grammar exclicit or implicit

8/10/2019 Grammar Exclicit or Implicit

1/26

Focus on grammatical form: explicit or implicit?

John Burgess, Sian Etherington

University of Salford, UK

Received 12 December 2001; received in revised form 15 April 2002; accepted 2 May 2002

Abstract

Grammar teaching has been and continues to be an area of some controversy and debate have

led to the emergence of a new classroom option for language teachers: that of Focus on Form (as

opposed to Focus on Meaning or Focus on FormS). Against this background of interesting

times for grammar teaching, this paper reports research into teachers attitudes to grammar and

its teaching and learning within an EAP context. Responses from 48 EAP teachers in British uni-

versity language centres produced both quantitative and qualitative data. Results indicate that the

majority of teachers in this study appreciate the value of grammar for their students and possess a

sophisticated understanding of the problems and issues involved. There is evidence to support a

favourable attitude to Focus on Form approaches among this group. A further finding concerns

the importance of student characteristics, needs and wishes in influencing teachers classroom

actions in relation to grammar.

# 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Explicit; Form; Grammar; Implicit

1. Introduction

Grammar is being rehabilitated (e.g. Doughty and Williams 1998a) and recog-

nised for what it has always been (Thornbury, 1997, 1998): an essential, inescapable

component of language use and language learning. Few would dispute nowadays

that teaching and learning with a focus on form is valuable, if not indispensable.

What perhaps are still the subject of debate are two points:

1. the degree of explicitness such teaching and learning should display, and

2. the relationship of grammar-focused learning to learning activities with other

foci.

System 30 (2002) 433458

www.elsevier.com/locate/system

0346-251X/02/$ - see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

P I I : S 0 3 4 6 - 2 5 1 X ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 4 8 - 9

E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Burgess).


2/26

This paper reports research into EAP (English for Academic Purposes) teachers

attitudes towards grammar relating to these points among others. Part 1 of the

paper briefly discusses aspects of grammar teaching and previous work on teacher

attitudes to grammar. Part 2 outlines the research and its findings.

2. Grammar teaching and teacher attitudes

2.1. Approaches to grammar in the classroom

The place and type of grammatical instruction within language learning has been

the subject of language acquisition research and discussion for at least 40 years

(Ellis, 2001). During this time, this research has developed in both its focus and

methodologies. The organisation of the discussion about the treatment of grammar

has been centred on comparison of teaching methodologies (e.g. Grammar-Trans-

lation vs. Audio-Lingual) and on different classifications of approach (e.g. Product

or Process teaching as described by Batstone, 1994a,b; the Analytical or Experiential

distinction proposed by Stern 1992). However, work over recent years has led to the

adoption of new (or at least re-ordered) taxonomies for grammar instruction, based

around the distinction, originally made by Long (1991), between Focus on FormS,

Focus on Form and Focus on Meaning approaches.

Like many terms used within academic discussion there is a degree of differentia-

tion in the use and definitions of these terms. However, it appears to be generallyaccepted that Focus on FormS is characterised by a structuralist, synthetic approach

to language, where the primary focus of classroom activity is on language forms

rather than the meanings they convey. Focus on Form, in contrast, consists of an

occasional shift of attention to linguistic code featuresby the teacher or one or

more students (Long and Robinson, 1998, p. 23). Doughty and Williams (1998a,

p. 3) indicate that the Focus on Form approach provides learners an advantage over

Focus on FormS teaching through the cognitive processing support provided by the

overriding focus on meaning or communication. They continue, to state this

advantage rather simply, the learners attention is drawn precisely to a linguistic

feature as necessitated by a communicative demand.A third option is Focus on Meaning, an approach where classroom work is

wholly concerned with communication of meaning but with no attention given to

the forms used to convey this. (The Natural Approach of Krashen and Terrell,

1983, and other non-interventionist approaches are examples of this position.) It

is possible to conflate Focus on FormS and Focus on Meaning approaches with

the analytical and experiential options proposed by Stern (1992). However, Focus

on Meaning does not now feature as strongly in discussion concerning grammar

teaching as it once did: cumulated evidence from research in grammar learning and

SLA suggests that some conscious attention to form is necessary for language

learning to take place (see Ellis, 2001 for summary of research to date). It is ques-tions around the nature of that attention which currently occupy researchers and

commentators in the field (e.g. Swain, 1998; Doughty and Varela, 1998) with a great

434 J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433458


3/26

deal of work concerned with the production of taxonomies of options for form-

focused teaching.

For example, Ellis (2001, 14f) taxonomy of approaches within what he terms

Form Focused Instruction covers Focus on FormS, Planned Focus on Form, andIncidental Focus on Form. This distinction between the planned or incidental nature

of the focus on form is crucial for Ellis in terms of the type of learner interaction

with the forms (intensive interaction with one form in the case of planned focus and

extensive interaction covering several forms for incidental focus).

Similarly, Doughty and Williams (1998b) have produced an extensive, detailed

discussion of options within a Focus on Form approach along with an analysis of

classroom tasks in terms of those options. They too see choice between planned or

incidental approach as significant (framed around a choice between proactive or

reactive approaches) but also discuss the options concerning the choice of linguistic

form for focus, the extent of explicitness of focus on form, how focus on form

should be incorporated into a lesson (sequential or integrated) and its place within

the curriculum as a whole.

Developments of this kind have produced a varied set of options for teachers to

follow in relation to pedagogical grammar. The research described in this paper

attempts to establish some of the choices favoured by one group of teachers within a

particular sector of the profession.

2.2. Teacher attitudes to pedagogical grammar

Previous work on attitudes and perceptions within language learning suggests that

there is often a disparity between students and teachers (e.g. Kumaravadivelu, 1991;

Spratt, 1999). Such mismatches are often found around the area of grammar

teaching. For example, Brindleys (1984) research within Adult Migrant Education

in Australia found teachers more in favour of communicative activities, while stu-

dents preferred more formal, explicit grammar teaching. More recently, Schultzs

(1996, 2001) papers both delineate differences between teachers and students in

two different language teaching contexts (the USA and Colombia, with students

more favourable than teachers towards formal teaching of grammar and explicit

correction.However, despite this lack of correspondence between teacher and student views,

research evidence also suggests that teachers may take learner wishes and preferences

into account in their decision making around grammar teaching (Borg, 1998, 1999c;

Macrory, 2000). One of the reasons for this appears to be that the inclusion of

explicit grammar teaching fulfils several classroom management needs. These

include appeasing student concerns about lack of grammar, contributing to the pace

of lessons, and making fluency work more relevant to students (Borg, 1998). These

sorts of issues weigh heavily enough with teachers to influence their decisions,

despite personal reservations about the pedagogical effectiveness of such gramma-

tical treatment. Indeed, Borg (1998, pp. 2526) indicates the complexity of the deci-sion-making process for pedagogical grammar: he shows how conflicts occur

between teacher cognitions in different areas (language, language learning, L2

J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433458 435


4/26

learning, grammar teaching, students and teachers self) and how principles become

blurred in the course of practice.

