A Case Study: An ESL Teacher’s Beliefs and Classroom Practices in Grammar Instruction A thesis submitted to Kent State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts By Hsiao-Chuan Lin December, 2010
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
A Case Study: An ESL Teacher’s Beliefs and
Classroom Practices in Grammar Instruction
A thesis submitted to Kent State University in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts
By Hsiao-Chuan Lin December, 2010
ii
Thesis written by Hsiao-Chuan Lin
B.A., Minghsing University of Science and Technology, 2008 M.A., Kent State University, 2010
Approved by Klaus Gommlich , Advisor Ronald J. Corthell , Chair, Department of English John R.D. Stalvey , Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
iii
Acknowledgements
I would first like to express my deepest gratitude to Dr. Klaus Gommlich, my thesis
advisor. I heartily thank him for patiently and professionally instructing me in the writing
of this thesis during the past year. Without his guidance, I certainly would not have been
able to complete it successfully. I also truly appreciate my other committee members, Dr.
Karl Uhrig and Dr. Kristen Precht-Byrd, who provided their insightful suggestions and
sincere comments to improve my thesis.
Next, I greatly appreciate the teacher and the students who participated in this study.
They provided me with so much precious data and perhaps contributed the most to this
research. Particularly, observing the teacher’s grammar instruction will enable me to play
a better role as an instructor of English in the future.
Furthermore, many special thanks go to my editors, Ms. Brianna DeSanto, Mr. Jason
Csehi, Mr. Nicholas Miller, and Mr. Matthew Myers, who sacrificed their precious time
to help me proofread my writing. Without their invaluable assistance and keen eyes, this
thesis would never have been possible.
Finally, I am thankful to my family and my friends who blessed me with their
iv
persistent love and trust, especially my roommate, Chia-Chin (Tina) Wang, who gave me
a great deal of support and encouragement during this difficult time.
For those who have given me support and help, I would like to give my fullest and
sincerest, heartfelt gratitude. I thank you, and am eternally indebted to each of you.
v
Abstract
This case study aims to investigate a teacher’s beliefs and actual practices regarding
the instruction of grammar in ESL classrooms. The purpose of this research was
three-fold: explore the relationship between the teacher’s perceived beliefs and classroom
practices; compare the interaction between the teacher and the two classes of students;
and survey the students’ learning satisfaction.
The participating teacher was from the United States and had taught ESL classes for
two years. The participating students were enrolled in the teacher’s two sections of the
same grammar course. Both classes consisted of lower-advanced level students. The first
class had 28 male and 5 female students, while the second class had 22 male and 7 female
students. The data collection included semi-structured interviews, participant observation,
field notes, and questionnaires.
The research revealed that twelve different beliefs were arranged from the concept of
grammar to the ideal classroom practice. These beliefs include the role of grammar, the
role of the instructor in grammar teaching, the methodology of grammar teaching,
feedback, strategies between the two classes, and the teacher’s difficulties in class.
vi
Most of the beliefs were transferred into the actual classroom practices, which were
then categorized into nine approaches. The primary consistencies of teaching
methodologies and the inconsistencies of techniques between the two sections were also
defined and reflected in the students’ satisfaction after the grammar course.
The researcher discovered three possible factors that lead learners to successful
grammar learning. One is the consistent relationship between the teacher’s beliefs and
classroom practices. Another is the consistency of the teacher’s and the learners’ beliefs
and that his classroom practices have affected their learning motivation and beliefs. The
last is how the teacher adjusted his classroom practices, which in turn helped the learners
attain satisfaction.
vii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. iii
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... v
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ x
Chapter One: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background and Motivation ...................................................................................... 1
1.2 Purpose of the Study................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Research Questions .................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Overview of the Study................................................................................................ 5
Chapter Two: Literature Review ............................................................................................. 6
2.1 The Evolution of Grammar Teaching ....................................................................... 7
2.1.1 Grammar Translation Method ......................................................................... 7
2.1.2 Claims against Grammar Teaching ................................................................. 9
2.1.3 Communicative Language Teaching ............................................................ 10
2.1.4 Reasons in Support of Grammar Teaching .................................................. 13
2.1.5 Form-Focused Instruction.............................................................................. 15
2.2 Explicit versus Implicit Teaching and Learning ..................................................... 16
2.3 Deductive versus Inductive Teaching ..................................................................... 20
2.4 Beliefs........................................................................................................................ 22
viii
2.4.1 Teachers’ Beliefs ............................................................................................ 22
2.4.2 The Relationship between Beliefs and Practices ......................................... 24
2.4.3 Teachers’ Beliefs on Grammar Teaching ..................................................... 26
2.4.4 Relationship between Teachers’ and Students’ Beliefs ............................... 28
Chapter Three: Methodology ................................................................................................ 30
3.1 Background of Participants ...................................................................................... 30
3.1.1 The Participant Teacher ................................................................................. 30
3.1.2 The Two Observed Classes ........................................................................... 31
3.2 A Case Study ............................................................................................................ 32
3.3 Data Collection Instruments and Procedure ........................................................... 33
3.3.1 Semi-Structured Interview ............................................................................. 34
3.3.2 Participant Observation ................................................................................. 35
3.3.3 Questionnaire.................................................................................................. 36
3.4 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................ 36
Chapter Four: Results and Discussion .................................................................................. 38
4.1 Beliefs........................................................................................................................ 39
4.1.1 The Role of Grammar .................................................................................... 39
4.1.2 The Role of the Teachers in Grammar Teaching ......................................... 43
4.1.3 Methodology of Grammar Teaching ............................................................ 45
4.1.4 Feedback ......................................................................................................... 48
4.1.5 Strategies between the Two Classes ............................................................. 49
4.1.6 The Difficulties in Class ................................................................................ 50
ix
4.2 Classroom Practice ................................................................................................... 52
4.3 Different Practices in Two Classes.......................................................................... 91
4.3.1 Different Techniques ..................................................................................... 91
4.3.2 Grades ........................................................................................................... 101
4.4 Students’ Feedback and Satisfaction ..................................................................... 103
4.4.1 Background Information of Respondents ................................................... 103
4.4.2 Students’ Responses to the Questionnaire Statements .............................. 106
Chapter Five: Conclusion .................................................................................................... 118
5.1 Summary of the Study ............................................................................................ 119
5.2 Comparison of Findings with Literature Review ................................................. 122
5.3 The Influences of the Teacher’s Instruction ......................................................... 125
5.4 Pedagogical Implications ....................................................................................... 127
5.5 Limitation and Reflections ..................................................................................... 129
5.6 Suggestion for Future Research ............................................................................. 131
References............................................................................................................................. 133
Appendices ........................................................................................................................... 154
Appendix A: Semi-Structured Interview ..................................................................... 154
Appendix B: Student Satisfaction Questionnaire ....................................................... 157
x
List of Tables
Table 3.1 The number of students in two classes (N=62) .................................................. 32
Table 4.2.1 Comparison of teacher’s beliefs and practices ............................................... 52
Table 4.3.2 The amount of time of exercise and activities in two classes (N=2592 minutes)
....................................................................................................................................... 94
Table 4.3.3 The amount of time on different exercises and activities ................................ 96
Table 4.3.4 The grades in two classes (N=32, 29) ........................................................... 101
Table 4.4.1 Questionnaires from the first class and the second class ............................. 104
Table 4.4.2 Descriptive statistics of learner’s’ background ............................................. 105
Table 4.4.3 The students’ beliefs on grammar .................................................................. 107
Table 4.4.4 The students’ satisfaction with the instructor ............................................... 109
Table 4.4.5 The students’ satisfaction with the course..................................................... 112
Table 4.4.6 The students’ satisfaction with methods and materials ................................ 114
Table 4.4.7 The students’ self- reflection .......................................................................... 116
Table 5.1 The congruity between the literature and the teacher’s beliefs and practices123
1
Chapter One
Introduction
1.1 Background and Motivation
The approaches to teaching language well have undergone major changes and heated
debates in the field of second language acquisitions. Since the 19th century, the
Grammar-Translation Method (GTM), or Classical Method, had been the most popular
language teaching approach in Europe (Brown, 2000, 2007b; Larsen-Freeman, 1986).
Classes were taught in the mother tongue of the learners and focused on language
structure. During the late 19th and 20th centuries, a number of language teaching methods
and approaches were developed and applied in the second language classroom. Some of
these methods include the Direct Method, Situational Language Teaching, the
Audio-lingual Method, Community Language Learning, the Silent Way, Total Physical
Response, Communicative Language Teaching, Suggestopedia, and the Natural
Approach (Brown, 2007b).
The development of the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) started around
2
1960, primarily as a reaction to the partial failure of all predecessor methods. CLT has
since become the most widely-used language approach. Nassaji and Fotos (2004) noted
that grammar introduction has been decreasing because of the continued implementation
of CLT. Nonetheless, they believed that grammar is the foundation in language teaching.
Students need formal instruction to facilitate them in getting high levels of accuracy in
language. Brown (2007a) noted that grammar should not be useless or inappropriate in a
CLT framework because grammar instruction has a significant effect on accuracy and it
contributes to an important facet of second language learning (Carroll & Swain, 1993;
Nassaji & Swain, 2000; Long, 1983).
In spite of all the debate about grammar instruction, there is one aspect that seems
to have been underestimated in the past, namely the role of the teachers who implement
general instructional methodology in their classrooms. As claimed in many studies,
teaching is a cognitive process (Shavelson & Stern, 1981) and is regarded as a complex
cognitive activity (Borg, 2003) that each teacher must perform. Therefore, it is important
to investigate teachers' beliefs as a basis of these cognitive activities since these beliefs
are the foundation for the teachers' teaching strategies (Pajares, 1992; Kuntz, 2003).
Since instructors play the most important role in the second language classroom,
3
the way they introduce grammar is also an essential component of students’ success in
language learning. There are various studies dedicated to understanding and emphasizing
language teachers’ belief systems and how they impact their classroom practices (Borg,
1998, 2003; Farrell, 1999). Several effective teaching methods have been discussed
through studying the relationship between a teacher’s beliefs and their practices
(Andrews, 2003; Elbaz, 1983; Golombek, 1998; Graden, 1996; Kleinsasser, 1993). As a
result, the relationship between their beliefs and practices can be explored in order to help
them improve their second language teaching.
1.2 Purpose of the Study
This research adopted a case study to provide a micro-examination of the
relationship between a teacher’s beliefs and practices during grammar lessons. Moreover,
participant observation offered a close familiarity with the teacher and the students.
Further, the results of this research can serve as a resource for studies on grammar
instruction. Finally, it can also give teachers a systematic demonstration of developing a
better pedagogical methodology for grammar teaching.
4
The research goals are as follows:
1. To analyze the teacher’s beliefs and practices in grammar teaching.
2. To explore the teacher’s common usage of pedagogical methodology.
3. To explore the learning condition and feedback of the students after receiving the
teacher’s grammar teaching.
4. To compare the similarities or differences with regard to methodology between two
sections of the same course taught by the same teacher.
5. To reflect on the influence of the researcher’s beliefs after having experienced the
instructor ’s teaching.
1.3 Research Questions
In this study, a teacher’s beliefs and classroom practice will be investigated. Five
questions are addressed. These questions comprise the full scope of research on the
teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices in the present study.
1. What are the teacher’s beliefs?
2. How does the teacher actually practice his/her methodology in grammar teaching?
5
3. What are the consistencies and inconsistencies of methodology between the two
sections?
4. What are the students’ reflections and feedback after the class ends for the semester?
5. What beliefs of the researcher are influenced by the teacher’s teaching?
1.4 Overview of the Study
The study includes five chapters. Chapter one presents the background statement,
the purpose of this study, and research questions. Next, chapter two reviews the relevant
theoretical frameworks and empirical research to support this study. This includes the
evaluation of grammar teaching, methodology in grammar instruction, implicit versus
explicit teaching, inductive versus deductive teaching, and teachers’ beliefs. Chapter three
then presents the methodology applied for this research, which includes the backgrounds
of participants, instruments, and data analysis. Chapter four shows the results and
discusses the findings of this study. Finally, chapter five concludes the study with a
comprehensive summary of the research, the influence of the teacher's beliefs and
practice on the researcher, pedagogical implications, and suggestions for future research.
6
Chapter Two
Literature Review
This chapter reviews the theoretical frameworks and empirical research that support
this thesis. Five sections are included. They are: the evaluation of grammar teaching;
methodology in grammar instruction; implicit or explicit teaching; inductive and
deductive teaching; and the beliefs of the teacher.
The first section reviews the evolution of grammar teaching, which presents the
relevant methodologies in grammar instruction including Grammar Translation Method,
Communicative Language Teaching and Form-Focused Instruction, as well as arguments
that oppose and support grammar teaching. The second section examines implicit versus
explicit and inductive versus deductive teaching. The last focuses on the beliefs of the
teacher as well as the students, in addition to the relationship between beliefs and
classroom practices.
7
2.1 The Evolution of Grammar Teaching
2.1.1 Grammar Translation Method
Since the 18th century, people in the West commonly studied Latin or classical Greek
as a foreign language in school. The Classical Method was developed for understanding
these classical languages (Chastain, 1988). Because this method began in the German
Kingdom of Prussia during the late 18th century, it is also called the Prussian Method
(Richards & Rodgers, 2001). The Classical Method focused on grammatical rules,
memorization of vocabulary, translation of text and written exercises, and it helped
learners read and understand foreign language literature (Larsen-Freeman, 1986). From
1840 to 1940, the Classical Method was known as the Grammar Translation Method
(GTM) and it became a highly-regarded method of teaching (Brown, 2007b). In Partor
and Celce-Murcia’s (1979) and Larsen-Freeman’s (2003) research, the major features of
GTM were listed.
1. Both target language and mother language were used in an English as foreign
language (EFL) or English as second language (ESL) class, but the mother tongue
was used the majority of the time.
8
2. Learners were required to memorize a specific set of vocabulary rules and grammar
rules.
3. Reading knowledge of foreign language acquisition was required.
4. Reading and written skills were emphasized.
5. Accuracy was more important than fluency in language usage.
6. Translating sentences from the target language into the first language comprised the
most frequently used drills and exercises.
Based on Brown’s (2007b) explanation, the Grammar Translation Method was
commonly adopted in most schools and became popular because teachers required few
professional skills and abilities in the target language. They could also get objective
scores for learners by tests of grammar rules and translation. However, this method
mainly emphasized grammar teaching and only paid a little or no attention to
pronunciation, listening or speaking skills. As a result, most learners were unable to
develop their communication skills from this method.
Consequently, grammar teaching has widely been criticized for determining the
methodology of second language teaching (R. Ellis, 1994). Many researchers argued over
the necessity of grammar teaching (Garrett, 1986; Krashen, 1981, 1983, 1985) and
9
discovered that grammar should be completely eliminated.
2.1.2 Claims against Grammar Teaching
By the close of the 20th century, Stephen Krashen developed a theory of second
language learning in which he claimed that grammar teaching was useless (Cowan, 2008).
Krashen (1981) insisted that if people could learn their first language without formal
instruction, they could learn a second language without formal instruction as well.
Second language learners should acquire their language abilities through natural exposure,
not learn through formal instruction (Krashen, 1981; Schwartz, 1993). Krashen (1981)
also distinguishes in his studies between conscious learning and unconscious acquisition.
Nassaji and Fotos (2004) mentioned that the debate led to a division of language teaching
into two approaches. It resulted in formal grammar instruction on one side and
non-formal grammar instruction on the other. In 1982, Krashen asserted that formal
instruction could not help people to learn a language, and that it could create learning
difficulties and discourage learners from getting involved in successful communication
(Krashen & Terrell, 1983). Based on Krashen’s (1985) hypothesis, grammar was an
unnecessary lesson because learners could automatically obtain it from natural input
10
during communication. It would encourage learners to imitate the grammar rules
consciously, thus preventing them from developing and integrating them into their
interlanguage (Prabhu, 1987). Resultantly, grammar teaching was believed to develop
learners’ knowledge of grammar structures (R. Ellis, 2001), but not their abilities to use
these grammatical forms correctly. That explains why Nassaji & Fotos (2004) proposed
not only that grammar instruction was useless, but that it might even be harmful for
language learning.
Since then, grammar teaching has become a controversial issue (R. Ellis, 2002b;
Richards & Renandya, 2003) and some linguistic experts were against it in language
learning. They suggested that it be abandoned altogether (Nassaji & Fotos, 2004;
Richards & Renandya, 2002). Meanwhile, Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) has
become an increasingly widespread teaching approach since the 1970s (Maley & Duff,
1978).
2.1.3 Communicative Language Teaching
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) was developed in Britain in the 1960s
and it applies to the theoretical perspective of the Communicative Approach
11
(Larsen-Freeman, 1986). The concept of CLT emphasizes the importance of meaningful
language learning as well as classroom interaction. Compared to Grammar Translation
Method (GTM), the most significant, distinct feature of CLT is using the target language
with rich meaningful input to achieve communicative competence (Brown, 2000). There
are six major characteristics of CLT as listed in Brown (2007b) and Larsen-Freeman’s
(1986) studies.
1. Learners are engaged to use a more pragmatic, authentic and functional target
language towards a meaningful purpose.
2. Fluency is usually more important than accuracy.
3. The role of teachers is to value student’s linguistic improvement.
4. Learner-centered, cooperative and collaborative learning are focused on in class.
5. Classes should be focused on real-world contexts so that students are able to use the
target language appropriately in real life.
6. The students’ learning process is one of the essential components responsible for
developing their production and comprehension in order for them to continue
learning the target language beyond the classroom.
According to Krashen’s (1982) universal principle, language should be acquired
12
without formal instruction because it is considered to be a tool of communication.
Because use of CLT is aimed at developing students’ communicative competence, it has
been a welcome and popular second language teaching method since the late 1970s
(Maley & Duff, 1978; Nassaji & Fotos, 2004; Nunan, 1988). In addition, Task-Based
Language Teaching (TBLT) is one of the most significant approaches to CLT. Many of
the communicative activities in TBLT are based on the CLT framework. Therefore, most
activities are related to the real world, and the students must learn to complete tasks
through communication (Brown, 2007b). Whether or not tasks are completed will
determine success or failure in TBLT (Johnson, 1979). Moreover, meaning is important.
Grammatical rules are usually paid little to no attention in the majority of tasks.
However, Thompson (1996) recommended that language teachers should not adopt
CLT without grammar teaching in the second language classroom. He did so because
CLT focuses on communicative competence, which is composed of four main
components: grammatical competence; sociolinguistic competence; discourse
competence; and strategic competence (Canale & Swain, 1980; Richards & Rodgers,
1986). Canale and Swain (1980) explained that grammatical competence should be
integrated within the context of meaningful communication because its main purpose is
13
to express information or convey a message by using appropriate grammatical forms.
