To  be  or  not  to  be  explicit?  Beliefs  and  Attitudes  of  General  English  

Teachers  Regarding  the  Instruction  

of  Grammar  in  the  L2  Classroom    

 

T.  F.  Debney        

MA  Teaching  English  to  Speakers  of  Other  Languages    

   

           

University  of  Westminster            

2013  

 

   

To  be  or  not  to  be  explicit?  Beliefs  and  Attitudes  of  General  English  

Teachers  Regarding  the  Instruction  

of  Grammar  in  the  L2  Classroom    

 

Author:  T.  F.  Debney        

 Submitted  in  partial  fulfilment  of  the  requirements  for  the  degree  of  MA  in  Teaching  English  to  Speakers  of  Other  Languages    

                                                       

           

Supervisor:    Richard  Paterson            

August  2013    

 

  i  

Acknowledgements

 

Completing this Master’s Dissertation has been possible only with the help and consideration of a few people that I would now personally like to thank: Firstly, my wife, Mayuna, who has been my emotional rock these past four years, providing me with the focus and determination to see this academic journey through to the very end. To Richard Paterson, my dissertation supervisor, who, in his own unique way, helped keep me on my bicycle when I looked like falling off more than once. And to a great mentor, Michelle Laufer, whose indefatigable optimism has continued to prove me wrong time and again. Thank you.

Dedicated to my inspirational mother and her fine grandchildren, Cocona, Cougar, Bear, and Jet.

I love you all dearly.  

  ii  

Abstract    

 

One  issue  that  continually  provokes  dissension  within  the  study  of  SLA,  and  therefore  L2  

pedagogy,  concerns  whether  the  instruction  of  grammar  should  be  explicit  or  implicit.  In  

an  attempt  to  discover  how  these  theoretical  issues  affect  L2  teachers,  the  past  decade  

has  seen  two  studies  undertaken  that  have  tried  to  address  the  argument.  The  first  was  

carried  out  in  the  UK  by  Burgess  and  Etherington  (2002),  and  focused  on  the  beliefs  and  

attitudes  toward  the  instruction  of  grammar  from  the  perspective  of  EAP  teachers  

working  in  British  universities;  this  study  was  then  replicated  in  New  Zealand  by  Barnard  

and  Scampton  (2008)  involving  EAP  teachers  also  working  in  universities.  Both  studies  

found  the  respective  EAP  teachers  to  exhibit  remarkably  similar  attitudes.  In  order  to  

examine  whether  the  same  kinds  of  beliefs  and  attitudes  prevail  across  different  teaching  

contexts,  the  present  study  further  replicates  the  previous  two  by  targeting  General  

English  teachers  working  in  private  language  schools  as  the  L2  variable.  Employing  a  

survey  questionnaire  as  the  means  of  research  instrument,  the  present  study  collected  

data  from  respondents  via  the  online  networking  site  LinkedIn.  The  resultant  findings  

suggest  that  although  there  are  differences  in  the  beliefs  and  attitudes  between  the  

General  English  and  EAP  teachers,  these  are  mainly  superficial  and  that,  overall,  both  sets  

of  teachers  maintain  mutually  compatible  beliefs  regarding  the  explicit  instruction  of  

grammar.  Such  consistent  views  are  attributed  mainly  to  the  uniformity  in  the  

professional  characteristics  of  both  sets  of  teachers,  particularly  in  regard  to  years  of  

teaching  experience  and  the  level  of  qualification:  almost  half  of  the  respondents  in  the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       iii  

present  study  hold  a  Master’s  degree.  There  were,  however,  major  limitations  exposed  in  

the  present  and  previous  two  studies;  namely,  that  without  triangulating  the  collected  

data,  generalizing  the  findings  to  the  wider  populations  of  L2  teachers  is  neither  possible  

nor  academically  permissible.  Therefore,  recommendations  are  put  forward  that  any  

future  research  into  this  particular  area  of  study  should  incorporate  a  methodology  that  

allows  for  the  triangulation  of  the  data  collected.    

 

Key:  

ALG  =  Applied  Linguists  Group  

CLT  =  Communicative  Language  Teaching  

EAP  =  English  for  Academic  Purposes  

EFL  =  English  as  a  Foreign  Language  

ELT  =  English  Language  Teaching  

FFI  =  Form-­‐Focused  Instruction    

L2  =  Second/foreign  language  

SLA  =  Second  Language  Acquisition    

 

    iv  

Table  of  contents    

Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………………………………………i  

Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………ii  -­‐  iii  

Table  of  contents…………………………………………………………………………………………………………iv  -­‐  v  

List  of  Tables  and  charts…………………………………………………………………………………………………..vi  

 Chapter  1  -­‐  Introduction  

 1.  Background  to  present  study………………………………………………………………………………………..1  1.2  Gap  in  research…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..3  1.3  Outline  structure  of  dissertation…………………………………………………………………………………4  

   

Chapter  2  -­‐  Literature  review    

2.  Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...  7  2.1  Origins  of  focus  on  form…………………………………………………………………………………………….  8  2.2  Issues  with  focus  on  form  ……………………………………………………………………………………….    10  2.3  Key  studies  in  beliefs  and  practices………………………………………………………………………….  13  2.4  Summary    ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..  18  

   

Chapter  3  -­‐  Research  question    

3.  Background  to  research  question………………………………………………………………………………  20  3.1  Case  study  1  ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………  21  3.2  Case  study  2……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..22  3.3  Rationale  for  research  question……………………………………………………………………………….  25  3.4  Subjects……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………  25  3.5  Gap  in  research…………………………………………………………………………………………………………26  3.6  Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..27  

   

Chapter  4  -­‐  Methodology    

4.  Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..28  4.1  Research  strategy……………………………………………………………………………………………………..29  4.2  Data  collection………………………………………………………………………………………………………….29                                            4.2.1  Questionnaire  format…………………………………………………………………………  30

    v  

 4.2.2  Sampling  procedure…………………………………………………………………………….32  4.2.3  Administration  of  questionnaire/subjects……………………………………………33  

4.3  Framework  for  analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………….33  4.4  Limitations  of  survey………………………………………………………………………………………………..34  4.5  Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….35  

   

Chapter  5  -­‐  Analysis  and  findings    

5.  Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………37  5.1  Background  information  of  survey  respondents……………………………………………………..38  5.2  Description,  analysis,  and  synthesis  of  S3  results…………………………………………………….41  

5.2.1  Explicit  grammar  teaching………………………………………………………………….43  5.2.2  Instruction  versus  exposure……………………………………………………………….46  5.2.3  Declarative  versus  procedural  knowledge………………………………………….48  5.2.4  The  use  of  grammatical  terminology………………………………………………….49  5.2.5  Error  correction………………………………………………………………………………….50  

5.3  Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………52      

Chapter  6  -­‐  Conclusions  and  recommendations    

6.  Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….54  6.1  Research  objectives………………………………………………………………………………………………….55  6.2  Summary  of  literature  review…………………………………………………………………………………..56  6.3  Summary  of  findings…………………………………………………………………………………………………56  6.4  Limitations  and  recommendations  of  present  study…………………………………………………63  

   

Chapter  7  -­‐  Conclusion    

7.  Comprehensive  overview  of  present  study………………………………………………………………..65  7.1  Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….66  

 

Bibliography  

Appendices  

 

    vi  

List  of  Tables  and  charts    

Table  1……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………10  

Table  2……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………13  

Table  3……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………16  

Table  4……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………39  

Table  5……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………41  

Table  6……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………41  

Table  7……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………43  

Table  8……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………43  

Table  9……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………44  

Table  10………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….46  

Table  11………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….47  

Table  12………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….48  

Table  13………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….49  

Table  14………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….50  

   

Chart  1………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….39  

Chart  2………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….39  

Chart  3………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….40  

Chart  4………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….40  

 

 

   

1  

Chapter  1  

Introduction    

1.  Background  to  present  study  

There  are  fewer  ‘hot  potatoes’  to  be  found  in  the  fields  of  second  language  acquisition  

(SLA)  and  L2  pedagogy  than  those  pertaining  to  the  instruction  of  grammar  and  whether  

it  ought  to  be  taught  explicitly,  implicitly,  or  as  a  combination  of  both.  Issues  such  as  

these  tend  to  polarise  opinions,  such  that:  “It  is  unlikely  that  this  controversy  will  be  

resolved  through  research  in  the  near  future”  (Ellis,  2006:  97).  Being  this  as  it  may,  the  

past  four  decades  have  seen  numerous  studies  provide  sufficient  data  to  persuade  

doubters  and  sceptics  that  x,  y,  or  z  should  be  the  preferred  methodological  approach  to  

instruction.  For  example,  Krashen  and  Seliger  (1975)  put  forward  a  set  of  universal  value  

features  (e.g.,  +/-­‐  DISCRETE  POINT;  +/-­‐  DEDUCTIVE;  and  +/-­‐  EXPLICIT  etc.)  that  they  

believed  were  instrumental  in  providing  formal  instruction  to  the  adult  L2  learner.  They  

made  this  point  in  regard  to  pre-­‐pubic  children,  whose  seemingly  effortless  acquisition  of  

an  L2  outside  the  confines  of  formal  education  led  them  to  posit:  “The  adult  learner  is  in  

general  inefficient  in  correctly  inducing  rules  from  informal  environments”  (p.176).  In  

effect,  what  Krashen  and  Seliger  were  advocating  was  the  prototypical  PPP  lesson,  an  

approach  Harmer  (2007)  and  other  researchers  disparage  for  being  inherently  flawed  due  

to  its  teacher-­‐centric  focus;  despite  such  criticism,  PPP  can  still  be  found  being  taught  on  

   

2  

many  L2  syllabi,  albeit  in  different  guises  (Ellis,  2008).  However,  SLA  research  in  the  21st  

century  has  now  reached  a  consensus  that  states  language  learning  is  not  a  linear  process  

evolving  on  a  continuum  of  simple-­‐to-­‐complex  forms,  but  as  something  far  more  organic,  

thus:    

Learners  seem  to  pass  through  clear  developmental  stages  in  their  acquisition  of  grammatical  forms.  Their  progress  towards  native-­‐like  command  of  structures  is  not  unidirectional  or  immediate,  as  much  traditional  grammar-­‐based  teaching  has  sought  to  achieve,  but  is  characterized  by  stages  of  non-­‐target  language  use  and  backsliding.  (Klapper  and  Rees,  2003:  288)      

                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

As  a  result,  much  L2  learning  and  teaching  today,  particularly  in  the  West,  has  adopted  an  

approach  that  was  initially  championed  by  Long  (1991)  as  an  alternative  to  the  outmoded  

PPP  approach:  this  has  come  to  be  known  as  incidental  focus  on  form.  For  the  L2  teacher  

wishing  to  incorporate  aspects  of  focus  on  form  in  the  classroom,  substantive  knowledge  

of  SLA  theories  is  therefore  a  principal  requirement.  Furthermore,  Borg  (1999;  2003)  

provides  ample  evidence  to  suggest  knowledge  of  pedagogical  and  theoretical  issues  

notwithstanding,  L2  teachers  are  driven  by  more  fundamental  motives,  many  of  which  lie  

beyond  the  parameters  of  mainstream  teacher-­‐training  methods.  Gabillon  (2012)  refers  

to  such  psychological  influences  as  core  beliefs,  intimating  they  are  responsible  for  what  

Borg  and  Phipps  (2009)  have  labeled  cognitive  tensions.  That  is,  many  L2  teachers  

commonly  profess  to  holding  certain  beliefs  and  attitudes  to  grammar  instruction  in  

relation  to  certain  teaching  contexts,  yet  when  these  teachers  are  presented  with  

empirical  evidence  (audio  and  video  recordings)  from  lessons  they  have  taught,  it  is  not  

uncommon  for  them  to  feel  nonplussed  by  their  manifestly  contradictory  classroom  

behavior.      

   

3  

1.2  Gap  in  research  

In  an  effort  to  account  for  such  contradictions  in  stated  beliefs  and  their  subsequent  

classroom  practices,  the  past  decade  has  seen  two  studies  undertaken  to  try  to  account  

for  this  L2  phenomenon.  Firstly,  in  relation  to  the  instruction  of  grammar,  Burgess  and  

Etherington  (2002)  examined  the  beliefs  and  attitudes  of  48  EAP  teachers  working  

throughout  UK  universities;  this  study  was  then  replicated  in  New  Zealand  by  Barnard  and  

Scampton  (2008),  similarly  using  EAP  teachers  (32)  working  throughout  that  country’s  

universities.  What  these  two  studies  revealed  was  that  both  sets  of  EAP  teachers  tended  

to  favour  a  focus  on  form  approach  to  the  instruction  and  correction  of  grammar.  

Moreover,  these  studies  highlighted,  to  some  extent,  how  the  cultural  backgrounds  of  

their  learners  directly  influenced  the  teacher’s  classroom  decision  making,  e.g.,  the  

degree  of  explicitness  to  which  the  teachers  were  expected  to  provide.  Consequently,  as  

these  two  studies  focused  only  on  EAP  teachers,  a  natural  gap  in  research  presented  

itself,  namely:  could  these  beliefs  and  attitudes  toward  the  instruction  of  grammar  be  

found  to  be  consistent  within  and  across  different  groups  of  L2  teachers,  or  were  they  

uniform  among  EAP  teachers  working  in  universities  only?  Therefore,  by  posing  the  same  

set  of  research  questions  from  the  original  studies  to  a  different  target  group,  i.e.,  

General  English  teachers  working  in  private  language  schools,  the  aim  of  the  present  

study  thus  seeks  to  address  the  gap  in  research.    

 

 

 

   

4  

1.3  Outline  structure  of  dissertation  

Chapter  1  –  Introduction  

This  chapter  presents  a  background  to  the  whole  dissertation  project  by  identifying  a  gap  

in  the  research  area  for  this  particular  topic,  i.e.,  the  beliefs  and  attitudes  of  two  different  

sets  of  L2  teachers  toward  the  explicit  instruction  and  correction  of  grammar  in  the  L2  

classroom.  It  also  provides  a  rationale  for  undertaking  the  present  study,  namely,  to  

establish  whether  these  beliefs  are  exclusive  to  one  particular  set  of  L2  teachers,  or  if  

they  are  consistent  among  other  sets  of  teachers.  

Chapter  2  –  Literature  review  

In  this  chapter,  a  framework  for  understanding  the  tenets  of  Long’s  (1991)  focus  on  form  

is  outlined.  It  thus  provides  the  information  needed  to  evaluate  the  necessary  theoretical  

knowledge  required  of  an  EAP  teacher.  This  chapter  also  examines  some  of  the  literature  

regarding  teacher  cognition,  and  how  such  thinking  affects  day  to  day  classroom  decision-­‐

making.    

Chapter  3  –  Research  question  

This  chapter  provides  the  rationale  for  the  research  of  the  present  study.  It  places  the  

present  study  in  the  context  of  two  previous  studies  which  sought  to  account  for  the  

phenomenon  of  beliefs  and  attitudes  toward  grammar  instruction.  It  also  provides  a  

detailed  explanation  of  how  the  research  objectives  were  formulated  through  identifying  

a  set  of  likely  premises  with  which  to  address  the  gap  in  research.  

 

   

5  

Chapter  4    –  Methodology  

In  this  chapter,  a  rationale  is  offered  to  justify  using  a  survey  questionnaire  as  both  the  

research  instrument  and  as  the  means  for  collecting  the  data.  In  addition,  this  chapter  

provides  an  in-­‐depth  summary  of  the  sampling  method  used,  how  and  to  whom  the  

questionnaire  was  administered,  a  framework  for  analysis,  as  well  as  explaining  what  the  

limitations  and  value  of  the  present  study  are.  

Chapter  5  –  Analysis  of  findings  

This  chapter  presents  the  findings  from  the  present  study  in  a  series  of  charts  and  tables.  

The  findings  are  first  described,  then  analysed  by  synthesizing  the  data  with  evidence  

from  the  literature  review  and  the  findings  from  the  original  two  studies;  incorporating  

both  quantitative  and  qualitative  methods  provides  the  overall  framework  for  analysis.    

Chapter  6  –  Conclusions  and  recommendations  

In  this  chapter,  the  findings  of  the  present  study  are  summarised  in  much  greater  depth  

and  detail,  thus  providing  a  rationale  for  the  respondents’  answers.  In  light  of  what  was  

found  in  the  present  study,  recommendations  are  made  to  ensure  that  future  research  is  

able  to  circumvent  the  inherent  limitations  that  were  exposed  during  the  undertaking  of  

this  study.  

Chapter  7  –  Conclusion  

This  chapter  draws  the  dissertation  to  a  close  by  explicating  the  findings  of  the  present  

study  in  a  concise  summary.  A  closing  statement  from  the  author  provides  an  objective  

denouement  to  the  research  objectives  as  set  out  in  the  premises,  thus  justifying  the  

   

6  

rationale  for  the  undertaking  of  this  project.    

The  following  chapter  will  now  present  evidence  derived  from  several  books,  articles,  and  

case  studies  that  are  relevant  to  the  research  objectives  relating  to  the  beliefs  and  

attitudes  regarding  the  explicit  instruction  and  correction  of  grammar  in  the  L2  

classroom.      

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

7  

Chapter  2  

Literature  Review  

2.  Introduction  

The  purpose  of  this  chapter  is  to  provide  a  comprehensive  overview  of  the  literature  and  

empirical  studies  that  are  most  pertinent  to  the  aims  of  the  research  question.  To  do  so,  

the  chapter  comprises  two  themes,  the  first  providing  a  theoretical  platform  from  which  

an  understanding  on  the  nature  of  grammar  instruction  can  be  gained,  whilst  the  second  

looks  at  the  findings  taken  from  some  key  empirical  studies  which  examine  how  theory  

gets  interpreted  by  teachers  in  their  classroom  practices.  Both  themes,  then,  are  

intended  to  give  an  impression  of  what  a  highly  qualified  EAP  teacher  should  know  

regarding  the  theoretical  underpinnings  of  L2  education  and  pedagogy,  specifically  

concerning  the  instruction  and  correction  of  grammar.  To  illustrate  these  points,  an  

explication  of  the  tenets  of  focus  on  form,  as  posited  by  Long  (1991),  will  provide  the  

necessary  framework  from  which  subsequent  interpretations  of  grammar  instruction  can  

be  extrapolated  (i.e.,  Norris  and  Ortega,  2000;  Ellis  et  al.,  2002;  Ellis,  2008;  Spada,  2011).  

An  in-­‐depth  study  of  the  aforementioned  themes  will  help  to  outline  the  following  two  

points:      

• The  depth  of  theoretical  and  pedagogical  knowledge  necessary  in  becoming  a  

practising  EAP  teacher.      

   

8  

• How  this  knowledge  is  manifested  on  a  personal  level  by  the  L2  teacher  during  a  

given  lesson.    

 

2.1  Origins  of  focus  on  form  

"It  is  no  exaggeration  to  say  that  language  teaching  methods  do  not  exist  -­‐  at  least,  not  

where  they  would  matter,  if  they  did,  in  the  classroom"  (Long,  1991:  39).  This  bold  claim  

from  Long  (1991)  unequivocally  states  his  position  regarding  the  continued  promulgation  

of  L2  methodologies  in  many  of  the  teacher-­‐training  language  departments  in  higher  

education.  The  problem,  as  he  saw  it  then,  was  that  most  language  researchers  had  

recognised  that  there  was  no  one  'right  way  of  teaching  a  second  language'.  In  other  

words,  methodologies  may  well  exist  as  abstract  teaching  paradigms,  but  as  far  as  putting  

them  into  practice,  teachers  tend  to  follow  their  own  pedagogic  instincts.  Klapper  (2006)  

makes  a  similar  observation:    

 

The  point  is  that  the  success  or  otherwise  of  any  method  is  likely  to  be  determined  to  a  significant  degree  by  the  tutor's  personal  investment  in  it,  which  in  turn  will  be  determined  by  the  match  between  the  specific  features  of  the  method  and  the  tutor's  personality,  values  and  beliefs.  (p.  122).      

 

Moreover,  Larsen-­‐Freeman  (2000)  acknowledges  that  whichever  ‘method’  a  teacher  

appears  to  be  adhering  to,  it  is  inextricably  entwined  in  the  memories  and  intuitions  of  a  

teacher’s  lifetime  of  experiences;  therefore,  such  complex,  personal  narratives  need  to  be  

taken  into  account  when  discussing  the  merits  of  curriculums  that  impose  a  favoured  

methodology.  The  premise,  then,  for  Long’s  postulating  a  focus  on  form  approach  to  

grammar  instruction  can  be  extracted  from  the  following  statement:  

   

9  

Some  points  of  grammar  are  difficult  to  learn,  and  need  to  be  studied  in  isolation  before  students  can  do  interesting  things  with  them.  It  is  no  use  making  meaning  tidy  if  grammar  then  becomes  so  untidy  that  it  cannot  be  learnt  properly.  (Swan,  1985:  78).    