Within the EAP sector, surveys have indicated that language problems and

grammatical considerations are ranked fairly highly by students (e.g. Blue, 1993;Grundy, 1993; Jordan, 1997, pp. 4647). Research also shows that academic tutors

within universities feel that linguistic proficiency (with grammar playing a large part

in this) is of importance (Tonkyn et al., 1993, p. 42; Grundy, 1993; Jordan, 1997).

However, comparisons of students and teachers in EAP suggest that, as in other

areas of ELT, there is likely to be a mismatch between their attitudes and expecta-

tions (Jordan, 1997, p. 53) and there is some evidence that grammar is again an area

of contention. For example, in a study of perceptions about writing, Leki (1995)

reports that students cite grammar as an important component of good writing,

whereas for teachers, more emphasis is placed upon rhetorical considerations.

There has, however, been comparatively little exploration of the beliefs of EAP

teachers specifically concerning grammar and grammar teaching, despite indications

that some focus on grammar is important at this level (e.g. Leki and Carson, 1994;

Robinson, 1991).

Thus, the research detailed in Part 2 aims to look more closely at what teachers in

the EAP sector feel about grammar teaching and their students problems with

grammar. It could be argued that this group of teachers represent some of the most

sophisticated within the TESOL profession; certainly they tend to be well-qualified

and teachers of long-standing. Thus, their views may provide something of a

benchmark for the profession. Additionally, the learners within this sector tend to bemore advanced than those in other sectors, and, as decisions about grammar teach-

ing may depend on proficiency level, it is of interest to see what choices these tea-

chers make for these learners.

3. The research

The earlier discussion indicates something of the interesting times in which

grammar teaching currently finds itself. The wealth of research findings and accom-

panying protracted discussion about grammar and its teaching (Thornbury, 1997,1998; Celce-Murcia et al., 1997; among others) mean that teachers are faced with a

potentially bewildering range of options for use in their classrooms. In such a climate,

it is important that the opinions and experience of teachers themselves are not

overlooked. As Ellis (1998, p. 58) points out, very little is known about how teachers

transform their technical knowledge about the teaching of grammar through their

actions. As the profession moves into a Post-method condition (Kumaravadivelu,

1994), it is becoming clearer that it is the choices made by teachers in their individual

contexts which play a large part in determining the kind of teaching which takes

place. Thus, the beliefs and attitudes which influence teacher classroom decisions are

important areas of study. The research reported here aimed to fill some of the gapsin this area by providing a picture of one group of teachers beliefs concerning

grammar and its teaching.



5/26

3.1. Research questions

The questions which this research sought to answer were as follows:

Which beliefs about grammar and grammar teaching are most widely held by

EAP teachers?

Is there a bias towards decontextualised presentation of grammar and away

from discourse-based, unified approaches?

3.2. Methods and materials

The research was mainly quantitative in design, using a questionnaire to survey

attitudes across a large group of teachers. The questionnaire took the form of a five-

point, Likert-type attitude scale, which was completed by EAP teachers in British

universities. Lengthier comments made by some of the teachers formed a body of

qualitative data. Finally, background information provided by the respondents

allowed for the creation of a teacher profile.

3.3. Subjects

The importance of definition of context in the study of beliefs and attitudes has

been well documented (Johnson, 1992, p. 102; Pajares, 1992, p. 327; Fortune, 1992,

p. 167). Questions should be as context-specific as possible in order to avoid itdepends replies (Pajares ibid.). Thus, here only one teaching context was con-

sidered in order to make as close a connection as possible between teachers and their

practical experience.

The context chosen was that of pre-sessional English for Academic Purposes

classes in British universities. These are typically summer classes of between 8 and 12

weeks attended by overseas students who are about to begin studies in the uni-

versity. It was hoped that teachers in this context would prove to be a readily iden-

tifiable group. Moreover, the specific nature of EAP classes would allow for as little

variation as possible between class types. Additionally, the presumed sophistication

and experience of teachers within this area permitted the inclusion of specialisedvocabulary within certain questions. The choice of such a population also increased

the possibility that subjects had some understanding/experience of the different

approaches mentioned.

The BALEAP (British Association of Lecturers in English for Academic Purposes)

members list was used as a source of addresses for EAP units and two questionnaires

were mailed to each unit for completion. This meant that a total of 128 questionnaires

were dispatched. It is believed that the targeted population provided a fair representa-

tion of EAP teachers on British university pre-sessional English courses.

It is important to acknowledge that a problem of volunteer bias exists in the

sample. It represents only teachers who were sufficiently interested in the teaching ofgrammar to complete and return the questionnaires. This bias could possibly have

been lessened through interviews with non-respondents to allow comparison of



6/26

answers. Interviews with respondents could have also established reasons for the return

of the questionnaire. However, practicalities of time and funding prevented this option

being effected. Thus, the survey is unable to comment on the beliefs of university-based

EAP teachers in general. Nevertheless, the data collected are valuable, indicating theopinions of a substantial proportion of the population. 48 replies were returned,

representing a 37.5% response rate. This sample size exceeds the number (30) which

Cohen and Manion (1994, p. 77) describe as the minimum for useful statistical analysis.

3.4. The research instrument

The questionnaire used for the collection of data is included in the Appendix.

Development of the questionnaire took place in several stages. First, background

reading led to the identification of certain dichotomies and continua within the

teaching of language and of grammar in particular. These were incorporated into a

framework for a consideration of grammar teaching. Key characteristics of each

were identified as shown in Fig. 1. These characteristics were used as the basis for a

set of open-ended questions concerning the teaching of grammar and these were

subsequently completed by 12 MEd TESOL students (all experienced ESOL tea-

chers) at Manchester Universitys Centre for English Language Studies in Educa-

tion. Their responses were analysed for significant themes. This element of

qualitative research before embarkation on quantitative, and necessarily broader,

work allowed for the generation of feelings, beliefs and ideas about grammar which the

lone researcher may not have thought to include. As a result of this stage statements

Fig. 1. Dichotomies and continua in language teaching (adapted from Ellis, 1994; Stern, 1992).



7/26

about classroom implementation of grammar teaching principles were included in

the final questionnaire. This process also enabled the researcher to discover proble-

matic terms which were then altered or omitted in the final questionnaire. Both help

to strengthen the validity of the research.

The final questionnaire took the form of a Likert-type attitude scale (cf. Karavas-

Doukas, 1996) with responses to statements made on a 15 scale of agreement.

There was also some provision made for qualitative responses: teachers were

encouraged to provide additional comments about their grammar teaching in a final

open-ended question. The questionnaire was piloted with teachers from The English

Language Teaching Unit of Manchester University and further alterations madeaccordingly.