Garrett (1986) and Brown (2007a) each claimed that grammar teaching plays a critical
role in the development of communicative competence. Larsen-Freeman (1997) also
suggested that grammar rules cannot be neglected, and that they should be considered to
be just as important as other competencies. In addition, Swain and her colleagues proved
that a long-term exposure to rich, meaningful input without grammar teaching could not
achieve learners’ language accuracy (Lapkin, Hart, & Swain, 1991; Swain & Lapkin,
1998). Therefore, the role of grammar and the importance of grammar teaching have been
reconsidered in light of current research (Brown, 2007a; Doughty & Williams, 1998;
Nassaji & Fotos, 2004).
2.1.4 Reasons in Support of Grammar Teaching
Grammar is the central heart of language (Kerr, 1996), and is a tool to help learners’
comprehension of the target language. Because grammar provides systematic rules of
structure and word order, learners can create their own spoken and written discourse
using these grammatical rules (Rao, 1996). Without grammatical structure, the use of
14
language could easily become chaotic and might not be understandable (Canale & Swain,
1980; Brown, 2007a). Furthermore, Nunan (1991) strongly supported grammar teaching
because grammar helps learners perform their target languages better. He also thought
that students cannot communicate well if they do not have a fundamental level of
grammar.
Current research has shown that grammar teaching is both necessary and essential
because grammar knowledge can affect learners’ capabilities to express themselves in the
target language (Carroll & Swain, 1993; R. Ellis 2001, 2002a; Nassaji & Fotos, 2004).
Nassaji and Fotos (2004) have demonstrated positive effects as a result of grammar
instruction. Other studies also have shown that grammar teaching helps learners to
communicate more effectively and accurately in the target language, and it also allows
them to communicate more meaningfully (Canale & Swain, 1980; Higgs, 1985; Hinkel &
Fotos, 2002; Richards & Renandya, 2003). Therefore, recent suggestions strongly
advocate focusing on forms within communicative approaches in a second language
curriculum (R. Ellis, 2002a). This is because the concepts between the communicative
teaching approach and the grammar teaching approach should not be separated (Higgs,
1985).
15
Since grammar is recommended to be taught by using the communicative approach
(Batstone, 1994), form-focused instruction has been developed in the second language
classroom. According to Lightbown’s (1998) and R. Ellis’s (2002a) studies, form-focused
instructional activities are regarded as the most effective when embedded with
communicative contexts. Harley (1993) believed that form-focused instruction could
address those features of the second language that are different from the learner’s first
language.
2.1.5 Form-Focused Instruction
R. Ellis’s (2001) definition of form-focused instruction (FFI) is “any planned or
incidental instructional activity that is intended to induce language learners” (p. 1).
Form-focused instruction is combined with two approaches, one is focus-on-formS
instruction (FonFS), and the other is focus-on-form instruction (FonF). In focus-on-formS
instruction, grammatical rules are taught separately from language learning. Language is
seen as a tool, and the way to learn language is to practice it systematically so that
students not only learn the rules, but also that they might be able to use the target
16
language. Alternatively, focus-on-form instruction is embedded in meaningful context
and grammatical structures inside of language teaching. Students still learn some
grammar rules to promote their language accuracy and fluency, and thus they are able to
create their own sentences based on this grammatical form outside of the classroom
(Brown, 2007a). As long as the grammar teaching context is combined with meaningful
communicative interaction, learners can improve their accuracy and fluency of second
language (Canale & Swain, 1980).
As a consequence, most studies agree that form-focused instruction is a natural
approach for learners to rapidly master grammatical forms and to promote expedient
language acquisition (R. Ellis, 1985, 1994; Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991). Since
form-focused instruction is highly recommended, there are different grammar approaches
provided as explicit versus implicit teaching and deductive versus inductive teaching
(Doughty & Williams, 1998; R. Ellis, 2002a).
2.2 Explicit versus Implicit Teaching and Learning
N. Ellis (1994) mentioned that grammar instruction could be taught in an implicit
17
way that requires learners to understand the rules from the given examples or in an
explicit way where learners are given rules before they practice them. He also explained
that implicit and explicit teaching were recognized by whether the target language was
taught through examples or whether it was taught alongside linguistic rules that could
contribute to the acquisition of grammatical competence.
Doughty (2003) explained that explicit grammar teaching is essentially a series of
grammatical rules that are taught. In this teaching style, the grammar rules and structures
are introduced to learners before they are used or practiced (R. Ellis, 1994). Rule
presentation and discussion, consciousness-raising tasks, and input-processing instruction
are known as the three techniques of explicit teaching (Doughty & Williams, 1998).
Research suggests that consciousness, attention, or noticing towards form are a necessary
condition for language learning (Schmidt, 1990). N. Ellis (2005) also agreed that
language acquisition is rapidly growing through explicit teaching because students can
overcome grammar problems by using grammar consciousness-raising or noticing tasks
(Harley, 1989; White, Spada, Lightbown, & Ranta, 1991). It is possibile that correct
grammatical forms cannot be used immediately by learners; instead, they can be used by
noticing the forms when they try to solve problems through meaningful communication,
18
and it can actually help language acquistion in the future. Additionally, most Second
Language Acquisition (SLA) researchers agree that “noticing or awareness of target
forms plays an important role in L2 learning” (Nassaji & Fotos, 2004, p. 128)
On one hand, explicit teaching can help learners use and practice grammatical
structures as explained by the teacher. On the other hand, implicit teaching emphasizes
the role of exposure (N. Ellis, 2005). Cowan (2008) defined the teaching of implicit
grammar as one in which students can immediately find grammatical rules by looking at
examples. Three common techniques of this teaching are unfocused exposure to input,
input flood, and input enhancement (Doughty & Williams, 1998). N. Ellis (1994)
emphasized that most learning is implicit and unconscious.
Language acquisition is a result of using the target language in implicit learning.
This is because of what occurs during fluent language comprehension and production (N.
Ellis, 2005). Krashen (1982) also explained that proponents of implicit grammar believe
that learners acquire grammatical knowledge autonomously through exposure to the
linguistic and syntactic structures. This takes place in activities that focus on both reading
and listening without paying conscious attention to linguistic structures. Brown (2007a)
assented that implicit learning is “learning without conscious attention or awareness” and
19
that it happens “without intention to learn and without awareness of what has been
learned” (p. 292). Moreover, Krashen (1982) strongly suggested that implicit teaching is
preferable to explicit teaching. Paradis (1994) later stated that explicit knowledge could
not become implicit knowledge. Dekeyser (1995) confirmed that learners did a better job
after being provided with many examples in a target languague than they did when first
being given rules.
However, Norris and Ortega (2000) argued that explicit teaching is more effective
than implicit teaching. Further, they argued that second language learning can be more
effective and versatile because implicit grammar instruction is not sufficient to promote
accurate use of the target language. Language acquisition cannot happen unless learners
notice the target language’s structure to begin with. Because of this, implicit teaching still
needs to be combined with explicit grammar teaching (R. Ellis, 2001; Fotos, 1994; Spada
& Lightbown, 1993). R. Ellis (1984) verified that explicit learning facilitates implicit
learning and promotes learners’ language knowledge because it helps them pay attention
to the gap between the target language and their own interlanguage (Schmidt, 1990).
Reber (1993) suggested that the more complex rules should be learned implicitly;
whereas Krashen (1994) recommended less-complex rules to be taught by explicit means.
20
Mathews et al. (1989) and Reber et al. (1980, Experiment 2) stated that combining both
implicit and explicit teaching might be a good way to learn a target language. In SLA
research, learners are encouraged to learn grammatical patterns first through explicit
learning and then fine-tune those patterns and integrate them into their linguistic system
by implicit learning (N. Ellis, 2005).
2.3 Deductive versus Inductive Teaching
The deductive and inductive dichotomy is built upon rule-based and example-based
teaching. The deductive approach is a rule-based teaching style that involves presentation
or explanation before learners encounter how rules function in language; therefore, the
deductive approach is one of the explicit teaching styles (Cowan, 2008). In contrast, the
inductive approach is identified as a rule-search or discovery-based approach (Robinson,
1996; R. Ellis, 2002b), which involves having learners formulate rules from examples
(Cowan, 2008). Nevertheless, Krashen (1982) argued that inductive teaching is still on
the explicit end because it aims at raising a learner’s consciouseness on language forms,
which contradicts implicit teaching.
21
Comparing the two approaches, deductive teaching is the one that is commonly used
in ESL and EFL textbooks (Cowan, 2008; R. Ellis 2002b; Krashen, 1982). Seliger (1975)
also found that students maintained their grammar knowledge longer by deductive
teaching. Robinson (1996) proved that learners performed grammatical tasks better and
reacted faster in deductive rather than inductive teaching. Erlam (2003) confirmed that
deductive teaching is easier for learners to acquire direct object pronouns in French as a
second language, and it is highly likely that the same holds true for learners of English.
In contrast, R. Ellis (2002b) believed that the inductive teaching has its advantages
in classroom practices. Hawkins (1984) also agreed that inductive approach promotes
second language learners to discover rules with spontaneity and lead them into operating
the language well. Herron and Tomasello (1992) agreed that inductive teaching is more
effective when teaching French as a second language. Foto (1994) also showed that
inductive teaching could function just as well as rule-base teaching. Rosa and O’Neill
(1999) went as far as to contend that inductive and deductive teachings have no
significant differences between them.
As such, both approaches have been demonstrated as feasible for helping the
progress of language acquisition. Therefore, the most effective way of teaching could be
22
mixing the two approaches and adopting them together while teaching. It is up to teachers
to form this delicate blend.
2.4 Beliefs
2.4.1 Teachers’ Beliefs
The best way to teach grammar still has not been confirmed (Borg, 1999; R. Ellis,
1994), whereas previous studies mainly emphasized grammar rules and to present them,
the more recently, the role of teachers has become focus of attention. Teachers are
considered to be playing an important role for learners’ language acquisition because they
educate and familiarize the students with knowledge of language rules (Magno, 2010).
Rios (1996) believed that the teacher’s beliefs, theories, and knowledge have the most
profound influence on their teaching. Johnson (1999) also pointed out that “beliefs have a
cognitive, an affective, and a behavioral component and therefore act as influences on
what we know, feel, and do” (p. 30). That is how teachers interpret a teaching situation; it
is usually based on their beliefs of second or foreign langague learning and teaching.
Kagan (1992) also indicated that most research showed teachers’ beliefs would be
23
observable in their teaching style. In addition, Johnson (1999) explained how teachers
make their instructional judgments and decisions usually based on their beliefs the
majority of the time.
As such, what impacts teachers’ beliefs is also an important issue for researchers to
consider. Borg (1999, 2003) explained that the personality, educational background, and
professional experiences in the teacher’s life usually have a powerful influence on the
development of their teaching styles. Graves (2000) suggested that teachers’ beliefs are
based on their learning experiences, working experiences and places, and their ongoing
professional development. Moreover, Richardson (1996) pointed out three types of
experiences, which include personal experience, experience with schooling and
instruction, and experience with formal knowledge. They have primarily influenced the
development of beliefs about and knowledge of teaching.
Therefore, Richardson (1996) indicated that exploring teachers’ beliefs and finding
out how these beliefs change is a crucial process to undergo for the purposes of
understanding the teachers’ educational development and classroom practices.
24
2.4.2 The Relationship between Beliefs and Practices
Since the 1990s, teachers’ beliefs in language teaching have become the most
popular topic in the field of language teaching. Understanding their beliefs is imperative
for improving the educational practice as a whole (Lumpe, Haney, & Czerniak, 1998;
Tobin, Tippins, & Gallard, 1994). Rios (1996) also agreed that the teacher’s beliefs and
practices interact and influence one another. In addition, Richards and Lockhart (1994)
mentioned that understanding teachers’ beliefs is a better approach to realizing how they
typically teach. This is because their beliefs affect their decisions about what and how
they teach (Grossman, 1990). In addition, Kagan (1992) indicated that the majority of his
research showed that teachers’ beliefs would be represented through their teaching style.
Furthermore, Martinez (2000) strongly suggested that beliefs can lead to educational
decisions and classroom practices, and through those beliefs, they can understand
teachers and the process of schooling. Without understanding the thoughts, knowledge,
and beliefs that influence what teachers do, the factors that determine the growth of
teacher cognition cannot be properly understood (Borg, 2009).
In Golombek’s (1998) study, he examined two in-service teachers’ beliefs by using
25
strategies to handle the tensions they encountered in the classroom. The results showed
that both teachers combined their knowledge and experiences to deal with the problems.
Golombek’s study interpreted that two ESL teachers’ personal knowledge and
experiences they used to conduct their classroom practices.
Andrews’ (2003) study used a questionnaire to identify the association between the
teacher’s beliefs of subject matter and their background and language level for 170 ESL
teachers. He also interviewed and participated in classroom observations to indentify the
association between the teachers’ beliefs and practices for 17 out of the 170 teachers. The
results proved that the teachers’ cognition about subject matter was connected with their
particular teaching practices through interviewing and observing the teachers’
classrooms.
Silva (2005), furthermore, investigated this association. She studied three Brazilian
internship teachers’ perceptions on English teaching in the ESL classroom. They
participated in the study when they observed other experienced teachers’ classrooms,
when they taught, and when they reviewed their own teaching videotapes. The results
explained that the teachers’ professional knowledge affected their perceptions; in turn,
their perceptions affected their classroom practices.
26
As the result, teachers’ beliefs were shown to have a significant influence on their
classroom practices and decision-making (Golombek, 1998; Richards & Lockhart, 1994;
Wilson, 1988).
2.4.3 Teachers’ Beliefs on Grammar Teaching
Teachers are held responsible for bridging theories and practices together in the
classroom (Lawrence, 2000). The task of deciding whether grammar teaching is
necessary or not is usually conducted by these teachers as well (Borg, 1999). Based on
various studies, they have concluded that grammar should be taught in ESL classrooms
(Ebsworth & Schweers, 1997; Burgess & Etherington, 2002).
In 2002, Burgess and Etherington’s study showed that participant teachers
considered grammar to be a fundamental and indispensable component in learning. They
preferred error correction, use of grammatical terminology and structure practice for their
teaching approaches. They further believed that explicit instruction is valuable for the
exposure to the target language in the classroom and that it also helpful for learners.
Ebsworth and Schweers’ research from 1997, 60 university ESL instructors (30 from
27
New York and 30 from Puerto Rico) were evaluated for their perceptions of grammar
teaching. In their study, teachers decided up what percentage of grammar teaching should
be represented and integrated into the classrooms. They decided that it would depend on
the students’ proficiency, age, and education level. Most of the teachers agreed about the
importance of having explicit instruction combined with communicative practice. In
addition, they suggested that explicit instruction was only appropriate for adults and not
young learners. They also supported the idea that grammar should be involved in
language teaching. The teachers in Puerto Rico strongly agreed with the value of
grammar teaching in second language learning. Teachers from Puerto Rico chose a fixed
approach when they taught grammar. Conversely, those from New York were more
willing to experiment with new teaching approaches in their grammar lessons.
To build on that, the studies explained that students’ expectations affected the
teachers’ preference for grammar teaching. That was particularly noticeable where
learners were required to have the target language for academic purposes or formal
writing. Consequently, the role of students with respect to using their second language is
a vital deliberation for teacher’s beliefs in grammar teaching.
28
2.4.4 Relationship between Teachers’ and Students’ Beliefs
The students’ beliefs are usually important for their learning motivation. This is
because the students’ preferences determine their learning strategies in second or foreign
language teaching. Nevertheless, students’ beliefs are easily influenced because language
teachers are seen as an authoritative resource in the classroom. In fact, they are usually
viewed as experts by students (Horwitz, 1988). Some studies have explained that the
outcome of the learning process could be powerfully influenced by teachers’ beliefs. This
influence could be even more substantial than learners’ beliefs from the cognitive aspect
(Arnold & Brown, 1999). Further, instructors’ teaching behaviors have a profound effect
on the students’ learning (Oxford, 1999).
The students’ beliefs have an enough effect on language instructors to decide upon
an appropriately balanced approach for grammar instruction. This determines the
percentage of grammar teaching that should be taught in the classroom (Ebsworth &
Schweers, 1997). Nathan and Koedinger (2000) stated that “teachers’ beliefs about
students’ ability and learning greatly influence their instructional practices” (p. 168).
As a result, understanding the teachers’ and students’ beliefs and how they interact is
29
critical for language teaching (Kern, 1995). Mismatched beliefs between teachers and
students could negatively affect student’s learning motivation (Schulz, 1996). Gardner
(2001) also showed that students’ learning could be affected by the teacher, the course,
the course materials, or the classroom activities.
In sum, there are various methods for grammar teaching in the second or foreign
language classrooms. However, none of them claim to include the best way to teach
grammar. Since teachers have more authority to decide on a suitable method to teach
based on their beliefs, they can observe the consequences of their teaching methods with
regard to classroom practice and learners’ beliefs.
30
Chapter Three
Methodology
This study examines the relationship between the beliefs and practices of an ESL
teacher from the United States. It compares the interaction between the teacher and the
students of two classes, and explores their learning satisfaction in those classrooms. This
chapter presents the participants, instruments, and data analysis.
3.1 Background of Participants
3.1.1 The Participant Teacher
The participating teacher in this study is from the United States and is a
native-speaking ESL teacher. He is quite organized and patient with an excellent
knowledge and teaching ability of grammar. He has an undergraduate major and minor in
Psychology and Biology, respectively. He earned his bachelor’s degree from a
midwestern university and has earned a Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL)
certificate. While in the certificate program, he taught English to middle school
31
as well as to adult learners. The teacher has taught in his present school for two years, and
he usually teaches Grammar and TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language)
preparation classes.
Furthermore, the instructor has been learning German as a second language for
several years. As a result, he has experienced how difficult learning a second language
can be, as well as where the students’ feelings and difficulties about learning English
have come from.
3.1.2 The Two Observed Classes
This study was designed to investigate a teacher’s beliefs and classroom practices
in grammar instruction. Hence, the two groups of students were taken from the teacher’s
two sections of the same grammar course at a low-advanced level in the ESL program.
The following table displays the distribution of male and females students for the
two sections of the same grammar course that he taught.
32
Table 3.1 The number of students in two classes (N=62)
Gender The first class The second class
male 28 22
female 5 7
total 33 29
These students came from various countries, including China, Saudi Arabia, India,
Taiwan, the Congo, and Japan. The majority of the students in both of the classes spoke
Mandarin as their native language. However, the first class was a more mixed group
because 12 of the students spoke Turkish, Arabic, and Hindi while the rest spoke Chinese.