   

Swan  (1985)  was  trying  to  make  a  case  for  building  a  pedagogic  bridge  between  two  

extremes  of  L2  learning:  Grammar  Translation  methods  and  the  strong  form  of  CLT.  Thus  

Long  (1991)  argued  that  for  learners  to  improve  both  fluency  and  accuracy,  their  

attention  needs  to  be  drawn  to  the  grammatical  error  in  such  a  way  as  to  alert  the  learner  

to  the  correct  form,  but  always  framing  it  within  the  context  of  a  communicative  activity.  

Importantly,  when  errors  do  occur,  it  is  vital  that  the  corrective  procedure  is  administered  

such  that:  "The  linguistic  feature  is  brought  to  the  learner's  attention  in  a  way  appropriate  

to  the  student's  age,  proficiency  level  etc.  before  the  class  returns  to  whatever  pedagogic  

task  they  were  working  on  when  the  interruption  occurred"  (Long,  1991:  46).  Ellis  et  al.  

(2002)  call  this  type  of  approach  to  instruction  incidental  focus  on  form.  This  is  in  contrast  

to  what  is  known  as  planned  focus  on  form,  which  is  also  similar  in  approach  to  focus  on  

forms;  that  is,  both  the  former  and  the  latter  make  learning  predetermined  linguistic  

forms  the  learning  objective  of  the  lesson  (i.e.,  the  product),  whereas  Long’s  focus  on  

form  keeps  meaningful  communication  as  the  goal  for  each  lesson  (i.e.,  the  process):  

In  the  case  of  planned  focus-­‐on-­‐form,  the  teacher  elects  to  use  a  task  to  target  a  specific  linguistic  feature  and  this  then  influences  how  the  task  is  performed  in  the  classroom.  In  the  case  of  incidental  focus  on  form,  the  forms  attended  to  are  not  pre-­‐determined  but  arise  naturally  out  of  the  performance  of  the  task.  (Ellis  et  al.,  2002:  421).  

 

Table  1,  below,  provides  a  template  showing  the  pedagogical  characteristics  of  focus  on  

form  and  focus  on  forms  and  their  possible  interpretative  classroom  implications.  

   

10  

 

Implicit  FFI  (focus  on  form) Incidental   Explicit  FFI  (focus  on  forms)  Planned  

attracts  attention  to  target  form  

is  delivered  spontaneously  (e.g.  in  an  otherwise    

communication-­‐oriented  activity  

is  unobtrusive  (minimal  disruption  of  communication    

of  meaning)  

présents  target  forms  in  context  

makes  no  use  of  metalanguage  

encourages  free  use  of  the  target  form  

directs attention to target form

is predetermined and planned (e.g. as the

main focus and goal of a teaching activity

is obtrusive (interruption of communicative

meaning

presents target forms in isolation

uses metalinguistic terminology (e.g. rule

explanation)

involves controlled practice of target form  

 

 

2.2  Issues  with  focus  on  form  

One  such  implication  is  highlighted  by  Fotos  (1998),  and  concerns  the  problem  of  ELT  

within  non  western  cultures.  Focus  on  form  is  associated  with  norms  of  western  

pedagogic  ideals,  namely,  emphasising  the  importance  of  communicating  in  the  L2.  As  a  

result,  focus  on  form  is  a  key  element  of  instruction  in  ESL  classrooms,  but  not  so  in  EFL  

classrooms.  Given  that  most  ELT  takes  place  in  EFL  countries  where  non-­‐native  teachers  

adhere  to  a  mainly  teacher-­‐centric/traditional  style  of  instruction,  when  learners  from  EFL  

countries  come  to  study  in  ESL  countries,  there  is  an  inevitable  clash  of  pedagogic  

expectations  between  the  learner  and  teacher.  Such  disparity  in  pedagogic  ideologies  

could  undoubtedly  lead  the  L2  teacher  into  making  classroom  decisions  that  may  run  

counter  to  the  beliefs  that  were  instilled  during  teacher-­‐training.  Clearly,  then,  there  

seems  to  be  a  link  between  how  much  explicit  input  some  teachers  find  necessary  and  

what  lies  behind  such  decision-­‐making  (Spada,  2011).  

Table  1  Ellis  (2008,  p.  879.)  

   

11  

Further,  in  a  meta-­‐analysis  involving  49  studies  between  1980-­‐1998,  Norris  and  Ortega  

(2000)  sought  to  distinguish  what  constituted  explicit  and  implicit  types  of  FFI,  as  outlned  

in  Table  1,  above.  The  crux  of  their  investigation  lay  in  the  theoretical  assumptions  

concerning  whether  bringing  new  L2  forms  implicitly  to  the  attention  of  the  learner  could  

foster  greater  acquisition,  or  whether  explicit  instruction  could  facilitate  in  speeding  up  

the  mental  processes  that  converts  declarative  knowledge  into  procedural  knowledge.  

Their  findings  revealed  some  interesting  and  surprising  results,  suggesting  that  the  

implication  for  the  L2  teacher  is  knowing  when  and  what  kind  of  learner-­‐error  warrants  

which  type  of  instruction.    

 

On  average,  instruction  that  incorporates  explicit  techniques  leads  to  more  substantial  effects  than  implicit  instruction,  and  this  a  probabilistically  trustworthy  difference.  In  addition,  instruction  that  incorporates  a  focus  on  form  integrated  in  meaning  is  as  effective  as  instruction  that  involves  a  focus  on  forms.  (Norris  and  Ortega,  2000:  500).      

 

Finally,  Batstone  (2011)  tackles  an  issue  of  focus  on  form  that  was  raised  by  Fotos  (1998)  

regarding  the  implications  of  culture.  He  makes  the  point  that  if  a  learner  is  to  benefit  

from  focus  on  form  instruction,  then  there  has  to  be  mutual  empathy  existing  between  

the  learner  and  the  teacher.  In  other  words,  both  parties  should  tacitly  know  when  and  

how  to  give  and  receive  instruction,  otherwise  whichever  negotiation  strategy  is  

employed  by  the  teacher  to  signal  that  an  error  has  been  made,  it  is  unlikely  learning  will  

take  place  unless  the  learner  is  aware  of  such  stratagems.  Consequently,  a  direct  

implication  for  the  L2  teacher  involved  in  meaning/task-­‐based  activities  is  knowing  when  

to  provide  input  and  when  to  refrain.  This  is,  effectively,  what  Schmidt  (1990)  was  

   

12  

highlighting  when  talking  about  consciousness-­‐raising.  That  if  a  learner  is  not  aware  of  a  

particular  linguistic  item,  then  s/he  is  far  less  likely  to  notice  when  that  item  is  being  used  

incorrectly  or  inappropriately;  conversely,  when  certain  linguistic  items  are  made  salient,  

the  learner  is  more  likely  to  notice,  and  thus  primed  for  learning  and  eventual  acquisition.    

 

Moreover,  it  is  advantageous  for  the  learner  if  the  L2  teacher  is  able  to  discern  between  

certain  kinds  of  instruction.  For  example,  within  the  focus  on  form  paradigm,  when  a  

breakdown  in  communication  occurs  during  an  activity,  the  teacher  generally  utilises  

either  a  reactive  or  preemptive  negotiation  strategy  in  order  to  repair  the  

miscommunication.  In  addition,  both  negotiation  options  can  provide  either  implicit  or  

explicit  instruction,  and  depending  upon  the  teacher’s  L2  knowledge,  these  options  can  

be  administered  as  either  input-­‐providing  or  output-­‐prompting.  Ellis  (2008)  provides  a  

rationale  for  why  this  distinction  is  both  theoretically  and  pedagogically  sound:  "The  

distinction  between  input-­‐providing  strategies  and  output-­‐prompting  strategies  is  of  

theoretical  importance  because  it  is  related  to  the  nature  of  the  data  that  learners  obtain,  

i.e.,  whether  the  data  afford  both  POSITIVE  and  NEGATIVE  EVIDENCE  or  just  negative  

evidence"  (p.  227).  Thus  knowing  when  and  how  to  intervene  is  a  vital  aspect  of  L2  

pedagogy.  For  example,  Widdowson  (1978)  advocates  that  having  an  extensive  

understanding  of  the  complex  issues  inherent  with  SLA  enhance  the  chances  of  learner  

acquisition,  e.g.,  being  aware  that  learner-­‐errors  could  actually  be  signposts  of  learner  

success.  Widdowson  asserts  that  some  errors  are  indicative  that  the  learner  is  adopting  a  

universal  L1  strategy  that  allows  a  speaker  to  simplify  his  grammar  in  order  to  expedite  

his  message;  therefore,  if  a  learner  commits  an  error  during  a  communicative  task,  it  may  

   

13  

not  solely  be  down  to  a  lack  of  L2  competence.  Table  2,  below,  shows  the  possible  focus  

on  form  moves  the  teacher  is  likely  to  use  for  instruction.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.3  Key  studies  in  beliefs  and  practices  

The  following  paragraphs  will  now  examine  some  key  studies  that  explore  the  cognitive  

relationship  between  beliefs  and  attitudes  and  their  subsequent  influence  on  teaching  

practices.  Borg  (2003)  undertook  extensive  research  of  64  studies  (ranging  from  1976-­‐

2002)  that  looked  at  the  underlying  factors  behind  teachers’  decision-­‐making  processes  

during  an  L2  lesson.  The  umbrella  term  teacher  cognition  was  the  overarching  theme  of  

the  study,  which  Borg  summarises  as  the:  'Unobservable  cognitive  dimension  of  teaching  

T: M has an alibi(3.0)T: another name for girlfriend?(laughter)(4.5)T: an alibi is a reason you have for not being atthe bank robbery (.) okay (.) not being at thebank robbery

Example 8: Teacher-initiated focus-on-form (using an advisory statement)

T: okay, now remember this is your plan, so ‘I’m going to, I’mgoing to..’

6. Summary

Table 2 provides a summary of the di!erent options for accomplishing focus-on-form. These options are not ‘either-ors’. That is, any single communicative lesson

Table 2Principal focus-on-form options

Options Description

A. Reactive focus-on-form The teacher or another student responds to an error that a studentmakes in the context of a communicative activity.

1. Negotiation The response to the error is triggered by a failure to understand whata. Conversational the student meant. It involves ‘negotiation of meaning’.

b. Didactic The response occurs even though no breakdown in communication hastaken place; it constitutes a ‘time-out’ from communicating. It involves‘negotiation of form’.

2. Feedback The teacher or another student responds to a student’s error withouta. Implicit feedback directly indicating an error has been made, e.g. by means of a recast.

b. Explicit feedback The teacher or another student responds to a student’s error by directlyindicating that an error has been made, e.g. by formally correctingthe error or by using metalanguage to draw attention to it.

B. Pre-emptive focus-on-form The teacher or a student makes a linguistic form the topic of thediscourse even though no error has been committed.

1. Student initiated A student asks a question about a linguistic form.

2. Teacher-initiated The teacher gives advice about a linguistic form he/she thinks mightbe problematic or asks the students a question about the form.

R. Ellis et al. / System 30 (2002) 419–432 429

Table  2  Ellis  et  al.  (2002,  p.  429.)  

   

14  

-­‐  what  teachers  know,  believe,  and  think"  (p.81).  The  following  four  points  will  serve  to  

outline  the  underlying  causes  which  lead  to  a  dichotomy  between  actual  classroom  

practices  and  perceived  beliefs  about  such  practices.    

  •   what  do  teachers  have  cognitions  about?  

  •   how  do  these  cognitions  develop?  

  •   how  do  they  interact  with  teacher  learning?  

  •   how  do  they  interact  with  classroom  practice?  (ibid:  81)  

 

As  can  be  expected  from  such  a  large  and  diverse  study,  the  findings  were  many,  

complex,  and  often  overlapping;  however,  by  exploring  some  pedagogic  and  cognitive  

notions,  they  can  be  summarised  as  follows:  teachers  may  make  decisions  about  what  

should  be  taught,  when  and  why,  based  on  their  personal  view  of  instructional  concerns  

or  considerations;  how  they  feel  about  their  own  pedagogical  knowledge;  they  may  have  

strong  intuitions  about  particular  educational  maxims  or  principles;  there  could  also  be  

concerns  about  the  levels  of  context  their  learners  are  being  exposed  to;  their  decisions  

may  also  be  affected  by  personal  practical  knowledge,  beliefs,  and  personal  convictions.  In  

sum,  the  total  mental  activity  of  an  L2  teacher  can  be  said  to  account  for  the  

contradictions  between  beliefs  and  practices.  Interestingly,  Borg  sees  such  

incompatibilities  as  being  complementary;  that  all  classroom  practice  is  a  manifestation  

of  myriad  competing  cognitions,  none  more  so  than  perhaps:  "Beliefs  established  early  on  

in  life  that  are  resistant  to  change  even  in  the  face  of  contradictory  evidence"  (ibid:  86).  

 

 There  is  much  evidence  to  support  the  findings  of  Borg’s  (2003)  study.  For  instance,  if  

time  is  an  issue,  though  teachers  may  have  very  clear  views  regarding  the  efficacy  of  

   

15  

using  elicitation  techniques  to  underpin  the  cognitive  processes  necessary  for  acquisition,  

it  was  found  that  using  direct  corrections  was  far  more  an  efficient  way  for  learners  to  

recognise  that  an  error  had  been  committed  (Ng  and  Farrell,  2003).  Further,  in  light  of  

what  has  been  said  about  beliefs  being  resistant,  Borg  and  Phipps  (2009)  report  on  a  

longitudinal  study  involving  three  experienced  EFL  teachers  working  in  a  private  language  

school  in  Turkey.  Ostensibly  focused  on  the  phenomenon  of  why  it  appeared  common  

among  L2  teachers  to  engage  in  classroom  practices  contrary  to  their  professed  beliefs,  

Borg  and  Phipps  introduced  the  term  tensions:  essentially,  a  form  of  cognitive  dissonance  

arising  when  teachers  experience  conflict  between  their  core  and  peripheral  beliefs.  

According  to  Gabillon  (2012),  L2  teachers’  core  beliefs  represent  deeply  held  convictions  

about  fundamental  aspects  of  the  society  in  which  they  grew  up  and  received  their  formal  

education.  In  contrast,  L2  teachers’  peripheral  beliefs  are  those  which  have  been  intuited  

experientially  through  interacting  with  the  adult  world;  thus,  core  beliefs  are  highly  

resistant  to  change  because  they  are  central  to  the  teacher’s  personal  identity,  whilst  

peripheral  beliefs  are  subordinate  to  core  beliefs,  meaning  they  are  more  amenable  to  

change:  

 These  core  beliefs  often  precede  the  L2  teacher’s  experience  in  his/her  profession.  At  times,  the  peripheral  beliefs  and  the  core  beliefs  the  L2  teacher  possesses  on  a  topic  might  bear  some  inconsistent  elements  that  are  unclear  even  for  the  teacher  herself/himself.  (Gabillon,  2012:  198).  

   

 

 

 

 

   

16  

 

Aspect   Stated  belief   Observed  

practice  

Explanation  given  

Presenting  grammar  

 

 

     Controlled  grammar  practice            Group-­‐work  for  oral  practice  

Grammar  should  be  presented  in  context  Learners  learn  better  if  they  discover  the  rules    Sentence-­‐level  practice  is  not  beneficial  Mechanical  practice  is  not  beneficial    Group-­‐work  is  beneficial  for  oral  practice  

Expository  grammar  work  Sentence-­‐level,  rule-­‐based  presentation      Sentence-­‐level  gap-­‐fill  Mechanical  practice        Teacher-­‐centred/  lockstep  oral  practice    

Student  expectations  –  Assessment    Students’  level/responsiveness/motivation          Student  expectations    Classroom  management          Need  to  monitor  errors  Classroom  management  Student  responsiveness  

 

Hence,  when  confronted  with  the  transcripts  from  the  recorded  lessons,  the  three  

teachers  in  Borg  and  Phipps’  study  all  exhibited  tensions  in  their  reported  beliefs  and  

classroom  practices,  leading  Borg  and  Phipps  to  conclude:  “The  relationships  between  

beliefs  and  practices  and  between  core  and  peripheral  beliefs  we  have  posited  are  

relevant  to,  and  provide  a  framework  for,  continuing  language  teaching  research”  (Borg  

and  Phipps,  2009:  388).  Table  3,  above,  provides  a  summary  of  their  findings.    

In  a  similar,  but  earlier  study,  Basturkmen  et  al.  (2004)  carried  out  an  examination  of  

teachers'  stated  beliefs  about  explicit  grammar  instruction.  The  study  was  undertaken  in  

New  Zealand,  and  was  conducted  using  three  participants  working  at  a  private  English  

Table  3  Borg  and  Phipps  (2009:  387)  

   

17  

language  school.  Not  surprisingly,  given  that  they  were  using  typical  CLT  activities,  all  

teachers  believed  their  L2  objective  was  facilitating  learners  in  sustaining  meaningful  

communicative  interaction;  hence,  unless  there  was  a  clear  breakdown  in  

communication,  i.e.,  message,  not  code,  the  teacher  would  not  instigate  focus  on  form  

interventions  [code  being  a  focus  on  grammatical  inaccuracies  (including  vocabulary  and  

pronunciation),  whilst  message  is  a  focus  on  a  problem  with  understanding  meaning].  

However,  as  with  the  other  studies  discussed  so  far,  when  Basturkmen  interviewed  the  

three  teachers  during  a  stimulated  recall  interview,  she  found  that:  “A  teacher  may  make  

a  number  of  statements  that  it  is  best  to  interfere  with  the  flow  of  a  communicative  

activity  only  when  there  is  a  problem  of  understanding”  (p.256).  Moreover,  the  

recordings  and  full  transcripts  of  the  lessons  presented  empirical  evidence  that  each  of  

the  teachers  clearly  initiated  corrective  feedback  on  a  pronunciation  error  (code)  when  it  

transpired  there  had  been  no  miscommunication  in  meaning  (message).  Clearly,  then,  a  

disjunct  between  stated  beliefs  and  their  classroom  realisations  is  evident.  Below  is  a  

table  taken  from  Basturkmen  et  al.  (2004)  showing  a  comparison  of  stated  beliefs  

regarding  L2  practice  (p.256).    

 

   

   

18  

Finally,  two  studies  that  are  integral  to  this  dissertation  reveal  conclusively  that  highly  

qualified  L2  teachers,  e.g.,  those  teaching  EAP  in  universities,  are  susceptible  to  the  

incongruences  of  perceived  beliefs  and  their  classroom  manifestations.  Burgess  and  

Etherington  (2002)  and  Barnard  and  Scampton  (2008)  conducted  surveys  on  48  and  32  

EAP  teachers  working  in  British  and  New  Zealand  universities,  respectively.  Differing  

slightly  in  methodological  research  means,  in  that  Barnard  and  Scampton  replicated  the  

Burgess  and  Etherington  questionnaire  but  were  also  able  to  conduct  post-­‐survey  

qualitative  interviews,  both  studies,  nonetheless,  reported  remarkably  similar  findings.  

For  example,  both  sets  of  teachers  stated  that  because  many  of  their  learners  came  from  

EFL  countries,  they  felt  under  pressure  to  conform  to  the  pedagogical  norms  of  their  

learners’  education  system.  In  other  words,  the  teachers  abandoned  the  tenets  of  focus  

on  form/CLT  and  adopted  a  more  teacher-­‐centric  role,  i.e.,  one  in  which  explicit  and  

systematic  grammar  instruction  became  the  norm.  Suffice  to  say,  the  findings  of  these  

last  two  studies  concord  with  the  data  found  in  the  other  studies  examined  throughout  

this  chapter.  A  more  detailed  account  of  these  last  two  studies  will  be  given  in  chapters  3  

and  5.  

 

2.4  Summary  

This  chapter  has  looked  in  detail  at  two  specific  areas  related  to  ELT:  1.  Focus  on  form  and  

its  perceived  significance  in  being  seen  as  a  competent  L2  teacher;  2.  How  inherent  

beliefs  and  attitudes  toward  grammar  instruction  and  correcting  influence  and  affect  the  

decision-­‐making  processes  of  the  L2  teacher  during  a  lesson.  In  relation  to  point  1.,  the  

literature  looked  at  the  origins  of  focus  on  form  as  an  alternative  approach  to  grammar  

instruction  and  correction  that  was  introduced  by  Long  (1991).  It  was  further  expounded  

   

19  

on  by  Ellis  et  al.  (2002),  and  then  subjected  to  critical  evaluation  by  Fotos  (1998)  and  

Batstone  (2011).  With  regard  to  point  2.,  the  review  looked  at  some  specific  case  studies  

in  which  researchers  presented  evidence  supporting  Borg’s  (2003)  assertions  that  L2  

teachers’  cognitions  are  subject  to  a  whole  range  of  external  influences  that  shape  the  

decisions  made  in  the  classroom.  And  finally,  the  chapter  concluded  with  a  brief  look  at  

the  two  studies  which  inspired  the  writing  of  this  dissertation.  In  the  following  chapter,  

there  will  be  a  discussion  outlining  the  reasons  for  choosing  the  research  question  for  the  

present  study.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                 

                                   

   

20  

Chapter  3  

Research  question  3.  Background  to  research  question:  

Lightbrown  and  Spada  (1990)  wrote  an  article  reviewing  the  benefits  and  efficacy  of  focus  

on  form  with  regard  to  learnability  and  acquisition  as  a  means  of  explicit  grammar  

instruction  in  ESL.  Interestingly,  in  the  introduction  to  their  article,  they  mentioned  that  

over  the  course  of  the  previous  two  decades,  attitudes  toward  L2  instruction  and  

methodology  had  undergone  a  paradigm  shift,  i.e.,  that  the  traditional  methods  involving  

the  explicit  instruction  of  discrete  grammatical  items,  generally  taught  out  of  context,  had  

been  jettisoned  in  favour  of  more  psychological  approaches  borne  of  the  new  theories  

emerging  out  of  the  study  of  linguistics  (Chomsky,  1965).  Consequently,  the  1970s  saw  a  

new  approach  to  L2  learning  and  teaching  being  developed,  one  that  was  soon  heralded  

as  a  panacea  to  the  traditional,  behaviourist  methods  of  L2  instruction;  thus,  the  

approach  of  communicative  language  teaching  (CLT)  was  introduced  into  the  world  of  L2  

pedagogy  (Allwight,  1979;  Brumfit,  1979).    