3.5. Results and discussion

From the data collected, it is possible to establish a picture of a typical respondent

(Fig. 2). In the data concerning teacher attitudes, areas where some conclusions can

be drawn are:

the role of grammar in language

explicit grammar teaching, including the importance of instruction

the role of declarative knowledge

consciousness in the learning of grammar

comparison and contrast of structures

the use of grammatical terminology

problem-solving activities

correction

presentation of grammar through authentic texts

the role of practice

(Other statements either failed to provoke sufficient responses to be significant or

produced no clear trend.)

Fig. 2. The typical respondent to the questionnaire.



8/26

A table showing responses to statements concerning these themes is provided in

the Appendix. The data provide insight into attitudes relating to both theoretical

principles and classroom implementation of these principles. As might be expected,

responding teachers showed a great deal of concern about classroom application ofgrammar teaching approaches. Implications of the results for both areas are discussed

together with findings. Qualitative comments often gave further information about

individual teachers beliefs and these are presented with the quantitative data where

appropriate. Other significant findings which emerged from the qualitative data are

reported later. (For a fuller report of the research project, see Etherington, 1997.)

3.5.1. The role of grammar in language

Four of the statements in the survey were designed to probe teachers beliefs about

the role of grammar in language. These asked for reaction to different views about

grammars role: as a framework for the rest of the language system; as the building

blocks of language; as something which is added later to language proficiency; as an

equal pillar supporting language proficiency. Of these statements, two provoked a

clear reaction. Over 60% of respondents agreed that grammar could be viewed as a

framework or a basic system for the rest of the language (statement 1.1a). However,

the idea that grammar acts as something which is added on to language proficiency,

a refinement of more basic language knowledge, was clearly rejected by the teachers in

the survey (over 85% disagreed with this statement, 1.1c). It seems that this group of

teachers view grammatical accuracy as integral to language and communication, not

an optional add-on after basic communication has been achieved. It can be inferredfrom these responses that this group of teachers would not feel comfortable with a

syllabus which delayed teaching grammar until later in the learning process. They

may also be more likely to favour an integrated approach to grammar teaching.

3.5.2. Explicit grammar teaching

The explicit/implicit divide is seen by many as an important differentiation in

teaching styles, and one which is distinct from analytical/experiential approaches

(Ellis, 1994, pp. 362363; Stern, 1992, 327ff.). The dichotomies of unconscious/con-

scious learning and inductive/deductive teaching methods are both sometimes equated

with the explicit/implicit teaching division. The statements used here were based on theunconscious/conscious divide and use Sterns (1992, 327f) characteristics for explicit

and implicit teaching as a guide for individual items. Attitudes to inductive and deduc-

tive methods were also investigated through statements concerning explicit presenta-

tion by teachers and students finding form-function matches for themselves.

There is a danger in seeing explicit and implicit teaching as opposing methods,

rather than points on a continuum of options. However, it was felt to be useful to

ask teachers where they might place their EAP teaching on such a continuum. The

questions used touched both on how explicit teaching related to the principles of

grammar teaching and on constraints which made teachers more or less likely to use

such methods in the classroom.The strongest indication of agreement in the survey came on Question 2.3, (My stu-

dents expect teachers to present grammar points explicitly). This produced a mean score



9/26

of 4.17 and over 90% of responses were of agreement or strong agreement. This is not a

particularly surprising result. Student expectations of traditional, explicit grammar

teaching are familiar to many teachers (cf Borg, 1999a,b), and the popularity of

grammar practice books for self-study purposes seems to confirm this view. Theresponses here indicate that even with advanced, relatively sophisticated learners of

the kind EAP teachers in universities tend to deal with, teachers believe that this

expectation remains.

Responses to Question 2.13 (A lack of explicit grammar teaching leaves my stu-

dents feeling insecure) support the view that students prefer explicit grammar teach-

ing. Here just under 70% of responses were in categories 4 or 5, indicating

agreement or strong agreement. A useful comparison can also be made with the

responses to Question 1.20, which also deals with the explicit treatment of grammar

(Explicit discussion of grammar rules is helpful for students). Here responses were in a

similar pattern, with the number of replies in category 4, agreement, (43.8%) and cate-

gory 5, strong agreement, (25%) indicating a favourable reaction to the statement.

From these results it may be reasonable to conclude that while these teachers may

feel that explicit teaching of grammar is favoured by their students because of

expectations and feelings of security, the teachers also seem to support this approach

for pedagogical reasons of their own.

Further light is shed on this issue by the written additions made to the ques-

tionnaires by several teachers. Analysis of this qualitative data seems to show that

teachers belief in the need for an explicit focus on grammar stems from something

more than the wish to please students or from teachers own learning experiences.Teachers wrote of explicit, separate, analytical methods and specific focus on

form having a place in the teaching of grammar.

However, it is important to note that these views were also qualified in some way in

added comments to the questionnaire: teachers stated that a separate focus was only

appropriate at certain stages of learning, either moving on from communicative tasks;

at intervals; or when students were already familiar with the form. For example, one

teacher indicated different treatment for students on different types of course:

For most of our pre-sessional students (especially on a four-week course) we

focus more on structuring essays, presentations etc. . .

for longer courses, andespecially for weaker students, we focus more on grammar and language at

sentence level. (T36)

A follow-up interview with teachers may have produced more specific information

about what teachers mean by explicit methods and teaching of grammar. However,

teachers responses to other questionnaire items which are concerned with aspects of

the implicitexplicit continuum provide some further detail about their under-

standing of, and orientation towards, this issue. These are explored later.

3.5.3. Instruction vs. ExposureThe question of specific instruction is an important one in the implicitexplicit

debate. Teachers feelings on this issue (is formal instruction necessary or is exposure to



10/26

input sufficient?) provide a good indication of their orientation. Findings indicate that

most of the respondents agree that it is possible to learn grammar through natural

exposure to language (over 50% of teachers responded positively to the statement:

Students can learn grammar through exposure to language in natural use). However,there appears to be greater agreement with the view that instruction helps learners to

produce grammatically correct language (over 70% of respondents agreed with the

statementFormal instruction helps learners to produce grammatically correct language.)

These two results do not necessarily indicate a contradiction of opinion. One

possible interpretation is that these teachers believe in the possibility of learning

grammar through input alone, but feel that learning is helped by instruction. One

comment expressing this view was:

Most students at our university increase their oral communication competence

butnot their linguistic competence during 1, 2 or even 3 years at the university.

Their writing is as bad when they finish as when they started, unless they have

had formal language instruction. I.e. they do not pick up grammar from

meaningful exposure to the language during their sojourn in Britain. (I stress

most. Somedo pick it up.) (T27)

Replies here are linked to those concerning the relationship between declarative

and procedural knowledge and the role of consciousness in learning.