Alternatively, in the second class, there were 27 students who spoke Chinese, and only
one student each spoke Japanese and French. The second class was essentially an entirely
almost Chinese group.
3.2 A Case Study
This was a case study designed to provide a micro-examination of the relationship
between the beliefs and practices of a native ESL teacher in grammar instruction.
According to Stake (1995), a case study is used to analyze the details of the examination
33
from a particular individual, group, or event. This study indicates that teachers’ beliefs
based on their educational backgrounds and personal experiences (Pajares, 1992). In
order to recognize a teacher’s beliefs, his thoughts and feelings about both the current and
previous experiences must be explored. Moreover, a case study can supply rich and
holistic information to help researchers deeply understand how the teachers’ classroom
practices reflect or differ from their beliefs based on how actual events happened in the
classroom. The researcher could be closely observed how both the teacher and the
students’ act and react in class. Therefore, the interaction between the teacher and the
students, how the teacher stimulates the learners’ learning motivation, and the students’
satisfaction with the grammar instruction could be collected and examined for this study.
3.3 Data Collection Instruments and Procedure
The data collection instruments used in this study evaluate the teacher’s beliefs and
classroom practice, as well as the learner’s satisfaction and motivation. The instruments
consist of three parts: semi-structured interviews; participant observation; and a
questionnaire.
34
3.3.1 Semi-Structured Interview
Wragg (1999) noted that semi-structured interviews are commonly used for
classroom research. Interviewees are given written questions from the questionnaire and
encouraged to engage in some natural conversation while answering it. The
semi-structured interview (Appendix A) in this study involved two parts. The first section
concerned the participant teacher’s background and the second addressed his perspective
about grammar teaching. The questions were all pre-designed. The main purpose of the
interviews was to explore the teacher’s beliefs.
In order to gauge the teacher’s beliefs, the teacher was interviewed on two separate
occasions to compare any change of the beliefs from the beginning to the end of class.
Before the first interview, the participant teacher was given one week to preview the
interview questions. The first interview was held on January 26 to understand the
teacher’s educational background and beliefs concerning grammar teaching. The second
interview was held on May 10 and it consisted of the same questions except on the
subject of the teacher’s background.
The data was collected by tape-recording and transcription. The teacher’s beliefs
35
were then explored and compared by transcript data. The results of both interviews were
evaluated as to whether they were consistent before and after the semester and also
whether they held consistent to the teacher’s classroom practices.
3.3.2 Participant Observation
This study adopted classroom observation as one of the major research approaches
to examine if the teacher’s beliefs and classroom practices held consistent from March 1
to May 7 during the 2010 spring semester. The observations were held in ESL classrooms,
and three main variables were observed: how the teacher taught grammar in the
classrooms; the interaction between the teacher and students; and the classroom
environment and setting over the course of semester. Collecting data through classroom
observation can help researchers to study closely a phenomenon with the presence of
contextual variables (Seliger & Shohamy, 1989). A video camera placed in the back of
the classroom was used to collect observations. The researcher’s field notes also helped to
provide data about teaching methods, as well as the usage of class materials, resources,
activities, and exercises.
36
3.3.3 Questionnaire
The questionnaire (Appendix B) contains two sections. The first inquired about the
learners’ background including personal and learning-related information. The second
surveyed the learners’ beliefs about grammar, their satisfaction with grammar instruction,
and their self-reflection on their learning behavior.
The questionnaire was distributed after the end of the semester on May 7, the last
day of class. The two sections that the participant learners were asked to fill out elicited
information concerning their satisfaction, attitude, and motivation in the class. From the
collection of data about the learner’s feedback, the teacher’s beliefs were evaluated as to
whether they were consistent or not with the learners’ perspectives.
3.4 Data Analysis
Both qualitative and quantitative methods were adopted in this study. Qualitative
research is necessary for describing the teacher’s beliefs and behavior in grammar
teaching. Four items were collected from two classes for qualitative research; they were
the primary interviews with the participant teacher at the beginning and the end of the
37
semester, participant observations, video recording, and researcher’s field notes.
On the contrarily, quantitative research explains the percentage of learner’s
satisfaction in the classrooms. Because of this, the study included the questionnaire
survey. The questionnaire asked for the students’ demographic information and their
satisfaction with the teacher’s grammar instruction.
38
Chapter Four
Results and Discussion
In this chapter, the major findings of this study are presented and discussed in three
sections. The first section is divided into two parts. One addresses the participant
teacher’s beliefs, which were collected from semi-structured interviews. The other
concerns the teacher’s classroom practices, which were obtained from the interaction
between the teacher and learners in two sections of the same grammar course. The
second section compares the different approaches and strategies between the two classes.
The third section describes the participant students’ reflections and feedback between the
two classes.
39
4.1 Beliefs
The researcher will describe the transcript data collected in two interviews in this
section. The teacher mostly had similar ideas and thoughts on the majority of the
questions. As such, the results compared the similarities and differences between the
teacher’s beliefs during the two interviews. In all, there were ten similar beliefs and two
different beliefs that were presented.
According to the interview questions (see Appendix A), the results were categorized
into six parts. Those six parts are the role of grammar, the role of the teacher in grammar
teaching, methodology of grammar teaching, feedback, strategies between the two classes,
and the difficulties in class.
4.1.1 The Role of Grammar
Belief 1: Grammar is a set of rules to support proper language use.
During the first interview, the teacher mentioned, “Grammar is like a machine of
language and it requires [the students] to have abstract thinking.” He also said,
“Grammar is a tool we use to explain their mistakes, how we can explain why it’s
40
wrong.” In the second interview, he commented:
The role of grammar in language learning and teaching is to offer students a set of rules, a way to explain errors and a way to explain…I think it’s a way to explain a proper language usage based on patterns, based on rules.
During the entire course of each interview, the teacher strongly agreed that grammar
is a system of rules for learners to produce the target language. The value is that grammar
is used for teachers to explain or present the errors that students make.
Belief 2: Grammar is a component of awareness and is important to improve accuracy.
The teacher felt that grammar was imperative for language learning. He explained:
Students use grammatical rules to understand natives, to understand native language usages. When they look at the language; it might be like a bunch of collection of words, but it is a system of grammatical structure and function. Then they can make more sentences. It’s like another tool to use.
In addition, he agreed that grammar could improve learners’ accuracy and help
them to become more capable of completing higher level tasks or activities in the target
language. Conversely, students need to practice often to reach fluency. He added:
Yeah, I think it’s possible. I think grammar is very helpful, like I said, helping students correct errors and understand errors. Fluency needs practice.
41
Belief 3: Learning grammar encourages students’ output.
During both interviews, the teacher thought that the benefits of learning grammar
could enhance learners’ self-confidence to produce more language. In one interview, he
said:
I think adults are sometimes very shy when speaking a second language, and grammar helps them make sentences, and helps them to feel more confident in language. If students learn grammar well, it improves their confidence.
Based on his experience learning German, he remarked, “That’s how it worked for
me when I was learning German, I think. When I have some grammar lessons, it is easy
for me to form the sentences. Then I feel surer of myself.
Belief 4: Grammar teaching helps to encourage students to continue their learning through
system building and questioning the system.
The instructor also thought that learning language was difficult and time consuming.
Sometimes, it might even give people a headache. Therefore, students need help and
encouragement. For example, he noted:
One thing you can do is kind of help them to feel better about their language. It is easy to be completely lost, and say, “ I don’t understand.”
42
But teachers can take time to break things down and show you [students] that “yes, you[students] can understand, you [students] are not stupid, you [students] can understand, you [students] can learn” to encourage the students.
Cashin (1979) and Lucas (1990) affirmed that praise from instructors could actually
help students’ improve their self-confidence, competence, and self-esteem by making
them believe that they can improve and succeed when their performance was weak. As a
result, encouraging or supporting students has become an imperative strategy for language
teachers. The teacher felt that students need more motivation because learning language is
not an easy job. He commented:
One thing I really want to encourage is questions. So when they ask questions, even if it’s a boring question, I lie, I tell them that was a good question. It’s not a bad question because asking questions is very important. So I try to encourage that as much as I can. Like, asking my own questions to encourage them to think about it.
Brock (1986) suggested that “questions may be a crucial input feature fostering
development of second language abilities” (p. 47). By asking questions, the teacher can
encourage the students to use the target language or think about the meaning of grammar
rules. The teacher also mentioned that it was compulsory for students to think about
rules by themselves before he started to teach. Kauchak and Eggen (1998) agreed that
43
asking questions could increase learners’ motivation, check students’ current
comprehension, give students’ practice with their target language, understand what they
really think and know, and lead students to new learning.
4.1.2 The Role of the Teachers in Grammar Teaching
Belief 5: Teachers should be organized, patient, and communicative.
The teacher in this study thought that grammar teachers should have some
significant personality traits to help learners become successful in language learning.
Being organized to make sure that assignments are structured well is the most important.
Secondly, teachers have to be more patient while waiting on answers from students,
while explaining the rules repeatedly, and while encouraging their students. Thirdly, the
teacher should communicate clearly to help students comprehend the rules easily. He
said:
They need to be organized, they need to communicate clearly, and they need to be patient because the teacher needs to have patience to wait, answer, and explain the rules again and again.
Belief 6: Teachers should understand learners’ culture and experience to learn a new
language to comprehend their difficulties with language learning.
44
The teacher thought that teachers should know students’ cultures in order to provide
proper approaches to inspire their learning. Besides, teachers should get involved in
learning other languages to empathize with possible difficulties that learners might have to
overcome. He remarked:
Sometimes, I have to figure out a student’s culture, the culture difference. For them, it is important that you know they are there, that they matter, and you can talk directly to them. Teachers also need to or have to learn a language. They must learn a language, then they would understand students just going through something difficult.
Belief 7: A teacher’s job is to explain and introduce the rules.
The teacher also believed that teachers play an indispensable role in grammar
teaching. He conveyed that “my job is to explain the rules and introduce the rules.” He
also thought that students needed an instructor to help them find out their problems or
mistakes. As Young’s (1990) study mentioned, the instructor could help learners reduce
foreign language class anxiety and help them realize their mistakes. The teacher
explained:
I don’t think any students could study grammar on their own. It would be nice to have someone you can ask questions. When I have students who have difficulties, I can usually identify where the problem is coming from. I don’t think students are very good at seeing their own problems.
45
4.1.3 Methodology of Grammar Teaching
Belief 8: The teacher would adopt inductive teaching with communicative approach
framework.
The teacher commented that language should be taught by the communicative
approach; because of this, the students can use the target language in a real world setting.
He said:
Ideally, in the real world, we are supposed to say we teach communicative approach, right? When you learn, you learn something in the classes, and then you use it in a context to solve the problem, something like this.
However, the large class size and the lecture room arrangement made it difficult for
the teacher to apply the communicative techniques over the course of the class. He needed
to adopt either inductive or deductive techniques to introduce the grammatical rules to his
students. He explained:
So, for the most part, what I like to do is inductive [communicative] methodology. I provide examples and then from examples, you draw rules. You extract the rules. I guess my approach for students is challenging them. Here is my example [on the board]. Do you see the pattern? Do you see the rules? Explain it to me. If you can explain to me, then I know you understand.
Apparently, the teacher preferred inductive teaching with the communicative
46
approach framework in his grammar instruction. By providing situationally-bound
examples related to real life, the teacher enabled the students to derive grammatical rules
from a meaningful context by both challenging his students’ language abilities and
examining their comprehension of grammar knowledge. Canale and Swain (1980) agreed
about the inevitability of building grammatical competence integrated within meaningful
communicative learning.
Belief 9: Exercises and activities can give students more opportunity to practice the
language.
The teacher believed that the textbook is necessary for students to practice the forms.
He selected the textbook Understanding and Using English Grammar (Azar & Hagen,
2008) because:
Based on the first one, I ask if I know this book. Or if I’m familiar with this book. Two is exercises. I think my job is to explain the rules and introduce the rules, and the textbook’s job is to give students practice and to test students. Do they really understand the rules?
He explained that the textbook could examine the students’ comprehension of
grammatical rules from doing the exercises. Westbury (1990) examined 18 studies of
47
relationships between textbooks and learners’ achievement and found that 15 of them had
positive relationships. Rivers (1981) also showed that teachers’ instruction and students’
learning was especially influenced by textbooks.
The teacher admitted that the textbook might be easy for his advanced level students,
but he explained, “when I need it [ the exercise] to be harder, I can make my own
exercise.” Cashin (1979) also suggested giving students opportunities to succeed at easy
tasks initially and gradually increasing the complexity level. Both simpler and more
complicated assignments and exams offered the students to experience success as well as
challenge. When the students need complicated exercises, the teacher would make
handouts or have some activities for them to practice. Occasionally, the teacher would
ask students to do pair work. He said:
I like pair work because students can learn better and more by peers. They help each other to grade and they share the same grade, it will push them so hard because they cannot pull the other down. Students will also have different partners to get more chances to practice every time.
As Dornyei and Malderez (1999) proposed, using activities such as role-play, pair
work, and small group work could stimulate students to communicate and enhance the
interaction with other students in class.
48
4.1.4 Feedback
Belief 10: Error correction is necessary for learners but dependent on the pedagogical
situation.
Whether it is necessary to correct students’ errors is always the hardest decision for
teachers to make. Truscott (1996, 1999) noted that correcting errors is beneficial for
students’ development in second language. Nevertheless, the teacher believed that
students would feel frustrated and stressed to be told making mistakes all the time.
Another reason he disliked to correct his students’ error was that both the teacher and the
students might be distracted. He explained:
If I say, wait, wait, wait, correct your mistake, now correct your answer, by the time, they get back to the answer, they forget about the answer.
Although error correction might discourage learners’ motivation, the teacher still
acknowledged that it was required for second language learners. Ferris (1999, 2002)
confirmed that students could improve their language accuracy by receiving error
correction. Therefore, the teacher revealed:
I make this decision based on where we are in the class, and what mistake it is. If the mistake is from doing exercise of the textbook, then I think I have to. Or I correct them if they did something is a big problem and something we have already learned about.
49
If students make mistakes during the conversation, the teacher would rather recast
the sentence and let students correct it by themselves. Recent studies also show that recast
could help learners’ development of second language learning (Han, 2002; Long, Inagaki,
& Ortega, 1998). The teacher believed:
I don’t talk about the mistake. What I do is I will say what they should have said. But I don’t tell them that it’s wrong. I just want them to hear what is right. So sometimes I say what students said, and I make a change. They usually notice, I think they hear the difference.
As Lee and Ridley (1999) mentioned, students’ correction was more effective than
the teacher’s correction. They also categorized student correction into self-correction and
peer correction. Wingfield (1975) agreed that self-correction would be efficient with
grammatical errors, but not lexical errors. Hence, the teacher would correct errors
immediately from practices but recast the sentence during conversation.
4.1.5 Strategies between the Two Classes
Belief 11: It is possible to have the same goals.
In the first interview, the teacher would plan the same goal for both classes to learn
the same content. Therefore, he did not think there would be many differences between
50
two classes. He explained:
I have the same goals for my both classes. You know, I want them to learn the same things. My method is pretty similar, the only thing I really change is the conversation we have. I think that’s something you have to change. But some activities, I would have changed, I could change that. The big change will be questions. This big reason I have made changes between two classes is based on the questions they asked.
At the second interview, he doubted that both classes would have learned the same
content eventually. The teacher had changed his thought about using the same strategy in
two classes. He said:
The same strategy doesn’t work. The strategy I usually use is to make them not fall asleep. They have to be awake first if they want to learn something.
4.1.6 The Difficulties in Class
Belief 12: It is possible to have some students not listening in the class
During the first interview, the teacher predicted that the students who have their
attention diverted in class would cause difficulties in his grammar teaching. He said:
Most difficult part is reaching students, like students will be absent in their mind during the lecture, so I usually ask them questions, make them talk, like ask those questions. Or give them some positive feedback, encourage them to answer questions.
In the second interview, he still thought that his students could not concentrate on the
51
class, but felt a little frustrated in saying:
The greatest problem for me in the class is there are 30 students, some of them are listening, and some are not at the same time. It’s true, I can see, I look around…uhh…they aren’t thinking about what I’m saying. I ask them (=the students) questions and questions, and still they can be not listening. Some students just know I’m talking to them, but they are not thinking about what I’m saying.
In all, the teacher did not change much about his beliefs from the beginning to the
end of the class. Nonetheless, some of his beliefs have been affected and changed by the
students’ reaction and classroom practices.
52
4.2 Classroom Practice
Based on the teacher’s classroom practices, the results were compared so as to see
whether his beliefs and practices were consistent or inconsistent with each other. The
teacher’s practices were analyzed and extracted from the video recordings of the two
classroom observations.
Table 4.2.1 Comparison of teacher’s beliefs and practices
Teacher’s Belief Classroom Practice
Belief 3: Learning grammar encourages students’ output.
Approach 1: Building students’ confidence to produce more language by learning grammar
Belief 4: Grammar teaching helps to encourage students to continue their learning through system building and questioning the system.
Approach 2: Asking students questions and encouraging them to think
Belief 5: Teachers should be patient.
Approach 3: Being patient
Belief 7: Teacher’s job is to explain and introduce the rules.
Approach 4: Adjusting explanations to students’ proficiency level
53
Teacher’s Belief Classroom Practice
Belief 8: The teacher would adopt inductive teaching with communicative approach framework.
Approach 5: Applying both inductive and deductive teaching
Belief 9: Exercises and activities can give students more opportunities to practice the language.
Approach 6: Providing a variety of exercises and activities
Belief 10: Error correction is necessary for learners but dependent on the pedagogical situation.
Approach 7: Giving error correction at appropriate times
Belief 11: It is possible to have the same goals in two classes.
Approach 8: Giving two classes the same goal but different strategies
Approach 1: Building Students’ Confidence to Produce More Language by Learning
Grammar
According to the teacher’s Belief 3, he thought that learning grammar could
encourage students’ output and they would become confident to produce more
sentences since they understand how to use those rules appropriately in the real world.
Here is an example:
54
Excerpt 1 [Data extracted from the first class on 2010/03/10]
(The topic of this class is about modal verbs, and the teacher is giving some examples to teach students how to make a request.)
Turn Transcript
T:
SA:
T:
SB
T:
SC:
T:
SD:
T:
T:
SE
T:
SE:
T:
T:
So I say, SA , would you sit there?
Yeah.
I ask someone, SA to do something. Sit in that chair.
[The teacher is writing down on the board: “Would you sit there?”]
Request, it is a question and it starts with modals.
What is finite verb?
SB asked a good question here. What is the finite verb here?
sit
Ahh…modal verb is the finite verb. Okay, SD, could you close the door?