 

Almost  a  decade  after  the  Lightbrown  and  Spada  (1990)  article  was  published,  the  

efficacy  of  focus  on  form  was  still  being  discussed  by  researchers  and  teachers  alike.  Fotos  

(1998),  for  example,  looks  at  the  benefits  and  problems  of  integrating  focus  on  form  in  

   

21  

relation  to  ESL  and  EFL  contexts.  Presently,  however,  though  the  argument  remains  to  a  

large  extent  partisan  and  unresolved,  focus  on  form  is  broadly  embraced  as  an  approach  

for  instruction  and  correction  within  L2  pedagogic  settings  (Fotos  and  Nassaji,  2011).  The  

crux  of  the  debate  rests  not  on  whether  CLT  as  an  approach  to  L2  instruction  is  justified  

pedagogically,  but  rather  on  the  degree(s)  of  explicitness  to  which  focus  on  form  as  a  

means  of  L2  instruction  should  be  employed  (Long,  1991).  The  prognosis  for  such  

unresolvedness  stems  from  the  vague  definition  CLT  has  come  to  represent.  Depending  

on  the  context  and  level  of  learner,  CLT,  particularly  in  the  West,  has  become  a  catch-­‐all  

approach  to  second  language  learning  and  teaching,  with  both  novice  and  experienced  

teacher  grappling  with  aspects  of  its  paradigm  (Pennycook,  2001;  Widdowson,  1992);  

none  more  so  than  the  concept  of  focus  on  form  within  CLT  (Basturkmen  et  al.,  2004).    

Such  divergent  interpretations  has  engendered  focus  on  form  with  a  surfeit  of  beliefs  and  

attitudes  about  the  nature  of  L2  instruction;  namely,  whether  it  is  better  to  be  explicit  

when  giving  instructions  and  corrections,  or  whether  being  more  implicit  better  facilitates  

learner  acquisition.  It  is  to  these  two  latter  issues,  beliefs  and  attitudes  regarding  focus  on  

form  in  the  classroom  that  inform  the  research  question  of  this  dissertation.  The  question  

itself  is  an  adaptation  of  the  following  two  case  studies.    

 

3.1  Case  study  1-­‐  Burgess  and  Etherington:  

Burgess  and  Etherington  (2002)  report  on  a  study  they  set  up  in  order  to  record  how  48  

EAP  teachers  working  in  British  universities  felt  about  the  explicit  teaching  of  grammar  

during  their  L2  lessons.  All  of  the  above  48  teachers  were  involved  in  teaching  on  pre-­‐

sessional  EAP  courses  in  the  UK,  and  whose  teaching  experience  averaged  above  five  

years.  Importantly  for  the  present  study,  Burgess  and  Etherington  make  an  assertion  

   

22  

about  this  particular  target  group  being  the  crème  de  la  crème  of  L2  English  teachers:  "It  

could  be  argued  that  this  group  of  teachers  represent  some  of  the  most  sophisticated  

within  the  TESOL  profession;  certainly  they  tend  to  be  well-­‐qualified  and  teachers  of  long-­‐

standing.  Thus,  their  views  may  provide  something  of  a  benchmark  for  the  profession"  

(p.436).  Moreover,  it  can  be  tacitly  assumed  that  learners  studying  EAP  are,  in  some  way,  

more  capable  and  proficient  than  their  counterparts  studying  General  English;  the  logical  

corollary  being  EAP  learners  require  more  explicit  attention  to  grammar,  and  therefore  

are  more  expectant  and  demanding  of  it.  The  implication  here  is  that  in  comparison  to  

their  EFL  General  English  counterparts,  teachers  of  EAP  possess  the  greater  theoretical  

knowledge  about  grammar  due  to  their  having  to  make  more  precise  and  frequent  

decisions  regarding  its  instruction  in  order  to  satisfy  the  high  expectations  of  their  

learners.  One  presumes  this  is  because  there  appears  to  be  far  fewer  demanding  and  

expectant  learners  studying  General  English  due  to  the  nature  of  its  context  and  genre,  

i.e.,  non  academic.  Further,  Burgess  and  Etherington  report  that,  on  the  whole,  and  in  

relation  to  certain  contexts  (outlined  in  the  previous  chapter),  the  respondents  favoured  

a  focus  on  form  approach,  both  instructionally  and  correctively.  For  example,  56%  of  the  

respondents  were  inclined  to  administer  corrective  feedback  using  methods  associated  

with  form-­‐focused  instruction,  a  clear  indication  of  this  being  the  normative  approach:  

“The  majority  of  the  teachers  represented  here  appear  to  see  grammatical  knowledge  as  

important  for  their  students  and  to  have  a  sophisticated  understanding  of  the  problems  

and  issues  involved  in  its  teaching”  (ibid:  p.450).  

 3.2  Case  study  2  –  Barnard  and  Scampton:    Similarly,  in  a  survey  undertaken  by  Barnard  and  Scampton  (2008),  which  was  based  on  

   

23  

the  Burgess  and  Etherington  (2002)  study,  the  beliefs  and  attitudes  of  the  respondents  

concurred  to  a  greater  than  lesser  extent  with  the  EAP  teachers  in  UK  universities.  In  the  

Barnard  and  Scampton  study,  the  authors  interviewed  32  EAP  teachers  working  

throughout  the  higher  education  system  in  New  Zealand.  In  keeping  with  the  first  study,  

most  of  the  respondents  had  an  average  of  five  years’  teaching  experience  or  more,  and  

most  were  qualified  up  to  Masters  level.  The  only  difference  between  the  two  EAP  target  

groups  was  that  those  teaching  in  New  Zealand  taught  exclusively  to  already-­‐enrolled  

undergraduates:  this  difference  was  noted  by  the  authors  as  being  minor.  However,  there  

is  one  difference  between  the  two  studies,  and  although  it  does  not  really  affect  the  

actual  data  findings,  qualifies  mentioning.  Barnard  and  Scampton  were  able  to  gather  

some  post-­‐study  qualitative  data  via  email  correspondence  with  eleven  of  the  

respondents,  which  they  felt  added  to  and  consolidated  their  quantitative  findings.  

Burgess  and  Etherington,  on  the  other  hand,  distinctly  felt  their  lack  of  follow-­‐up  

interviews  slightly  undermined  the  import  of  their  study,  and  acknowledge  had  they  been  

able  to  conduct  post-­‐study  interviews,  the  study  would  have  been  a  more  substantive  

piece  of  research.  Overall,  though,  the  two  studies  demonstrate  far  more  similarities  than  

differences.  For  example,  the  following  quotations  of  two  EAP  teachers  taken  from  the  

respective  studies  reveal  that  their  beliefs  and  attitudes  are  influenced,  not  

inconsiderably,  by  their  learners’  own  cultural  experiences  and  expectations  of  education,  

especially  with  regard  to  explicit  attention  to  grammar  instruction:  

"Within  the  language  centre  our  courses  cater  for  a  large  number  of  Asian  students  particularly  from  Japan  and  Korea  and  student  expectations  regarding  grammar  teaching  obviously  affect  teaching  (T17)"  (ibid:  p.448);      and:    

   

24  

                                       "From  experience,  it  has  always  been  the  non  Asian  students  that  do  not  know  the  grammar  rules  (the  Pacific  Island  students  or  the  Middle  Eastern  students)  whereas  the  Chinese,  Malaysians,  Japanese,  and  Koreans  know  them  and  are  able  to  answer  the  questions."  (Barnard  and  Scampton,  2008:  69).      

 

With  regard  to  corrective  feedback,  the  New  Zealand  EAP  teachers  were  unanimous  in  

their  administering  a  focus  on  form  approach  to  alerting  the  learners  to  their  errors:    

“All  of  the  interviewees  agreed  that  from-­‐focused  correction  helps  students  to  improve  

their  grammatical  performance,  and  most  did  not  find  any  particular  difficulties  in  

correcting  grammar  errors  in  either  written  or  oral  communication”  (Barnard  and  

Scampton,  2008:  72).  

 

And  finally,  of  the  many  pertinent  issues  to  emerge  out  of  these  two  studies,  one  which  

may  turn  out  to  be  integral  to  the  relevance  of  the  research  question  is  the  one  that  

caused  particular  consternation  for  both  sets  of  EAP  teachers.  It  concerns  the  learners’  

continued  inability  at  transferring  their  linguistic  competence  into  intelligible  

communicative  competence  (Hymes,  1979).  This  particular  concern  has  generated  much  

research  into  the  psychological  mechanisms  involved  in  SLA,  and  is  centered  around  the  

learner’s  interlanguage.  The  issue  of  not  being  able  to  transfer  linguistic  competence  into  

communicative  competence  is  a  universal  issue  that  affects  all  learners  at  the  various  

stages  of  language  acquisition,  especially  at  lower  levels,  and  as  such,  is  significant  to  the  

present  study  (Long,  1991).  As  a  result,  being  metalinguistically  literate,  possessing  

metacognitive  awareness,  as  well  as  having  sound  theoretical  knowledge  of  the  many  

(often  controversial)  issues  within  the  field  of  SLA,  will  undoubtedly  inform  and  influence  

an  L2  teacher’s  beliefs  and  attitude  towards  his  learners  and  the  broader  issues  

   

25  

concerning  L2  teaching,  e.g.,  declarative  and  procedural  knowledge,  usage  and  use,  

periods  of  interlanguage  remediation  etc.  (Widdowson,  1978).    

 

3.3  Rationale  for  the  research  question:  

The  original  research  questions  that  informed  the  Burgess  and  Etherington  study,  and  

which  were  subsequently  adopted  for  the  Barnard  and  Scampton  study  were:  

• Which  beliefs  about  grammar  and  grammar  teaching  are  most  widely  held  by  EAP          teachers?  

 • Is  there  a  bias  towards  decontextualized  presentation  of  grammar  and  away  from  

                     the  discourse-­‐based,  unified  approaches?  (Burgess  and  Etherington,  2002:  437).    

For  the  present  study,  the  above  questions  will  also  serve  as  the  research  template.  By  

asking  the  same  questions,  it  is  hoped  that  whatever  the  findings  may  be,  they  will  not  be  

distorted  by  being  semantically  misinterpreted,  thus  making  it  possible  to  compare  

accurately  the  General  English  teachers’  beliefs  and  attitudes  with  those  of  the  EAP  

teachers.  The  aim  of  this  present  study,  then,  seeks  to  explore  the  hitherto  unexamined  

beliefs  and  attitudes  of  a  different  target  group  of  L2  teachers  regarding  grammar  

instruction  in  relation  to  focus  on  form  intervention.  Given  that  the  data  from  the  two  

previous  studies  clearly  indicate  cohesion  in  both  quantitative  and  qualitative  findings  

between  the  two  groups  of  EAP  teachers,  the  purpose  of  this  research  question  is  to  

identify  if  similar  beliefs  and  attitudes  hold  between  a  comparable  group  of  English  

language  teachers.    

 

3.4  Subjects:  

In  order  to  obtain  answers  that  would  be  comprehensive  enough  to  take  into  account  the  

   

26  

many  differing  contexts  in  which  ESL  and  EFL  are  taught,  the  target  group  chosen  for  

carrying  out  the  primary  research  will  be  General  English  teachers  presently  working  in  

private  English  language  schools  in  multiple  international  locales.  The  type  of  English  to  

be  investigated  will,  therefore,  be  that  of  General  English,  distinct  from  EAP  by  the  

conventions  of  genre,  though  not  necessarily  by  the  methods  or  approaches  to  its  

instruction  (Hutchinson  and  Waters,  1987;  Swales,  1990).  The  primary  objectives  are  to  

carry  out  a  examination  of  a)  how  teachers  of  General  English  feel  about  the  instruction  

and  correction  of  grammar;  b)  how  they  come  to  hold  such  beliefs  and  attitudes;  and  c)  

to  what  degree  are  such  beliefs  and  attitudes  responsible  for  their  day  to  day  decision  

making  when  practising  in  the  L2  classroom.  And  as  with  the  two  studies  upon  which  this  

present  one  is  based,  there  is  one  open-­‐ended  question  which  aims  to  gather  some  

qualitative  data  in  order  to  support  the  closed-­‐ended  questions.    

 

3.5  Gap  in  the  research:  

There  is  plenty  of  research  available  which  looks  at  beliefs  and  attitudes  of  L2  teachers  in  

relation  to  teacher  cognition  in  various  teaching  contexts.  For  example,  in  a  

comprehensive  review,  Borg  (2003)  examines  over  60  such  studies  relating  to  the  

unobservable  cognitive  dimension  of  teaching  –  what  teachers  know,  believe  and  think.  

But  there  is  very  little,  if  any,  empirical  data  correlating  two  different  sets  of  L2  teachers,  

teaching  in  different  L2  pedagogic  contexts,  and  reacting  to  the  same  cognitive  

phenomenon,  i.e.,  beliefs  and  attitudes  to  the  explicit  instruction  and  correction  of  

grammar.  Hence,  by  comparing  the  two  different  ELT  groups  in  their  respective  L2  

teaching  environments,  the  research  question  aims  to  establish  whether  any  disparity  in  

beliefs  and  attitudes  between  these  two  groups,  in  relation  to  FFI,  is  symptomatic  or  

   

27  

indicative  of  the  following  premises:  

a)      English  being  taught  as  ESP/EAP  as  opposed  to  it  being  taught  as  General  English      

     (genre).  

b)      English  being  taught  in  universities  or  other  academic  environments  as  opposed  to      

     private  language  schools  (context).  

c)      The  result  of  greater  theoretical  knowledge  and  higher-­‐level  academic  teacher-­‐  

       training  as  opposed  to  ELT  industry-­‐standard  qualifications,  e.g.,  Masters  vs.  CELTA        

       (education).    

 

3.6  Summary  

By  asking  whether  two  different  groups  of  L2  teachers,  working  in  different  L2  

environments  and  instructing  In  different  English  genres  have  similar  or  dissimilar  beliefs  

and  attitudes  to  focus  on  form  instruction,  the  research  question  of  this  present  study  

hopes  to  provide  evidence  that  answers  the  following  ELT  inquiry:    

•      Do  the  beliefs  and  attitudes  of  L2  teachers  of  academic  English  (EAP)  in  some  way  

make  them  better  teachers  than  L2  teachers  of  non-­‐academic  General  English?  

•      Does  having  greater  L2  theoretical  knowledge  and  training  give  EAP  teachers  a  

classroom  advantage  over  their  General  English  contemporaries?    

•      Does  the  cultural  educational  background  of  General  English  L2  learners  influence  

the  beliefs  and  attitudes  of  General  English  L2  teachers  to  the  same  degree  as  it  

does  with  the  EAP  teachers?  

The  above  criteria  as  set  out  in  this  chapter  form  the  rationale  for  the  research  question.  

The  following  chapter  will  set  out  the  research  methods  undertaken  for  carrying  out  the  

primary  research  for  this  current  project.  

   

28  

Chapter  4  

Research  Methods  

4.  Introduction    

The  main  aim  of  this  chapter  is  to  set  out  the  objectives  of  the  present  study  in  terms  of  

its  research  methodology.  As  was  mentioned  in  detail  in  the  preceding  chapter,  the  goal  

of  this  present  study  is  to  discover  whether  L2  teachers  of  General  English  working  in  

private  language  schools  hold  a  set  of  similar  beliefs  and  attitudes  towards  the  instruction  

and  correction  of  grammar  as  their  EAP  contemporaries  teaching  in  universities.  In  

addition,  the  two  original  studies  highlighted  in  the  previous  chapter  identified  a  series  of  

pedagogical  intuitions  related  to  explicit  and  implicit  grammar  instruction,  which  marked  

the  EAP  teachers  as  holding  very  similar  views,  particularly  with  regard  to  the  educational  

background  of  their  learners  vis-­‐à-­‐vis  classroom  influences,  ergo  teacher  cognitions.  To  

see  if  this  was  in  any  way  a  uniform  pattern  among  other  sets  of  L2  English  teachers,  a  

replication  of  the  original  studies  was  undertaken  using  a  different  target  group  and  a  

different  teaching  context:  these  are  the  variables  that  will  be  used  to  draw  inferences  

and  make  distinctions  between  the  two  sets  of  L2  teachers.  

To  clarify  how  the  research  objectives  were  met,  the  outline  of  this  chapter  is  as  follows:    

• section  4.1  will  look  first  at  the  research  strategy  used  to  obtain  the  necessary  

data.  

   

29  

• section  4.2  provides  justification  for  the  methods  employed  in  collecting  the  data,  

e.g.,  research  instrument,  sampling  procedure  etc.    

• section  4.3  provides  a  framework  for  data  analysis.  

• section  4.4    will  address  any  limitations  the  research  strategy  may  expose,  i.e.,  

whether  data  collected  by  means  of  the  particular  research  strategy  chosen  for  

the  present  study  is  reliable,  thus  valid.  

 

4.1  Research  strategy  

The  decision  to  use  a  survey  as  the  means  of  carrying  out  the  primary  research  was  based  

emphatically  on  the  two  studies  upon  which  the  present  one  is  intending  to  replicate,  and  

because,  also:  "Surveys  have  been  used  in  the  second  language  teaching  and  learning  

literature.  There  are  articles  about  individual  learning  differences  like  motivation,  learning  

styles,  personality,  anxiety  and  language  learning,  attitudes  toward  language  learning,  

and  so  on"  (Brown  and  Rodgers,  2002:  117). Therefore,  choosing  a  survey  satisfied  three  

core  criteria:  1.  By  following  the  same  research  strategy  as  the  two  studies  upon  which  

this  present  one  is  based,  it  keeps  to  a  minimum  any  possible  variables  that  could  affect  

the  final  analysis;  2.  Using  a  survey  is  a  recognized  and  common  research  strategy  within  

the  field  of  L2  learning  and  teaching,  and  is  therefore  trustworthy  and  reliable;  and  3.  It  

makes  it  possible  to  reach  a  sample  group  large  enough  to  be  representative  of  the  target  

population  to  which  the  survey  is  generalising.    

 

 

 

 

   

30  

4.2  Data  collection    

Again,  in  keeping  with  the  original  two  studies  and  therefore  minimizing  extraneous  

variables,  a  questionnaire  was  used  as  the  instrument  with  which  to  collect  data:  using  a  

different  research  instrument  may  inadvertently  effect  a  different  type  of  response,  

which  could  ultimately  lead  to  discrepancies  in  the  final  analysis.  Thus,  in  accordance  with  

what  Dörnyei  and  Csizér  (2012)  say  about:  "Producing  an  attractive  and  professional  

design  is  half  the  battle  in  motivating  respondents  to  produce  reliable  and  valid  data"  

(p.78),  considerable  effort  went  in  to  producing  a  model  questionnaire.  Consequently,  to  

ensure  the  questionnaire  met  the  requisite  standards  for  an  academic  study,  it  was  

decided  that  the  reputable  online  survey  provider,  Survey  Monkey,  would  be  used  to  

design  a  bespoke  questionnaire,  as  well  as  providing  the  necessary  logistics  needed  for  

collecting  the  data  once  the  respondents  had  completed  the  survey.  The  procedure  for  

collection  was  relatively  straightforward.  Upon  completion,  the  respondents  clicked  the  

‘done’  icon  on  the  final  page  of  the  survey  questionnaire,  and  the  data  was  automatically  

uploaded  to  the  Survey  Monkey  site,  where  it  was  processed  into  a  series  of  charts  

showing  percentages  and  Likert-­‐type  ratings  scales.  These  were  subsequently  

downloaded  by  the  author  to  be  used  as  the  basis  for  data  description  and  analysis.    