3.5.4. Declarative and procedural knowledgeStatement 2.1 (My students find it difficult to transfer their grammatical knowledge

into communicative language use)was designed to identify teachers beliefs concerning

the possible transference of knowledge about grammar (declarative knowledge) into

actual use of that knowledge in communication (procedural knowledge). Replies here

indicate teachers recognition of this process as a problem for many of their stu-

dents: there is no evidence of strong disagreement and over 52% of replies are of

agreement or strong agreement (responses 45). A teacher comment which sup-

ports this view is:

There is some disparity between knowledge of grammar and use of gram-mari.e. because a student does not use grammatically correct English in a

specific context does not mean that he or she lacks formal knowledge of that

structure. If you point out that there is an error, students can often self-cor-

rect. (T10)

Teachers understanding of this gap in students grammatical ability is perhaps

not surprising for anyone who has taught at this level. Most teachers are able to

relate many examples of students who can recite grammatical rules perfectly, but

have difficulty putting them into practice. It would be interesting to discover if tea-

chers who recognise these shortcomings in their students are more likely to use anintegrated approach to grammar as a way of combating such problems; this is a

possible direction for future research.



11/26

3.5.5. The importance of conscious knowledge

Three statements attempted to ask teachers about their beliefs about the role of

conscious knowledge

1. in learners language use (Question 1.4: Student use of language does not

involve conscious knowledge of the grammatical system and how it works);

2. in the improvement of their grammatical accuracy (Question 1.6: Students

need a conscious knowledge of grammar in order to improve their language); and

3. about consciousness of form/function matches (Question 1.9: Students need

to be consciously aware of a structures form and its function before they can

use it proficiently).

The responses recorded here suggest that teachers feel that conscious knowledge

of the grammar system has a part to play in students use of language (47.9% rank

Statement 1.4 as 1 or 2 indicating Disagreement). However, it is not clear exactly what

role teachers believe that this knowledge plays in language use. It may be that they

understand its function as a monitor of output, but see no other role for it. The need

for conscious noticing as part of the learning process (Schmidt, 1990) is not necessarily

understood by teachers. Indeed, statements 1.6 and 1.9 did not produce conclusive

results. Additionally, the apparent belief of some respondents that learning of grammar

can take place simply through exposure to input seems to corroborate this interpreta-

tion. Further research is required to investigate this area of belief in more detail.

3.5.6. Comparison and contrast of structures

Comparison of different structures is used as a method for presenting differences of

meaning in many textbooks (Murphy, 1985; Soars and Soars, 1986; see also Imssalem,

1997 for evaluation of textbooks). The use of this technique is often associated with

more explicit, focused-on-forms approaches to grammar teaching. Teachers were asked

about the use of such techniques for the teaching of grammar (Question 1.17: Compar-

ison and contrast of individual structures is helpful for students learning grammar).

Responses indicate agreement among these teachers that such practices are helpful for

students (61% of replies agreed with the statement, with only 4.2% indicating disagree-

ment). Given the arguments against it (Etherington, 1997, p. 110), it may be surprisingthat such numbers of teachers seem to agree that this is a useful technique. However, the

statement does not specify at what stage of learning comparison and contrast of struc-

tures is used. Hence, although teachers may feel that later practiceof different forms in

this way is satisfactory, they may not be so enthusiastic about endorsing this method of

initialgrammar presentation. Again, follow-up interviews with respondents might have

established this difference. Nevertheless, a preference for this method may be inter-

preted as an indication of a focus on formS approach no matter where it occurs in a

lesson.

3.5.7. The use of grammatical terminologyThe use of grammatical terminology in the classroom could be understood as a

necessary part of an explicit approach to grammar teaching: when teachers and



12/26

students talk about grammar they need terminology. Indeed, metalinguistic discus-

sion is seen by Stern (1992, p. 327) as one of the characteristics of explicit language

teaching.

Questions here sought to explore teachers perceptions of their students feelingsabout the use of grammatical terms. For both questions 2.14, My students find

grammatical terminology useful and 2.19, My students find it difficult to use gram-

matical terminology, there was a clear trend in responses. The findings indicate that

these teachers believe their students see grammatical terminology as useful (57% of

replies showed agreement with statement 2.14). Similarly, there is some feeling that

its use does not present a particular difficulty for students (47% showed their dis-

agreement with statement 2.19, with only 21% indicating agreement of any kind).

This seems to link to students preferences for explicit grammar teaching. It may also

be related to students previous language learning experiences: if these are based in the

grammar-translation method, students will feel at home with this use of terminology.

3.5.8. Problem solving

Problem-solving approaches to grammar are often used at this level. These fre-

quently take the form of inductive techniques which challenge learners to find form-

function matches for themselves (e.g. Hall and Shepheard, 1991). Many other con-

sciousness-raising techniques use similar problem-solving approaches (e.g. Fotos,

1994). The use of problem-solving techniques in consciousness raising tasks is seen

as one of the characteristics of explicit grammar teaching (Stern, 1992, p. 327; Ellis,

1997, p. 84).There is clear agreement among these teachers that EAP students find a problem-

solving approach motivating: positive responses to statement 2.2 (My students are

motivated by problem-solving techniques for learning grammar) totalled more than

60% of replies. Negative responses to Question 2.20 (My students are frustrated by

problem-solving techniques for learning grammar) confirm this (57.8% of responses

ranked this 1 or 2), showing that teachers generally feel that problem-solving

approaches at this level do not produce frustration in the learners. These answers

can be seen to link to responses concerning real-life tasks as practice of language.

One possible interpretation is that teachers feel that students have a preference for

the use of language to perform a well-defined task, rather than work without apractical outcome.

Indeed, EAP learners appear to be particularly suited to a problem-solving approach,

since they tend to be relatively sophisticated, intelligent and experienced learners.

Moreover, comments from two of the teachers in the survey suggested that some lan-

guage teaching techniques are particularly inappropriate for this sort of learner:

Students at this level are often de-motivated by the silly games which are

often used in the ESOL classroom. These students need more serious approa-

ches to language learning. (T48)

Many games and activities are too silly for the serious pre-sessional student.

(T34)



13/26

It would be interesting to compare answers here with those of a group of teachers

in another ESOL sector, for example, ESL teaching in secondary schools, where

typical learner characteristics may be different.

3.5.9. Correction of errors

Questions 1.16, 1.18, 2.15 and 2.16 produced significant results. Teachers tended

to disagree with statement 1.16 (Teachers should only correct student errors of form

which interfere with communication), with only 19% of respondents showing positive

replies. This finding is supported by result for Statement 1.18 (Form-focused correc-

tion helps students to improve their grammatical performance). Here 56% of the tea-

chers indicated their agreement with the statement.

From the earlier results, it might be inferred that teachers believe that errors of

form should be corrected, even where communicative goals are attained. This need

for correction of form may indicate an awareness of the particular need of EAP

students for accuracy and clarity. It may also show a concern about fossilisation of

errors in learners interlanguage. A concentration on errors of form within an over-

all communicative setting can help to avoid such fossilisation.