Sure!
[The teacher is writing down the sentence on the board]
So this one is from the teacher to the student. Would you sit there?
Could you close the door?
Let’s say, SE you forgot your notebook today, you had no paper, how do
you get a piece of paper? You want SF to give you some paper.
Can you give me some paper?
You say, can or could?
Can.
Okay,
[The teacher is writing down: “Can/ Could you give me some paper?”]
So this one is SE to SF.
55
Note: T = Teacher S (A, B, C, D, E, F)= Student (A, B, C, D, E, F)
In Excerpt 1, the teacher gave learners some spoken examples that were situationally
relevant first and then wrote them down on the board. The students could look at the
sentences and think about the grammatical patterns on the board. When a student had a
question about which verb carried the tense, he or she simply asked the teacher
immediately. The teacher, however, did not give the answer right away. He praised the
student and recast the question to encourage them to ask more questions because their
questions could help him understand their degree of comprehension. After receiving
another student’s feedback, the teacher could understand their problems and give an
appropriate response to clear up their misunderstanding before there was any more
confusion.
Subsequently, he gave the students another example to show how people use modal
verbs to make requests. Thus, the students had more opportunities to understand how to
use modal verbs to make sentences. When the teacher thought the students had clearly
understood the rules, he gave Student E (=SE) another relevant situation to examine his
or her output abilities with using modal verbs. At that time, Student E already correctly
56
made the sentence by following the two examples. Student E displayed confidence in the
answer and thus proved what the teacher believed.
Approach 2: Asking Students Questions and Encouraging Them to Think
According to the teacher’s Belief 4, grammar teaching helps to support students to
continue their learning through system building and questioning their own language
system. Since the teacher knew the students had previously learned grammar, he
preferred asking questions about the concepts or reasons behind using grammatical
patterns before introducing the rules. He liked the students to think about the reasons for
using grammar rules more than just learning them. Following Ur’s (1996) study,
questions can stimulate learners’ thinking, get them to review and practice what they
have learned previously, and direct their attention to the topics to be learned. Below is an
example:
Excerpt 2 [Data extracted from the first class on 2010/03/10]
(The topic of this class is modal verbs, and the teacher was trying to teach the students how to use modal verbs to make requests.)
57
Turn Transcript
T:
SA:
T:
SB:
T:
SC:
T:
The first topic is making a request, does anyone know what a request is?
Asking them…
Yes, asking someone…?
To help
To help….?
To do something.
[The teacher is writing down, “Asking someone to do something.”]
To do something. Yeah, to do you a favor or to do something.
Note: T = Teacher
S (A, B, C)= Student (A, B, C)
In Excerpt 2, the teacher asked the students about the meaning of a request. He
wanted his students to think about it first and understand why people use requests. When
a couple of students tried to answer the question, the teacher repeated what they said. An
example of this is when the student replied, “ask someone…” Then the teacher repeated
the answer, “ask someone… ” If the answer was not what he expected, his response
would be more like a question for students, and he would probably keep asking until he
found a better answer. For example, the student replied, “to help…” The students could
tell that the teacher did not totally agree with it. Therefore, he tried to clarify the sentence
again by asking, “to help?” Then the students realized that they might have given a wrong
58
answer and had a chance to change it to another. Once the students could explain the
meaning completely, the teacher would start to teach grammatical rules.
He would also ask the students questions to check their comprehension. When the
students had questions, he would ask for other students’ answers instead of telling them
the answer immediately as shown in Excerpt 1. Ur (1996) believed that teachers’
questions could probe students’ knowledge, check their comprehension and language
output abilities, and increase their interest.
Approach 3: Being Patient
Given a typical classroom situation, it seems impossible to have students constantly
thinking or participating in class. Sporadically, the students were unwilling to think about
the questions or answer them. Because of this, the instructor believed that teachers should
inspire students’ enthusiasm on language learning.
The teacher also assumed that the students might be completely lost and say, “I
don’t understand.” He indicated that when students refused to reply or felt confused, he
would be more patient to take time to break down the rules and encourage them to try
again. Similar to his Belief 5, teachers should be organized, patient, and communicative.
59
Here is an example:
Excerpt 3 [Data extracted from the second class on 2010/04/09]
(The teacher is doing some review in the class. He is writing down a sentence and asking students to come and analyze it. )
Turn Transcript
T:
SS:
T:
SA:
T:
SA:
T:
SA:
T:
SA:
T:
S:
T:
SB:
T:
SA:
T:
SA:
Any volunteer that wants to try it? Practice it for the test?
[Silence….5 seconds]
Okay…SA
[The student is shaking his head, “no.”]
Come on, try it.
[The student is shaking his head.]
We will help you.
[The student is shaking his head.]
Come on, don’t be scared.
[The teacher is going forward to him to give him the chalk to analyze it.]
[The student is going to the front to the board.]
So everyone will help you, first, we want to find a gerund phrase.
[…..]
What do you guys think?
Hurting her baby.
Right. Hurting her baby.
[The student is underling “hurting her baby.”]
Where is the gerund?
[The student points to the word “hurting.”]
60
T:
SA:
T:
SA:
T:
SC:
T:
SA:
T:
SA:
SC:
T:
SA:
T:
SA:
T:
SA:
SD:
T:
SA:
T:
SA:
Good, okay, what should you write down?
[The student is writing down “G.”]
Good. And what is “her baby?”
[The student is writing down “PP” (Prepositional Phrase) on the board.]
Propositional Phrase for “her baby”?
Noun Phrase.
Yes, Noun Phrase.
[The student is writing down “NP” for Noun Phrase on the board.]
Okay, so now we have a gerund and a noun phrase. Now we are looking
for the function. What are the functions?
[…………..]
Direct object.
Yes, direct object.
How do you write direct object?
D.O.
[The student is writing down “D.O.” on the board.]
So why is it a D.O. for “her baby”?
Because she is hurting something. It’s an object of hurting. Now we have
one more question. What is the function of “hurting her baby”?
[…………..]
Preposition object.
Yeah, preposition object.
[The student is writing down “PP” for Preposition Object on the board.]
Okay, thank you.
[Goes back to his/ her seat.]
Note: T = Teacher
S (A, B, C, D)= Student (A, B, C, D)
61
SS= All of the Students
In Excerpt 3, Student A (=SA) was afraid initially, and he strongly refused practicing
an analysis of the sentence on the board. The teacher encouraged him to try it several
times until Student A would go toward the board. However, the student was not capable
of analyzing the sentence and only stood there. He did not want to ask questions of the
teacher or other students. The teacher would lead him to explore the answer by asking
questions. If he still did not have any idea, the teacher would ask other students to help.
The instructor believed that help from peers was another way to motivate students’
learning behavior. With his peers’ help, Student A became more comfortable to do the
task and tried to ask the teacher questions to complete this task. The students usually
spent no longer than two minutes to finish this entire activity. Even though Student A
spent almost four minutes working on the sentence, the teacher still patiently helped him
complete this task.
Furthermore, when the students were confused about a special rule or exception, the
teacher would explain it to them several times and provide several examples to get them
to have better understanding. While the students were working in pairs, the teacher would
walk around to check the students’ comprehension and output abilities. When the students
62
had questions, he would bend down or sit with them and patiently explain the rules again.
Approach 4: Adjusting Explanations to the Students’ Proficiency Level
The instructor believed that teachers played an important role in grammar instruction
because students could not study exclusively using their own ways. They needed teachers
to introduce or explain the rules based on their language proficiency. For instance, since
the two groups of classes were at the lower-advanced level, most students had already
taken grammar instruction in their home countries or in an intermediate level class at the
same institution. The teacher disagreed with the necessity of basic forms teaching, so he
sometimes skipped or reviewed them quickly. He could therefore spend more time
explaining the rules with which the students were not familiar. Below is an example:
Excerpt 4 [Data extracted from the first class on 2010/03/05]
(The teacher is introducing future tenses and time clauses, and he is writing down the sentence, “She _________(do) her laundry after lunch” on the board. )
Turn Transcript
T:
So, for the future tense. Here is a sentence. She, subject, do, predicate,
her laundry after lunch.
63
SA:
T:
SB:
T:
T:
SS:
T:
SC:
T:
Let’s say it is talking about the future.
How would you complete this sentence?
She is going to…
SA said one, the other option?
Will
Yeah.
[The teacher is writing down “is going to “ and “will” on the board.]
These two present the future. So it is easy stuff. All of you have learned
it before. So what is the hardest part where students usually make
mistakes when they use future tense?
[…..]
There is one place in particular. Here we have an “after lunch”
preposition phrase. It tells us the time. But sometimes, we can use time
clause to explain the time, like, “after she will eat lunch.” It is very
common for some students to use, but it is incorrect. If we have a time
clause for the future, the time clause should be present. So “after she eats
lunch.”
Eats?
Yeah, so maybe I can write it as a formula. If “main clause (future), time
clause should be “present.” Let me get your some more examples…
Note: T = Teacher
S (A, B, C)= Student (A, B, C) SS= All of the Students
In the beginning of Excerpt 4, the teacher started to introduce the future tense. He
64
did not spend much time on introducing the basic structure and only emphasized the time
clauses while teaching the future tense. Based on his teaching experience, he assumed
that most of the advanced-level students knew the simple future tense but had problems
with time clauses. Thus, he provided a sentence with a time clause but without the verb
tense. He tried to examine whether the students could finish the sentence with the correct
grammatical pattern or not, and was therefore able to confirm that most students knew
about the future tense. Since the students could answer the question perfectly, he decided
to skip this part and jump to time clauses. As he learned, most students knew how to use
future tenses correctly but were not sure about time clauses, so he could spend more time
explaining and introducing the specific grammatical knowledge that the students lacked.
Approach 5: Applying Inductive Teaching and Deductive Teaching
According to the teacher’s eighth belief, he would adopt inductive teaching in his
grammar instruction. He preferred to give examples before explaining the rules. The
students were required to look first at sentences, think about the structure, and search for
the grammatical patterns. He thought that examples could challenge his advanced-level
students to some degree and check their knowledge of grammatical rules. After that, he
65
would draw out the rules and explain them to students. Here is an example:
Excerpt 5 [Data extracted from the second class on 2010/03/03]
(The topic of this class is quoted speech and reported speech. The teacher has not started providing any examples or rules yet.)
Turn Transcript
T:
SA:
T:
T:
TA:
T:
TA:
T:
TA:
T:
T:
TA:
T:
TA:
T:
SA, what did you do last weekend?
I went to Cleveland last weekend.
Okay, SA’s response was, “I went to Cleveland,” right?
So, TA, could you please quote SA’s speech? Quote!
Quote. [The teaching assistant uses body language.]
Quote. [The teacher uses body language.]
SA said, “He…”
I.
Oh, “I went to Cleveland.”
Right SA said, quote, “I went to Cleveland.” quote. Okay.
TA , could you please report Larry’s speech?
SA said he…
“That,” a formal way, “that.”
SA said that he had gone to Cleveland.
Perfect. Excellent.
Okay, so here are our examples.
[The teacher starts writing down the two sentences on the board.]
66
T:
T:
T:
T:
T:
T:
So there are three changes we made.
One is punctuation, comma, and quotation.
[The teacher is writing down “1. Punctuation”]
Second, pronoun.
[The teacher is underlining the “he.”]
In quoted speech, we use “I.”
[The teacher is underlining the “I.”]
Because quoted speech is what he exactly said.
[The teacher is writing down “2. Pronoun.”]
Third, verbs.
[The teacher is underlining “went” and “had gone,” then writes down “3.
Predicate.”]
So these are the three differences.
Note: T = Teacher
S (A)= Student (A) TA= Teaching Assistant
In Excerpt 5, the teacher began this topic by asking Student A (=SA) what he did
over the weekend. The teacher loudly repeated a student’s answers so that everyone could
hear it. After that, he asked his teaching assistant (=TA) to quote and report the student’s
response and repeated these two sentences. By providing two correct examples first, he
expected them to hear the different grammatical structures between the two speeches. As
67
a result, the students learned quoted speech and reported speech through the indicative
approach. After that, he explained the rules and pointed out the significant linguistic
features in both speeches to enhance the students’ explicit learning.
However, it is a fact that the teacher did not always apply the indicative approach to
his grammar teaching. He sometimes switched from inductive teaching to deductive
teaching. Particularly, when he taught new rules, which were similar to others from
before, he might directly introduce them before giving the students examples. Here is an
example:
Excerpt 6 [Data extracted from the first class on 2010/04/05]
(The teacher is teaching passive voice, and he is going to teach modal verbs with passive.)
Turn Transcript
T:
SS:
T:
What we are going to do today is, you are going to learn modals plus
passive [voice]. So hopefully you remember modal verbs.
[The teacher is writing down modals + passive]
[Laughing…]
Modals with passive are possible. When we did modals before, they
were active. Now we’re going to do modals in passive. Luckily, they are
pretty easy.
68
T:
T:
T:
[The teacher is writing “modals + be + 3rd (past participle)” on the
board.]
It’s basically just one formula.
Modals plus, be plus the third form, past participle.
[The teacher is also putting the words on the board.]
It is pretty easy for modals in the passive.
[The teacher is writing down an example on the board.]
Here is a really simple example: “The door can be locked.”
Here is a modal plus, be plus past participle. So we’re using passive and
modals together.
Note: T =Teacher
SS= All of the Students
In Excerpt 6, the teacher gave the students the formula for using modal verbs in
passive voice. He explained the grammatical structures and the verb form before showing
them an example by following that pattern. By doing this, the students learned the rules
and internalized them. When the teacher provided the example, they had the rule in their
minds, and they just needed to understand how to use this rule to make correct sentences.
Nevertheless, the teacher still preferred inductive teaching when he reviewed rules
in class. Since the students had learned the patterns in previous classes, he would show
the students examples and ask them to search the rules in the majority of review classes.
69
This example follows:
Excerpt 7 [Data extracted from the first class on 2010/03/03]
(The teacher is reviewing the perfect and perfect progressive tenses with students. He is writing down two sentences on the board. )
Turn Transcript
T:
SA:
T:
SB:
T:
SC:
T:
T:
Okay, let’s talk about present perfect and present perfect progressive.
There are two reasons to use the present perfect. The first one is to
express the duration or state. Does anyone know what duration is?
The amount of time, how long…
Yeah, the amount of time, how long it is.
So… I have been a teacher for three years. Is it duration or state?
Duration.
How do we formulate it?
Have/has plus past participle.
So, I have been a teacher for three years. It is duration. Something starts
from the past until now.
[The teaching is drawing a graph on the board.]
The other reason we use it is to describe experience. So all the things we
have done before, what do we use from the same graph for experiences.
Note: T = Teacher
S (A, B, C)= Student (A, B,C)
70
In Excerpt 7, the teacher showed two examples to the students at the beginning of a
review class. Since the students had already learned the rules of present perfect and
present perfect progressive before, he first asked them to discover the grammatical
patterns by themselves. When they could answer the rules correctly, the teacher could be
more certain that they had those patterns stored in their memories. After that, he showed
the rules on the board and gave students further explanations of why people use the
present perfect aspect to enhance their explicit learning.
As a result, the teacher still applied inductive teaching in the two classes much of the
time. However, he would sometimes mix both an inductive and deductive approach in
with his grammar instruction to facilitate his students’ grammar learning.
Approach 6: Providing a Variety of Exercises and Activities
Whether the teacher used inductive or deductive instruction, he believed that
exercises and activities were obligatory for students to practice the grammatical forms
and improve their language abilities by learning grammar. Grammar could improve
learners’ accuracy, but they were required to be involved with various forms of practice to
get familiar with these rules. Like his Belief 9, he felt that exercises and activities can
71
give students more opportunities to practice the language. After introducing the
grammatical forms, the students were required to do exercises or activities to check their
comprehension.
The teacher frequently did exercises with his students one at a time to check the
answers both immediately and later. On occasion, he asked students to work with groups
or pairs and checked the answers at the same time or soon after. Based on his strategy, the
exercise techniques were categorized into five types.
1. Fill-in the blanks
This comprised the majority of the exercises in the book. The students had to fill-in
the blanks with specific grammatical form to complete the sentences.
2. Listening practice
The students had to listen to transcripts from the CD that accompanied the textbook
and circle the correct answers. They also had to listen to dialogues and choose between
true and false. Sometimes, they also practiced careful listening on grammatical forms
and filled them in the blanks.
3. Speaking tasks
The tasks were related to solving some situations that occur in the real world. The
72
students were divided into pairs or groups. They had to discuss the issues with their
partners, find the solutions and offer advice while following specific grammatical rules
4. Writing tasks
The writing tasks could be to write either completed sentences or short essays. The
students had to follow the rules and hints when writing sentences. They sometimes
needed to change sentences into different grammatical forms, such as from active to
passive, or vice-versa. They might rewrite sentences into the forms of noun clauses
and adjective clauses. They were also encouraged to create new sentences with limited
patterns by answering questions.
5. Error analysis
Students needed to read some examples with incorrect grammatical forms so they
could recognize the errors of those examples and change them to the correct patterns.
Most of these exercises required the students to implement cooperative learning
because they had to work and communicate with one or more classmates. In addition, the
teacher could employ the communicative techniques into grammar instruction by doing
these exercises. For instance, students had oral practice with grammatical forms when
they read answers aloud. They also practiced their speaking and communicative skills to
73
complete the tasks when they worked in pairs or groups. Sometimes, the students had to
create their dialogues by following the rules and performing them at the front of the
classroom. Here is an example:
Excerpt 8 [Data extracted from the first class on 2010/03/10]
(The topic of this class is modals. The teacher asked students to come in front the class and work in pairs. Students could practice exercises and provide examples for other students.)
Turn Transcript
T:
SA&SB:
T:
SA:
T:
T:
S:
T:
SB:
SA:
Page 162, Exercise 9, SA, come on down and SB, yes! Have a seat. Bring
your books.
[The two students go to the front of the class and sit down.]
Okay. You are going to make an excellent officer today because you have
this hair cut.
[The teacher is talking to SA]
Officer?
Yeah, this is an officer
[The teaching is pointing to SA]
SB is a driver.
[All students are laughing.]
Now, do you have your conversation?
What’s the trouble, Officer?
You made and illegal U-turn.
74
SB:
SA:
SB:
SA:
T:
SS:
T:
T:
SS:
T:
I did?
Yes, may I see your driver’s license?
Certainly. It’s in my wallet.
Would you please remove it from your wallet?
So, let’s go to the question. May I see your driver’s license? Is it a request
or permission?
Request/ permission.
Okay, think about that, it sounds like a permission right. But he is a police
officer. He is going to take it. So it’s more like an order.