 

4.2.1  Questionnaire  format  

As  the  present  study  is  replicating  two  previous  studies,  it  is  important  to  reiterate  that  

the  original  studies  surveyed  EAP  teachers  in  universities,  and  therefore  the  teaching  

context  necessitated  that  learners  receive  greater  attention  and  instruction  in  the  written  

medium  than  learners  of  General  English  in  private  language  schools.  Thus,  fifteen  of  the  

original  forty  (quantitative)  questions  were  deemed  superfluous  to  the  present  study  and  

   

31  

were  accordingly  omitted,  making  the  present  questionnaire  smaller  in  size  (26  as  

opposed  to  41  questions),  but  narrower  in  terms  of  research  aims,  i.e.,  the  spoken  

medium.  The  overall  design  of  the  questionnaire  thus  had  the  same  format  as  the  original  

ones,  in  that  it  began  by  asking  non-­‐personal  background  questions  about  age,  gender,  

years  as  a  General  English  teacher,  whether  they  were  full-­‐time  teachers  and  the  level  of  

their  teaching  qualifications.  These  questions  were  prefaced  with  an  introductory  

disclaimer  promising  complete  anonymity  and  utmost  ethical  confidentiality,  as  well  as  

informing  them  of  the  duration  of  the  questionnaire  (10-­‐12  minutes)  and  that  their  

participating  added  to  the  value  of  an  important  academic  study  within  their  field.  *All  

three  survey  questionnaires  and  their  subsequent  results  will  be  published  in  the  

appendices.  

 

The  remaining  twenty-­‐six  questions  appeared  in  the  same  sequential  order  as  the  original  

ones,  and  as  with  the  original  studies,  the  final  question  required  the  respondents  to  

comment  on  any  salient  aspects  they  felt  were  not  addressed  in  the  preceding  questions,  

and/or  simply  to  reflect  on  their  own  experiences  as  language  teachers.  Mackey  and  Gass  

(2005)  outline  what  is  usually  found  within  a  mixed-­‐methods  questionnaire:  "Two  types  of  

questionnaire  items  may  be  identified:  closed  and  open  ended.  A  closed-­‐item  question  is  

one  for  which  the  researcher  determines  the  possible  answers,  whereas  an  open-­‐ended  

question  allows  the  respondents  to  answer  in  any  manner  they  see  fit"  (p.93).  Overall,  

though,  the  questionnaire  was  predominantly  quantitative  in  nature,  and  is  thus  

presented  in  a  Likert-­‐type  scale  format.  However,  unlike  the  Burgess  and  Etheringtion  

study  which  offered  a  five-­‐point  scale  ranging  from  (1)  strongly  disagree  to  (5)  strongly  

agree,  with  (3)  being  the  neither/nor  option,  the  present  study  used  the  four-­‐point  scale  

   

32  

(purposely  omitting  option  3)  employed  by  Barnard  and  Scampton  in  their  questionnaire.  

The  rationale  given  for  adopting  a  four  rather  than  five-­‐point  scale  was  that:  “  A  four-­‐

point  scale  facilitates  a  clear  analysis  of  positive  and  negative  responses;  there  is  a  

tendency  for  many  respondents  to  regress  to  the  central  point  (#3  –  no  opinion,  or  

neutral)  in  a  five-­‐point  scale”  (Barnard  and  Scampton,  2008:  64).    

 

4.2.2  Sampling  procedure  

"Sampling  allows  the  researchers  to  select  a  subset  of  the  objects  or  members  of  a  

population  to  represent  the  total  population"  (Brown,  2013:  5045),  hence,  for  the  present  

study  to  be  deemed  credible  and  thus  academically  valid,  it  should  be  prudent  to  have  at  

least  a  similar  sample  size  to  the  original  studies,  both  of  which  comprised  48  and  32  

respondents,  respectively.  The  method  by  which  the  respondents  of  the  present  study  

were  sampled  was  a  procedure  known  as  non-­‐probability  purposive  sampling.  This  

technique  allows  the  researcher  to  select  and  invite  a  sample  group  that  satisfies  

particular  criteria  to  participate  in  the  proposed  survey.  For  the  original  studies,  the  

criteria  were  that  the  L2  teachers  had  to  teach  EAP  in  university;  for  the  present  study,  

the  criteria  are  that  the  respondents  have  to  be  teachers  of  General  English  teaching  in  

private  language  schools.  Moreover,  the  present  study  differs  from  the  original  studies  by  

sampling  a  heterogeneous  target  population  comprising  respondents  from  America,  Italy,  

Serbia,  Korea,  Japan,  UK,  Bangladesh,  Canada,  China,  Dhaka,  and  Saudi  Arabia;  whereas  in  

the  original  studies,  the  samples  were  taken  from  a  far  more  homogeneous  target  

population.  Though  having  such  an  international  sample  group  would  still  make  

generalising  to  the  target  population  a  negligible  proposition  due  to  the  extremely  small  

   

33  

sample  size,  it  was  thought  the  diversity  in  geographical  regions  would  be  proportionally  

more  representative  (Dörnyei  and  Csizér,  2012).  

 

4.2.3  Administration  of  questionnaire/subjects  

The  next  step,  and  perhaps  the  biggest  obstacle  to  carrying  out  primary  research,  was  

knowing  where  to  find  such  a  sample  group  and  how  to  contact  them.  As  mentioned  in  

the  preceding  section  4.2.2,  the  justification  for  choosing  an  international  sample  group  

was  that  by  persuading  enough  non-­‐native  speaker  teachers  to  participate  in  the  survey,  

they  could  be  thought  of  as  being  fairly  representative  of  the  study  population  of  that  

particular  region,  thus  giving  the  present  study  greater  scope  in  terms  of  validity.  It  was  

then  decided  that  the  online  professional  networking  site,  LinkedIn,  would  be  the  ideal  

place  to  select  from,  as  its  database  caters  to  thousands  of  members  working  within  

various  language-­‐oriented  professions.  The  procedure  for  the  selection  process  involved  

seeking  out  members  of  the  LinkedIn  Applied  Linguists  Group  (ALG),  singling  out  only  

those  whose  ALG  profiles  satisfied  the  pre-­‐specified  survey  criteria.  In  the  end,  215  

members  of  the  ALG  were  identified  as  being  eligible  for  participation;  each  individual  

member  was  then  emailed  a  request,  kindly  asking  for  their  willingness  to  complete  the  

questionnaire.  Of  the  215,  forty  members  of  the  ALG  replied  positively,  and  duly  

completed  all  of  the  quantitative  questions;  28  of  the  40  respondents  left  meaningful  

qualitative  answers.    

 

4.3  Framework  for  analysis  

The  intended  framework  for  analysing  the  collected  data  will  be  mainly  qualitative  in  

approach,  however,  as  most  of  the  questions  are  quantitative  in  nature,  a  provision  of  

   

34  

charts  and  tables  showing  percentages  will  be  used  to  add  numerical  support  to  the  

qualitative  commentary.  According  to  Friedman  (2012),  certain  considerations  need  to  be  

thought  about  when  attempting  to  analyse  data  qualitatively.  She  makes  the  following  six  

points  about  the  processes  involved:  

a)  collecting  data,  b)  thinking  about  how  the  data  relate  to  the  research  purpose,  c)  categorising  the  data,  d)  reflecting  on  the  process  of  analysis,  e)  organising  the  data  to  look  for  patterns  and  themes,  f)  connecting  emergent  themes  to  larger  concepts  and  theories  (p.191).  

 

The  intention,  then,  is  first  to  present  the  findings  from  the  present  study  in  the  form  of  

percentages  in  a  series  of  individual  tables.  These  will  be  presented  alongside  the  

percentages  from  the  original  studies,  creating  the  necessary  framework  that  allows  for  

quick  and  easy  reference  and  comparisons  to  be  made.  The  data  will  then  be  described  in  

more  detail  in  accordance  with  guidelines  set  out  by  Friedman,  above,  and  will  thus  entail  

a  qualitative  analysis  that  involves  cross-­‐referencing  (i.e.,  synthesising)  the  data  from  the  

present  study  with  the  findings  that  were  presented  in  both  the  Literature  Review  and  

the  original  two  studies  (Biggam,  2011).  The  analytical  approach  used  here  fully  concords  

with  the  methodological  analyses  of  the  original  studies,  thus  providing  a  rationale  for  the  

reliability  and  validity  of  the  survey  findings.  However,  Hart  (2005)  warns  of  the  dangers  

of  researcher  bias  when  it  comes  to  analysing  the  data,  such  that  only  the  exciting  

findings  that  support  initial  preconceived  notions  get  reported.  Spada  (2011),  too,  offers  a  

similar  caveat  with  regard  to  employing  narrative  synthesis  for  data  analysis:  "This  

process  is  considered  to  be  incomplete  and  biased,  however,  because  of  the  observed  

tendency  for  researchers  to  give  more  attention  to  studies  that  report  results  that  are  

   

35  

similar  to  their  own…"  (p.227). Both  pieces  of  advice  are  borne  in  mind  during  the  

analysis.  

 

4.4  Limitations  of  the  survey  

As  with  the  original  studies,  the  limitations  of  the  present  survey  are  evident.  The  data  

collected  can  only  be  viewed  as  snapshots  of  how  the  respondents  answered  a  set  of  

predetermined  questions  on  that  particular  day,  and  in  accordance  with  how  they  were  

emotionally  and  psychologically  disposed  at  the  time.  As  a  result,  answers  given  could  

vacillate  enormously  depending  on  each  respondent’s  individual  circumstances  and    

disposition.  For  example,  respondents  may  answer  too  quickly,  or  answer  with  a  certain  

bias,  that  is,  giving  an  answer  they  presuppose  the  researcher  is  looking  for.  This  can  

inevitably  make  the  data  far  from  trustworthy.  Furthermore,  as  with  the  Burgess  and  

Etherington  study,  there  was  no  opportunity  to  triangulate  the  respondents’  answers  

using  another  means  of  data  collection,  e.g.,  observed  teaching,  post-­‐lesson  interviews  

etc.  (Basturkmen  et  al.,  2004;  Borg  and  Phipps,  2009).  In  addition  to  the  above  issues,  

Dörnyei  (2010)  warns  of  the  dangers  of  respondent  self-­‐selection:  “Volunteers  may  be  

different  from  non-­‐volunteers  in  their  aptitude,  motivation,  or  some  other  basic  

characteristic…consequently,  the  sample  may  lose  its  representative  character,  which  of  

course  would  prevent  any  meaningful  generalizability”  (p.64).  There  is  also  the  issue  

regarding  generalisations  in  relation  to  using  a  non-­‐probability  sampling  procedure.  

Nevertheless,  though  the  limitations  of  the  present  study  preclude  it  from  being  an  

authoritative  piece  of  academic  writing,  the  targeting  of  a  different  group  of  L2  teachers  

adds  a  new  perspective  to  the  existing  research,  and  can,  therefore,  be  considered  to  be  

of  value  as  a  piece  of  independent  research  in  its  own  right.  

   

36  

4.5  Summary  

This  chapter  has  systematically  presented  each  procedure  necessary  for  undertaking  

primary  research  in  order  to  answer  the  dissertation  research  question.  Section  4.1  

outlined  the  reasons  for  choosing  a  survey  as  the  research  strategy,  namely,  that  it  

satisfied  certain  prerequisite  criteria.  In  section  4.2,  a  detailed  account  of  the  rationale  

behind  using  a  questionnaire  as  the  research  instrument  for  data  collection  was  given,  

i.e.,  that  it  was  the  instrument  used  in  the  original  studies  and  it  could,  therefore,  be  

inferred  to  authenticate,  and  thus  validate,  the  present  study.  Justification  was  also  

provided  for  why  the  online  companies  Survey  Monkey  and  LinkedIn  were  logistically  

appropriate  and  necessary  for  questionnaire  design  and  administration.  In  addition,  the  

reasoning  behind  using  a  non-­‐probability  sampling  procedure  was  clearly  explained.  

Section  4.3  outlined  the  procedural  steps  involved  in  analyzing  the  collected  data  and  

finally,  in  section  4.4,  the  limitations  of  the  research  methods  were  exposed,  as  was  the  

value  for  its  initial  undertaking.  The  following  chapter  will  now  present  the  findings  from  

the  present  study  as  a  series  of  data  descriptions  integrated  with  in-­‐depth,  qualitative  

analysis.    

 

                           

   

37  

Chapter  5  

Analysis  of  Findings  

5.  Introduction    

Thus  far,  the  research  of  the  present  study  has  replicated  the  following  aspects  of  the  

original  studies:  research  strategy  (survey);  research  instrument  (questionnaire);  format  

of  questionnaire  (quantitative/qualitative);  sampling  procedure  (non-­‐probability  

purposive);  and  questionnaire  administration  (online  distribution  and  data  collection).  

Importantly,  since  the  Burgess  and  Etherington  study  was  the  first  of  its  kind  to  account  

for  the  beliefs  and  attitudes  of  EAP  teachers  relative  to  the  explicit  instruction  of  

grammar,  it  set  a  precedent,  resulting  in  Barnard  and  Scampton’s  replication  study  six  

years  later.  Therefore,  this  chapter  aims  to  explicate  the  findings  of  the  present  study  by  

endeavouring  to  replicate  the  same  analytical  procedures  undertaken  in  the  original  two  

studies.  The  format  for  analyzing  the  findings  in  the  original  studies  involved  presenting  

the  quantitative  data  as  percentages,  which  were  then  integrated  qualitatively  in  relation  

to  the  following  sequence  of  survey  themes:  

• The  role  of  grammar  in  language  

• Explicit  grammar  teaching  

• Instruction  vs.  exposure  

• Declarative  and  procedural  knowledge  

   

38  

• The  use  of  grammatical  terminology  

• Error  correction  

Further,  only  the  answers  given  in  relation  to  the  above  themes  will  be  considered  for  

analysis  in  this  chapter.  Correlating  the  findings  in  the  present  study  with  the  

corresponding  results  in  the  original  studies  will  enable  a  direct  comparison  to  be  made  

between  the  two  sets  of  L2  teachers,  thus  minimising  the  potential  risk  of  researcher  bias,  

as  alluded  to  in  the  previous  chapter  (Hart,  2005;  Spada,  2011).  The  following  referents  

for  each  respective  study  will  henceforth  apply  throughout  this  chapter:  S1  (Burgess  and  

Etherington,  2002);  S2  (Barnard  and  Scampton,  2008);  and  S3  (Present  Study,  2013).  

 

5.1  Background  information  of  the  respondents    

Before  analyzing  the  quantitative  results,  a  series  of  pie  charts  will  be  presented  in  order  

to  show  how  S3  respondents  answered  the  non-­‐personal  background  questions.  No  data  

was  available  to  correlate  the  respondents’  demographics  with  their  geographical  

regions;  their  individual  locations  were  known  only  through  their  ALG  profiles.  Thus,  in  

accordance  with  the  advice  from  Survey  Monkey  about  not  transgressing  the  boundaries  

of  privacy,  none  were  asked  to  reveal  their  names  or  where  they  taught,  hence  making  all  

answers  completely  anonymous  with  regard  to  the  respondents’  individual  backgrounds.  

Table  4,  below,  shows  that  the  mean  age  of  S3  respondents  was  40.  

 

 

 

 

   

39  

20-­‐29   30-­‐39   40-­‐49   50-­‐59   60+  

3   21   11   3   2  

Mean  age:    40  

 

   

             

 

                                                                                                                                         

                     

 

Charts  1  and  2,  above,  show  the  characteristics  of  S3  respondents  in  terms  of  gender  and  

years  teaching  General  English.  There  was  no  gender  question  in  the  original  studies,  but  

a  comparison  for  years  teaching  over  five  (S3,  85%)  shows  S1  recorded  83.3%,  and  16.7%  

for  those  teaching  less  than  five  years.  There  were  no  figures  presented  for  S2  

respondents’  background,  but  they  were  reported  as  being:  “largely  comparable  with  the  

British  teachers  reported  by  Burgess  and  Etherington”  (Barnard  and  Scampton,  2008:  65).  

It  should  be  taken  that  in  S2,  the  background  questions  also  revealed  comparable  

answers  to  the  S1  study.    

Table  4  

������������ �������������������������������������������������

������

&� ��

�� �

� "

�'�(�% ����� ���� )�����*���

�� +�����"���� ��,������

������������ ����������

�2��* ��� �2%�* ��� &�������%* ���

�#,-�.

%,-".

(%,-��.

#����� ������ ��

�-'��� ��

'-���� ��

����� �#

���/��0����� 1��������

������������ �������������������������������������������������

������

����� "�

�!��� �

���"�����

������������ ����������

&��� ������

%"+%#,-"�.

�!+%#,-� .

# ��

$�% ��

����� �#

���/��0����� 1��������

Chart  1  Chart  2  

   

40  

 

                 

                       

 

With  regard  to  chart  3,  above,  the  corresponding  answer  in  S1  revealed  that  54.8%  of  the  

teachers  taught  full-­‐time,  again,  showing  very  similar  percentages  with  S3,  which  has  

52.5%  teaching  full-­‐time.  Chart  4,  above,  reveals  an  interesting  statistic.  It  shows  that  

almost  half  the  teachers,  47.5%,  are  qualified  to  Masters  level,  meaning  that  a  significant  

percentage  of  the  respondents  from  S3  are  as  highly  qualified  as  those  respondents  in  the  

original  studies.  The  import  of  this  is  that  it  implies  that  nearly  half  of  the  General  English  

teachers  possess  as  much  theoretical  knowledge  about  SLA  and  L2  teaching/learning  as  

the  EAP  teachers  in  the  S1  and  S2  studies,  thus  dispelling  the  tacit  implication  that  EAP  

teachers  are  arguably  some  of  the  most  sophisticated  within  the  TESOL  profession.  

������������ �������������������������������������������������

%�����

����� "�

�!��� �

���������� �.���-��%��"���� ��,������

�� +���

������������ ����������

3�� 4�

%"+%#,-"�.

�!+%#,-� .

/��

0

����� �#

���/��0����� 1��������

������������ �������������������������������������������������

)�����

�!��� �

'!��� �%

�����

�!��� !

����� %

����� %

���1��+���� +�����2� ��.�+ ���3�4�����

�������������

������������ ����������

#, "#, �#, )#, (#, �##,

'5

&��-��67�.

5����

0����

�

7��

�"+%#,

�!+%#,

�"+%#,

""+%#,

�!+%#,

�!+%#,

#��35,�674

8�

9���

6����

:��

����

������1����������$��#

���/��0����� 1��������

Chart  4  Chart  3    

   

41  

5.2  Description,  analysis,  and  synthesis  of  S3  results:  the  role  of  grammar  in  language.  

 

 Table  5,  above,  shows  that  the  respondents  in  S3  have  a  majority  agreement  of  78%  in  

regard  to  how  they  think  of  grammar  relative  to  its  overall  function  within  the  language  

system.  It  is  slightly  lower  in  both  S1  and  S2,  with  respondents  in  agreement  at  60.9%  and  

68.8%,  respectively.    

 

Q  6c.  The  role  of  grammar  in  language  is  as  something  which  is  added  on  to  language  proficiency:  a  refinement  of  more  basic  language  knowledge.     S1  %   S2  %   S3  %  1  strongly  disagree   51.1   28.1   23.6  2  disagree   36.2   40.6   34.2  3  agree   0   25.0   28.9  4  strongly  agree   0   6.3   13.1  Central  point  3  in  S1   12.8    

Table  6  reveals  quite  an  interesting  statistic  regarding  those  respondents  in  agreement.  

Respondents  in  S1,  S2,  and  S3  are  all  in  majority  disagreement,  with  87.0%,  68.2%,  and  

57.8%,  respectively.  However,  while  the  respondents  in  S1  vehemently  disagree  with  the  

stated  proposition,  the  respondents  in  S2  showed  that  31.3%  agreed  with  the  statement,  

whilst  an  even  greater  percentage  of  respondents  in  S3,  42.0%,  also  agreed.  Why  there  

were  so  many  in  agreement  in  S3  compared  to  S1  and  S2  could  be  accounted  for  by  the  

fact  the  EFL  teachers  of  General  English,  especially  those  adhering  to  a  syllabus  promoting  

Q  6a.  The  role  of  grammar  in  language  is  as  a  framework  for  the  rest  of  the  language  –  a  basic  system  to  build  everything  else  on     S1  %   S2  %   S3  %  1  strongly  disagree   8.7   0   2.2  2  disagree   10.9   31.3   17.5  3  agree   45.7   46.9   57.5  4  strongly  agree   15.2   21.9   22.5  Central  point  3  in  S1   19.6  

Table  6  

Table  5  

   

42  

a  CLT  approach,  feel  that  grammatical  inaccuracies  are  an  unavoidable  consequence  of  

encouraging  learners  to  communicate  verbally  in  the  classroom,  and,  therefore,  not  

something  to  be  too  preoccupied  with.  In  contrast,  grammatical  accuracy  is  something  

that  is  expected  of  EAP  learners;  consequently,  EAP  teachers  feel  that  proficiency  in  

grammar  is  fundamental  to  achieving  academic  success  in  the  L2.  However,  there  is  far  

greater  emphasis  on  written  proficiency  in  EAP,  and  this  could  account  for  why  there  was  

so  much  disagreement  in  S1  and  S2  compared  to  S3.  A  respondent  in  S3  offers  a  similar  

explanation  for  Q6c:  

It  is  difficult  to  determine  how  important  grammatical  knowledge  is  for  students.  In  the  written  language  explicit  knowledge  of  grammar  is  very  useful,  but  when  speaking  in  natural  conversation  this  seems  not  to  be  the  case.  Some  students  know  that  they  are  unable  to  use  their  grammatical  knowledge  when  speaking  but  still  feel  that  learning  grammar  is  a  'must'.  T11  

 

Similarly,  in  response  to  Q6a,  a  respondent  in  S3  had  this  to  say:  

 It’s  the  skeletal  framework  of  language.  Has  to  be  taught  explicitly  for  Far  East,  Middle  East  SS  who  don't  have  same  point  of  reference.  Problem  is  not  grammar,  it’s  the  way  it’s  taught.  T15.  