Questions in the second part of the questionnaire tackled the difference between cor-

rection of written and spoken communication. Replies to question 2.15 (Teachers find it

difficult to correct student errors of grammar within a written communicative context)

showed that the majority of teachers do not seem to have difficulty in correcting errors

within written communication. Seventy-eight per cent of respondents disagreed with the

statement. It is interesting to compare responses to Question 2.15 with those to Question2.16 (Teachers find it difficult to correct student errors of grammar within a spoken com-

municative context). Here, although the mean response (2.7) suggests that teachers felt

that correction of spoken errors presented little difficulty, a fairly large number felt that

this was a problem (almost 30% of respondents). It is interesting to note that this

number is significantly higher than those who felt that correction represented a

problem in the written mode (just over 6%). It could be concluded that teachers

experience more difficulty in correction during students spoken rather than written

communication.

Other questions in the survey focused on aspects of classroom practice more

closely associated with implicit grammar teaching and learning. Of these, responsesto items concerning the role of practice and the use of authentic texts were of

interest.

3.5.10. Presentation in authentic, complete texts

The choice of vehicle for presentation of grammar was focused on in statements

connected with the use of authentic text for grammar work. Authentic texts are

understood as texts which are not produced for the purpose of language teaching,

but arise for some other purpose in the real world.

Connected to the idea of authentic text is the implication that these texts are

complete and fully contextualised. The antithesis of such vehicles for grammar pre-sentation are the one sentence, context-free illustrations of grammar used in many

text and practice books. These decontextualised examples of language have been



14/26

associated with a more analytical and explicit approach to language teaching. Fuller,

context-rich texts are typically present in an experiential approach, concentrating on

doing things with language (authentic communication) rather than focusing on the

language itself (Stern, 1990, p. 106 1992, p. 307 and 313). Recognition of these ten-sions led to the development of questions concerning the use of complete and

authentic texts by teachers and student problems with them.

The teachers surveyed appear to feel that complete texts are a successful way of

presenting grammar (56% of responses agreed or strongly agreed with Statement 1.15

Students learn grammar more successfully if it is presented within a complete text).

Other questions concerning authentic texts asked about student problems with

their use, focusing on possible difficulties of vocabulary, variety of structures, cul-

ture and the finding of form-function matches. Teacher problems with authentic

texts were also touched on: the difficulty of producing suitable tasks from such texts

and the amount of time taken in using them were surveyed. Responses clearly

showed that these teachers do not believe that the grammar in authentic texts is too

difficult for students (53% of responses disagreed with Statement 2.6). In fact, it is

the existence of specialised vocabulary within authentic texts which is more likely to

be a problem for students and teachers: 52% of respondents agreed that vocabulary

in authentic texts caused problems for their students (Statement 2.9). Responses to a

statement about the amount of time needed for authentic texts (Question 2.11) seem

to indicate no general feeling that authentic texts take too much time in the class-

room or in preparation. Such results can be interpreted in two ways: teachers do not

find the use of such texts particularly time-consuming, or they consider any extratime needed to be well-spent. In conclusion, it is apparent that teachers are enthu-

siastic about the use of authentic texts in the classroom, with only difficult vocabu-

lary appearing to present any real problems for learners.

3.5.11. The role of practice

Teachers were asked to comment on statements concerning both the role of prac-

tice and the types of practice which might prove more beneficial for learners.

Responses to Questions 1.5 (Students can improve their grammatical accuracy

through frequent practice of structures) and 1.12 (Productive practice of structures is a

necessary part of the learning process) provide some evidence for teachers belief thatpractice of structures is important for learning grammar and improving grammatical

accuracy. Seventy-five per cent of replies indicated agreement with the first of these

statements, and 74% showed agreement with the second.

The important issue here concerns the type of practice used. The recognised pro-

blems with the P-P-P model mean that these teachers perception of the phrase

Productive practice is crucial to understanding results here. Do they mean pro-

duction of the P-P-P kind or productive practice within a true communicative con-

text? The phrase practice of structures within both statements could suggest an

analytical approach to the learning of grammar, building up information about

individual grammatical structures into an eventual knowledge of language as a whole.Further light may be shed on this area by responses to Question 1.14 (Participating in

real-life tasks with language is the best way for students to develop their grammatical



15/26

knowledge). Although the data here are not as clear-cut as in Questions 1.5 and 1.12, it

seems that these teachers have some preference for real-life tasks for the development of

grammatical structures: just over 50% of replies agree with the statement.. It could be

argued that there is possible confusion here about the meaning of real-life tasks (againfollow-up interviews with respondents may have reduced this uncertainty). Never-

theless, the data seem to indicate that teachers understand the value of practising

language as real communication. The smaller numbers of positive responses to this

statement may reflect some concern within this group of teachers about the lack of

sufficient focus on form for development of grammatical knowledge, something

which may be associated with purely communicative tasks (Batstone, 1994b, p. 229;

Johnson, 1992).

3.5.12. Further qualitative comments

The qualitative data collected in the final part of the survey generally support the

conclusions drawn earlier and have, for the most part, been discussed along with the

quantitative data. However, two powerful impressions made by teachers comments

are better considered separately. One supports the general conclusions drawn earlier;

the other adds to the ideas presented there.

3.5.12.1. Grammar work arises most naturally from skills work..Four teachers wrote

at length about their beliefs in this area, arguing that the best place for treatment of

grammar was in the course of skills work, particularly writing. For example, one

teacher wrote:

For me. . .grammar comes out of and feeds back into academic writing. It is

academic writing and discourse functions which form the core of a pre-sessional

EAP course. Not the other way around. (T48)

Comments from other teachers also indicated favour for an integrated approach

to grammar teaching:

Generally I see grammar as a tool for communication and prefer to approach it

in the context of a communicative task (usually reading/writing). (T25)

I teach a great deal of academic writing but my classes are not grammar based but

process and skills based. I deal with grammar as the need arises from analysing my

students work. (T1)

We tend to treat grammar as something which arises naturally from commu-

nicative language activities. . .(T47)

These comments suggest a reactive approach to grammar, responding to errors in

student work in the course of a writing or reading task and as such appear torepresent the occasional shift of attention to linguistic code features which con-

stitutes a Focus on Form approach for Long and Robinson (1998, p. 23).



16/26

3.5.12.2. Student characteristics play a large part in determining student wishes and

what kind of grammar teaching is most appropriate for students. Almost a quarter of

the teachers mentioned that students backgrounds and previous learning experi-

ences had a large impact on their present learning preferences. For example,

What students want by way of grammar also depends on personal background

and experiences of English learning context. (T5)

Students often ask for more grammar. They are usually over 35 or from a

country whose own education system relies heavily on grammar-translation

method. (T47)

(in response to item 2.5 My students prefer to find matches between meaning

and structure for themselves) This is cultural- Asian students tend to resist this

type of learning activity. (T19)

Additionally, for some teachers it appears that student expectations and pre-

ferences may be a factor in their choice of grammar teaching approach. For example,

Within the language centre our courses cater for a large number of Asian stu-

dents particularly from Japan and Korea and student expectations regarding

grammar teaching obviously affect teaching. More traditional methods tend to

be more readily accepted: although we can but try! (T17)

Many students still want explicit grammar teaching isolated from other

work and I run a 10 week course which is largely input due to class size.