May I have your license? It means, give me your license. So this is request.
How about the other one, would you please remove it from your wallet?
Request.
Yeah, it is still a request. The officer asks you what to do.
Note: T = Teacher
S (A, B)= Student (A, B) SS= All of the Students
In Excerpt 8, the teacher asked two students to come to the front of the classroom
and practice the exercise from the textbook. This exercise gave the students a real-world
situation. The students had to imagine themselves in this situation, follow the patterns
that they had just learned, and create their own sentences to complete this exercise.
Therefore, they had more opportunities to practice their speaking skills by using these
rules in a communicative language setting. Additionally, other students could check with
75
the teacher if these two students’ grammatical patterns were correct because it helped
them to examine their comprehension after the teacher’s instruction. They could also
compare their answers to the two students’ so that they could also learn from peers.
Another reason for teachers to ask students to role-play in front of the class is to enhance
learners’ retention of the grammar patterns. The students usually were more aware of the
pattern when they were required to give examples for the other students.
Otherwise, the teacher mentioned that the textbook might be easy for some students.
Consequently, he prepared some extra activities for his students. He would ask his
students some questions, and the students had to follow grammatical forms to answer
them. When doing this, the students could practice listening and speaking. The teacher
would also write sentences on the board. In turn, the students were required to analyze the
grammatical patterns of those sentences in front of their classmates.
By doing both exercises and activities, the teacher could check his students’ input
and output abilities. The students could also have more opportunities to become more
familiar with grammatical rules. Similarly, Gardner (1999) believed that teachers could
promote language acquisition by providing a variety of inter-related classroom activities.
76
Approach 7: Giving Error Correction at Appropriate Times
The teacher would correct the students’ mistakes immediately when the students
made grammatical errors while practicing their language. According to the teacher’s
beliefs, error corrections were necessary and extremely important for language learning.
The students sometimes could not recognize their mistakes. As a result, they kept making
the same mistakes, thus possibly causing their language abilities to stagnate. The
instructor therefore believed that it was vital for teachers to identify the problems and
help the students to correct their errors. Here is an example:
Excerpt 9 [Data extracted from the second class on 2010/03/03]
(The topic of this class is about quoted speech and reported speech. The teacher has already given students some examples and explained the rules. )
Turn Transcript
T:
SA:
T:
SB:
T:
SB:
T:
SA, tell me about your weekend?
I wash my clothes last weekend.
Ahh…SB, could you hear what she said?
Yeah, uhh..he….she said…
Okay, first of all, report her speech.
Okay, she said…uh…
Start with her name first.
77
SB:
T:
SB:
T:
SC:
T:
SC:
T:
[The teacher is pointing at the example on the board ]
SA said that…uh…she washed her clothes.
Okay, so here we should have past perfect.
[The teacher is pointing to the verb/predicate of sentence.]
Okay, uh…she said that she had washed her clothes.
Okay SC, quote her speech.
She said, “I had washed my clothes.”
Now, you just used simple past.
[The teacher is pointing to the verb/ predicate of the sentence.]
S: Oh! Ahh…she said, “I washed my clothes.”
Good!
Note: T = Teacher
S (A, B, C)= Student (A, B, C)
In Excerpt 9, Student B (=SB) was still not familiar with grammar patterns after the
rules were explained. When the students made mistakes, the teacher would point to the
correct sentences on the board and instruct them to follow the rules. After they noticed
the errors that they made, they could figure out their mistakes and correctly repeat the
sentences. Occasionally, the teacher chose to repeat the sentence or give students hints
rather than directly noticed them the mistakes. He would sometimes recast the sentence
rather than directly correct the students’ errors. He believed that the students would
usually notice the corrections and then engage in self-correction. Here is an example:
78
Excerpt 10 [Data extracted from the first class on 2010/03/15]
(The teacher is teaching Modals, and he has already explained the rules to the students.)
Turn Transcript
T:
SA:
T:
SA
T:
SA:
T:
T:
SB:
T:
SB:
T:
SB:
T:
SB:
T:
T:
I will do another school example.
I didn’t come to class yesterday. I should have ….
[The teacher is also writing it down on the board.]
Came.
Came? “A” is past tense.
Come.
Yeah, “come” is the past participle.
Come, came, come?
Yeah, come, came, come. Come to school.
[He keeps writing down on the board.]
Okay, I went out last night. I had a lot of fun, and today I woke up. I had
no money. Give me hindsight advice.
You should be aware…uh.. on your money…
I should…? I should…?
You should have…
I should have, okay…
[The teacher is writing down on the board.]
Financial your…uh.
Financial?
You know…financial thing…
Uh…balanced my finances.
[The teacher is writing down on the board.]
I should have balanced my finance[s]. Or I should have set my money
79
SB:
aside when I went out.
Yeah. I should have balanced my finances.
Note: T = Teacher
S (A, B)= Student (A, B)
In Excerpt 10, when students tried to make sentences, they forgot to use correct
grammatical patterns. At that time, the teacher would give them hints to notice their
mistakes. For example, when Student A (=SA) misused “came” as the past participle, the
teacher reminded him or her what tense form it was. The students would then correct
themselves and say “come.” When Student B (=SB) forgot to put “have” after “should,”
the teacher just kept repeating “I should…?” to remind him or her that they forgot to use
“have.” The student also noticed it and changed it to the correct sentence, “I should
have…”
The teacher never said what sort of mistakes Students A or B made. He just gave
hints or repeated the sentence until they realized the correct answers. He also tried to not
discourage them when they tried to practice grammar rules. When Student B had
difficulties expressing the meanings of and misusing the words, the teacher just changed
it to the correct sentence. As a result, Student B understood that he or she should use the
80
noun, “finance,” instead of the adjective, “financial.”
However, the teacher admitted that he did not always correct students’ errors. He
thought that it would be too frustrating if he kept correcting all the mistakes students
made. As stated in his Belief 10, error correction is necessary for learners but dependent
on the pedagogical situation. Therefore, he always had to make a decision as to whether
or not he should correct errors in the classroom.
Approach 8: Giving the Two Classes the Same Goal but Different Strategies
The teacher believed that the two groups of students should eventually learn from
the same contents because he would set the exact same goals for each class starting from
the beginning of the semester. He always had one lesson plan for two classes and tried to
follow the same strategy to ensure that the students would learn the same content for each
lesson. Here is an example:
Excerpt 11 [Data extracted from the first class on 2010/03/24]
(The teacher is teaching passive voice, and he has already provided three active sentences on the board.)
81
Turn Transcript
T:
SA:
T:
T:
T:
SB:
T:
T:
SC:
T:
SS:
So every test, every homework [assignment], or examples generally for
today, they have all been active. That means, every sentence that we have
used, the subject has to be a person who does the verb. The person who
does the verb we call an “agent.” It is a new word. I want you to learn this
one.
Agent?
Agent. So for active sentences, let’s get a definition of agents first.
[The teacher is writing sentence on the board.]
A person or thing that “does” a verb, or who makes the action, or who
does the action. So why are these all active?
[The teacher is pointing to the three sentences on the board.]
Because the agent in the sentence is a subject. That’s why it is an active
sentence. Let’s take this one here.
[The teacher is pointing to one of the sentences.]
I teach grammar. It’s an active sentence. I’m going to change it to a
passive voice.
Grammar taught by me?
[The teacher is writing down the sentence on the board]
huh?
[The teacher keeps writing the correct one.]
Let’s look at this sentence. Grammar is the subject. Here is a predicate.
Who is the agent? Who does the verb?
Me.
Yeah, I do. Is the agent equal to the subject?
No.
Yeah, no. So here you can see easily, the agent is the subject. And here,
82
T: grammar doesn’t teach; a person teaches grammar, right? The agent is in a
prepositional phrase behind phrase. So here is how we find the agent.
Note: T = Teacher
S (A, B, C)= Student (A, B, C) SS=All of the Students
Excerpt 12 [Data extracted from the second class on 2010/03/22]
(The teacher is teaching passive voice, and he has already provided three active sentences on the board.)
Turn Transcript
T:
T:
T:
SA:
T:
SB:
T:
We have two voices. Everything we have done before today, in this class,
we call active voice; but we haven’t talked about passive. Passive is only
possible with transitive patterns. It could be monotransitive or ditransitive.
So there is one word, we call “agent.”
[The teacher is writing down an explanation on the board.]
This is a simple definition. An agent is a person or thing that “does” a
verb. So I can give you an example.
[The teacher is writing down a sentence on the board.]
“Mark bought the can of Coke.” When we talk about it, like subject,
predicate, or direct object. It is an active sentence.
Who is an agent? Who does the verb? This is an easy question.
Mark.
Yeah, Mark is our agent.
Why?
Why? Because he bought…the person does a verb. This sentence, Mark
83
T:
T:
SC:
T:
bought that can of Coke. It is transitive, which means it’s possible to be
passive.
[The teacher is writing down, “The can of Coke was bought by Mark.”]
This is how a passive sentence looks. That can of Coke was bought by
Mark. That can of Coke is subject, and was bought is the predicate. By
Mark is adverbial. So it’s getting more information about the behind. So
Who is doing the verb?
Mark.
Yeah, the Coke is not doing the verb. Mark is still our agent. So it is
passive. The meaning doesn’t change, pretty similar, just reverse the
sentence.
Note: T = Teacher
S (A, B, C)= Student (A, B, C)
In Excerpt 11 and Excerpt 12, the teacher used nearly the same strategy to introduce
passive voice. In the beginning, he wrote three different examples of active voice
sentences for both classes to remind students what they had already learned. Then, he
started to introduce the new grammatical term to students, “agent,” and explained what an
agent is in terms of passive voice. After the explanation, he wrote an example in passive
voice on the board and analyzed the sentence. When he tried to change an active sentence
to a passive sentence, he asked both groups of students to understand the sentences and to
think about what the agent was. Finally, he showed that although “grammar” and “the can
84
of Coke” were the subjects in the sentences, they were not the agent that performed the
verb. Although students had different interactions and questions, the teacher still followed
the same strategy in both classes.
Even though the teacher tried the same strategy to ensure the two sections of
students could achieve that same goal, at the end of the semester, he admitted that it was
impossible to do it all the time. The questions from the students might modify the
direction of his grammar teaching. On occasion, the students’ responses would necessitate
a change in teaching strategy. Their behavior would also change the teacher’s lesson plan
in the class. For instance, the students in the first class were usually more active in class.
They had more interaction with the teacher, and they usually liked to ask and answer
questions. When the teacher asked for volunteers to analyze sentences on the board or
answer the questions from the exercise, the students frequently raised their hands. They
were quite willing to try and share their opinions in class.
Compared to the students in the first class, the second class were more quiet and
passive. They had less interaction with the teacher. Typically, only one or two students
would try to answer the teacher’s questions. The other students refused to give any
responses. When the teacher asked them questions, they preferred to keep quiet and wait
85
for answers from the other students or the teacher. Here are two examples to compare the
same lesson on modal verbs that produced two extremely different interactions from the
two groups of students.
Excerpt 13 [Data extracted from the first class on 2010/03/15]
(The teacher is teaching how to use modals in the present first, and then he is going to talk about how modals are used in the past.)
Turn Transcript
T:
T:
T:
T:
SS:
T:
Usually what do we do if something bad happened? You’re talking to
your friend, right, and your friend says, “Oh, I’m sorry, I have an idea.
Next time, you can do it like this.”
So when we give advice in the past, we are looking back and thinking,
“What could I have done better? Okay, could have been better, or should
have been better, okay?”
[The teacher is writing down sentences on the board: “I failed the test. I
should have studied harder.” ]
What does it mean? It means we’re looking back to the past and thinking
what could have been different. What could I have changed? That’s what
I think, “I should have studied hard.”
You know the word for this?
[The teacher is writing down hindsight on the board.]
[Silence…5 seconds]
Look at this word, anything jump out you?
86
SA:
T:
SB:
T:
SC:
T:
SC:
T:
T:
T:
SD:
T:
SS:
SE
T:
T:
T:
T:
Hindsight?
Mhmm, what do you think of the meaning by looking at it?
A location?
Sight? It cannot be a location. What else can a sight be?
Same as a number?
Same as what?
Same as a number…a signal.
Not quiet signal. When you look through your eyes, it is sight, right?
And hind…if I draw some kind of animal.
[The teacher is drawing a picture on the board.]
This is an animal; I don’t know what it is.
[The students are laughing loudly.]
Maybe it is a dog.
It is a dog?
You’ve never seen this one before, it is a secret animal.
[The students are laughing loudly.]
I will never see it in my life.
Yeah, right!
[The teacher is laughing.]
So back legs, they’re called hind legs.
[The teacher is pointing to the back legs of the animal.]
They are in the back. Back, sight
[ The teacher is pointing to the word “hindsight.”]
Kind of to look back on time. So really quick grammar. The modal verb
is “should,” then we have “have,” then a “past participle.” So I can do
any verbs, any situations.
87
Note: T = Teacher S (A, B, C, D, E )= Student (A, B, C, D, E) SS= All of the Students
Excerpt 14 [Data extracted from the second class on 2010/03/15]
(The teacher is teaching how to use modals in the present before, and he is going to talk about how modals are used in the past.)
Turn Transcript
T:
T:
SS:
T:
SA:
T:
T:
SS:
T:
T:
If we use this example, “You should take a shower,” think about it in the
past. It was a good idea in the past.
[The teacher is writing down a sentence on the board.]
“You should have taken a shower.” Now we are thinking about the
advice, about something in the past. So what’s the point of that? Why
would you give someone advice about the past, not right now.
[Silence…8 seconds]
Why would I say something like this?
Because we didn’t do it.
You didn’t do it! And you think, you made a mistake, right? So…
[The teacher is writing down sentence on the board,” He thinks he made
a mistake.”]
This is an idea, you made a mistake. He didn’t take a shower. Next time,
he should shower. And this time, he should have had a shower.
[Silence…12 seconds]
Alright, so, this is a word for this.
[The teacher is writing down “hindsight” on the board]
Hindsight, any guesses?
88
SS:
T:
SS:
T:
SS:
T:
T:
SB:
T:
T:
SS:
T:
SC:
T:
T:
SS:
T:
[Silence…18 seconds]
Alright. SA. What does sight mean?
[ Silence…5 seconds]
Why are you wearing glasses?
[Silence…5 seconds]
You need glasses because your eyes are weak, right? And your sight is
not good.
[The teacher uses some body language.]
You have poor sight. So anyone wearing glasses has poor sight. So what
is sight?
Ability to see…?
Your ability to see, okay. So sight, have you ever heard this word? I’m
sure you have. When you have elementary English, sightseeing, you go
to some sight. This word, sight, to see. Hind? Any idea about what
“hind” means?
[Silence…5 seconds]
What’s that?
Back.
Back, exactly. Backward. So if I draw an animal...
[The teacher is drawing an animal.]
Front legs, and this is its back
[The teacher is pointing to the back legs of the animal.]
The hind legs. So hindsight is kind of a look back. Think about the past.
[Silence…3 seconds]
Anyway, using advice in the past, this is hindsight, to look back. I ask
what would’ve been a good idea. That was a mistake, someone made a
mistake. For example, SD failed his test. For hindsight, what will you
89
SD:
T:
SD:
T:
SD:
T:
T:
say?
[Silence…7 seconds]
What should you have done? How do you fix this problem?
I never make this kind of mistake.
Okay, how about you lost your key?
I should have checked my key….
Check? Okay, that works.
[The teacher is writing down on the board.]
“I should have checked the key before I left.” That works. Okay, what is
the grammatical pattern? “Should” plus “have” plus “past participle.”
Note: T = Teacher
S (A, B, C, D)= Student (A, B, C, D) SS= All of the Students
In Excerpts 13 and 14, there were two different interactions between the teacher and
two groups of the students. With the same instruction, the students in the first class tried
to answer the teacher’s questions or engage in conversations with the teacher. For
example, when the teacher made a joke about his drawing, the student would also give his
or her comment. It showed that the teacher had a good relationship with his students in
the first class. In contrast, the students in the second class preferred to keep quiet. When
the teacher asked Student A (=SA) in the second class what “sight” means, he or she just
looked at the teacher and did not say anything. The student might not know the meaning
90
of the word, or he or she might not understand the question. Therefore, the teacher had to
constantly give some hints until another student found the answer.
The students sometimes knew the answer, but they preferred to wait for a while.
When the teacher asked what hind meant, Student C (=SC) knew the answer but did not
answer it immediately. Until the teacher asked again, he or she would be more willing to
talk. Otherwise, the teacher generally had to answer the questions by himself so that he
could continue the lesson.
In sum, the teacher’s beliefs have a few inconsistencies with what he would like to
do in the class. Richard and Lockhart (1994) believed that what teachers do usually
reflects what they know and believe. Macbeth (1994) also agreed that what teachers think
about teaching is the most essential basis for what they do in their instruction. However,
this teacher still had difficulty following his beliefs in his instruction. Because of the
different interactions between the two sections of students, the teacher was unable to
carry over all of his beliefs into the classroom. He had even changed his beliefs and
thoughts in the sense that having the same strategy was impossible after the semester
finished. As a result of all this, the next section is going to show the different strategies
that he conducted in two classrooms.
91
4.3 Different Practices in Two Classes
The teacher mentioned, at the beginning that he would like to have the same goal for
the two classes. However, the truth was that he could apply the same strategies to the two
sections of the same grammar class. The results would show different techniques used
between the two classes. The grades of the two classes would be used to evaluate the
effectiveness of his grammar teaching after applying the different techniques into the two
classes.
4.3.1 Different Techniques
Because of the different learning behaviors between the two classes, the teacher had
to adjust his approaches and strategies to achieve the students’ requirements and motivate
their learning behavior. Therefore, the teacher’s instructions were observed with respect
to four categories; lecture, exercise and activities, review, and quizzes (Table 4.3.1.).
Firstly, the lecture class was a teacher-centered learning environment. The teacher
played a central role in introducing and explaining grammatical forms while the students
occasionally asked questions. In the practice class, the teacher applied a variety of
92
exercises and activities (Table 4.3.3.) to help the students’ cooperative learning. The
review class focused on student-centered learning. The teacher reviewed and explained
the grammatical patterns based on his students’ questions from previous lessons or
quizzes. Five quizzes were conducted in both classes between March 1 and May 7.
Finally, the first class was interrupted by an emergency event; it also caused the class to
get started late in the second class. In order to recognize how the different techniques
were conducted between the two classes, the amount of time dedicated to using each
technique in the two classes is shown on Table 4.3.1.