 

From  the  above  statements  of  the  respondents  in  S3,  it  seems  they  grasp  the  importance  

of  grammar,  not  only  from  a  pedagogical  perspective  (T15)  but  also  from  the  learner’s  

point  of  view.  It  is  evident  that  they  (the  learners)  are  aware  of  the  importance  grammar  

plays  in  speaking  in  the  L2,  and  as  a  result,  the  teacher  makes  allowances  accordingly  

when  issues  of  accuracy  arise.  The  majority  of  respondents  in  S3  understand  that  

grammar  is  a  necessary  tool  for  good  communication,  but  they  also  recognise  that  

grammatical  accuracy  is  subordinate  to  communicative  fluency.  For  example:  

 

   

43  

I  think  that  learning  grammar  is  important  to  be  accurate  and  master  the  English  language.  However,  it  is  more  important  to  be  able  to  communicate  than  to  be  completely  accurate.  T24.  

 

 

5.2.1  Explicit  grammar  teaching  

 

Unsurprisingly,  statements  about  explicit  grammar  instruction  drew  most  of  the  

qualitative  responses  in  S3.  Although  many  L2  teachers  involved  in  CLT  profess  to  

champion  fluency,  hence  a  disinclination  to  interrupt  learners  unless  the  grammatical  

inaccuracies  interfere  with  meaning,  the  S3  respondents  in  Table  7,  above,  seemingly  

disagree,  with  69.0%  agreeing  with  the  proposition  in  Q  23.  With  regard  to  the  EAP  

teachers  in  S1  (68.8%)  and  S2  (80.7%),  it  is  more  understandable  that  explicit  discussions  

on  grammar  are  deemed  agreeable,  as  academic  excellence  hinges  on  grammatical  

accuracy,  especially  in  the  written  medium.    

 

 

Q  23.  Explicit  discussion  of  grammar  rules  is  helpful  for  students.  

  S1  %   S2  %   S3  %  1  strongly  

disagree  

2.1   0.0   5.0  2  disagree   4.2   19.4   25.0  3  agree   43.8   35.5   46.5  4  strongly  agree   25.0   45.2   22.5  Central  point  3  in  S1   25.0  

Q  25.  My  students  expect  teachers  to  present  grammar  points  explicitly.  

  S1  %   S2  %   S3  %  1  strongly  disagree   2.1   9.4   0.0  2  disagree   2.1   18.8   25.0  3  agree   59.6   40.6   45.0  4  strongly  agree   31.9   31.3   30.0  Central  point  3  in  S1   4.3  

Table  7  

Table  8  

   

44  

 

However,  the  responses  to  the  propositions  in  questions  25  and  26  in  Tables  8  and  9,  

above,  are  crucial  to  understanding  the  classroom  dilemmas  faced  by  L2  teachers  

regarding  the  explicit  v  implicit  arguments,  which  are  encapsulated  in  the  focus  on  form  v  

focus  on  forms  approaches.  In  Table  8,  the  respondents  in  S3  have  a  majority  agreement  

of  75.0%,  as  do  the  respondents  in  S1  (90.0%)  and  S2  (71.9%).  Likewise  in  Table  9,  S3  

respondents  are  in  77.5%  agreement,  whilst  S1  and  S2  respondents  have  almost  identical  

agreement  with  69.9%  and  68.7&,  respectively.  Such  overwhelming  agreement  among  all  

three  studies  suggests  that  regardless  of  the  theoretical  and  practical  components  of  L2  

teacher-­‐training,  teachers  concede  that  because  many  learners  hail  from  countries  where  

approaches  to  teaching  are  much  more  pragmatic,  explicitly  discussing  grammar  now  

appears  to  be  an  openly  accepted  pedagogical  norm  in  the  L2  classroom.  The  following  

statements  from  S3  support  the  quantitative  data  shown  in  the  previous  three  Tables:  

 

In  my  experience,  85%  of  EFL  learners  believe  that  they  most  need  to  improve  in  their  language  skills  is  grammar.  However,  in  reality,  it  is  their  vocabulary  and  fluency  that  need  most  work.  Nevertheless,  I  still  think  it  is  useful  to  teach  grammar  explicitly,  not  only  to  respond  to  the  learners'  wish,  but  also  because  it  can  be  beneficial  for  some  types  of  learners.  T3      

 Students  who  are  fluent  speakers  but  not  accurate  can  benefit  from  explicit  grammar  instruction.  Understanding  why  we  say  things  the  way  we  do  should  provide  them  with  the  necessary  tools  to  self-­‐correct  or  understand  their  mistakes.  T8    

Q  26.  A  lack  of  explicit  grammar  teaching  leaves  my  students  feeling  insecure.  

  S1  %   S2  %   S3  %  1  strongly  disagree   2.2   6.3   0.0  2  disagree   11.1   25.0   25.5  3  agree   55.6   40.6   52.5  4  strongly  agree   13.3   28.1   25.0  Central  point  3  in  S1   17.8  

Table  9  

   

45  

Grammar  is  important.  It  isn't  the  most  important  thing,  but  it  is  still  important.  It  seems  like  many  people  are  promoting  a  lesser  role  of  explicit  grammar  teaching  recently,  but  I  disagree  with  this.  Explicit  grammar  teaching  still  has  a  place  (and  is  necessary!)  T22    

 Moreover,  though  the  preceding  three  statements  generally  concur  that,  for  various  

reasons,  explicit  grammar  instruction  fulfills  both  pedagogic  and  personal  requirements,  

the  following  statement  shows  that  for  some  L2  teachers,  explicit  instruction  is  a  

necessary  impediment:  

 I  have  come  to  regard  explicit  grammar  instruction  as  analogous  to  "floaties"  for  swimming.  Floaties  (water  wings,  whatever)  give  the  non-­‐swimmer  some  confidence,  but  actually  interfere  with  learning  how  to  swim.  T14    

 

It  is  evident  from  both  the  quantitative  and  qualitative  responses  that  S3  respondents  are  

aware  of  two  major  points:  1.  That  for  many  learners,  grammar  is  the  biggest  obstacle  to  

learning  and  acquiring  communicative  competence;  and  2.  The  cultural  backgrounds  of  

learners  is  instrumental  in  assuaging  any  guilt  experienced  in  breaching  the  tenets  of  CLT,  

as  they  are  seen  to  be  giving  their  learners  not  only  what  they  want  but  also  what  is  

expected  of  them  (though  whether  this  has  any  long-­‐lasting  linguistic  benefits  is  an  on-­‐

going  argument).  Furthermore,  as  was  mentioned  by  Borg  and  Phipps  (2009)  and  Gabillon  

(2012),  acting  contrary  to  an  attested  set  of  beliefs  is  not  unusual.  It  is  clear  from  the  

word  ‘floaties’,  chosen  by  T15  to  describe  explicit  instruction,  that  this  teacher  is  

experiencing  conflict  between  core  and  peripheral  beliefs,  such  that  s/he  is  prepared  to  

sacrifice  certain  peripheral  beliefs  in  favour  of  satisfying  core  ones.  As  a  result,  when  

faced  with  pedagogical  decisions  that  require  teachers  to  call  upon  theoretical  knowledge  

gained  during  teacher-­‐training  (peripheral  beliefs),  extraneous  factors,  such  as  context  

   

46  

or/and  time,  can  very  often  lead  to  ‘tensions’  subconsciously  arising  (Ng  and  Farrell,  

2003).  Consequently,  as  was  highlighted  by  Basturkmen  et  al.  (2004),  teachers  may  revert  

to  more  deeply  held  convictions  about  teaching,  encompassing  ideals  that  reflect  a  more  

personal  approach  to  L2  pedagogy.  These  ideals  are  then  manifested  in  the  decision-­‐

making  processes  that  lead  teachers  like  T15  to  connote  ‘floaties’  as  a  less  than  positive  

metaphor  with  regard  to  explicit  instruction.    

 

5.2.2  Instruction  versus  exposure.    

Q  7.  Students  can  learn  grammar  through  exposure  to  natural  use.  

  S1  %   S2  %   S3  %  1  strongly  disagree   6.3   6.3   5.0  2  disagree   18.8   31.3   30.0  3  agree   31.3   43.8   42.5  4  strongly  agree   20.8   18.8   22.5  Central  point  3  in  S1   22.9    

Table  10  shows  that  65%  of  S3  respondents  agreed  that  if  learners  have  the  opportunity  

to  be  exposed  to  usage  by  native  speakers,  they  can  filter  aspects  of  grammar,  which  may  

ultimately  lead  to  learning  and  acquisition.  S2  respondents  evidently  felt  the  same,  with  

62.6%  agreeing,  and  though  respondents  in  S1  had  a  majority  agreement  of  52%,  this  

showed  that  some  had  reservations  about  exposure  ultimately  leading  to  grammatical  

knowledge.  This  could  be  accounted  for  by  those  S3  respondents  working  in  ESL  

countries,  whose  learners  have  more  of  an  opportunity  to  hear  standard  usage  outside  

the  L2  classroom.  However,  EAP  learners,  regardless  if  they  are  studying  in  ESL  countries,  

are  much  less  inclined  to  encounter  the  type  of  academic  English  that  is  most  applicable  

to  their  learning  situation,  hence  respondents  in  S1  feeling  a  little  more  cautious  about  

the  proposition  stated.    

Table  10  

   

47  

 

The  proposition  presented  in  Q8,  in  Table  11,  above,  produced  overwhelming  agreement,  

with  87.5%  of  those  in  S3  agreeing,  followed  by  80.5%  and  77.1%  agreeing  in  S2  and  S1,  

respectively.  Again,  such  conclusive  agreement  across  all  three  studies  reveals  that  L2  

teachers  are  generally  comfortable  administering  formal  instruction,  although  this  does  

not  necessarily  entail  that  all  of  them  are  happy  about  it.  For  instance,  one  S3  respondent  

clearly  accepts  that  instruction  has  a  place  in  the  L2  classroom,  but  that  it  comes  at  a  cost,  

namely,  stealing  time  from  more  beneficial  activities:    

I  believe  that  we  should  use  whatever  way  helps  the  students  "get  there"  and  for  some  students  grammar  instruction  can  be  a  kind  of  support  mechanism.  I  do  not  feel  that  there  is  much  value  (particularly  in  terms  of  using  our  limited  student  contact  time)  in  explicitly  teaching  grammar.  T27  

 

However,  the  following  two  S3  comments  evidently  see  instruction  as  a  means  to  an  end  

rather  than  its  being  the  raison  d’être  for  teaching:  

 It's  obviously  useful  and  more  natural  to  have  grammar  taught  within  a  context  (text,  listening  etc)  but  sometimes  they  do  like  straightforward  explanation  and  presentation.  T1      

 I  have  been  a  strong  advocate  of  grammar  teaching  in  EFL  classes-­‐-­‐particularly  in  non-­‐native  contexts.  In  my  country  (Bangladesh),  where  English  is  just  a  classroom  language  and  lacks  socio-­‐cultural  applications,  grammar  teaching  is  the  key  to  students'  English  proficiency.  T12  

Q  8.  Formal  instruction  helps  learners  to  produce  grammatically  correct  language.    

  S1  %   S2  %   S3  %  1  strongly  disagree   0   3.2   7.5  2  disagree   8.3   16.1   5  3  agree   52.1   41.9   50  4  strongly  agree   25.0   38.7   37.5  Central  point  3  in  S1   14.6  

Table  11  

   

48  

Clearly,  from  such  a  high  percentage  of  agreement,  S3  respondents  fully  accept  that  

formal  instruction  plays  a  significant  role  within  the  L2  classroom,  especially  when  correct  

usage  through  exposure  is  not  a  viable  option,  as  is  the  case  for  the  learners  of  T15.    

 

 5.2.3  Declarative  versus  procedural  knowledge  

Q  24.  My  students  find  it  difficult  to  transfer  their  grammatical  knowledge  into  communicative  language  use.       S1  %   S2  %   S3  %  1  strongly  disagree   0   6.3   10.2  2  disagree   6.5   28.1   23.8  3  agree   39.1   43.8   53.8  4  strongly  agree   13.0   21.9   12.8  Central  point  3  in  S1   41.3    

Questions  pertaining  to  declarative  and  procedural  knowledge  were  hoped  to  provide  the  

dividing-­‐line  that  would  separate  the  ‘sophisticated  teachers’  from  the  ‘run  of  the  mill’  

teachers  alluded  to  earlier.  Therefore,  as  voiced  by  Widdowson  (1978),  possessing  

substantive  theoretical  knowledge  about  SLA  could  be  argued  as  being  one  factor  that  

affects  teacher  cognition,  which  ultimately  influences  classroom  decision-­‐making.  

Knowledge  of  such  theory  generally  requires  Masters-­‐level  education,  thus  could  be  seen  

as  being  beyond  the  pedagogic  remit  of  a  CELTA-­‐qualified  General  English  teacher.  

However,  this  assumption  can  be  negated  by  the  following  two  points:  1)  The  level  of  

qualifications  recorded  in  Chart  4  match  those  needed  to  teach  EAP  in  university,  and  2)  

Table  12  reveals  that  S3  respondents  have  the  highest  percentage  of  the  three  studies,  

with  66%  agreeing.  Although  41%  chose  option  3  in  S1,  there  was  still  a  majority  

agreement  with  52%,  as  was  the  percentage  in  S2,  which  is  almost  identical  to  that  in  S3,  

with  65.7%  in  agreement.  Unfortunately,  qualitative  statements  from  S3  respondents  

needed  to  support  the  quantitative  findings  related  to  the  stated  proposition  were  

Table  12  

   

49  

insufficient,  and  because  of  this,  a  conclusion  cannot  be  reached  which  would  indicate  

parity  between  the  two  sets  of  L2  teachers  with  regard  to  SLA  theoretical  knowledge.  

More  studies  that  exploit  this  particular  language  area  would  undoubtedly  benefit  further  

research.    

5.2.4  The  use  of  grammatical  terminology    

Q  30.  My  students  find  it  difficult  to  use  grammatical  terminology       S1  %   S2  %   S3  %  1  strongly  disagree   13.0   3.1   2.5  2  disagree   34.8   46.9   47.5  3  agree   19.6   37.5   42.5  4  strongly  agree   2.2   12.5   7.5  Central  point  3  in  S1   30.4    

Remarkably,  Table  13  shows  S3  and  S2  score  exactly  the  same  in  overall  disagreement  

and  agreement,  with  50%  for  each  category.  As  expected,  S1  respondents  have  majority  

disagreement  at  51.4%,  with  only  21.8%  in  agreement.  A  plausible  explanation  why  S3  

have  equal  percentages  of  dis/agree  could  be  to  do  with  a)  learners  coming  from  EFL  

countries  where  curriculums  use  a  synthetic-­‐type  syllabus,  i.e.,  one  that:  “relies  on  

learners'  assumed  ability  to  learn  a  language  in  parts  (e.g.,  structures  and  functions)  

which  are  independent  of  one  another”  (Long  and  Crookes,  1992:  28);  and  b)  non-­‐native  

General  English  teachers  who  are  now  working  in  ESL  countries  whose  learners  are  mainly  

immigrants  with  very  little  formal  education,  and  would  therefore  be  oblivious  to  such  

metalinguistic  terminology;  such  reasoning  could  account  for  why  an  extra  5.0%  of  S3  

disagreed  than  those  who  agreed.  Also,  It  is  no  surprise  to  find  that  learners  in  S1  do  not  

have  much  difficulty  with  metalinguistic  terminology,  given  that  such  language  is  

abundant  within  academia,  though  this  answer  fails  to  account  for  the  respondents  in  S2.  

The  following  comments  from  S3  respondents  shed  a  little  light  on  the  preceding  

 Table  13  

   

50  

hypothesis:  

The  majority  of  foreign  students  are  familiar  with  grammatical  terms  and  find  it  easier/more  natural  than  native  English  speakers  to  'deal'  with  the  terms.  T1  

 From  my  experience  I  think  grammar  structures  need  to  be  taught  explicitly  but  perhaps  introduced  through  context  and  'noticing'  activities.  I  think  it  is  useful  if  students  have  a  knowledge  of  the  system,  and  the  metalanguage.  It  enables  them  to  discuss  the  grammar  too.  T19      Understanding  why  we  say  things  the  way  we  do  should  provide  them  with  the  necessary  tools  to  self-­‐correct  or  understand  their  mistakes.  This  does  not  mean  that  they  need  to  master  metalinguistic  terms  (even  if  as  a  non-­‐native  speaker  I  believe  it  can  help  them  better  understand  their  mistakes).  T8  

 

The  above  comments  show  that  the  teachers  are  aware  that  having  a  grasp  of  

metalanguage  can  be  beneficial,  though  it  is  certainly  not  detrimental  to  the  learners  if  

they  are  unacquainted  with  such  terminology,  as  T8  makes  clear  in  the  second  sentence.  

5.2.5  Error  correction    

Q  21.  Form-­‐focused  correction  helps  students  to  improve  their  grammatical  performance.     S1  %   S2  %   S3  %  1  strongly  disagree   2.1   6.5   5.0  2  disagree   18.8   9.7   25.0  3  agree   50.0   58.1   60.0  4  strongly  agree   6.3   25.8   10.0  Central  point  3  in  S1   22.9    

The  final  theme  to  be  analysed  is  perhaps  the  one  that  will  reveal  whether  General  

English  L2  teachers  are  theoretically  and  pedagogically  equal  to  the  supposedly  superior  

EAP  teachers.  Firstly,  the  percentages  in  Table  14,  above,  show  majority  agreement  

among  all  three  studies,  but  there  is  considerable  disparity  between  the  highest  (S2,  

83.9%)  and  lowest  (S1,  56.3%);  S3  sits  comfortably  in  the  middle,  with  70%  agreeing.  

Table  14  

   

51  

Providing  appropriate  corrections  is  a  key  aspect  of  a  focus  on  form  approach,  and  is  

therefore  an  adequate  barometer  for  judging  an  L2  teacher’s  pedagogical  competence  in  

relation  to  their  knowledge.  The  high  percentage  in  S3  initially  indicates  that  the  

respondents  are,  at  the  very  least,  au  fait  with  one  aspect  of  focus  on  form,  namely,  that  

correction  helps  to  improve  performance.  A  look  at  some  of  the  S3  qualitative  statements  

may  offer  some  support  to  the  quantitative  findings:  

 

I  think  that  there  are  essentially  2  key  cases  for  error  correction.  1)  When  it  is  correction  of  the  form  being  practised  at  the  time.  2)  When  the  errors  are  persistent  or  at  typical  of  L1  interference.  T2      I  used  to  only  correct  grammatical  mistakes  when  the  focus  of  the  lesson  was  grammar.  Recently  I  find  myself  occasionally  correcting  mistakes  in  communicative  activities  as  well.  T7    

It's  a  challenge  but  without  any  correction,  students  (unless  very,  very  motivated)  do  not  improve.  I  think  that  whether  or  not  to  correct  depends  on  the  students'  motivation  for  learning  language  in  the  first  place.  T18      While  I  was  trained  to  give  correction  reservedly,  I  find  that  students  expect  a  certain  amount  of  explicit  correction  in  the  classroom.  Therefore,  I  correct  more  than  I  "should",  but  not  so  much  as  to  disrupt  the  flow  of  the  class.  It's  almost  an  art  to  correct  students  enough  to  satisfy  them  but  not  too  much  to  disrupt  the  flow  of  the  class.  T16  

   

All  four  of  the  above  S3  comments  provide  differing  motives  for  correcting  their  learners,  

though  none  conclusively  reveal  whether  it  conforms  to  Long’s  (1991)  definition  of  focus  

on  form.  T2’s  comment  seems  to  apply  more  to  a  focus  on  forms  approach,  exemplified  

by  the  heavily  criticised  PPP  approach,  with  only  T16’s  comment  alluding  to  the  skill  

necessary  in  carrying  out  corrections  that  occur  incidentally.  Interestingly,  the  final  part  of  

   

52  

T16’s  comment  to  correct  students  enough  to  satisfy  them  is  redolent  of  Batstone’s  

(2011)  argument  about  teacher  and  learner  being  pedagogically  in  tune;  that  is,  a  teacher  

may  very  well  think  that  s/he  is  correcting  appropriately,  but  if  the  method  used  fails  to  

bring  the  error  to  the  attention  of  the  learner,  then  the  teacher  has  failed  and  the  learner  

ceases  to  improve.  Moreover,  there  is  nothing  in  the  above  comments  that  hint  of  the  

subtleties  required  to  promote  the  levels  of  noticing  needed  to  make  self-­‐corrections.  