(T 29)

This interpretation accords with Borgs findings (1998) concerning the influence of

student preferences on teachers pedagogic decisions.

Several teachers identified other individual differences as important when deciding

on their approach to grammar: these included student level, subject area, age, cul-

ture and mother tongue. For example, comments included:

Students are all differentso techniques depend on their levels, nationalities

etc. It also depends on whether theyre EFL, EAP, Business students etc. (T32)

Students from different language learning backgrounds and L10s have different

problems. (T2)

The approach is determined by different needs/interests/level of ability of Eng-

lish in the students. My own approach varies enormously. (T7)

Such comments reflect Celce-Murcia and Hilles (1988) discussion of the learner

variables which may influence choices of teaching approaches. They also serve to



17/26

emphasise the importance of placing any study of teaching beliefs and practice within

as specific a context as possible. Although the research design attempted to restrict the

context as much as possible, any future research may do well to take note of the fac-

tors mentioned here in addition to that of classroom context. However, it should alsobe noted that too great a consideration of student differences may lead to a study of

individuals only, with no power to generalise.

3.6. Limitations of this research

The survey was not limited to questions about only one approach to grammar

teaching. It covered a wide range of options within different methodologies. There-

fore, it was impossible to construct a questionnaire conforming to strict Likert-scale

methodology, allowing no opportunity to use the split half method in order to

check reliability (Karavas-Doukas, 1996; Cohen and Manion, 1994). However, cer-

tain statements were paired to provide some possibility of checking the consistency

of teachers replies in some areas. Where paired statements existed replies were seen

to be consistent. The inclusion of different approaches to grammar teaching within

one questionnaire does, however, provide a reasonably realistic view of teacher

beliefs. These are complex and dynamic entities, with many factors influencing

themnot static, one-dimensional objects which can be judged through one view-

point alone.

The study does not include any observation of teachers actual classroom beha-

viour. This could have provided valuable triangulation for the attitudes expressedwithin responses (Pajares, 1992, p. 316). However, it was hoped that questions about

practice included in the second section of the questionnaire would cover this area.

The lack of follow-up interviews is a major limitation to the study. This would

have given greater reliability to results. In addition, interviews with some of the

teachers who chose not to return questionnaires would have shown how typical the

respondents were among EAP teachers as a whole.

There is a strong possibility of a response effect here, with teachers giving replies

which are not accurate representations of their actual attitudes, but are calculated to

present a favourable impression to the researcher. However, it has been argued that

such data are nevertheless useful, since they reflect feelings and beliefs about an idealprofessional, in this case teaching, situation (Davies, 1997, p. 154). Similarly, Block

(1998, pp. 151152) argues that such replies may indicate the type of discourse which

is permitted within one discourse community and as such are representative of the

community as a whole.

The context used for the research may not have been specific enough: many tea-

chers intimated that they made judgements concerning teaching approaches based

on each particular class which they teach. Moreover, classes which can be described

as pre-sessional EAP vary a great deal across and within different institutions.

Further research within a tighter context may be desirable.

Despite these limitations, it is felt that this work represents a step towards a betterunderstanding of teachers thoughts and feelings about grammar teaching in the

EAP context.



18/26

3.7. Discussion of results

From the results it seems possible to make some claims about the beliefs of this

group of EAP teachers concerning grammar and grammar teaching. The majority ofteachers represented here appear to see grammatical knowledge as important for

their students and to have a sophisticated understanding of the problems and issues

involved in its teaching. The importance placed on grammatical issues may be sur-

prising in light of research reported earlier which suggests that grammar may not

hold so much weight for teachers.

Indeed, there does not appear to be a bias towards decontextualised presentation

of grammar for these teachers, but instead they seem to favour more discourse-

based approaches. Their concern for grammar in connection with an apparent

inclination towards the use of authentic, full texts and real-life tasks for practice may

indicate that these teachers are well-disposed to a Focus-on-Form approach. Quali-

tative comments appear to reinforce this view, particularly those suggesting that

teachers prefer explicit teaching of grammar within communicative or skills-based

work.

It can be argued that Focus on Form teaching has only emerged fairly recently

within the research and methodological literature (see Ellis, 2001; Doughty and

Williams, 1998a) and thus it is interesting to speculate about the origins of this

group of teachers preferences. Are they the result of an influence of research on

practice, or do they stem from teachers personal intuitions about what works best

in their classrooms? Without a much more in-depth study, it is difficult to determinethe factors which influence teachers thinking in this area. However, reference to

student characteristics, needs and wishes in several answers indicate that teachers

classroom actions are not determined by theoretical beliefs alone, but that student

reaction to different approaches is taken into account.

3.8. Conclusion

The research reported here has attempted to discover something about the state of

grammar teaching in EAP courses in British universities, both in relation to theore-

tical issues and concerning problems of implementation of principles. The resultspaint a picture of the approaches to grammar teaching taken in EAP courses across

the UK which may be encouraging to those who advocate a Focus on Form

approach.

The EAP context demands high levels of grammatical accuracy and commu-

nicative effectiveness from learners and thus is an area in which a Focus on Form

approach would appear to be particularly appropriate. Student preferences for

grammar work may not accord with a Focus on Form approach (they may stem

from more traditional grammar treatments) but teachers may be able to utilise these

feelings to include more integrated, skills-based grammar work in their courses.

Teachers may however, also need to be explicit in indicating to students the gram-mar-orientation of these sorts of activities in order that they are appreciated as ful-

filling student wishes.



19/26

Appendix A. Questionnaire for course tutors

SECTION ONE: APPROACHES TO THE TEACHING OF GRAMMAR.

Please indicate how far you agree with the following statements about the role and

teaching of grammar on a typical pre-sessional EAP course. If you agree strongly

mark a5 on the scale, if you strongly disagree mark a1on the scale. Please feel free

to add any comments you wish to make.

Disagree Agree

1. The role of grammar in language is as: (please answer for each option)

a) a framework for the rest of the language

a basic system to build everything else on.

1 2 3 4 5

b) the building blocks of language which are

combined to form a whole.

1 2 3 4 5

c) something which is added on to language

proficiency: a refinement of more basic

language knowledge.

1 2 3 4 5

d) an equal pillar in supporting language

proficiency. (Other pillars could be

knowledge about pronunciation,appropriacy or culture etc.)

1 2 3 4 5

2. Students can learn grammar through

exposure to language in natural use.

1 2 3 4 5

3. Formal instruction helps learners to produce

grammatically correct language.

1 2 3 4 5

4. Student use of language does not involve

conscious knowledge of the grammaticalsystem and how it works.

1 2 3 4 5

5. Students can improve their grammatical

accuracy through frequent practice of

structures.

