rate (%) M SD t-value Student 96.5 3.31 .554 6.56** Teacher 97.6 2.98 .273
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01
Similarly, as illustrated in Table 16, both the students and the teachers thought that when teachers correct a student’s grammatical errors, it is helpful to other students’ learning. A large proportion of students (94.3%) and slightly fewer teachers (90.2%) felt it helpful to classmates’ learning to have teachers correct their errors. The difference between student and teacher ratings reached a significant level, suggesting that the assistance students gained from error correction of peers’ work is more highly valued on the part of students than teachers.
Table 16
Impact of Self-Correction on Assisting Others’ Learning
#30: (S) When teachers correct my grammatical errors, it is helpful to other classmates’ learning.
(T) When teachers correct a student’s grammatical errors, it is helpful to other students’ learning.
Agreement Rate (%) M SD t-value Student 94.3 3.25 .576 4.39**
Teacher 90.2 2.95 .384
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01 Interview Data
Interest, time allocation, terminology in grammar instruction.
The followings are representative entries of students’ and teachers’ replies, recorded during interviews in Chinese and translated into English by the researchers. Most students regarded grammar as an important component of foreign language learning. For instance, Student 1 (S1) is a more exam-oriented grammar learner, who saw the need to learn English to succeed in regular monthly exams. He said, “I like to study grammar …grammar is useful…Most of the monthly exams focused on grammar or were based on grammar…Learning grammar helps improve my English much faster…The outcome is more instant than memorizing vocabulary.” Similarly, our interview data showed that a large number of high school students regarded the need to learn grammar for the purpose of getting a good grade in exams. A second factor that could account for learners’ emphasis on grammar instruction is associated with the
“Grammar rules are very complicated and difficult to understand…teachers should spend at least over half of class time to explain the grammar rules…explanation of the grammar rules are more necessary than vocabulary,” expressed that grammar rules are difficult to learn, so a strong focus on grammar instruction in regular class meetings is necessary. Lastly, as for the learning of grammar terminology, several student respondents linked the importance of grammar terminology to the ability to classify different grammar patterns. For example, S24 reported “I think grammar terminology is important…terminology used by teachers makes the grammar rules look systematical…Without the terminology, the grammar rules are more confusing…can not tell the differences.” The use of grammar terminology in grammar instruction could help them systematize the grammar rules they learn.
The teachers had different perceptions. Influenced deeply by the notion of teaching based upon learners’ communicative needs, far fewer teachers thought that grammar instruction should dominate teaching. They tended to designate less class time to explain grammar rules, attempting to use less grammar terminology which they considered might easily disinterest students during instruction. Also, one of the explanations given for not using grammar terminology is that it could avoid causing any bad feeling among students about learning grammar rules.
Grammar is of little importance…the prevalence of the Communicative Approach focuses on communication purpose of language learning…I feel it opposes the spirits of Communicative Approach if I spend too much time on grammar rules…usually less than ten minutes is sufficient. (T4)
Another respondent, T9, also pointed out that “Grammar is boring to students…They hate to memorize the terminology…I try not to emphasize these terminology when explaining the grammar rules in class…Their hatred for grammar can be minimized this way.”
Preference for group grammar practice over individual grammar practice. Students preferred group grammar practice owing
to the potential peer assistance available during group interaction. They were of the opinion that a more knowledgeable peer would help them when faced with difficulties in learning. Individual grammar practice confines students to working alone, which could create increased insecurity about their performance. Lack of peer assistance could arouse their learning anxiety to a greater extent. Take S12 and S20 for instance, they respectively responded that “Practicing grammar in groups is better…I can ask group members about the newly-taught grammar to clarify my problems” and “If the teacher asked us to do the grammar practice alone, I can only depend on myself…I feel insecure…I don’t know whether what I perceive is correct or not.”
Teachers agreed that group grammar practice has a stronger impact on enhancing students’ interest in learning and reinforcing learned rules than individual practice. But from a teacher’s perspective, individual practice is indispensable because it allows teachers to understand each student’s progress in learning. T5, saying that “After teaching grammar rules, practicing in group activities can activate their interest…through group interaction, the grammar patterns can be reinforced and made more of an impression,” and T12, saying that “Students like group activities, but practicing alone is also
necessary…teachers can have a better understanding of the whole class…to know which students in the class didn’t get the grammar point,” both fully agreed on the importance of group and individual practices.
Language preference for teaching grammar. A large number
of students expected teachers to use more English in grammar instruction. They thought grammar rules taught in English could be more easily memorized and would help them learn to think in English. In addition, the students believed that since English tests are usually written in English, teachers should teach grammar by using English, as it would help them to prepare for English exams. S3 responded that “I want my English teachers to use English when teaching grammar…since we are encouraged to think in English, why not learn the grammar rules taught in English?” S7 similarly reported that “Grammar rules will make more of an impression if taught in English…not all the test items are designed in Chinese…students need to have more exposure to English.”
However, most teachers held the opposite view, believing Chinese to be more helpful to their students. From their perspective, using Chinese lowered learner anxiety. In addition, competence in teaching grammar in English was considered a great challenge to several teachers. They admitted that they were not able to teach grammar in English. For instance, T6 pointed out that “Grammar rules are numerous and difficult…Using Chinese is easier for students to understand...I don’t have the confidence to teach grammar in English…I am afraid using English to teach grammar will make me fall behind the schedule.” T11 also expressed that “English grammar
feel relaxed…students feel better if they do not have to deal with the language and the content simultaneously.”