Ellis  (2008)  advanced  his  rationale  for  applying  either  input  providing  or  output  prompting  

strategies  that  alert  learners  to  an  error,  thus  enabling  them  to  self-­‐correct,  but  all  of  the  

above  comments  suggest  that  correction  is  either  arbitrary,  as  in  T18,  or  unsystematic,  as  

in  T7.  However,  due  to  there  being  only  qualitative  comments  supporting  the  quantitative  

data,  thus  no  contingency  for  triangulation,  it  would  be  injudicious  to  criticise  S3  

respondents  for  being  inconspicuous  with  regard  to  focus  on  form  corrective  strategies.    

 

5.3  Summary    

This  chapter  has  presented  the  empirical  data  that  was  collected  for  this  present  study.  

The  findings  were  analysed  by  incorporating  both  a  quantitative  and  qualitative  method,  

as  was  used  in  the  original  studies,  and  found  some  interesting  and  often  unexpected  

answers  to  the  questions  put  forward  to  the  respondents.  Section  5.1  looked  at  the  non-­‐

personal  backgrounds  of  the  respondents  and  found  there  to  be  surprisingly  little  

difference  in  terms  of  years  teaching,  full-­‐time  General  English  teacher,  and  most  

importantly,  ELT  qualifications.  Section  5.2  then  looked  at  how  S3  respondents  

considered  the  role  of  grammar  in  language,  and  here,  too,  there  were  many  similarities  

among  all  three  studies  to  be  found.  In  section  5.2.1,  S3  respondents  revealed  themselves  

to  be  as  knowledgeable  and  accepting  as  the  EAP  teachers  of  the  needs  for  their  learners  

   

53  

to  have  grammar  be  explained  explicitly.  The  following  section,  5.2.2,  highlighted  the  first  

(minor)  differences  between  the  respondents  in  S3  and  S1;  those  in  S3  believing  that  

exposure  could  lead  to  grammar  knowledge,  while  those  in  S1  answered  more  

circumspectly.  It  was  hoped  that  section  5.2.3  would  reveal  an  SLA  theoretical  schism  

between  the  two  groups  of  L2  teachers,  but,  unfortunately,  the  qualitative  data  from  the  

S3  respondents  were  inadequate  to  support  making  such  conclusive  statements.  In  

section  5.2.4,  again,  minor  differences  in  beliefs  surfaced  with  regard  to  the  benefits  of  

learners  having  knowledge  of  metalinguistic  terminology  and  finally,  section  5.2.5  

provided  a  hint  that  S3  respondents  may  not  be  as  methodologically  conscientious  with  

regard  to  administering  appropriate  corrective  feedback  as  their  EAP  peers.    

The  following  chapter  will  expand  on  the  points  outlined  in  this  summary  in  much  greater  

detail,  and  will  also  put  forward  a  recommendation  for  future  research.    

 

 

 

   

54  

Chapter  6  

Conclusions  and  recommendations  

   

6.  Introduction  

In  this  chapter,  the  aim  is  to  summarise  in  detail  the  findings  of  the  previous  chapter  and  

based  on  what  was  found  make  recommendations  that  might  aid  any  future  research  into  

this  particular  area  of  study.  There  will  also  be  further  mention  on  the  limitations  of  this  

study  in  addition  to  what  was  said  in  chapter  4.  To  recap:  the  objective  of  this  research  

project  was  to  discover  by  survey  questionnaire  if  L2  General  English  teachers  could  be  

distinguished  from  a  group  of  L2  EAP  teachers  based  solely  on  the  beliefs  and  attitudes  

they  expressed  in  relation  to  the  explicit  instruction  and  correction  of  grammar.  If  it  is  

found  that  L2  learners  studying  general  English  are  at  a  learning  disadvantage  due  to  their  

teacher’s  pedagogic  beliefs,  then  an  important  discovery  will  have  been  made;  

conversely,  if  it  is  found  that  the  difference  in  beliefs  between  the  two  sets  of  teachers  is  

negligible,  then  it  should  be  indicative  that  most  learners  of  a  particular  English  genre  are  

being  taught  conscientiously,  with  equal  amounts  of  pedagogical  bias.  To  see  if  this  was  

the  case  or  not,  a  set  of  research  objectives  were  formulated  to  discover  whether  

differences  in  beliefs  and  attitudes  could  be  attributed  to  the  following  three  premises:  

   

55  

1) English  being  taught  as  EAP  as  opposed  to  General  English  

2) English  being  taught  in  universities  as  opposed  to  private  language  schools    

3) The  consequence  of  higher-­‐level  L2  teaching  qualifications  

The  following  paragraphs  will  provide  a  detailed  summary  of  the  findings  from  the  

present  study  in  relation  to  the  premises  outlined  above.  The  referents  S1,  S2,  and  S3  will  

continue  to  apply  throughout  this  chapter  when  appropriate.  

 

6.1  Research  objectives    

Two  studies  set  out  to  examine  the  beliefs  and  attitudes  of  a  group  of  EAP  teachers  in  

relation  to  the  explicit  instruction  of  grammar.  These  studies  were  undertaken  firstly  in  

the  UK  by  Burgess  and  Etherington  (2002),  followed  by  the  second  study,  which  was  

undertaken  in  New  Zealand  by  Barnard  and  Scampton  (2008).  The  context  in  which  the  

teachers’  beliefs  and  attitudes  were  being  researched  applied  to  EAP  taught  in  

universities.  The  present  study  sought  to  replicate  the  previous  studies  by  carrying  out  

the  same  research  but  with  a  different  target  group  of  L2  teachers,  namely,  General  

English  teachers  working  in  private  language  schools.  Although  the  present  study  

replicated  almost  every  aspect  of  the  original  studies,  the  major  difference  between  them  

was  to  be  found  in  the  heterogeneity  of  the  respondents  taking  part  in  the  studies.  For  

the  original  two  studies,  the  respondents  came  mainly  from  the  countries  where  the  

studies  were  being  undertaken,  meaning  that  the  surveys  could  only  be  generalised,  if  at  

all,  to  British  and  New  Zealand  teachers  of  EAP:  in  other  words,  a  very  small  percentage  of  

the  global  population  of  EAP  teachers.  The  present  study,  on  the  other  hand,  surveyed  

General  English  teachers  from  eleven  different  global  locations,  including  America,  Italy,  

Serbia,  Korea,  Japan,  UK,  Bangladesh,  Canada,  China,  Dhaka,  and  Saudi  Arabia.  It  was  felt  

   

56  

that  by  surveying  a  broader  sample  group,  a  more  accurate  set  of  beliefs  and  attitudes  

could  be  established,  giving  the  present  study  a  more  balanced  and  generalised  account  

of  the  findings.    

 

6.2  Summary  of  Literature  review  

The  literature  consulted  for  the  present  study  examined  explicit  instruction  mainly  from  

Long’s  (1991)  focus  on  form  approach.  It  was  also  found  that  more  explicit  than  implicit  

approaches  to  the  instruction  and  correction  of  grammar  were  marginally  favoured  

(Norris  and  Ortega,  2003).  However,  because  the  dividing  line  favouring  one  approach  

over  the  other  was  inappreciable,  how  grammar  in  the  L2  classroom  was  administered  

was  seemingly  left  to  the  individual  teacher’s  own  discretion  and  interpretation  of  L2  

learning  theories  about  SLA  (Batstone,  2011).  Consequently,  by  analysing  how  the  two  

groups  of  teachers  approached  the  instruction  and  correction  of  grammar,  it  was  hoped  

that  their  individual  beliefs  and  attitudes  could  be  inferred,  thus  giving  an  insight  into  the  

cognitive  processes  behind  such  decision-­‐making.  Borg  (2003)  provided  a  list  outlining  the  

many  possible  reasons  why  teachers  choose  one  approach  over  another,  and  found  the  

following  factors  to  be  affective:  instructional  concerns  or  considerations;  pedagogical  

knowledge;  educational  maxims  or  principles;  levels  of  context;  personal  practical  

knowledge;  beliefs,  and  personal  convictions  (p.  91).    

 

6.3  Summary  of  findings    

Thus,  in  relation  to  question  23  Explicit  discussion  of  grammar  rules  is  helpful  for  students,    

S3  respondents  were  found  to  share  almost  identical  agreement  with  the  respondents  in  

S1,  with  those  in  S2  agreeing  slightly  more.  Similarly,  questions  25  My  students  expect  

   

57  

teachers  to  present  grammar  points  explicitly  and  26  A  lack  of  explicit  grammar  teaching  

leaves  my  students  feeling  insecure  showed  there  to  be  considerable  concordance  in  

agreement  among  S1,  S2  and  S3  respondents.  Therefore,  if  teaching  EAP  necessitates  

holding  particular  beliefs  about  how  learners  should  be  instructed  with  regard  to  

grammar,  it  should  be  evident  in  the  responses  given  by  the  teachers  in  S1  and  S2,  but  as  

they  mainly  concur  with  those  of  the  teachers  in  S3,  one  can  conclude  that  in  regard  to  

explicit  grammar  instruction,  both  sets  of  L2  teachers  hold  similar  beliefs.  Question  7  

Students  can  learn  grammar  through  exposure  to  natural  use,  however,  produced  the  

first  minor  differences  in  beliefs  between  the  two  groups  of  teachers,  with  S3  

respondents  having  the  highest  percentage  of  agreement  at  65%,  while  S1  had  the  

lowest,  with  52%  agreeing.  Although  the  difference  in  agreement  between  S3  and  S1  was  

only  13%,  this  may  actually  be  more  significant  than  first  perceived,  as  it  has  wider  

implications  related  to  the  theoretical  rationale  provided  by  Ellis  (2008),  who  stated  that  

depending  on  whether  input  data  is  positive  and  negative,  or  just  negative,  exposure  to  

such  evidence  is  a  crucial  factor  in  deciding  whether  a)  salient  forms  are  noticed  by  

learners,  and  b)  if  noticing  subsequently  effects  learning.  Consequently,  knowing  such  

theory  would  suggest  a  well-­‐developed  understanding  of  SLA,  insofar  as  Schmitd  (1990)  

pointed  out  that  just  because  a  learner  is  exposed  to  the  L2  in  everyday  usage  (as  he  

himself  was  when  learning  Portuguese  in  Brazil),  it  does  not  entail  that  what  is  heard  or  

seen  via  natural  exposure  is  automatically  noticed,  and  then  learned.    

 

It  would  seem,  then,  that  a  disparity  of  13%  could  be  interpreted  as  S3  respondents  being  

slightly  less  knowledgeable  about  the  psycholinguistic  processes  involved  in  ‘picking  up’  

aspects  of  grammar  through  exposure,  and  that  the  slightly  more  circumspect  view  from  

   

58  

S1  concords  more  with  what  theory  has  to  say  about  learning  through  exposure.  There  

are,  however,  two  important  aspects  that  need  to  be  considered  before  concluding  S3  

respondents  are  less  theoretically  informed  than  either  S1  or  S2,  and  these  are:  that  22%  

of  S1  respondents  chose  the  neutral  option  for  question  7,  and  that  less  than  3%  

separates  S2  and  S3  respondents  sharing  the  same  belief.  The  relevance  of  these  two  

variables  means  that  any  suggestion  of  S3  respondents  being  pedagogically  or  

theoretically  inferior  to  either  S1  or  S2  respondents  would  be  ill  judged.  This  view  is  

strongly  supported  by  the  findings  regarding  the  S3  respondents’  non-­‐personal  

background  characteristics,  which  unequivocally  show  them  to  be  equal  to  the  EAP  

respondents  in  terms  of  L2  teaching  experience,  full-­‐time  employment,  and  perhaps  most  

importantly,  the  level  to  which  they  have  been  educated,  i.e.,  predominantly  Masters.    

   

Themes  that  addressed  notions  of  grammatically,  i.e.,  usage,  with  particular  regard  to  

communicative  competence  in  S3,  found  overwhelming  agreement,  not  just  among  the  

three  studies,  but  also  within  each  individual  study.  Question  8  Formal  instruction  helps  

learners  to  produce  grammatically  correct  language  provided  sufficient  data  to  assert  

that  S3  respondents  believed  that,  like  respondents  in  S2  and  S1,  formal  instruction  

satisfied  the  needs  of  their  learners  rather  than  satisfying  any  pedagogic  purposes.  Such  

formal  instruction  does  not  generally  cohere  with  Long’s  (1991)  focus  on  form  approach,  

to  which  the  authors  of  S1  and  S2  studies  claimed  their  respective  respondents  broadly  

adhered;  thus  the  high  percentage  of  agreement  with  the  proposition  in  Q8  (S3  =  87.5%  /  

S2  =  80.5%  /  S1  =  77.1%)  can  be  said  to  be  symptomatic  of  teacher  cognitions  to  which  

Borg  (2003)  alluded.  As  a  result,  when  teachers  are  faced  with  having  to  make  classroom  

decisions  based  not  on  theories  of  L2  pedagogy  but  on  more  existential  principles,  what  

   

59  

Gabillon  (2012)  calls  core  beliefs,  then  often  the  decision-­‐making  reflects  the  context  of  

the  lesson  rather  than  the  contents  of  the  lesson  plan;  qualitative  comments  from  all  

three  studies  lend  support  to  this  hypothesis.    

 

Question  24  My  students  find  it  difficult  to  transfer  their  grammatical  knowledge  into  

communicative  language  use  examined  the  theme  related  to  declarative  and  procedural  

knowledge.  As  was  mentioned  in  the  analysis  of  the  previous  chapter,  it  was  hoped  that  

this  particular  question  would  reveal  a  schism  within  the  two  groups  of  teachers,  as  

knowledge  regarding  this  particular  area  of  L2  pedagogy  requires  a  teacher  to  be  abreast  

of  SLA  theories.  The  fact  that  S3  respondents  had  the  highest  percentage  in  agreement  

(66%)  should  suggest  that  they  also  possess  the  greater  theoretical  knowledge  regarding  

Q24’s  proposition;  the  corollary  being  that  as  S1  respondents  recorded  the  lowest  

percentage  (52%),  they  also  possess  the  least  theoretical  knowledge.  Proving  such  an  

assertion  would  have  been  relatively  straightforward  had  S3  respondents  provided  

supporting  qualitative  comments,  e.g.,  use  of  metalinguistic  terms  regarding  aspects  of  

declarative  and  procedural  knowledge  would  have  been  indicative  of  the  underpinnings  

of  SLA  theory;  sadly,  there  were  no  qualitative  comments  to  support  such  assertions.  

However,  this  does  not  mean  that  a  lack  of  metalinguistic  comments  entails  a  dearth  of  

SLA  theoretical  knowledge.  For  example,  Barnard  and  Scampton  (2008)  remarked  on  the  

poverty  of  metalinguistic  terminology  found  in  the  comments  from  the  respondents  in  S2.  

Moreover,  that  they  recorded  an  almost  identical  percentage  of  agreement  (65.7%)  to  

Q24  as  the  respondents  in  S3  shows  once  again  that  it  is  not  a  prerequisite  for  teachers  

teaching  EAP  in  universities  to  have  recourse  to  a  set  of  beliefs  and  attitudes  on  how  to  

teach  grammar  that  teachers  teaching  General  English  in  private  language  schools  do  not.        

   

60  

Questions  and  themes  that  addressed  the  role  grammar  plays  in  language  provided  

evidence  of  both  agreement  and  disagreement,  although,  as  will  become  apparent,  this  is  

not  evidence  of  the  two  groups  holding  contradictory  beliefs.  The  first  question,  6a  The  

role  of  grammar  in  language  is  as  a  framework  for  the  rest  of  the  language  –  a  basic  

system  to  build  everything  else  on,  showed  respondents  in  S3  with  the  highest  percentage  

of  78%,  and  S1  with  the  lowest  at  60%.  This  was  a  reasonably  large  difference,  even  with  

19.6%  choosing  neutral  option  3  in  S1,  to  suggest  that  attitudes  regarding  the  importance  

of  grammar  differed  not  inconsiderably.  The  answer  to  such  differences  in  belief  may  lie  

in  the  genre  of  English  being  taught.  For  the  respondents  in  S1,  grammar  is  a  vital  

component  in  getting  learners  up  to  the  standard  required  for  academic  study  at  

university  level;  hence,  EAP  teachers  placing  a  premium  on  learners  mastering,  or  at  least,  

competently  managing,  grammar.  General  English  teachers  on  the  other  hand,  though  

recognizing  grammar  as  the  conduit  without  which  meaningful  communication  could  take  

place  (Swan,  1985),  also  recognize  that  for  many  EFL  learners,  speaking  in  the  classroom  

is  paramount  in  building  their  confidence  in  using  the  L2.  As  a  result,  General  English  

teachers  afford  their  learners  far  greater  margins  for  error  than  EAP  teachers  allow  their  

learners.  Therefore,  rather  than  ascribing  the  differences  in  percentage  to  differences  in  

belief,  it  is  important  to  remember  the  role  that  context  plays  in  language-­‐learning,  not  

just  the  role  grammar  plays.  The  comments  made  by  T15  attest  to  this  point.  Likewise  

with  question  6c  The  role  of  grammar  in  language  is  as  something  which  is  added  on  to  

language  proficiency:  a  refinement  of  more  basic  language  knowledge,  the  fact  that  

respondents  in  S1  had  0%  in  agreement  with  this  proposition,  while  42%  of  S3  

respondents  were  in  agreement,  is  not  necessarily  indicative  of  conflicting  beliefs  borne  

of  theoretical  ideologies.  For  as  the  previous  hypothesis  stated,  context  rather  than  

   

61  

curriculum  is  a  probable  explanation  for  the  different  percentages  of  those  in  agreement  

and  disagreement:  EAP  teachers  demand  far  greater  grammatical  accuracy  in  L2  usage;  

General  English  teachers  demand  far  greater  fluency  in  L2  use.  The  different  demands  

placed  on  usage  and  use  is  an  important  one,  as  it  reflects  the  sentiments  Widdowson  

(1978)  made  regarding  language  simplification,  i.e.,  that  for  many  EFL  learners  of  General  

English,  expediency  of  message  often  necessitates  a  forfeiting  of  grammatical  accuracy;  

thus  when  errors  are  inevitably  made,  especially  when  the  learners  are  speaking,  teachers  

should  be  aware  that  the  cause  of  the  error  may  be  symbolic  of  more  than  just  a  lack  of  

communicative  competence,  i.e.,  the  learner’s  interlanguage  having  to  cope  with  

multimodal  input  and  output  data  (Klapper  and  Rees,  2003).      

 

The  theme  relating  to  learners  having  the  ability  to  understand  and  use  metalinguistic  

terminology  revealed  an  interesting  statistic,  namely,  that  S2  and  S3  respondents  

recorded  the  exact  same  percentages  for  those  who  agreed  and  those  who  disagreed,  

with  50%  for  both  groups,  respectively.  S1  had  a  very  similar  percentage  for  those  in  

disagreement,  51.4%,  but  had  a  much  lower  percentage,  21.8%,  for  those  respondents  

who  agreed.  It  is  therefore  quite  difficult  to  draw  a  conclusive  statement,  especially  given  

that  30.4%  chose  neutral  option  3  in  S1.  The  qualitative  comments  made  by  S3  

respondents,  however,  suggest  that  even  though  it  may  be  beneficial  to  the  learners  if  

they  are  able  to  use  such  terminology,  learning  an  L2  can  still  be  achieved  without  

employing  such  metalanguage.  In  this  particular  instance,  there  is  nothing  to  indicate  EAP  

teachers  being  more  skilled  or  knowledgeable  in  using  instructional  language  in  the  

university  lecture  rooms  than  General  English  teachers  are  in  private  school  classrooms.    