1 2 3 4 5

6. Students need a conscious knowledge of

grammar in order to improve their language.

1 2 3 4 5

7. Practice of structures must always be within

a full, communicative context.

1 2 3 4 5



20/26

8. Separate treatment of grammar fails to

produce language knowledge which students

can use in natural communication.

1 2 3 4 5

9. Students need to be consciously aware of

a structures form and its function before

they can use it proficiently.

1 2 3 4 5

10. The separation of work with a grammar

focus from the rest of the language syllabus

is useful for students.

1 2 3 4 5

11. Decontextualised practice of structures has

a place in language learning.

1 2 3 4 5

12. Productive practice of structures is a

necessary part of the learning process.

1 2 3 4 5

13. Grammar is best taught through work

which focuses on message.

1 2 3 4 5

14. Participating in real-life tasks with language

is the best way for students to develop theirgrammatical knowledge.

1 2 3 4 5

15. Students learn grammar more successfully

if it is presented within a complete text.

1 2 3 4 5

16. Teachers should only correct student

errors of form which interfere with

communication.

1 2 3 4 5

17. Comparison and contrast of individualstructures is helpful for students learning

grammar.

1 2 3 4 5

18. Form-focused correction helps students

to improve their grammatical performance.

1 2 3 4 5

19. Grammar is best taught through a focus

on individual structures.

1 2 3 4 5

20. Explicit discussion of grammar rules is

helpful for students.

1 2 3 4 5



21/26

SECTION TWO: STUDENT AND TEACHER DIFFICULTIES WITH

GRAMMAR.

These are questions about how students and teachers deal with grammar in theclassroom. Again please indicate your agreement or disagreement with these state-

ments as above.

Disagree Agree

1. My students find it difficult to transfer their grammatical

knowledge into communicative language use.

1 2 3 4 5

2. My students are motivated by problem-solvingtechniques for learning grammar. 1 2 3 4 5

3. My students expect teachers to present grammar

points explicitly.

1 2 3 4 5

4. My students prefer to learn grammar from one-

sentence examples.

1 2 3 4 5

5. My students prefer to find matches between meaning

and structure for themselves.

1 2 3 4 5

6. My students find it difficult to handle grammar

presented within authentic texts.

1 2 3 4 5

7. My students find authentic texts difficult because of

the wide variety of structures which appear.

1 2 3 4 5

8. My students find authentic texts difficult because they

are too culture bound.

1 2 3 4 5

9. My students find authentic texts difficult because of

the vocabulary used.

1 2 3 4 5

10. My students cannot find form-function matches in

authentic texts without explicit direction from teachers.

1 2 3 4 5

11. Teachers find the use of authentic material too

time-consuming.

1 2 3 4 5

12. Teachers find it difficult to produce tasks of a

suitable level from authentic texts.

1 2 3 4 5



22/26

13. A lack of explicit grammar teaching leaves my

students feeling insecure.

1 2 3 4 5

14. My students find grammatical terminology useful. 1 2 3 4 5

15. Teachers find it difficult to correct student errors

of grammar within a written communicative

context.

1 2 3 4 5

16. Teachers find it difficult to correct student errors

of grammar within a spoken communicative context.

1 2 3 4 5

17. My students find it difficult to improve the accuracyof their grammatical language within a totally

communicative writing activity.

1 2 3 4 5

18. My students find it difficult to improve the

accuracy of their grammatical language within

a totally communicative speaking activity.

1 2 3 4 5

19. My students find it difficult to use grammatical

terminology.

1 2 3 4 5

20. My students are frustrated by problem-solving

techniques for learning grammar.

1 2 3 4 5

Please add any further comments which you have about your approach to the

teaching of grammar and any problems with grammar which occur in the classroom .

SECTION THREE: INFORMATION ABOUT YOU AND YOUR TEACHING

SITUATION.

Name of department:

Name of course you are teaching at present:

Number of students in class:Do you teach general or subject-specific EAP? If you specialise in one area,

please indicate what this is (e.g. Science, Economics, Law, Social Science etc.)



23/26

How long have you taught academic English?(please tick one)

less than one year

13 years

35 yearsmore than 5 years

Are you a full-time EAP teacher? yes/no

What other types of teaching do you do? (please tick as appropriate)

General English

Business English

English for Science and Technology

ESL support in schools

Other (please specify)

Please add any other information about your teaching situation which you feel may

be of interest to this survey.

MANY THANKS FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION.

TABLE OF RESULTS

Itemnumber

Frequency of responses(1=Strongly disagree;

5=strongly agree)

Valid percentages(1=Strongly disagree;

5=strongly agree)

1 2 3 4 5 0

missing

value

1 2 3 4 5

1.1a 4 5 9 21 7 2 8.7 10.9 19.6 45.7 15.2

1.1c 24 17 6 0 0 1 51.1 36.2 12.8 0 0

1.12 2 2 8 24 11 1 4.3 4.3 17.0 51.1 23.41.2 3 9 11 15 10 0 6.3 18.8 22.9 31.3 20.8

1.3 0 4 7 25 12 0 0 8.3 14.6 52.1 25.0

1.4 9 13 18 4 2 2 19.6 28.3 39.1 8.7 4.3

1.5 0 1 11 30 6 0 0 2.1 22.9 62.5 12.5

1.6 1 11 14 17 5 0 2.1 22.9 29.2 35.4 10.4

1.9 12 11 8 10 7 0 25.0 22.9 16.7 20.8 14.6

1.14 1 6 16 14 10 1 2.1 12.8 34.0 29.8 21.3

1.15 0 6 15 19 8 0 0 12.5 31.3 39.6 16.7

1.16 5 17 16 7 2 1 10.6 36.2 34.0 14.9 4.3

1.17 0 2 16 23 7 0 0 4.2 33.3 47.9 14.61.18 1 9 11 24 3 0 2.1 18.8 22.9 50.0 6.3

1.20 1 2 12 21 12 0 2.1 4.2 25.0 43.8 25.0



24/26

2.1 0 3 19 18 6 2 0 6.5 41.3 39.1 13.0

2.2 1 3 12 26 5 1 2.1 6.4 25.5 55.3 10.6

2.3 1 1 2 28 15 1 2.1 2.1 4.3 59.6 31.9

2.6 3 21 14 6 1 3 6.7 46.7 31.1 13.3 2.22.9 0 7 15 18 7 1 0 14.9 31.9 38.3 14.9

2.11 10 18 11 7 0 2 21.7 39.1 23.9 15.2 0

2.13 1 5 8 25 6 3 2.2 11.1 17.8 55.6 13.3

2.14 0 1 19 23 4 1 0 2.1 40.4 48.9 8.5

2.15 9 27 7 3 0 2 19.6 58.7 15.2 6.5 0

2.16 5 20 8 12 2 1 10.6 42.6 17.0 25.5 4.3

2.19 6 16 14 9 1 2 13.0 34.8 30.4 19.6 2.2

2.20 3 23 17 1 1 3 6.7 51.1 37.8 2.2 2.2

References

Batstone, R., 1994a. Grammar. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Batstone, R., 1994b. Product and process: grammar in the second language classroom. In: Bygate, M.,

Tonkyn, A., Williams, E. (Eds.). Grammar and the Language Teacher. Prentice Hall, Hemel Hempstead.

pp. 224236.