Table 4.3.1 The amount of time of different techniques in two classes (N=2592 Minutes)
Technique The first class The second class
Minute: Second Percentage Minute: Second Percentage
Lecture 1299:21 50.13% 1241:20 47.89%
Practice 773:25 29.84% 899:59 34.72%
Review 264:55 10.22% 180:35 6.97%
Quiz 250:00 9.65% 250:00 9.65%
An Emergency event 4:19 0.17% 20:06 0.78%
Total 2592:00 100.00% 2592:00 100.00%
93
In Table 4.3.1, the total time of each class was 2592 minutes. The teacher had
approximately equal time between lectures and quizzes in both classes. For example, both
classes had 250 minutes (9.65%) focused on quizzes. For class lecture, the teacher spent
1299 minutes and 21 seconds (50.13%) in the first class and 1241 minutes and 20
seconds (47.89%) in the second class. In contrast, there are two significant differences
between the two sections. One concern is how much time the teacher spent on practicing.
The other is how long the teacher spent on reviewing.
The first class took 773 minutes and 25 seconds (29.84%) to practice some exercises
and activities, and the second class took 899 minutes and 59 seconds (34.72%). The
second class spent an extra 126 minutes and 34 seconds on practicing exercises and
activities.
According to the data, the two classes were required to do the same exercises alone
or in pairs for the practice class. After they finished, the teacher asked them to read
sentences aloud to check whether the answers were correct. The teacher also
implemented activities for his students to practice their speaking and writing with
grammatical forms.
Nonetheless, the second class could usually finish the exercises faster than the first
94
class. The teacher had to give extra exercises for them to practice these grammatical
patterns. Otherwise, the second class would be too quiet and passive and so the extra
activities could stimulate the learners to communicate with the teacher and other
classmates and to enhance their learning motivation. Table 4.3.2 explains how much time
the two classes spent on the same and extra exercise and activities.
Table 4.3.2 The amount of time of exercise and activities in two classes (N=2592 minutes )
Practice The first class The second class
Minute: Second Minute: Second
Exercise 695:43 646:08
Extra exercise 10 152:48
Total 705:43 798:04
Activities 67:42 76:40
Extra activities 0 25:15
Total 67:42 101:55
As Table 4.3.2 compared the two classes, the students in the second class spent less
time on doing the same exercises. For instance, the first class had to spend 695 minutes
and 43 seconds on finishing the exercises whereas the second class only spent 646
95
minutes and 8 seconds to complete them. As a result, the second class spent 152 minutes
and 48 seconds on doing extra exercises. Alternatively, the second class also spent more
time completing the same activities, as well as 25 minutes and 15 seconds to do the extra
activities.
Since the two classes spent an unequal amount of time on the exercises and activities,
it was also necessary to understand how the teacher distributed time on different exercises
and activities between the classes. The exercises were from the textbook and were
divided into four categories (Table 4.3.3). For the first type of exercise, the teacher and
the students did the exercises together and the teacher checked the answers immediately
(T&S-One by One). Secondly, the students did the exercises with small groups and in
pairs and the teacher checked the answers at the same time (T&S-Pair Work). Thirdly, the
students did the exercises alone and the teacher checked the answers later (S-Alone).
Lastly, the students had done exercises with groups or pairs and the teacher checked the
answers later (S-Group/Pair Work).
In contrast, the activities involved the oral practice and sentence analysis. The
teacher sometimes asked the students to use special grammatical patterns, which they had
just learned to produce sentences one by one with oral practice activities (T&S-Oral
96
practice). He also asked students to come in front of the classroom and analyze sentences
alone (Sentence Analysis). Table 4.3.3 shows more details about the differences between
the exercises and activities between the two classes and what exercises and activities
were mostly used in the classroom.
Table 4.3.3 The amount of time on different exercises and activities
Practice Category The first class The second class
Minute: Second Percentage Minute: Second Percentage
Exercises T&S-One by One 483:39 62.53% 504:35 54.69%
T&-Pair Work 4:40 0.60% 4:10 0.46%
S-Alone 3:08 0.41% 2:23 0.26%
S-Group/Pair Work 214:16 27.70% 286:56 31.88%
Activities T&S-Oral Practice 42:34:00 5.50% 58:56:00 6.55%
Sentence Analysis 25:08:00 3.25% 42:59:00 4.78%
Total 67:42:00 100.00% 101:55:00 100.00%
From Table 4.3.3, the first class spent 483 minutes and 39 seconds (62.53%), which
was the majority of their time, using exercises to practice from the textbooks that they
read out loud. Conversely, the second class spent 504 minutes and 35 seconds, which
97
only consumed 54.69% of the total time. The second highest usage of exercises and
activities is from when the students worked in groups or pairs. The first class spent 214
minutes and 16 seconds (27.70%), and the second had 286 minutes and 56 seconds
(31.88%). The second class spent 74 minutes and 40 seconds on working in groups and
pairs because that group had more time to practice the target language by doing extra
exercises.
For the activities, neither class had an obvious advantage with regard to oral practice.
The teacher used about 40 to 60 minutes to practice the students’ output abilities through
speaking skills. However, the second class spent 17 minutes and 51 seconds more on
sentence analysis. This is because the teacher gave them more time to do output abilities
using writing skills.
The other difference with exercises and activities between the two classes is how
long the review took in the entire class. For instance, the teacher spent 84 minutes and 20
seconds more reviewing both lessons and quizzes in the first class.
According to Table 4.3.1, the teacher had to spend 264 minutes and 55 seconds on
review in the first class, but only 180 minutes and 35 seconds in the second class. That is
because the students in the first classroom had a significant number of questions to ask.
98
They were also active and willing share their knowledge with other students. That is why
the review classes were much longer when compared with the second class. Here is an
example from the first class observation. It explains how the first class usually conducted
itself.
Excerpt 15 [ Data extracted from the second class on 2010/03/05]
(The teacher is reviewing future tense, and he is asking students to give him an example.)
Turn Transcript
T:
SA:
T:
T:
SS:
T:
SS:
T:
T:
Who wants to give me examples? A sentence for the main clause in the
future and time clause in the present.
We will shopping when we arrive at malls.
Let’s work on it.
[The teacher is writing down the student’s sentence.]
Alright, let’s work on SA’s sentence. That’s SA’s sentence. “We will
shopping when we arrive at malls.” What do you see, and do you need to
change anything? We have time clause and main clause.
[The teacher is underlining the time clause and main clause.]
[A lot of students are trying to fix this sentence.]
Alright, you guys are right. I’ve heard SB say, we will shop, yes!
[A lot of students are trying to fix this sentence.]
Hold on.
[The teacher is trying to calm down the students]
99
SB:
SC:
SD:
T:
SS:
T:
SS:
T:
SE:
SF:
T:
SG:
T:
We will shop is wrong.
It is weird!
Correct?
What’s the problem? “We will shopping.”
[A lot of students are trying to tell the correct sentence, raising hands or
speaking.]
All right, all right, all right…hold on, let me…
[The teacher is trying to calm down the students.]
[A lot of students are still trying to say the correct sentence, raising
hands or speaking.]
Stop! Stop! Stop! Stop! I love that you guys want to interact, but we
have to do it one at a time. So raise your hand. So SE, your hand was up
first, so you answer first.
Shop is not a verb, so…
Yes, shopping…
Shopping is a verb, but there is a problem. What is the problem?
Will be!
Will be, thank you.
Note: T= Teacher
S (A, B, C, D)=Student (A, B, C, D) SS= All of the Student
In Excerpt 15, the students were quite enthusiastic. When the teacher asked a
question, they were eager to give their own answers and not afraid to share their opinion
with other classmates. Whether their answers were correct or not, they still tried to fix the
100
sentence. However, it caused the teacher to have difficulties understanding when several
students were talking at the same time. The students even got out of control occasionally.
The teacher had to stop the discussion and get them to talk one by one so that the class
could continue. Even then, some students kept asking questions.
The students in the first class also had to spend more time doing exercises from the
textbook than the second class. As in Table 4.3.2, the first class needed to take 695
minutes and 43 seconds to do the same exercises as the second class, but class two only
spent 649 minutes and 8 seconds to complete them. That is because the first class asked
questions when they misunderstood or disagree with the other classmates’ answers.
Therefore, the teacher had to show them the rules and explain again.
In contrast, the second class had less interest in asking questions when the teacher
reviewed lessons. The teacher had to use extra activities to increase their motivation.
Besides, they could rapidly finish exercises so that the teacher required them to spend
more time on extra exercises.
101
4.3.2 Grades
Since the two classes showed some differences with the teacher’s classroom practice,
the students’ grades were collected to evaluate the effectiveness of the teacher instruction.
Table 4.3.4 The grades in two classes (N=32, 29)
The first class The second class
Grade Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
A 13 40.63% 13 44.83%
B 8 25.00% 5 17.24%
C 5 15.63% 8 27.59%
D 3 9.38% 2 6.90%
F 3 9.38% 1 3.45%
Total 32 100.00% 29 100.00 %
In Table 4.3.4, 13 students (40.63%) achieved an A, 8 students (25%) earned a B,
and 5 (15.63%) received a C in the first class. On the contrary, there were 13 students
(44.83%) achieving an A, 5 students (17.24%) earning a B, and 8 students (27.29%)
having a C in class two. Essentially, the two classes did not show any remarkable
102
differences in their grades. Both have over 60% of the students getting a grade of A or B.
This showed that although the teacher adopted different strategies or techniques in the
two classes, most of the students could still reach to the same goal as long as the teacher
kept the same beliefs when carrying out his classroom practices.
103
4.4 Students’ Feedback and Satisfaction
In order to understand whether the teacher’s beliefs match the students’, the
students’ data on their beliefs on grammar, their satisfaction of grammar instruction, and
their self-reflection of learning behavior were all collected via questionnaires. The results
were analyzed and compared to see if they are similar to or different from the teacher’s
beliefs.
4.4.1 Background Information of Respondents
The questionnaires were distributed in class to 33 students in the first class and 29
students in the second class.
From Table 4.4.1, 30 questionnaires were returned in the first class and 27 in the
second class. The return rate was 90.90% and 93.10%. However, only 26 questionnaires
(86.67%) were valuable in the first class, and 23 (85.19%) in the second class because
each classes had four questionnaires that were incomplete.
104
Table 4.4.1 Questionnaires from the first class and the second class
Questionnaire The first class The second class
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Return 30 90.90% 27 93.10%
Miss 3 0.10% 2 6.90%
Usable 26 86.67% 23 85.19%
Unusable 4 13.33% 4 14.81%
Regarding the usable questionnaires, the demographic information of the two groups
was collected and listed in the table 4.4.2.
From Table 4.4.2, there are 26 usable questionnaires, 21 male (80.77%) and 5 female
(19.23%) from the first class. Eight of them (30.77%) had lived in the United States less
than 6 months. Fourteen of them (53.85%) had studied in the U.S. for 6 months to 1 year.
Only 4 students (15.38) had stayed in the U.S. for over 1 year. The majority of the
students (80.77%) were from China and spoke Chinese as a first language. Only 4
(15.38%) were from Saudi Arabia and spoke Arabic as a first language. One (3.85%) was
from Turkey and spoke Turkish as a first language. On top of that, most of them had
declared Business (65.38%) as their major.
105
In the second class, there are 27 usable questionnaires, 18 male (78.26%) and 5
female (21.74%). However 95.65% of the students who had stayed in the U.S. for 6
months to 1 year. Only one student had lived in the U.S. for over a year. The largest group
of the students (91.30%) were from China, with one from Taiwan and one from Japan.
Therefore, most of the students’ (95.65%) first language was Chinese. In addition, 13 of
them (56.52%) had declared Business as their major and 5 students (21.74%) were
non-degree students who studied English in the ESL Center.
Table 4.4.2 Descriptive statistics of learner’s’ background
Demographic factors
Category The first class The second class
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Gender Male 21 80.77% 18 78.26%
Female 5 19.23% 5 21.74%
Years spent Less than 6 moths 8 30.77% 0 0%
in the U.S. 6 months to 1 year 14 53.85% 22 95.65%
1 year to 2 years 4 15.38% 1 4.35%
more than 2 years 0 0% 0 0%
Country China 21 80.77% 21 91.30%
Turkey 1 3.85% 0 0%
Saudi Arabia 4 15.38% 0 0%
106
Demographic factors
Category The first class The second class
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Country Taiwan 0 0% 1 4.35%
Japan 0 0% 1 4.35%
Language Chinese 21 80.77% 22 95.65%
Turkish 1 3.85% 0 0%
Arabic 4 15.38% 0 0%
Japanese 0 0% 1 4.35%
Major Business 17 65.38% 13 56.52%
Art Design 1 3.85% 0 0%
VCD 1 3.85% 0 0%
Political Science 1 3.85% 0 0%
Media 1 3.85% 0 0%
Computer Information
1 3.85% 0 0%
Geography 1 3.85% 0 0%
ESL 1 3.85% 5 21.74%
TESL 0 0% 1 4.35%
Hotel Management 0 0% 1 4.35%
4.4.2 Students’ Responses to the Questionnaire Statements
The results of the questionnaire were categorized into five parts: the students’ beliefs
about grammar; the students’ satisfaction with the instructor; the students’ satisfaction
107
with grammar instruction; the students’ satisfaction with methods and materials; and the
student’s self-reflection.
From Table 4.4.3, both the first group (96.15%) and the second group (100%) of
students agreed that the role of grammar in English learning is important. Both groups of
students (100%) completely agreed that it is necessary to learn grammar. Over 90% of
them in both classes agreed that learning grammar can help to develop English accuracy
and fluency.
These results reveal that the teacher’s and the students’ beliefs in the importance of
grammar in language learning coincide. The teacher’s position was that learners could
use grammatical rules to understand their native languages and also improve accuracy.
Table 4.4.3 The students’ beliefs on grammar
The first class The second class
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
GR1 Strongly agree 17 65.38% 19 82.60%
Agree 8 30.77% 4 17.40%
No comment 1 3.85% 0 0%
Disagree 0 0% 0 0%
Strongly disagree 0 0% 0 0%
108
The first class The second class
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
GR2 Strongly agree 16 61.54% 15 65.22%
Agree 10 38.46% 8 34.78%
No comment 0 0% 0 0%
Disagree 0 0% 0 0%
Strongly disagree 0 0% 0 0%
GR3 Strongly agree 19 73.08% 20 86.96%
Agree 6 23.08% 1 4.35%
No comment 1 3.85% 2 8.69%
Disagree 0 0% 0 0%
Strongly disagree 0 0% 0 0%
Note: GR1= I think the role of grammar in English learning is important. GR2= I think it is necessary to learn grammar. GR3= I think learning grammar can help me to develop English accuracy and
fluency.
Table 4.4.4 shows that 100% of the students in each group thought that the instructor
encouraged their participation and discussion and had great knowledge of grammar and
abilities. Over 95% of each group’s students agreed that the instructor respected his
students, encouraged them to think rather than memorize, and cared about their learning.
Over 90% of the learners in the first class and 87.16% in the second class felt that the
instructor was enthusiastic about the courses he taught. Finally, each class had over 90%
of the students admit that they always received the instructor’s encouragement and
109
support. Only one student in the second class disagreed that the instructor would always
give encouragement and support.
As the instructor contends, teachers should always encourage or support their
students. He believed that asking questions to make students think was extremely
important. Since the teacher had experience with language learning, he understood the
difficulties his students would have and cared about their learning. Moreover, he always
wanted to understand their cultures because he wanted to know how they thought.
Therefore, he would know how to show respect to his learners and encourage them in
appropriate ways.
From the students’ satisfaction with the instructor, the teacher’s beliefs about his
role in grammar teaching and how he performed in the classroom could be consistently
confirmed and matched with what learners’ expected.
Table 4.4.4 The students’ satisfaction with the instructor
The first class The second class
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
GR4 Strongly agree 22 84.62% 18 78.26%
Agree 4 15.38% 5 21.74%
110
The first class The second class
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
GR4 No comment 0 0% 0 0%
Disagree 0 0% 0 0%
Strongly disagree 0 0% 0 0%
GR5 Strongly agree 21 80.77% 22 95.65%
Agree 5 19.23% 1 4.35%
No comment 0 0% 0 0%
Disagree 0 0% 0 0%
Strongly disagree 0 0% 0 0%
GR6 Strongly agree 23 88.46% 18 78.26%
Agree 2 7.69% 4 17.39%
No comment 1 3.85% 1 4.35%
Disagree 0 0% 0 0%
Strongly disagree 0 0% 0 0%
GR7 Strongly agree 17 65.38% 14 60.87%
Agree 8 30.77% 6 26.09%
No comment 1 3.85% 3 13.04%
Disagree 0 0% 0 0%
Strongly disagree 0 0% 0 0%
GR8 Strongly agree 19 73.08% 15 65.22%
Agree 6 23.08% 7 30.43%
No comment 1 3.85% 1 4.35%
Disagree 0 0% 0 0%
Strongly disagree 0 0% 0 0%
GR9 Strongly agree 15 57.69% 19 82.61%
Agree 10 38.46% 4 17.39%
111
The first class The second class
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
GR9 No comment 1 3.85% 0 0%
Disagree 0 0% 0 0%
Strongly disagree 0 0% 0 0%
GR10 Strongly agree 15 57.69% 12 52.17%
Agree 10 38.46% 9 39.13%
No comment 1 3.85% 1 4.35%
Disagree 0 0% 1 4.35%
Strongly disagree 0 0% 0 0%
Note: GR4= I think my instructor encourages students’ participation and discussion. GR5= I think my instructor has great knowledge of grammar and abilities. GR6= I think my instructor respects his students. GR7= I think my instructor is enthusiastic about the courses he teaches. GR8= I think my instructor encourages me to think rather than memorize. GR9= I think my instructor cares about my learning. GR10=I always receive my instructor’s encouragement and support
As Table 4.4.5 shows, both classes had over 90% students agree that the course not
only helped them to learn well, but also improved their grammar and English proficiency.
They also thought that the structure and organization of this course was appropriate for
their English level. Although the classes had 88.46% and 82.61%, respectively, of the
students assess that this course used appropriate equipment and learning tools, there were
112
still 11.54% and 17.39% of the students in the respective classes who did not have
comments.
According to the teacher’s beliefs, a successful teacher should be able to organize
the class well. He thought that different ages and levels of learners required different
styles of grammar instruction. Thus, the teacher’s beliefs and classroom practices in his
grammar instruction generally matched the learners’ thinking.