   

62  

The  final  question  in  the  analysis  chapter  addressed  the  theme  related  to  correction.  It  

was  found  that  in  both  S1  and  S2  studies,  the  respective  authors  reported  that  the  

respondents’  beliefs  and  attitudes  toward  learner  correction  generally  favoured  a  focus  

on  form  approach.  Consequently,  Q21  Form-­‐focused  correction  helps  students  to  improve  

their  grammatical  performance  would  be  key  to  finding  out  how  much  of  Long’s  (1991)  

theory  S3  respondents  understood,  and  subsequently  utilised  in  the  classroom.  In  the  

Literature  Review,  Basturkmen  et  al.  (2004)  discussed  how  common  it  was  for  L2  teachers  

to  collate  certain  types  of  beliefs  with  regard  to  certain  types  of  classroom  practices,  yet  

when  the  same  teachers  were  being  observed  putting  their  beliefs  into  practice,  their  

behavior  was  manifestly  contradictory.  A  look  at  the  percentages  regarding  agreement  

reveals  enough  disparity  among  S1  (56.3%),  S2  (83.9%),  and  S3  (70%)  for  it  to  be  

considered  evidence  of  differing  attitudes  in  relation  to  corrective  feedback.  It  is  

understandable  that  the  EAP  teachers  in  S1,  with  a  majority  of  56%,  are  still  more  inclined  

to  concentrate  on  academic  activities  involving  written  English,  hence  much  less  of  a  need  

for  incidental  focus  on  form  intervention.  Teachers  and  learners  involved  in  more  typical  

CLT-­‐type  activities,  however,  consider  meaningful  dialogue  to  be  a  major  learning  

objective,  hence  respondents  in  S3  being  more  likely  to  incorporate  elements  of  focus  on  

form  negotiation  strategies.  Conversely,  the  corresponding  qualitative  comments  from  S3  

did  little  to  support  a  focus  on  form  approach  to  error  correction,  with  T2  seemingly  

promoting  a  focus  on  forms  PPP  approach,  while  the  other  comments  suggested  that  

classroom  corrections  were  administered  to  appease  learners’  anxiety.  This  last  point  is  a  

clear  reference  to  what  Fotos  (1998)  and  Batstone  (2011)  were  saying  in  regard  to  the  

cultural  implications  of  promoting  CLT  in  EFL  countries,  and  whether  the  subtlety  

required  to  carry  out  the  strong  version  of  focus  on  form  is  too  implicit  for  learners  more  

   

63  

used  to  direct  and  explicit  intervention.  The  consequences  of  these  latter  two  points  can  

be  seen  in  the  way  both  General  English  and  EAP  teachers  accommodate  the  exigencies  

of  their  learners’  pedagogic,  thus  cultural,  expectations.    

 

6.4  Limitations  and  recommendations  of  the  present  study  

One  of  the  major  drawbacks  of  carrying  out  research  using  a  survey  questionnaire  as  the  

sole  means  of  data  collection  is  that  whatever  the  findings  present,  one  has  to  accept  

them  for  what  they  are,  i.e.,  the  personal  opinions  and  beliefs  of  a  particular  (and  

frequently  small)  sample  group.  For  the  present  study,  the  data  collected  indicated  that  

both  sets  of  L2  teachers  could  not  truly  be  distinguished  from  one  another  by  means  of  

the  quantitative  and  qualitative  findings.  This  would  suggest  that  it  would  be  reasonably  

easy  for  both  sets  of  teachers  to  trade  places  without  too  much  disruption  to  either  

learner  or  teacher;  however,  this  could  not  be  the  case  in  the  real  world.  Even  though  

both  sets  of  teachers  are  equally  well  qualified,  making  the  classroom  transition  from  one  

genre  to  another  would  undoubtedly  take  considerable  pedagogic  acclimation,  especially  

with  regard  to  teaching  methods,  e.g.,  techniques  and  materials.  But  as  it  is,  the  findings  

of  the  present  study  have  to  be  taken  at  face  value,  regardless  of  what  they  indicate  or  

suggest.  One  suspects,  though,  had  the  respondents  from  S1,  S2,  and  S3  been  subjected  

to  the  same  stringent  research  procedures  as  the  teachers  in  the  longitudinal  studies  

undertaken  by  Basturkmen  et  al.  (2004)  and  Borg  and  Phipps  (2009),  the  conclusions  

reached  would  probably  indicate  a  much  greater  disparity  in  beliefs  and  attitudes.  This  is,  

however,  mere  speculation,  and  with  no  supporting  evidence  remains  an  unsubstantiated  

hypothesis.  Furthermore,  if  triangulation  of  data  were  made  available  for  the  present  

   

64  

study,  it  could  very  well  reveal  the  two  sets  of  teachers  being  even  closer  in  their  shared  

beliefs  than  the  present  study  already  suggests.    

 

Thus,  for  any  future  research  intending  to  compare,  define,  and  calibrate  the  beliefs  and  

attitudes  of  one,  or  even  two,  sets  of  L2  teachers,  on  the  evidence  of  this  present  study,  it  

is  recommended  that  the  researcher  ought  first  to  make  the  necessary  methodological  

provisions  that  allow  for  the  data  collected  to  be  triangulated,  thus  being  assured  that  the  

findings,  whatever  they  may  be,  are  trustworthy  and  reliable.  Also,  because  it  was  not  

really  possible  to  find  any  compelling  data  to  support  Long’s  (1991)  incidental  focus  on  

form  from  the  S3  teachers’  comments,  future  survey  questionnaires  may  have  to  be  more  

direct  in  how  they  word  the  questions.  It  was  felt  that  the  questions  in  the  present  study  

may  have  been  a  little  too  imprecise  to  ascertain  certain  beliefs  conclusively.  And  finally,  

the  benefit  of  using  a  four  rather  than  five-­‐point  rating  scale  should  be  encouraged,  as  

too  many  respondents  choosing  option  three  in  S1  made  analysing  the  findings  in  relation  

to  S2  and  S3  haphazard,  thus  less  reliable  and  accurate.    

The  following  chapter  will  now  draw  this  dissertation  to  a  close  by  presenting  a  conclusive  

overview  of  the  preceding  relevant  chapters.  

 

                       

   

65  

Chapter  7  Conclusion  

 

 

7.  Comprehensive  overview  of  present  study  

There  were  two  aims  to  this  research  project:  1)  to  discover  what  kinds  of  beliefs  and  

attitudes  a  group  of  EFL  General  English  teachers  held  in  relation  to  the  explicit  

instruction  and  correction  of  grammar;  and  2)  to  what  extent  were  these  beliefs  and  

attitudes  consistent  with  the  same  research  carried  out  on  two  groups  of  EAP  teachers  

working  in  universities.  In  order  to  account  for  the  likely  variables  that  would  differentiate  

these  two  groups  of  English  teachers,  a  set  of  research  objectives  contingent  on  a  set  of  

credible  premises  were  presented.    

 

The  Literature  review  provided  plenty  of  evidence  to  suggest  there  was  a  lot  of  interest  

with  regard  to  beliefs  and  attitudes  in  relation  to  explicit  and  implicit  methods  of  

grammar  instruction;  in  addition,  literature  that  examined  the  myriad  external  influences  

which  affect  the  cognitive  processes  during  an  L2  lesson  was  also  consulted.  

Consequently,  those  who  participated  in  the  survey  had  their  beliefs  and  attitudes  

evaluated  according  to  a)  what  the  literature  presented  regarding  a  focus  on  form  

approach  to  grammar  instruction,  and  b)  the  corresponding  data  found  in  the  original  

studies.    

   

66  

The  methodology  used  in  carrying  out  the  research  for  the  present  study  involved  

accurately  replicating  the  research  strategy  employed  in  the  original  two  studies,  which  

entailed  using  a  survey  questionnaire  to  gather  the  required  data.  Once  the  data  had  

been  collected,  it  was  then  analysed  following  the  same  procedures  of  the  previous  

studies,  which  utilised  both  quantitative  and  qualitative  means  of  analysis.  The  resulting  

analysis  of  the  original  two  studies  found  the  two  groups  of  EAP  teachers  to  be  broadly  

sympathetic  in  their  beliefs  and  attitudes  towards  the  instruction  and  correction  of  

grammar.  In  light  of  this,  the  subsequent  findings  of  the  present  survey  allowed  for  the  

following  conclusions  to  be  reached.  

 

7.1  Conclusion    

Thus,  with  regard  to  premises  1,  2,  and  3  of  the  research  objectives,  there  was  nothing  in  

the  results  from  this  present  study  to  suggest  that  EAP  teachers  working  in  universities  

hold  beliefs  and  attitudes  that  are  markedly  different  from  those  held  by  General  English  

teachers  working  in  private  language  schools.  Furthermore,  both  sets  of  teachers  had  

comparable  personal  characteristics  in  terms  of  L2  experience  and  ELT  qualifications.  The  

result  of  such  closely  related  backgrounds  proved  to  be  a  defining  factor  in  showing  the  

two  groups  of  teachers  being  both  theoretically  and  pedagogically  similarly  disposed.  

Therefore,  any  differences  that  were  recorded  should  be  attributed  and  generalised  to  

the  individual  respondents  participating  in  the  studies,  not  to  the  wider  communities  of  

which  the  respondents  are  representatives.  Importantly,  whether  S3  respondents  fully  

engaged  with,  and  thus  understood,  the  fundamental  aim  of  Long’s  (1991)  focus  on  form  

approach  remains  a  point  of  conjecture,  as  this  could  not  be  established  from  the  findings  

alone;  hence  the  need  for  future  research  to  incorporate  triangulation  methods  when  

   

67  

collecting  and  analysing  data.  Overall,  then,  based  solely  on  the  findings  from  the  present  

study,  it  is  not  unreasonable  to  conclude  that  in  relation  to  genre  (premise  1),  teaching  

environment  (premise  2),  and  education  (premise  3),  General  English  teachers  in  S3  have  

shown  themselves  to  be  the  equal  of  their  EAP  contemporaries  in  S1  and  S2.  Moreover,  

the  findings  are  such  that  they  categorically  refute  Burgess  and  Etherington’s  claim  that  

EAP  teachers  are  a  class  above  General  English  teachers.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Word  count:  16,500]  

   

68  

Bibliography:    Allwright,  R.,  (1979).  Language  Learning  Through  Communication  Practice.  In:  Brumfit,  C.J.,  and  Johnson,  K.,  (eds.)  The  Communicative  Approach  to  Language  Teaching.  Oxford:  Oxford  University  Press.  pp.  167-­‐182.    Barnard,  R.,  and  Scampton,  D.,  (2008).  Teaching  Grammar:  A  Survey  of  EAP  Teachers  in  New  Zealand.    New  Zealand  Studies  in  Applied  Linguistics.  14  (2),    59-­‐82.    Basturkmen,  H.,  Loewen,  S.,  and  Ellis,  R.,  (2004).  Teachers'  stated  beliefs  about  incidental  focus  on  form  and  their  classroom  practices.  Applied  Linguistics.  25  (2),  243-­‐272.    Batstone,  R.,  (2011).  Recontextualising  Focus  on  Form.  In:  Fotos,  S.,  and  Nassaji,  H.,  (eds.)  Form-­‐Focused  Instruction  and  Teacher  Education:  Studies  in  Honour  of  Rod  Ellis.  Oxford:  Oxford  University  Press.  pp.  87-­‐99.    Biggam,  J.,  (2011).  Succeeding  with  your  Master's  Dissertation:  A  step-­‐by-­‐  step  handbook.  2nd  ed.  Maidenhead:  Open  University  Press.    Borg,  S.,  (1998).  Teachers’  Pedagogical  Systems  and  Grammar  Teaching:  A  Qualitative  Study.  Tesol  Quarterly.  Vol.  32  (1),  9-­‐37.  

Borg,  S.,  (1999).  Teachers'  theories  in  grammar  teaching.  ELT  Journal.    53  (3),  157-­‐167.  

Borg,  S.,  (2003).  Teacher  Cognition  in  language  teaching:  A  review  of  research  on  what  language  teachers  think,  know,  believe,  and  do.  Language  Teaching.  36  (2),  81-­‐109.      Borg,  S.,  and  Phipps,  S.,  (2009).  Exploring  tensions  between  teachers’  grammar  teaching  beliefs  and  practices.  System.  37  (3),  380-­‐390.    Breen,  M.  P.,  Hird,  B.,  Milton,  M.,  Oliver,  R.,  and  Thwaite,  A.,  (2001).  Making  sense  of  language  teaching:  Teachers'  principles  and  classroom  practices.  Applied  linguistics.  22  (4),  470-­‐501.  

Brown,  J.  D.,    (2013).  Sampling:  Quantitative  Methods.  In:  Chapelle,  C.  A.,  (ed,)  The  Encyclopedia  of  Applied  Linguists.  Volume  VIII  Pr-­‐Se.    Oxford:  Wiley-­‐Blackwell.  pp.  5045-­‐5050.    Brown,  J.D.,  and  Rodgers,  T.S.,  (2002).  Doing  Second  Language  Research.  Oxford:  Oxford  University  Press.      Brumfit,  C.,  (1979).  Communicative  Language  Teaching:  An  Educational  Perspective.  In:  Brumfit,  C.J.,  and  Johnson,  K.,  (eds.)  The  Communicative  Approach  to  Language  Teaching.  Oxford:  Oxford  University  Press.  pp.  183-­‐191.    Burgess,  J.,  and  Etherington,  S.,  (2002).  Focus  on  grammatical  form:  explicit  or  implicit?  System.  30,  433-­‐458.  

   

69  

Chomsky,  N.,  (1965).  Aspects  of  The  Theory  of  Syntax.  Cambridge,  MA:  MIT  Press.    Dörnyei,  Z.,  (2010).  Questionnaires  in  Second  Language  Research:  Construction,  Administration,  and  Processing.  2nd  ed.  London:  Routledge.      Dörnyei,  Z.,  and  Csizér,  K.,  (2012).  How  to  Design  and  Analyse  Surveys  in  Second  Language  Acquisition  Research.  In:  Mackey,  A.,  and  Gass,  S.,  (eds.)  Research  Methods  in  Second  Language  Acquisition:  A  Practical  Guide.  Oxford:  Blackwell  Publishing  Ltd.  pp.  74-­‐94.    Doughty,  C.,  (1991).  Second  language  instruction  does  make  a  difference.  Studies  in  Second  Language  Acquisition.  13  (4),  431-­‐469.  

Ellis,  R.,  (2005).  Principles  of  instructed  language  learning.  System.  33  (2),  209-­‐224.  

Ellis,  R.,  (2006).  Current  Issues  in  the  Teaching  of  Grammar:  An  SLA  Perspective.  Tesol  Quaterly.  40  (1),  83-­‐107.    Ellis,  R.,  (2008).  The  Study  of  Second  Language  Acquisition.  2nd  ed.  Oxford:  Oxford  University  Press.    Ellis,  R.,  Basturkmen,  H.,  &  Loewen,  S.,  (2001).  Preemptive  focus  on  form  in  the  ESL  classroom.  Tesol  Quarterly.  35  (3),  407-­‐432.  

Ellis,  R.,  Basturkmen,  H.,  and  Loewen,  S.,  (2002).  Doing  Focus-­‐on-­‐Form.  System.  30,  419-­‐432.    Fotos,  S.,  (1998).  Shifting  the  focus  from  forms  to  form  in  the  EFL  classroom.  ELT  Journal.  52  (4),  301-­‐307.    Fotos,  S.,  and  Nassiji,  H.,  (eds.)  (2011).  Form-­‐Focused  Instruction  and  Teacher  Education:  Studies  in  Honour  of  Rod  Ellis.  Oxford:  Oxford  University  Press.    Friedman,  D.  A.,  (2012).  How  to  Collect  and  Analyse  Qualitative  Data.  In:  Mackey,  A.,  and  Gass,  S.,  (eds,)  Research  Methods  in  Second  Language  Acquisition:  A  Practical  Guide.  Oxford:  Wiley-­‐Blackwell.  pp.  180-­‐200.    Gabillon,  Z.,  (2012).  Revisiting  Foreign  Language  Teacher  Beliefs.  Frontiers  of  Language  and  Teaching.  3,  190-­‐203.    Golombek,  P.  R.,  (1998).  A  study  of  language  teachers'  personal  practical  knowledge.  Tesol  Quarterly.  32  (3),  447-­‐464.  

Harmer,  J.,  (2007).  The  Practice  of  English  Language  Teaching.  4th  ed.  Essex:  Pearson  Education  Ltd.    Hart,  C.,  (2005).  Doing  your  Masters  Dissertation.  London:  Sage  Publications  Ltd.      

   

70  

Hutchinson,  T.,  and  Waters,  A.,  (1987).  English  for  Specific  Purposes:  A  learning-­‐centred  approach.  Cambridge:  Cambridge  University  Press.  

Hymes,  D.H.,  (1979).  On  Communicative  Competence.  In:  Brumfit,  C.J.,  and  Johnson,  K.,  (eds.)  The  Communicative  Approach  to  Language  Teaching.  Oxford:  Oxford  University  Press.  pp.  5-­‐27.    Klapper,  J.,  (2003).  Taking  communication  to  task?  A  critical  review  of  recent  trends  in  language  teaching.  Language  Learning  Journal,  27(1).  33-­‐42.  

Klapper,  J.,  and  Rees,  J.,  (2003).  Reviewing  the  Case  for  Explicit  Grammar  Instruction  in  the  University  Foreign  Language  Learning  Context.  Language  Learning  Research.  7  (3),  285-­‐314.  

Klapper,  J.,  (2006).  Approaches  to  language  teaching.  Understanding  and  Developing  Good  Practice:  Language  Teaching  in  Higher  Education.  London:  CILT.  pp.  103-­‐125.    Krashen,  S.  D.,  and  Seliger,  H.W.,  (1975).  The  Essential  Contribution  of  Formal  Instruction  in  Adult  Second  Language  Learning.  Tesol  Quaterly.  9  (2),  173-­‐183.    Larsen-­‐Freeman,  D.  (2000)  Techniques  and  principles  in  language  teaching.  Oxford:  Oxford  University  Press.  

Lightbown,  P.,  and  Spada,  N.,  (1990).  Focus-­‐on-­‐form  and  corrective  feedback  in  communicative  language  teaching.  Studies  in  second  language  acquisition.  12  (4),  429-­‐448.    Long,  M.H.,  (1991).  Focus  on  Form:  A  Design  Feature  in  Language  Teaching  Methodolgy.  In:  de  Bot,  K.,  Ginsberg,  R.,  and  Kramsch,  C.,  (eds.)  Foreign  Language  Research  in  Cross-­‐Cultural  Perspective.  Amsterdam:  John  Benjamins  Publishing.  pp.  39-­‐52    Long,  M.  H.,  and  Crookes,  G.,  (1992).  Three  approaches  to  task-­‐based  syllabus  design.  Tesol  Quarterly.  26  (1),  27-­‐56.    Lowen,  S.,  Li,  S.,  Fei,  F.,  Thompson,  A.,  Nakatsukasa,  K.,  Ahn,  S.,  and  Chen,  X.,  (2009).  Second  Language  Learners’  Beliefs  about  Grammar  Instruction  and  Error  Correction.  The  Modern  Langauge  Journal.  93  (1),  91-­‐104.  

Lyster,  R.,  (2001).  Negotiation  of  form,  recasts,  and  explicit  correction  in  relation  to  error  types  and  learner  repair  in  immersion  classrooms.  Language  Learning.  51  (s1),  265-­‐301.  

Lyster,  R.,  (2004).  Research  on  form-­‐focused  instruction  in  immersion  classrooms:  implications  for  theory  and  practice.  Journal  of  French  Language  Studies.  14  (3),  321-­‐341.  

Mackey,  A.,  and  Gass,  S.  M.,  (2005).  Second  Lnaguage  Research:  Methodology  and  Design.  Mahwah,  NJ:  Lawrence  Erlbaum  Associates.    

   

71  

Ng,  J.,  Farrell,  T.S.C.,  (2003).  Do  teachers’  beliefs  of  grammar  teaching  match  their  classroom  practices?  A  Singapore  case  study.  In:  Deterding,  D.,  Brown,  A.,  and  Low,  E.,  (eds.)  English  in  Singapore:  Research  on  Grammar.  Singapore:  McGraw  Hill.  pp.  128–137    Norris,  J.  M.,  &  Ortega,  L.,  (2000).  Effectiveness  of  L2  instruction:  A  research  synthesis  and  quantitative  meta-­‐analysis.  Language  learning.  50  (3),  417-­‐528.    Panova,  I.,  and  Lyster,  R.,  (2002).  Patterns  Of  Corrective  Feedback  And  Uptake  In  An  Adult  ESL  Classroom.  Tesol  Quarterly.  36  (4),  573-­‐595.  

Pennycook,  A.,  (2001).  Critical  Applied  Linguistics:  A  Critical  Introduction.  Mahwah,  NJ:  Lawrence  Erlbaum  Associates,  Inc.    Richards,  J.  C.,  Gallo,  P.  B.,  and  Renandya,  W.  A.,  (2001).  Exploring  teachers’  beliefs  and  the  processes  of  change.  PAC  Journal.  1  (1),  41-­‐58.    

Saito,  H.,  and  Ebsworth,  M.  E.,  (2004).  Seeing  English  language  teaching  and  learning  through  the  eyes  of  Japanese  EFL  and  ESL  students.  Foreign  Language  Annals.  37  (1),  111-­‐124.  

Schmidt,  R.W.,  (1990).  The  Role  of  Consciousness  in  Second  Language  Learning.  Applied  Linguistics.  11  (2),  129-­‐158.  

Schulz,  R.  A.,  (2001).  Cultural  Differences  in  Student  and  Teacher  Perceptions  Concerning  the  Role  of  Grammar  Instruction  and  Corrective  Feedback:  USA-­‐Colombia.  The  Modern  Language  Journal.  85  (2),  244-­‐258.    

Sheen,  R.,  (2003).  Focus  on  form  –  a  myth  in  the  making?  ELT  Journal.  57  (3),  225-­‐233.  