Preference for peer correction vs. teacher correction. From the
student perspective, teacher correction was more strongly favored. Students tended to consider teacher correction more professional, reliable, and trustworthy, with peer corrections often seen as haphazard and unreliable. However, our teacher respondents preferred peer correction to teacher correction mainly for affective consideration. S5 said, “I prefer to be corrected by teachers…Teachers are more professional in grammar…Their corrections are much more trustworthy.” S30 reported that “Peer correction is usually indirect and unclear…I feel less secure for peer corrections…they could have corrected the grammar errors wrongly…kind of wastes time.” T2 also indicated that “Students dislike being corrected by their English teachers…teachers tend to eagerly correct the ungrammatical English of their students…they imperceptibly impose too much pressure on the students being corrected…ruins the atmosphere in the English classroom.”
Peer corrections are definitely more welcome by senior high school students…students during this stage do not like to have their errors pointed out directly…they feel hurt or face-threatened …peer correction works much better…High school students are seeking peer acceptance. (T15)
Needs and attitudes towards error correction in speaking and writing. A great number of students wished that their errors could be
corrected by teachers, regardless of whether these occurred in English speaking or writing. They would feel cheated if their errors in
speaking or writing were not corrected. However, teachers thought most students would prefer not to be corrected in spoken communication, so they would avoid correcting students’ speaking errors. In contrast, teachers agreed that errors in writing should be corrected. Corresponding replies includes “Even if the grammar errors do not obstruct communication, I still want to be corrected by teachers…I hope I can speak correct English…Teacher corrections make me improve in speaking grammatically.” (S12) and “Based on the Communicative Approach, grammar errors in speaking should be treated naturally if they do not hinder communication…I will avoid correcting the speaking errors lest to cause negative feelings to students.” (T5) The following are two longer entries of student and teacher respondents.
I feel cheated if the teachers leave my errors there without correcting them…I feel they do not look at my writing seriously…A responsible English teacher should correct my writing, instead of asking group discussion or my own reflection to correct the errors. (S20)
Students should be corrected for their grammar errors…they can score better in future English writing on the JCEE English test…Peer correction through discussions can be an interesting way to correct these errors in writing…The errors corrected this way save more time…good classroom atmosphere. (T12)
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Differences in Perceptions of Grammar Instruction
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.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Ming-chu Liao teaches English at Taichung Home Economics and Commercial High School. She was a recipient of an Excellent Teaching Award and authored a series of English textbook. She holds an MA in TEFL from National Taiwan Normal University. Currently, she is also a doctoral student on Linguistics and TEFL program and a part-time English lecturer at National Changhua University of Education. Her research interests include language testing, writing instruction, and second language acquisition.
Hung-chun Wang teaches in the Department of Applied Foreign Languages at Hsin Sheng College of Medical Care and Management. He holds an MA in TEFL from National Kaohsiung Normal University. Currently, he is also a doctoral student on TEFL program at National Taiwan Normal University. His research interests include second language acquisition and discourse analysis.
APPENDIX
Transcript of Telephone Interviews
Chinese English
Interest, time allocation, terminology in grammar instruction
我喜歡讀文法…文法很有用…大部 分的月考其實還是著重文法或根據 文法出題啊…學習文法都嘛會讓我 的英文進步比較快…嗯，成果比記憶 單字更看得出來。(S1)
I like to study grammar…grammar is useful…Most of the monthly exams focused on grammar or based on grammar…Learning grammar helps improve my English much faster…The outcome is more instant than memorizing vocabulary. (S1)
文法規則很複雜又超難懂…老師應 該至少要花超過一半的上課時間來 解釋那些規則啊…講解文法規則比 解說單字更需要吧！(S19)
Grammar rules are very complicated and difficult to understand…teachers should spend at least over half of class time to explain the grammar rules…Explanation of the grammar rules is more necessary than vocabulary. (S19) 我認為文法的專門用語很重要…老 師用專門用語教會讓文法比較有系 統的感覺…沒有專門用語的話，文法 規則會更容易搞不清楚…沒辦法分 辨差異在哪裡。(S24)
I think grammar terminologies are important…terminologies used by teachers make the grammar rules look systematical…Without the terminologies, the grammar rules are more confusing…can not tell the differences. (S24)
文法不重要啦…溝通式教學法的風 行就是著重在語言學習的溝通目的 啊…我覺得花太多時間講解文法規 則 就 違 反 了 溝 通 式 教 學 法 的 精 神 了…通常一節課不超過十分鐘就很 夠了。(T4)
Grammar is of little importance…the prevalence of Communicative Approach focuses on communication purpose of language learning…I feel it opposed the spirits of Communicative Approach if I spend too much time on grammar rules…usually less than ten minutes is sufficient. (T4) 文法對學生來說應該很無聊…他們 討厭記那些文法專門用語…我在課 堂上解釋文法規則時都盡量不去強 調那些專門用語…這樣應該他們對 文法的感冒就會減輕了。(T9)
Grammar is boring to students…They hate to memorize the terminologies…I try not to emphasize these terminologies when explaining the grammar rules in class…Their hatred for grammar can be minimized this way. (T9)
Preference for group grammar practice to individual grammar practice
分組練習文法比較好啊…這樣剛新 教的文法有問題的地方就可以問同 組的同學了。(S12)
Practicing grammar in groups is better…I can ask group members about the newly-taught grammar to clarify my problems. (S12)
如果老師要求我們個別做文法的練 習，我只能靠自己了…我覺得沒安全 感…我不知道自己理解對了沒。(S20)
If the teacher asked us to do the grammar practice alone, I can only depend on myself…I feel insecure… I don’t know what I perceive is correct or not. (S20) 教完文法規則後，讓學生分組練習可
以激發他們的興趣…透過小組的互 動，文法規則會被強化，印象深刻。 (T5)
After teaching grammar rules, practicing in group activities can activate their interest…Through group interaction, the grammar patterns can be reinforced and made impressive. (T5)