Table 4.4.5 The students’ satisfaction with the course
The first class The second class
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
GR11 Strongly agree 17 65.38% 17 73.91%
Agree 7 26.92% 6 26.09%
No comment 2 7.69% 0 0%
Disagree 0 0% 0 0%
Strongly disagree 0 0% 0 0%
GR12 Strongly agree 16 61.54% 18 78.26%
Agree 9 34.62% 5 21.74%
No comment 1 3.85% 0 0%
Disagree 0 0% 0 0%
Strongly disagree 0 0% 0 0%
GR13 Strongly agree 19 73.08% 19 82.61%
Agree 5 19.23% 4 17.39%
113
The first class The second class
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
GR13 No comment 2 7.69% 0 0%
Disagree 0 0% 0 0%
Strongly disagree 0 0% 0 0%
GR14 Strongly agree 17 65.38% 16 69.56%
Agree 7 26.92% 6 26.09%
No comment 1 3.85% 0 0%
Disagree 1 3.85% 1 4.35%
Strongly disagree 0 0% 0 0%
GR15 Strongly agree 18 69.23% 13 56.52%
Agree 5 19.23% 6 26.09%
No comment 3 11.54% 4 17.39%
Disagree 0 0% 0 0%
Strongly disagree 0 0% 0 0%
Note: GR11= I think this course helps me to improve grammar well. GR12= I think the structure/organization of this course helps me to learn well. GR13= I think this course can improve my English proficiency. GR14= I think this class is appropriate for my English level. GR15= I think this course uses appropriate equipment and learning tools.
From Table 4.4.6, most of students, over 85% from each group, clearly confirmed
that the textbook helped and that the activities were interesting and useful. Over 90% of
in each class felt that the handouts and homework helped them to practice grammar well.
However, there was one student in the first class who did not think the activities were
114
interesting or useful. Both classes also had one student who disagreed that the textbook
was helpful. According to the classroom observation, students had mentioned that the
textbook was too easy for them.
The teacher believed that the textbook was necessary for the students to practice the
rules and to test their understanding of grammar rules. He also mentioned that the
textbook might be too easy for his advanced level students, but that it was still useful for
practice. On occasion, he would make handouts or have additional activities to challenge
them. Hence, the teacher and most students shared similar opinions on methods and
materials.
Table 4.4.6 The students’ satisfaction with methods and materials
The first class The second class
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
GR16 Strongly agree 13 50% 13 56.52%
Agree 10 38.46% 9 39.13%
No comment 2 7.69% 1 4.35%
Disagree 1 3.85% 0%
Strongly disagree 0% 0%
GR17 Strongly agree 16 61.54% 14 60.87%
Agree 8 30.77% 6 26.09%
115
The first class The second class
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
GR17 No comment 1 3.85% 2 8.70%
Disagree 0% 1 4.35%
Strongly disagree 1 3.85% 0%
GR18 Strongly agree 19 73.08% 18 78.26%
Agree 5 19.23% 4 17.39%
No comment 2 7.69% 1 4.35%
Disagree 0% 0%
Strongly disagree 0% 0%
Note: GR16= I think the activities are interesting and useful. GR17= I think the textbook is helpful. GR18= I think the handouts and homework help me to practice grammar well.
From Table 4.4.7, in both classes, only about 34% of students strongly agreed that
they never missed class. About 60% ~ 70% of the students thought that they did well on
the tests. There were five significant differences between the two classes. One is that
76.92% students in the first class but 91.30% in the second class thought that they worked
hard in class. Second is that 73.08% students in the first class but 86.96% in the second
class said that they came to class on time. Thirdly, 65.38% of the learners in the first class
but 82.61% in the second class would do the homework every time. Another is that
88.46% of the students in the first class but only 60.86% in the second class asserted that
116
they always asked questions. Last, 76.93% of the students in the first class but only
60.86% in the second class would try to work with people from different countries.
Table 4.4.7 The students’ self-reflection
The first class The second class
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
GR19 Strongly agree 9 34.62% 8 34.78%
Agree 7 26.92% 5 21.74%
No comment 4 15.38% 5 21.74%
Disagree 4 15.38% 5 21.74%
Strongly disagree 2 7.69% 0 0%
GR20 Strongly agree 13 50% 13 56.52%
Agree 7 26.92% 8 34.78%
No comment 3 11.54% 1 4.35%
Disagree 3 11.54% 1 4.35%
Strongly disagree 0 0% 0 0%
GR21 Strongly agree 9 34.62% 12 52.17%
Agree 7 26.92% 4 17.39%
No comment 4 15.38% 5 21.74%
Disagree 4 15.38% 1 4.35%
Strongly disagree 2 7.69% 0 0%
GR22 Strongly agree 14 53.85% 13 56.52%
Agree 5 19.23% 7 30.44%
No comment 4 15.38% 3 13.04%
Disagree 2 7.69% 0 0%
117
The first class The second class
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
GR22 Strongly disagree 1 3.85% 0 0%
GR23 Strongly agree 12 46.15% 13 56.52%
Agree 5 19.23% 6 26.09%
No comment 5 19.23% 1 4.35%
Disagree 3 11.54% 3 13.04%
Strongly disagree 1 3.85% 0 0%
GR24 Strongly agree 16 61.54% 7 30.43%
Agree 7 26.92% 7 30.43%
No comment 2 7.69% 5 21.74%
Disagree 1 3.85% 0 0%
Strongly disagree 0 0% 4 17.39%
GR25 Strongly agree 14 53.85% 7 30.43%
Agree 6 23.08% 7 30.43%
No comment 2 7.69% 3 13.04%
Disagree 1 3.85% 2 8.70%
Strongly disagree 3 11.54% 4 17.39%
Note: GR19= I never missed the class. GR20= I think that I worked hard in class GR21= I think I did well on my quizzes GR22= I think that I came to class on time. GR23= I think that I did homework every time. GR24= I asked questions in the class. GR25= I tried to work with some people who are from different countries.
118
Chapter Five
Conclusion
This chapter concludes the present study. The first section concerns the summary of
the teacher’s beliefs, classrooms practices, the similarities and differences with regard to
the methodology between the two classes, how the students reacted after grammar
instruction, and this study’s three major findings. The second section shows the
comparison of findings with literature review. The third section explains that the teacher’s
beliefs and classroom practices eventually affected the researcher’s beliefs. The fourth
section presents pedagogical implications. The fifth section proposes limitations and
reflections. Finally, suggestions for possible future research are postulated in the last
section.
119
5.1 Summary of the Study
Three possible factors that led learners to successful grammar learning were
established. First is the consistent relationship between the teacher’s beliefs and
classroom practices. Next, there is the consistency of the teacher’s and the learners’
beliefs combined with the notion that his classroom practices have affected both their
learning motivation and beliefs. Last is how the teacher adjusted his classroom practices,
which finally achieved the learner's satisfaction.
As a result, four research questions would be answered to support these possible
factors.
1. What are the teacher’s beliefs?
2. How does the teacher actually practice his methodology in grammar teaching?
3. What are the consistencies and inconsistencies of methodology between the two
sections?
4. What are the students’ reflections and feedback after the class ends for the
semester?
120
To begin with, the teacher’s beliefs were categorized into twelve areas, which were
then subdivided into six parts. These parts were the role of grammar, the role of the
instructor in grammar teaching, the methodology of grammar teaching, feedback,
strategies between the two classes, and the difficulties in class. Most of the teachers’
beliefs on grammar transferred into his classroom practices. He had similar teaching
strategies in the two classes, such as adopting both inductive and deductive teaching,
encouraging his students to ask and think about questions, providing a significant number
of exercises and activities to practice, and giving error correction at the proper time to
improve their accuracy. He also predicted that he might change some activities between
the two classes, and the results also revealed that he actually adjusted his techniques
because of the different reactions between the two classes. For illustration, the first class
spent 84 minutes and 20 seconds more on the review class because the students always
asked questions and shared their opinions. Nevertheless, the second class consumed 126
minutes and 34 seconds more on the practice class because the teacher distributed extra
exercises and activities to enhance the students’ learning motivation. The final grades
from both classes also prove that his instruction met the students’ expectations and
classroom demeanor according to the needs of each class. Resultantly, the comparison
121
between the two interviews and the relationship between the teacher’s beliefs and
classroom practices proven to be quite concordant. They explained the first reason why
the students could succeed in grammar instruction. As long as the teacher kept the same
beliefs and was fairly consistent with his classroom practice, the students could effectively
develop their language skills through his grammar instruction.
Secondly, the results from the student feedback also showed that both classes
strongly believed in the importance of grammar and held positive beliefs after grammar
instruction. They showed that the teacher’s beliefs matched the students’ and that his
classroom practices influenced their learning motivation. Schulz (1996) proved that
mismatched beliefs between teachers and students could negatively affect students’
learning motivation. Consequently, the second reason for the students’ successful
achievements could be explained because of the consistencies in the teacher’s and the
students’ beliefs. On top of that, his classroom practices influenced and motivated their
beliefs and learning behaviors.
Thirdly, the results from the students’ self-reflection showed three significantly
different learning behavior between the two classes. One is that 76.92% students in the
first class but 91.30% in the second class thought that they worked hard in class. Two,
122
only 65.38% of the learners in the first class said that they would do each homework
assignment, compared to 82.61% in the second class who made the same claim. Three,
88.46% of the students in the first class and 60.86% in the second class asserted that they
always asked questions in class. Because of the three special learning behaviors, the
teacher had to use different techniques to motivate students’ learning so that they could
understand. The results prove that the teacher adequately adjusted his techniques to fit
different learning behaviors. Therefore, the third reason could explain that students would
still succeed in their grammar learning as long as teachers use appropriate techniques.
5.2 Comparison of Findings with Literature Review
The results of this study were compared to the findings of the pervious literature in
order to determine if there were the congruencies or incongruencies. The results showed
that many of the teacher’s beliefs and approaches were congruent with the pervious
literature as displayed in Table 5.1.
123
Table 5.1 The congruity between the literature and the teacher’s beliefs and practices
Category Literature Beliefs Practices
The importance of grammar
Grammar is systematic rules of structure and word order. Learners can create their own language by using these rules and understand language and use it systematically (Rao, 1996, Canale & Swain, 1980; Brown, 2007b).
Belief 1: Grammar is set of rules to support proper language use.
Grammar affects learners’ ability to express themselves and help them to perform the target language more effectively and accurately. (Canale & Swain, 1980; Carroll & Swain, 1993; Higgs, 1985; Hinkel & Fotos, 2002; Nassaji & Fotos, 2004; Nunan, 1991; R. Ellis 2001,2002a; Richards & Renandya, 2003)
Belief 2: Grammar is a component of awareness and important to improve accuracy. Belief 3: Learning grammar encourages students’ output.
The role of the teacher
Teachers’ beliefs are based on their learning experiences and working experiences (Graves, 2000; Richardson, 1996).
Belief 6: Teachers should experience to learn a new language to comprehend learners’ difficulties with language learning.
Teachers educate the students’ with knowledge of language rules (Magno, 2010)
Belief 7: Teacher’s job is to explain and introduce the rules.
124
Category Literature Beliefs Practices
The methodology of grammar teaching
Both inductive and deductive methods should be utilized in different circumstances to make students understand the rules (Ur, 2000).
Approach 5: Applying both inductive and deductive.
Providing appropriate classroom activities could develop their skills, stimulate them use the target language, to participate in the learning process, and to focus on language (Kennedy, 2003; Willis, 2001). A variety of related classroom activities could foster language acquisition (Gardner, 1999).
Belief 9: Exercises and activates can give students more opportunities to practice the language.
Approach 6: Providing a variety of exercises and activities
Feedback Repairing original errors could advance second language learning (Loewen, 2005; Loewen & Philp, 2006).
Belief 10: Error correction is necessary for learners but dependent on the pedagogical situation.
Approach 7 : Giving error correction at appropriate times
From Table 5.1, much congruity exists between previous literature and most of the
teacher’s beliefs and classroom practice. For instance, both the literature and the teacher
conveyed the importance of grammar and the teacher’s responsibility on grammar
learning. Moreover, the teacher’s learning experience actually affected his beliefs, which
125
coincided with the literature’s finding. That the teacher applied both inductive and
deductive approaches in his grammar teaching was also congruent with what the previous
studies suggested. In addition, that the teacher carried out plenty of exercises and
activities and gave error correction at appropriate times were proven to help learners
effectively.
In sum, researchers believed that if teachers want to teach effectively, they need to
follow a preconceived strategy that is more effective to teach, and they need to act
according to their beliefs (Williams& Burden, 1997). As the findings of this study
reveal, teachers’ beliefs have a major effect on their classrooms practices (Kagan, 1992;
Richardson, 1996). Similarly, Richard and Lockhart (1994) also believed that teachers’
knowledge and thinking was a framework to determine their classroom practices.
5.3 The Influences of the Teacher’s Instruction
This section answered the fifth research question, “What beliefs of the researcher are
influenced by the teacher’s teaching?” After this study, the researcher drew three concepts
about grammar instruction that were influenced by the teacher’s lessons. The first
126
concerns error correction. The researcher had thought that students’ errors should always
be immediately corrected, and that students need to be given correct words so that they
can notice their mistakes to improve their accuracy. However, the teacher thought that
error correction is necessary for learners, but that it is also depends on the pedagogical
situation. He believed that it was more important for learners to express their thoughts
than to correct their errors from questions or conversations. He accepted that students
make mistakes and preferred to recast sentences instead of directly fixing their errors.
Secondly, the researcher thought that students should receive both positive and
negative feedback from teachers. Negative feedback should not be avoided and was
necessary to stimulate students when they had lower levels of learning motivation. If the
students did not work hard, they had to be given failing marks. However, during
classroom observations, the researcher discovered that the teacher usually gave his
students positive feedback to encourage them to think about the subject matter and ask
questions. When they failed quizzes, the teacher would give them opportunities to redo
similar quizzes or to do extra assignments to make up their grades. He disagreed that
negative feedback could motivate students’ learning behaviors and that it would help
them better learn English.
127
Thirdly, the researcher thought that grammar was merely a bunch of rules for
learners to memorize, and that teachers should always show rules in class to help explicit
learning. In contrast, the teacher believed that grammar was a set of rules for students to
understand for both proper language use and their errors. He also thought that grammar
teaching should depend on learners’ ages and language proficiency, suggesting that
different proficiency levels require different approaches. He disagreed that grammar
should be taught through mechanically giving students rules and asking them to
memorize them. Rather, encouraging them to think about grammatical rules from
examples would indirectly help their explicit learning.
5.4 Pedagogical Implications
Since the best methodology of grammar instruction has not been confirmed by any
educator or researcher, Krashen (2003) suggested that it is not necessary to find a perfect
grammar teaching approach for language learners. At the same time, grammar teaching
should be emphasized in second language classrooms. The best way for teachers to teach
grammar instruction is to build strongly organized beliefs to conduct consistently their
128
classroom practices, and then work out the problems that they encounter in their real-life
practices.
The examination of the beliefs and classroom practices in this study can be used as a
model for language teachers to engage in self-examination as well as self-reflection. After
investigating their inner thinking and actual practices, teachers can understand their
beliefs and practices, realize their strengths and weaknesses, and get a better picture of
their future instruction. Richardson (1996) showed that teachers might change their
beliefs after examining numerous studies on the effects of in-service programs. Moreover,
since the teacher is an important key to determining the impact of innovations (Archer,
1998), the findings and conclusions of this study can provide grammar teachers a way to
develop more professionally their skills in the future. When teachers are enthusiastic
about discovering how their beliefs and practices are effective for language teaching, they
can make progress and become more successful later in their careers. As such, some
suggestions that are addressed may be helpful and beneficial for language teachers to
develop a strong connection between their beliefs and classroom practices.
Finally, Even (1993) suggested that it is an important step for teachers to have better
subject-matter preparation. Ma (1999) also stated, “The quality of teacher subject matter
129
knowledge directly affects student learning” (p. 144). As a result, teachers should always
possess a comprehensive knowledge of subject-matter and pedagogical content. When
this happens, they should be well-versed in pedagogy and subject matter knowledge to
foster their professional development before becoming too involved in their careers.
In-service teachers should be always eager to participate in re-training programs.
Moreover, this ongoing training could help them update their teaching styles with more
modern concepts, methodology, and techniques. As Brophy and Good (1986) mentioned,
it is necessary for in-service teachers to undertake more educational programs in both
subject matter knowledge and pedagogy to improve their classroom practices.
5.5 Limitation and Reflections
As with any research, this study does have some limitations. To begin with, the
recorded lessons started from the middle of the semester because the Human Research
Application was not approved until February 25, 2010. Due to the time limitations, this
was a short-term study. As a result, a variety of teachers’ beliefs could not be observed
and examined with the passing of time. If the classes had been recorded from the
130
beginning of the semester, the results could have been different.
Secondly, the students’ beliefs and expectations on grammar instruction before
taking the class were not included in this study since the Human Research Application
had not yet been approved. The change of the students’ beliefs and their expectations
could not be examined as to whether or not they were influenced by the teacher’s beliefs
and classroom practices. If the data about the students’ beliefs and expectations could
have been collected and analyzed, the results might have revealed more angles from
which to investigate the effect of the teacher’s instruction.
Thirdly, while focusing on a small sample group could give this study an in-depth
investigation, the results might not be generalized to explain all native ESL teachers’
beliefs and practices in the United States. If this study had investigated more than one
example, the results likely would have changed.
Finally, the researcher’s presence in the classroom might have influenced the
teacher’s and the students’ behaviors in some ways, as the “the observer effect” is an
unavoidable factor in such a study.
131
5.6 Suggestion for Future Research
The present study investigated the effectiveness of the teacher’s grammar instruction
in language learning. There are still several possible issues left to explore in the future.
Firstly, different types of participants can be studied in future research. This case
study only recruited one native English-speaking teacher in the United States. The results
could only offer limited discussion from a specific case study, but cannot be generalized
for all instructors. For potential research, more variance among participant teachers is
suggested, such as different ages for teachers, different genders for instructors, full versus
part-time employment, or both native and non-native English-speaking teachers.
Secondly, the size of the two groups of classes observed in this study was 32 and 29
students. Because there were a large number of students in each class, the classroom was
required to follow a lecture format. Therefore, the methodology that the teacher applied
and the interaction between the teacher and the students might have been different if the
class size were smaller.
Thirdly, the relationship between teacher’s beliefs and students’ beliefs can also be
examined in future research since it was mentioned that students’ beliefs could be
132
strongly influenced by the instructors’ beliefs (Horwitz, 1988; Oxford, 1999).
Finally, it has been suggested that the differences in the instructors’ prior school
experiences, their ongoing professional development, and places of work affect teachers’
beliefs and their classroom practice (Graves, 2000). As such, those factors can also be
considered for potential research.
133
References
Andrews, S. (2003). Just like instant noodles: L2 teacher and their beliefs about grammar
pedagogy. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 9(4), 351-375.