Skehan,  P.,  (1998).  A  Cognitive  Approach  to  Language  Learning.  Oxford:  Oxford  University  Press.      Spada,  N.,  (2011).  Beyond  form-­‐focused  instruction:  Reflections  on  past,  present  and  future  research.  Language  Teaching.  44,  (2).  225-­‐236.      Swan,  M.,  (1985).  A  critical  look  at  the  communicative  approach  (2).  ELT  Journal.  39  (2),  76-­‐87.    Swales,  J.,  (1990).    Genre  Analysis:  English  in  Academic  Research  Settings.  Cambridge.  Cambridge  University  Press.    Widdowson,  H.  G.,  (1978).  The  significance  of  simplification.  Studies  in  Second  Language  Acquisition.  1  (1),  11-­‐20.    Widdowson,  H.G.,  (1992).  Perspectives  on  Communicative  Language  Teaching:  Syllabus  Design  and  Methodology.  In:  Alatis,  J.E.,  (ed.)  Georgetown  University  Round  Table  on  Languages  and  Linguistics  1992.  Washington,  DC:  Georgetown  University  Press.    

   

72  

   

   

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Appendix(A.((((((((((((((((((((Summary(responses(to(all(questions(from(S3(

   

73  

   

   

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

   

74  

     

       

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!

   

75  

       

       

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

   

76  

                                                                             

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

   

77  

                                                                                                               

   

78  

                                                                                                     

   

79  

                                                                                                     

   

80  

                                                                                                       

!

! 4!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Appendix A. Questionnaire for course tutors

SECTION ONE: APPROACHES TO THE TEACHING OF GRAMMAR.

Please indicate how far you agree with the following statements about the role andteaching of grammar on a typical pre-sessional EAP course. If you agree stronglymark a5 on the scale, if you strongly disagree mark a 1 on the scale. Please feel freeto add any comments you wish to make.

Disagree Agree

1. The role of grammar in language is as: (please answer for each option)a) a framework for the rest of the language—

a basic system to build everything else on.1 2 3 4 5

b) the building blocks of language which arecombined to form a whole.

1 2 3 4 5

c) something which is added on to languageproficiency: a refinement of more basiclanguage knowledge.

1 2 3 4 5

d) an equal pillar in supporting languageproficiency. (Other pillars could beknowledge about pronunciation,appropriacy or culture etc.)

1 2 3 4 5

2. Students can learn grammar throughexposure to language in natural use.

1 2 3 4 5

3. Formal instruction helps learners to producegrammatically correct language.

1 2 3 4 5

4. Student use of language does not involveconscious knowledge of the grammaticalsystem and how it works.

1 2 3 4 5

5. Students can improve their grammaticalaccuracy through frequent practice ofstructures.

1 2 3 4 5

6. Students need a conscious knowledge ofgrammar in order to improve their language.

1 2 3 4 5

7. Practice of structures must always be withina full, communicative context.

1 2 3 4 5

J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458 451

Appendix!B.!!!!!!!Summary!responses!to!all!questions!from!S1!

   

81  

                                                                                                       

!

!

! 5!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

8. Separate treatment of grammar fails toproduce language knowledge which studentscan use in natural communication.

1 2 3 4 5

9. Students need to be consciously aware ofa structure’s form and its function beforethey can use it proficiently.

1 2 3 4 5

10. The separation of work with a grammarfocus from the rest of the language syllabusis useful for students.

1 2 3 4 5

11. Decontextualised practice of structures hasa place in language learning.

1 2 3 4 5

12. Productive practice of structures is anecessary part of the learning process.

1 2 3 4 5

13. Grammar is best taught through workwhich focuses on message.

1 2 3 4 5

14. Participating in real-life tasks with languageis the best way for students to develop theirgrammatical knowledge.

1 2 3 4 5

15. Students learn grammar more successfullyif it is presented within a complete text.

1 2 3 4 5

16. Teachers should only correct studenterrors of form which interfere withcommunication.

1 2 3 4 5

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

1 2 3 4 5

18. Form-focused correction helps studentsto improve their grammatical performance.

1 2 3 4 5

19. Grammar is best taught through a focuson individual structures.

1 2 3 4 5

20. Explicit discussion of grammar rules ishelpful for students.

1 2 3 4 5

452 J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458

8. Separate treatment of grammar fails toproduce language knowledge which studentscan use in natural communication.

1 2 3 4 5

9. Students need to be consciously aware ofa structure’s form and its function beforethey can use it proficiently.

1 2 3 4 5

10. The separation of work with a grammarfocus from the rest of the language syllabusis useful for students.

1 2 3 4 5

11. Decontextualised practice of structures hasa place in language learning.

1 2 3 4 5

12. Productive practice of structures is anecessary part of the learning process.

1 2 3 4 5

13. Grammar is best taught through workwhich focuses on message.

1 2 3 4 5

14. Participating in real-life tasks with languageis the best way for students to develop theirgrammatical knowledge.

1 2 3 4 5

15. Students learn grammar more successfullyif it is presented within a complete text.

1 2 3 4 5

16. Teachers should only correct studenterrors of form which interfere withcommunication.

1 2 3 4 5

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

1 2 3 4 5

18. Form-focused correction helps studentsto improve their grammatical performance.

1 2 3 4 5

19. Grammar is best taught through a focuson individual structures.

1 2 3 4 5

20. Explicit discussion of grammar rules ishelpful for students.

1 2 3 4 5

452 J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458

   

82  

                                                                                                     

!

! 6!

!!!!!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!!

SECTION TWO: STUDENT AND TEACHER DIFFICULTIES WITHGRAMMAR.

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

Disagree Agree

1. My students find it di!cult to transfer their grammaticalknowledge into communicative language use.

1 2 3 4 5

2. My students are motivated by problem-solvingtechniques for learning grammar.

1 2 3 4 5

3. My students expect teachers to present grammarpoints explicitly.

1 2 3 4 5

4. My students prefer to learn grammar from one-sentence examples.

1 2 3 4 5

5. My students prefer to find matches between meaningand structure for themselves.

1 2 3 4 5

6. My students find it di!cult to handle grammarpresented within authentic texts.

1 2 3 4 5

7. My students find authentic texts di!cult because ofthe wide variety of structures which appear.

1 2 3 4 5

8. My students find authentic texts di!cult because theyare too culture bound.

1 2 3 4 5

9. My students find authentic texts di!cult because ofthe vocabulary used.

1 2 3 4 5

10. My students cannot find form-function matches inauthentic texts without explicit direction from teachers.

1 2 3 4 5

11. Teachers find the use of authentic material tootime-consuming.

1 2 3 4 5

12. Teachers find it di!cult to produce tasks of asuitable level from authentic texts.

1 2 3 4 5

J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458 453

   

83  

                                                                                                     

!

! 7!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

SECTION TWO: STUDENT AND TEACHER DIFFICULTIES WITHGRAMMAR.

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

Disagree Agree

1. My students find it di!cult to transfer their grammaticalknowledge into communicative language use.

1 2 3 4 5

2. My students are motivated by problem-solvingtechniques for learning grammar.

1 2 3 4 5

3. My students expect teachers to present grammarpoints explicitly.

1 2 3 4 5

4. My students prefer to learn grammar from one-sentence examples.

1 2 3 4 5

5. My students prefer to find matches between meaningand structure for themselves.

1 2 3 4 5

6. My students find it di!cult to handle grammarpresented within authentic texts.

1 2 3 4 5

7. My students find authentic texts di!cult because ofthe wide variety of structures which appear.

1 2 3 4 5

8. My students find authentic texts di!cult because theyare too culture bound.

1 2 3 4 5

9. My students find authentic texts di!cult because ofthe vocabulary used.

1 2 3 4 5

10. My students cannot find form-function matches inauthentic texts without explicit direction from teachers.

1 2 3 4 5

11. Teachers find the use of authentic material tootime-consuming.

1 2 3 4 5

12. Teachers find it di!cult to produce tasks of asuitable level from authentic texts.

1 2 3 4 5

J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458 453

13. A lack of explicit grammar teaching leaves mystudents feeling insecure.

1 2 3 4 5

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

15. Teachers find it di!cult to correct student errorsof grammar within a written communicativecontext.

1 2 3 4 5

16. Teachers find it di!cult to correct student errorsof grammar within a spoken communicative context.

1 2 3 4 5

17. My students find it di!cult to improve the accuracyof their grammatical language within a totallycommunicative writing activity.

1 2 3 4 5

18. My students find it di!cult to improve theaccuracy of their grammatical language withina totally communicative speaking activity.

1 2 3 4 5

19. My students find it di!cult to use grammaticalterminology.

1 2 3 4 5

20. My students are frustrated by problem-solvingtechniques for learning grammar.

1 2 3 4 5

! Please add any further comments which you have about your approach to theteaching of grammar and any problems with grammar which occur in the classroom.

SECTION THREE: INFORMATION ABOUT YOU AND YOUR TEACHINGSITUATION.

Name of department:

Name of course you are teaching at present:

Number of students in class:Do you teach general or subject-specific EAP? If you specialise in one area,please indicate what this is (e.g. Science, Economics, Law, Social Science etc.)

454 J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458

   

84  

                                                                                                     

!

! 8!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Section!2!from!the!BE!study.!

!

!

How long have you taught academic English?(please tick one)! less than one year! 1–3 years! 3–5 years! more than 5 years

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

What other types of teaching do you do? (please tick as appropriate)! General English! Business English! English for Science and Technology! ESL support in schools! Other (please specify)

Please add any other information about your teaching situation which you feel maybe of interest to this survey.

MANY THANKS FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION.TABLE OF RESULTS

Itemnumber

Frequency of responses(1=Strongly disagree;5=strongly agree)

Valid percentages(1=Strongly disagree;5=strongly agree)

1 2 3 4 5 0missingvalue

1 2 3 4 5

1.1a 4 5 9 21 7 2 8.7 10.9 19.6 45.7 15.21.1c 24 17 6 0 0 1 51.1 36.2 12.8 0 01.12 2 2 8 24 11 1 4.3 4.3 17.0 51.1 23.41.2 3 9 11 15 10 0 6.3 18.8 22.9 31.3 20.81.3 0 4 7 25 12 0 0 8.3 14.6 52.1 25.01.4 9 13 18 4 2 2 19.6 28.3 39.1 8.7 4.31.5 0 1 11 30 6 0 0 2.1 22.9 62.5 12.51.6 1 11 14 17 5 0 2.1 22.9 29.2 35.4 10.41.9 12 11 8 10 7 0 25.0 22.9 16.7 20.8 14.61.14 1 6 16 14 10 1 2.1 12.8 34.0 29.8 21.31.15 0 6 15 19 8 0 0 12.5 31.3 39.6 16.71.16 5 17 16 7 2 1 10.6 36.2 34.0 14.9 4.31.17 0 2 16 23 7 0 0 4.2 33.3 47.9 14.61.18 1 9 11 24 3 0 2.1 18.8 22.9 50.0 6.31.20 1 2 12 21 12 0 2.1 4.2 25.0 43.8 25.0

J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458 455

2.1 0 3 19 18 6 2 0 6.5 41.3 39.1 13.02.2 1 3 12 26 5 1 2.1 6.4 25.5 55.3 10.62.3 1 1 2 28 15 1 2.1 2.1 4.3 59.6 31.92.6 3 21 14 6 1 3 6.7 46.7 31.1 13.3 2.22.9 0 7 15 18 7 1 0 14.9 31.9 38.3 14.92.11 10 18 11 7 0 2 21.7 39.1 23.9 15.2 02.13 1 5 8 25 6 3 2.2 11.1 17.8 55.6 13.32.14 0 1 19 23 4 1 0 2.1 40.4 48.9 8.52.15 9 27 7 3 0 2 19.6 58.7 15.2 6.5 02.16 5 20 8 12 2 1 10.6 42.6 17.0 25.5 4.32.19 6 16 14 9 1 2 13.0 34.8 30.4 19.6 2.22.20 3 23 17 1 1 3 6.7 51.1 37.8 2.2 2.2

References

Batstone, R., 1994a. Grammar. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Batstone, R., 1994b. Product and process: grammar in the second language classroom. In: Bygate, M.,

Tonkyn, A., Williams, E. (Eds.). Grammar and the Language Teacher. Prentice Hall, Hemel Hempstead.pp. 224–236.

Block, D., 1998. Tale of a language learner. Language Teaching Research 2.2., 148–176.Blue, G.M., 1993. Noting succeeds like linguistic competence: the role of language in academic success. In:

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

Borg, S., 1998. Teachers’ pedagogical systems and grammar teaching: a qualitative study. TESOL Quar-terly 32 (1).

Borg, S., 1999a. The use of grammatical terminology in the second language classroom: a qualitativestudy of teachers’ practices and cognitions. Applied Linguistics 20 (1), 95–126.

Borg, S., 1999b. Teachers’ theories in grammar teaching. ELT Journal 53 (3), 157–167.Borg, S., 1999c. Studying teacher cognition in second language grammar teaching. System 27 (1), 19–31.Brindley, G., 1984. Needs Analysis and Objective Setting in the Adult Migrant Education Program. NSW

Adult Migrant Education Service, Sydney.Celce-Murcia, M., Dornyei, Z., Thurrell, S., 1997. Direct approaches in L2 instruction: a turning point in

communicative language teaching? TESOL Quarterly 31 (1), 141–152.Celce-Murcia, M., Hilles, S., 1988. Techniques and Resources in Teaching Grammar. Oxford University

Press, Oxford.Cohen, L., Manion, L.C., 1994. Research Methods in Education. Routledge, London.Davies, L., 1997. Interviews and the study of management. In: Crossley, Vulliamy (Eds.), Qualitative

Educational Research in Developing Countries. Garland, London.Doughty, C., Varela, J., 1998. Communicative focus on form. In: Doughty, C., Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus

on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.114–138.

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

Doughty, C., Williams, J., 1998b. Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In: Doughty, C., Williams, J.(Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, pp. 197–262.

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

456 J. Burgess, S. Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458

   

85  

                                                                                                       

!

! 1!

Appendix(C.(((Summary(responses(to(all(questions(from(S2(

   

86  

                                                                                                     

!

! 2!

   

87  

                                                                                                       

!

! 3!

Barnard á Scampton

Appendix 2: Responses to online questionnaire.

Quest

0

n

naj

re

1tem

s

40

38

36

34

32

30

28

26

24

22

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

g

2

1.3

1 1

..44

4

•4

••i

4

•-•i

- i

-i•f

• • !

"i-4

•Á

-i

• i

• • !

- • <

• • Í

•iNMMMMOBM

.• i

••Í

• ^

4-i

Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

"i

- Í

- f

4

0

•

mm

MBa

î

i

ît

!

î

i

F"

f

5 10

!

\

!

i

î

>

í

.

( ^

î

i

'ií

ϣs3^ ^ ^ ^

t

f

it

:

i

1

i

15 20

Respondents

\

i

25

___^__!

CI Disagree

a Agreesa,

Ij

!

î

30 35

80

   

88  

                                                                                                     

!

Page 1

EFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar Instruction

This  is  a  survey  to  find  out  what  you,  the  professional  English  L2  teacher,  feel,  think  and  know,  or  feel  you  think  you  know,  on  the  theme  of  grammar  instruction  in  the  L2  classroom.      Your  answers  will  be  treated  with  absolute  confidentiality,  and  would  in  no  way  be  made  public  without  your  full  consent  first  being  approved.    By  participating  in  this  survey  you  will:      ➢  increase  research  in  an  area  of  ELT  that  is  sometimes  unclear  and  problematic      ➢  raise  awareness  of  issues  within  the  industry  that  are  often  overlooked,  e.g.,  affective  factors,  such  as  personal  experience  of  education    ➢  reflect  on  your  own  teaching  habits  and  style    ➢  add  value  and  credibility  to  an  academic  study  of  your  profession      The  survey  is  in  three  parts  and  takes  approximately  10-­12  minutes  to  complete.    Part  1  is  about  you  and  requires  a  yes/no  response      Part  2  is  about  how  you  feel  with  regard  to  teaching  grammar    Part  3  is  for  you  to  give  your  own  opinion  on  such  matters.      Questions  8  to  32  in  Part  2  require  you  to  choose  one  of  the  numbered  options  1  -­  4  in  response  to  the  proposition  stated.    However,  for  this  survey  to  have  greater  research  validity,  it  is  most  important  that  you  comment  to  the  question  in  part  three  as  honestly  as  you  can.      Thankyou.  

 Introduction

 

Appendix(D.(((((((((((((S3(Survey(Questionnaire(

   

89  

                                                                                                     

!

Page 2

EFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar Instruction

1. Age: how old are you

 

2. Gender

3. How many years have you been teaching General English

4. Are you a full-­time General English teacher

5. Which teaching qualification(s) do you presently hold

 Part one: Information about you and your teaching situation

 

Male  

Female  

1-­3  years  

3-­5  years  

More  than  5  years  

Yes  

No  

PhD  

MA  (TESOL)  

Delta  

Celta  

BA  

Other  

   

90  

                                                                                                     

!

Page 3

EFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar Instruction

The  following  25  questions  seek  your  opinion  on  a  whole  range  of  pedagogic  issues  that  concern  standard  L2  classroom  practices.    Depending  on  how  you  feel  to  the  proposition  stated,  choose  one  of  the  numbered  options  1  -­  4.  The  rating  is  as  follows:    1  =  Strongly  Disagree  2  =  Disagree  3  =  Agree  4  =  Strongly  Agree  

6. The role of grammar in language is as:

a) A framework for the rest of the language, i.e., a basic system to build everything else

on.

b) The building blocks of language which are combined to form a whole.

c) Something which is added on to language proficiency: a refinement of more basic

language knowledge.

7. Students can learn grammar through exposure to language in natural use.

8. Formal instruction helps learners to produce grammatically correct language.

 Part two: How you feel about teaching grammar

1 2 3 4

a)

b)

c)

1  

2  

3  

4  

1  

2  

3  

4  

   

91  

                                                                                                       

!

Page 4

EFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar Instruction9. Student use of language does not involve conscious knowledge of the grammatical

system and how it works.

10. Students can improve their grammatical accuracy through frequent practice of

structures.

 

1  

2  

3  

4  

1  

2  

3  

4  

   

92  

                                                                                                     

!

Page 5

EFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar Instruction

11. Students need a conscious knowledge of grammar in order to improve their

language.

12. Separate treatment of grammar fails to produce language knowledge which

students can use in natural communication.

13. Students need to be consciously aware of a structure’s form and its function before

they can use it proficiently.

14. The separation of work with a grammar focus from the rest of the language syllabus

is useful for students.

15. Decontextualised practice of structures has a place in language learning.

 

 

1  

2  

3  

4  

1  

2  

3  

4  

1  

2  

3  

4  

1  

2  

3  

4  

1  

2  

3  

4  

   

93  

                                                                                                     

!

Page 6

EFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar Instruction

16. Productive practice of structures is a necessary part of the learning process.

17. Grammar is best taught through work which focuses on message.

18. Participating in real-­life tasks with language is the best way for students to develop

their grammatical knowledge.

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

20. Teachers should only correct student errors of form which interfere with

communication.

 

 

1  

2  

3  

4  

1  

2  

3  

4  

1  

2  

3  

4  

1  

2  

3  

4  

1  

2  

3  

4  

   

94  

                                                                                                     

!

Page 7

EFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar Instruction

21. Form-­focused correction helps students to improve their grammatical

performance.

22. Grammar is best taught through a focus on individual structures.

23. Explicit discussion of grammar rules is helpful for students.

24. My students find it difficult to transfer their grammatical knowledge into

communicative language use.

25. My students expect teachers to present grammar points explicitly.

 

 

1  

2  

3  

4  

1  

2  

3  

4  

1  

2  

3  

4  

1  

2  

3  

4  

1  

2  

3  

4  

   

95  

                                                                                                     

!

Page 8

EFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar Instruction

26. A lack of explicit grammar teaching leaves my students feeling insecure.

27. My students find grammatical terminology useful.

28. Teachers find it difficult to correct student errors of grammar within a spoken

communicative context.

29. My students find it difficult to improve the accuracy of their grammatical language

within a totally communicative speaking activity.

30. My students find it difficult to use grammatical terminology.

 

 

1  

2  

3  

4  

1  

2  

3  

4  

1  

2  

3  

4  

1  

2  

3  

4  

1  

2  

3  

4  

   

96  

 !

Page 9

EFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar InstructionEFL Teachers' Beliefs and Attitudes to Explicit Grammar Instruction

Please  use  the  space  provided  to  tell  us  anything  else  that  you  may  want  to  add  in  relation  to  the  questions  that  you  have  just  answered,  or  anything  else  about  L2  grammar  instruction  that  you  can  think  of,  e.g.,  whether  the  cultural  background  of  your  students  influences  your  decision-­making  in  the  classroom.  Please  be  as  candid  as  you  wish.  

31. From your own experience, please add any comments about how you personally

feel about L2 grammar instruction and correcting.

 

 Part three: In your own words