Block, D., 1998. Tale of a language learner. Language Teaching Research 2.2., 148176.

Blue, G.M., 1993. Noting succeeds like linguistic competence: the role of language in academic success. In:

Blue, G.M. (Ed.), Language Learning and Success: Studying through English. Review of English Lan-guage Teaching 3/1. MET/British Council.

Borg, S., 1998. Teachers pedagogical systems and grammar teaching: a qualitative study. TESOL Quar-

terly 32 (1).

Borg, S., 1999a. The use of grammatical terminology in the second language classroom: a qualitative

study of teachers practices and cognitions. Applied Linguistics 20 (1), 95126.

Borg, S., 1999b. Teachers theories in grammar teaching. ELT Journal 53 (3), 157167.

Borg, S., 1999c. Studying teacher cognition in second language grammar teaching. System 27 (1), 1931.

Brindley, G., 1984. Needs Analysis and Objective Setting in the Adult Migrant Education Program. NSW

Adult Migrant Education Service, Sydney.

Celce-Murcia, M., Do rnyei, Z., Thurrell, S., 1997. Direct approaches in L2 instruction: a turning point in

communicative language teaching? TESOL Quarterly 31 (1), 141152.

Celce-Murcia, M., Hilles, S., 1988. Techniques and Resources in Teaching Grammar. Oxford University

Press, Oxford.

Cohen, L., Manion, L.C., 1994. Research Methods in Education. Routledge, London.

Davies, L., 1997. Interviews and the study of management. In: Crossley, Vulliamy (Eds.), Qualitative

Educational Research in Developing Countries. Garland, London.

Doughty, C., Varela, J., 1998. Communicative focus on form. In: Doughty, C., Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus

on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.

114138.

Doughty, C., Williams, J. (Eds.), 1998a. Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Doughty, C., Williams, J., 1998b. Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In: Doughty, C., Williams, J.

(Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, pp. 197262.

Ellis, R., 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press, Oxford.



25/26

Ellis, R., 1997. SLA Research and Language Teaching. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Ellis, R., 1998. Teaching and research: options in grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly 32 (1), 3960.

Ellis, R., 2001. Introduction: Investigating Form-Focused Instruction. Language Learning. Supplement 1:

Form-Focused Instruction and Second Language Learning 51, 146.Etherington, S., 1997. Teachers Attitudes to the Teaching of Grammar within the Context of English for

Academic Purposes. Unpublished Masters Dissertation, University of Manchester.

Fortune, A., 1992. Self-study grammar practice: learners views and preferences. English Language

Teaching Journal 46 (2), 160171.

Fotos, S., 1994. Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar

consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly 28, 323351.

Grundy, P., 1993. Student and Supervisor Perceptions of the role of English in Academic Success. In:

Blue, G.M. (Ed.), Language Learning and Success: Studying through English. Review of English Lan-

guage Teaching 3/1. MET/British Council.

Hall, N., Shepheard, J., 1991. The Anti-Grammar Grammar Book. Longman, London.

Imssalem, N., 1997. Communicative Pedagogic Grammar for Learning Another Language. Unpublished

PhD Thesis, University of Manchester.Johnson, K., 1992. The relationship between teachers beliefs and practices during literacy instruction for

non-native speakers of English. Journal of Reading Behaviour 24 (1), 83108.

Jordan, R., 1997. English for Academic Purposes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Karavas-Doukas, E., 1996. Using attitude scales to investigate teachers attitudes to the communicative

approach. ELT Journal 50 (3), 187198.

Krashen, S., Terrell, T., 1983. The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Perga-

mon, Oxford.

Kumaravadivelu, B., 1991. Language learning tasks: teacher intention and learner interpretation. ELT

Journal 45 (2), 98107.

Kumaravadivelu, B., 1994. The post-method condition: emerging strategies for second/foreign language

teaching. TESOL Quarterly 28 (1), 2748.

Leki, I., Carson, J., 1994. Student perceptions of EAP writing instruction and writing needs across thedisciplines. TESOL Quarterly 28 (1).

Leki, I., 1995. Good writing: I know it when I see it. In: Belcher, D., Braine, G. (Eds.), Academic Writing

in a Second Language. Ablex Publishing, Norwood, NJ.

Long, M.H., 1991. Focus on form: a design feature in language teaching methodology. In: de Bot, K.,

Ginsberg, R., Kramsch, C. (Eds.), Foreign Language Research in Cross-Cultural Perspective. John

Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 3952.

Long, M.H., Robinson, P., 1998. Focus on form: theory, research and practice. In: Doughty, C., Wil-

liams, J. (Eds.). pp. 1541.

Macrory, G., 2000. Learning to Teach Grammar in the MFL classroom and some implications for Initial

Teacher Education. Research In Education 64, 111.

Murphy, R., 1985. English Grammar in Use. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Pajares, F. (1992) Teachers beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Review of

Educational Research62(3), 307332.

Robinson, P.C., 1991. ESP Today: A Practitioners Guide. Prentice Hall, Hemel Hempstead.

Schmidt, R., 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 10, 209

231.

Schultz, 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 (3), 343364.

Schultz, R., 2001. Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar

instruction and corrective feedback: USAColombia. The Modern Lang Journal 85 (ii), 244258.

Soars, J., Soars, L., 1986. Headway Intermediate. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Spratt, M., 1999. How good are we at knowing what learners like? System 27, 141155.

Stern, H.H., 1990. Analysis and experience as variables in second language pedagogy. In: Harley, B.,Allen, P., Cummins, J., Swain, M. (Eds.), The Development of Second Language Proficiency. Cam-

bridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 93109.



26/26

Stern, H.H., 1992. Issues and Options in English Language Teaching. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Swain, M., 1998. Focus on form through conscious reflection. In: Doughty, C., Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on

Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 6481.

Thornbury, S., 1997. Grammar, power and bottled water. IATEFL Newsletter 140.Thornbury, S., 1998. Comments on Marianne Celce-Murcia, Zolta n Do rnyei and Sarah Thurrells

Direct approaches in L2 instruction: a turning point in communicative language teaching? A reader

reacts. . .. TESOL Quarterly 32 (1), 109119.

Tonkyn, A., Locke, C., Robinson, P., Furneaux, C., 1993. The EAP teacher: prophet of doom or eternal

optimist? EAP teachers predictions of students success. In: Blue, G.M. (Ed.), Language Learning and

Success: Studying through English. Review of English Language Teaching 3/1. MET/British Council.


grammar exclicit or implicit

Documents