Archer, J. (1998). The link to higher scores. Retrieved September 20, 2010, from
Eduction Week on the Web (Special Issue: Technology Counts '98):
http://www.edweek.org/sreports/tc98/ets/ets-n.htm
Arnold, J., & Brown, D. (1999). A map of the terrain. In J. Arnold (Ed.), Affect in
language learning (pp. 1-24). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge. University Press.
Azar, B. S., & Hagen, S. A. (2008). Understanding and using English grammar. New
York: Longman.
Batstone, R. (1994). Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Borg, M. (2005). A case study of the development in pedagogic thinking of a pre-service
teacher. TESL-EJ, 9(2), 1-21.
Borg, S. (2009). Language teacher cognition. In A. Burns, & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The
Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp. 163-172). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
134
Borg, S. (2001). Self-perception and practice in teaching grammar. ELT Journal, 55(1),
21-29.
Borg, S. (1999). Studying teacher cognition in second language grammar teaching. UK:
Elsevier Science Ltd. .
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. (1998). Teachers’ pedagogical systems and grammar teaching: A qualitative
study. TESOL Quarterly, 32(1), 9-38.
Borg, S., & Burns, A. (2008). Integrating grammar in adult TESOL classrooms . Applied
Linguistics, 29(3), 456-482.
Brock, C. A. (1986). The effects of referential questions on ESL classroom discourse.
TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 47-59.
Brown, H. D. (2007a). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed). White
Plains, NY: Person Eduction.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall.
Brown, H. D. (2007b). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language
135
pedagogy. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Burgess, J., & Etherington, S. (2002). Focus on grammatical form: Explicit or implicit?
System, 30(4), 433–458.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to
second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
Carnine, D. (1980). Relationship between teaching method and correction procedure for
initial word recognition skills. Education and Treatment of Children, 3 , 93-98.
Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical
study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 15(3), 357-386.
Cashin, W. E. (1979). Motivating students. (Idea paper). Manhattan: Center for Faculty
Evaluation and Development in Higher Education, Kansas State University.
Chastain, K. (1988). Developing second language skills. (3rd ed.). San Diego: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich.
Cowan, R. (2008). The teacher's grammar of English. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Cullen, R. (2008). Teaching grammar as a liberating force . ELT Journal, 62(3), 221-230.
136
Dantonio, M., & Beisenherz, P. C. (2001). Learning to question, questioning to learn:
Developing effective teacher questioning preactices. Boston: Ally and Bacon.
Davis, B. G. (1993). Tools for teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dekeyser, R. (1994). Implicit and explicit learning of L2 grammar: A pilot study. TESOL
Quarterly, 28(1), 188-194.
Dekeyser, R. M. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a
miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(3), 379-410.
Dornyei, Z., & Malderez, A. (1999). Group dynamics in foreign language learning and
teaching. In J. Arnold (Ed.), Affective language learning (pp. 155-169). Cambridge,
MA: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language
acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Ebsworth, M. E., & Schweers, C. (1997). What researchers say and practitioners do:
Perspectives on conscious grammar instruction in the ESL classroom. Applied
Language Learning, 8(2), 237–260.
Elbaz, F. (1983). Teacher thinking: A study of practical knowledge. London: Groom
Helm.
137
Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interaction of explicit and implicit language
knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquistion, 7(2), 305-352.
Ellis, N. (1994). Implicit and explicit learning of languages. San Diego: Academic Press.
Ellis, R. (1984). Classroom second language development. Oxford: Pergamon.
Ellis, R. (2006a). Comments on R. Ellis's "Current Issues in the Teaching of Grammar:
An SLA Perspective": The author replies. TESOL Quarterly, 40 (4), 839-840.
Ellis, R. (2006b). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL
Quarterly, 40(1), 83-107.
Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquistion: Learning in the classroom.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning,
51 (Supplement s1), 1-46.
Ellis, R. (2002b). Methodological options in grammar teaching materials. In E. Hinkel, &
S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language
classrooms (pp. 155-179). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ellis, R. (2002a). The place of grammar instruction in the second/foreign curriculum. In E.
Hinkel, & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second
138
language classrooms (pp. 17-34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquistion. 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.
Erlam, R. (2003). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the acquisition of
direct object pronouns in French as a second language. The Modern Language
Journal, 87(2), 242-259.
Even, N. (1999). Subject-matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge:
Prospective secondary teachers and the function concept. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 24(2), 94-116.
Farrell, T. S. (1999). The reflective assignment: Unlocking pre-service English
teachers’beliefs on grammar teaching. RELC Journal, 30(2), 1-17.
Ferris, D. (1996). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to
Truscott . Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1-10.
139
Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of error in second language writing classe. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.
Foto, S., & Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach.
TESOL Quarterly, 25(4), 605-628.
Fotos, S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use
through grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 323-351.
Gardner, H. (1999). A multiplicity of intelligences. Scientific American Presents, 9(4),
18-23.
Gardner, R. C. (2001). Language learning motivation: The student, the teacher, and the
researcher. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education, 6(1), 1-18.
Garrett, N. (1986). The problem with grammar: What kind can the language learner use?
The Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 133-148.
George, H. V. (1972). Errors in language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House
Publishers.
Golombek, P. R. (1998). A study of language teacher's personal practical knowledge.
TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 447-464.
Graden, E. C. (1996). How language eachers' beliefs about reading instruction are
140
mediated by their beliefs about students. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 387-395.
Graves, K. (2000). Designing language courses: A guide for teachers. Boston: Heinle &
Heinle Publlishers.
Gross, D. (1991). A practical handbook of learning teaching. London, UK: Cassell.
Grossman, P. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education.
New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Gudmundsdottir, S. (1990). Values in pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Teacher
Education, 41(3), 44-52.
Han, Z. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistnecy in L2 output.
TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 543-572.
Harley, B. (1989). Funtional grammar in French immersion: A classroom experiment.
Applied Linguistics, 10(3), 331-360.
Harley, B. (1993). Instructional strategies and SLA in early French immersion. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 245–259.
Hawkins, E. (1984). Awareness of language: An introduction. Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press.
Herron, C., & Tomasello, M. (1992). Acquiring grammatical structures by guided
141
induction. French Review, 65(5), 708-718.
Higgs, T. V. (1985). Teaching grammar for proficiency. Foreign Language Annals, 18(4),
289-296.
Hinkel, E., & Fotos, S. (2002). New perspectives on grammar teaching in second
language. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university
foreign language students. The Modern Language Journal, 72(3), 283-294.
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English
language. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
J. Burgess, S. E. (2002). Focus on grammatical from: Explicit or implicit? System, 30(4),
433-458.
Johnson, K. (1979). Communicativ approaches and communicative processes. In C. J.
Brumfit, & K. Johnson (Eds.), The communicative approach to language teaching
(pp. 192-205). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Johnson, K. E. (1999). Understanding languge teaching: Reasoning in action. Boston:
Heihle & Heinle Publishers.
Johnston, H., & Whitehead, A. (2009). Distinguishing games, serious games, and training
142
simulators on the basis of Intent. Ottawa, Canada.
Kagan, D. (1992). Implications for research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist,
27(1), 65-90.
Kauchak, D. P., & Eggen, P. D. (1998). Learning and teaching: Reserch-based methods
(3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Kern, R. G. (1995). Students' and teachers' beliefs about language learning. Foreign
Language Annals, 28(1), 71-92.
Kerr, P. (1996). Grammar for trainee teacher. In J. Willis,& D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge
and change in language teachering (pp. 93-98). Oxford: Heinemann.
Kleinsasser, R. C. (1993). A tale of two technical cultures: Foreign language teaching.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 9(4), 373-383.
Krashen, D., & Terrell, D. (1983). The Natrual Approach. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. D. (1993). Comments on Stephen D. Krashen's "Teaching Issues: Formal
Grammar Instruction". The effect of formal grammar teaching: Still peripheral.
TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 722-725.
Krashen, S. (2003). Explorations in language acquisition and language use: The Taipei
lectures. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
143
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. London, UK: Longman.
Krashen, S. (1994). The input hypothesis and its rivals. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and
explicit (pp. 45-77). London: Academic Press.
Kroskrity, J. G. (1987). Strategies for language choice in two bilingual preschool
classroom. University of Southern California: Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Lapkin, S., Hart, D., & Swain, M. (1991). Early and middle French immersion programs:
French language outcomes. Canadian Modern Language Review, 48(1), 11–40.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Grammar dimensions: Form, meaning, and use. Boston:
Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Boston,
MA: Thomson & Heinle.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1986). Techniques and principles in language teaching. New York:
Oxford University Press.
144
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language
acquistion research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Laufer, B., & Girsai, N. (2008). Form-focused instruction in second language vocabulary
learning: A case for contrastive analysis and translation . Applied Linguistics, 29(4),
694-716.
Lawrence, G. P. (2000). Teacher belief systms owards computer-mediated lagnague
learning: College ESL instruction. Toronto: Univesity of Toronto.
Lee, W., & Ridley, A. (1999). What implications does English globalization have for
treatment of students' spoken errors? RELC Journal, 30(2), 18-37.
Leshem, S., & Bar-Hama, R. (2008). Evaluating teaching practice. ELT Journal, 62(3),
pp. 257-265
Lewis, M., & McCook, F. (2002). Cultures of teaching: Voices from Vietnam. ELT
Journal, 56(2), 146-153.
Lightbown, P. (1998). The importance of timing in focus on form. In C. Doughty, & J.
Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.
177–196). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in
145
Second Langague Acquistion, 27(3), 361-386.
Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics,
explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90(4), 536-556.
Long, M. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of the
research. TESOL Quarterly, 17(3), 359–382.
Long, M. H., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in
SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82(3),
357-371.
Lumpe, A. H., & Czerniak, C. (1998). Science teacher beliefs and intentions to
implement science-technology-society (STS) in the classroom. Journal of Science
Teacher Education 9(1), 1–24.
Lyster, R. (2004). Research on form-focused instruction in immersion classrooms:
Implications for theory and practice. French Language Studies, 14(3), 321–341.
Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teacher’s understanding
of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Magno, C. (2010). Korean students‘ language learning strategies and years of studying
146
English as predictors of proficiency in English. TESOL Journal, 2 , 39-61.
Maley, A., & Duff, A. (1978). Drama techniques in language learning. Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press.
Mathews, R. C., Buss, R. R., Stanley, W. B., Blanchard-Fields, F., Cho, J. R., & Druhan,
B. (1989). The role of implicit and explicit processes in learning from examples: A
synergistic effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 15(6), 1083-1100.
Mohamed, N. (2004). Consciousness-raising tasks: a learner perspective . ELT Journal,
58(3), 228-237.
Muncie, J. (2002). Finding a place for grammar in EFL composition classes . ELT
Journal, 56(2), 180-186.
Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2004). Current developments in research on the teaching of
grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24 , 126-145.
Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2:
The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles.
Language Awareness, 9(1), 34-51.
Nathan, M. J., & Koedinger, K. R. (2000). Teachers’ and researchers’ beliefs about the
147
development of algebraic reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
31(2), 168–190.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis
and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417-528.
Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology: A textbook for teachers. Hemel,
Hemstead: Prentice Hall.
Nunan, D. (1988). The learner-centered curriculm: A study in second language teaching.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. L. (1999). Anxiety and the language learner: new insights. In J. Stnold (Ed.),
Affect in language learning. (pp. 58-67). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University
Press.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy
construct. Review of Education Research, 62(3), 207-332.
Paradis, M. (1994). Neurolinguistic aspects of implicit and explicit memory: Implications
for bilingualism and SLA. In N. C. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of
languages (pp. 393–420). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Prabhu, N. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
148
Prator, C., & Celce-Murcia, M. (1979). An outline of language teaching approaches. In M.
Celce-Murcia, & L. McInotosh (Eds.), Teaching English as second or foreign
language (pp. 3-5). New York: Newbury House.
Rao, Z. (1996). Reconciling communicative approaches to the teaching of English with
traditional Chinese methods. Researcher in the Teaching of English, 30(4), 458-469.
Reber, A. S. (1993). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. Oxford: Clarendon.
Richards, J. C. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching: A description and
analysis. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Lockhart, C. (1994). Reflective teaching in the second language
classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An
anthology of current practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula
(Ed.), The handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 102-119). New York:
Macmillan.
149
Rios, F. A. (1996). Teacher thinking in cultural contexts. New York: State University of
New York Press.
Rivers, W. (1981). Teaching foreign language skills (2nd ed). Chicago, IL: The University
of Chicago Press.
Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit,
incidental, rule-search, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 18(1), 27-67.
Rosa, R., & O'Neill, M. (1999). Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 21(4), 511-556.
Schmidt, R. W. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second (pp. 3-32).
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, R. W. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 13 , 206–226.
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied
Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.
Schneider, J. (2005). Teaching grammar through community issues . ELT Journal, 59(4),
298-305.
150
Schulz, R. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the
role of grammar teaching and corrective feedback: USA–Colombia. Modern
Language Journal, 85(2), 244–258.
Schulz, R. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: Students' and
teachers' views on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language
Annals, 29(3), 343-364.
Schwartz, B. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting. Studies in
Second Language, 15(2), 147-163.
Seliger, H. W. (1975). Inductive method and deductive method in language teaching: A
re-examination. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 1-18.
Seliger, H. W., & Shohamy, E. (1989). Second language research methods. Oxford:
Ocford University Press.
Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers' pedagogical thoughts,
judgments, decisions, and behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51(4),
455-498.
Sheen, R. (2006). Comments on R. Ellis's "Current Issues in the Teaching of Grammar:
An SLA Perspective" A reader responds. TESOL Quarterly, 40(4), 828-832.
151
Sheen, R. (2002). 'Focus on form' and 'focus on forms' . ELT Journal, 56(3), 303-305.
Silva, M. d. (2005). Constructing the teaching process from inside out: How pre-service
teachers make sense of their perceptions of the teaching of the four skills. TESL-EJ,
9(2), 1-19.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (1993). Instruction and the development of questions in
the L2 classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquistion, 15(2), 205-221.
Stake, R. E. (1995). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (pp. 236-247). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: two
adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal,
82(3), 320-337.
Swan, M. (2010). An introduction to foreign language learning and teaching . ELT
Journal, 64(1), 98-100.
Swan, M., & Walter, C. (2006). Comments on R. Ellis's "Current Issues in the Teaching
of Grammar: An SLA Perspective": Readers respond "Teach the Whole of the
152
Grammar" . TESOL Quarterly, 40(4), 837-839.
Takimoto, M. (2008). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the
development of language learners' pragmatic competence . The Modern Language
Journal, 92(3), 369-386.
Thompson, G. (1996). Some misconceptions about communicative language teaching.
ELT Journal, 50(1), 9-16.
Tobin, K. T., & Gallard, A. (1994). Research on instructional strategies for teaching. In D.
G. (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 45–93). New
York: Macmillan.
Tomasello, M. (1998). Introduction: A cognitive-functional perspective on language
structure. Mahwah: NJ: Erlbaum.
Truscott, J. (1998). Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review. Second
Language Research, 14(2), 103–135.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language
Learning, 46(2), 327-369.
Truscott, J. (1999). The case for "the case against grammar correction in L2 writing
classes": A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 111-122.
153
Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching:Practice and theory. Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press.
White, L., Spada, N., Lightbown, P., & Ranta, L. (1991). Input enhancement and question
formation. Applied Linguistics, 12(4), 416-432.
Williams, M., & Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology for language teacher: A social
constructivist approach. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, S. (1988). Understandng historical understanding: Subject matter knowledge
and the teaching of U.S. history. stanford University: Unpublished doctoral
dissertation.
Wu, K. Y. (1993). Classroom interaction and teacher questions revisited. RELC Journal,
24(2), 49-68.
Zobl, H. (1995). Converging evidence for the "acquisition- learning" distinction. Applied
Linguistics, 16(1), 35-56.
154
Appendices
Appendix A: Semi-structured Interview
(A)Participant’s Background
1. What is your age?
2. What was your major or minor?
3. What is your highest educational degree?
4. Do you have any TESOL certificates, diplomas, or teacher licenses?
5. What is your main language? Do you know other languages? How proficient are
you?
6. How long have you taught English? Please describe details, where and when?
7. How long have you been teaching at the current school?
8. Did you participate in any professional development (i.e. in-service programs,
workshops, conferences, etc.) to prepare you for English teaching? If yes, please
describe the professional development.
155
(B) Perceptions and Beliefs about Grammar Teaching
1. What do you think of the role of grammar in language learning and teaching?
2. Do you think grammar should be taught in a general (3-credit hour) language class?
Why or why not? If yes, at what age and proficiency should grammar be taught?
3. Do you agree grammar instruction can help students develop their English accuracy
and fluency? Why or why not? Which skills will be the most influenced by grammar
teaching.
4. How do you teach grammar? (Please describe more details, i.e. the design, approach
or strategy, and the procedure.) What grammar teaching method do you prefer? What
kind of techniques do you use frequently? Why?
5. Do you think grammatical terminology should be used in a general language class?
Why or why not?
6. Which textbook do you prefer? Why? How do you select your textbook in teaching?
How do you use your textbooks throughout the semester? Do you teach all chapters
and all grammar rules in the textbook?
7. Do you use other materials or resources to assist your teaching? Why? What are the
advantages and disadvantages of these materials?
156
8. Do you agree that the instructor plays an important role for students to learn grammar?
Why or why not?
9. What kind of personality trait makes a teacher a successful grammar teacher? What
qualification should a grammar teacher have?
10. Do you think it is necessary for you to encourage or support your students when they
are learning in the class? Why and why not?
11. What kind of feedback do you give your students? Do you think students’ errors
should be corrected?
12. Have you experienced difficulties in teaching grammar (like rule explanation,
language gap, or negative or positive of the environment/room )?
13. Do you use the same teaching strategies in both of your sections or do you adjust your
approach accordingly? Why or why not?
14. Do you have anything else to say about your grammar teaching?
157
Appendix B: Student Satisfaction Questionnaire
(A) Personal Information
1. Gender: Male___________, Female_____________
2. Years spent in the U.S.
Less than 6 moths ____, 6 months to 1 year _____, 1 year to 2 years _____, more than 2
years____
3. Country: ________________
4. Main Language : _______________
5. Major: _________________
6. TOEFL score: Before this class _________ The newest one: ___________
(B) Students’ Feedback
Please take a few minutes of your time to choose the response which best describes your opinion in the following statements.
Statements Strongly
agree Agree
No comment
Disagree Strongly disagree
Grammar Learning
I think the role of grammar in English learning is important.
I think it is necessary to learn grammar.
I think learning grammar can help me to develop English accuracy and fluency
158
Statements Strongly
agree Agree
No comment
Disagree Strongly disagree
Teacher
I think my instructor encourages students’ participation and discussion.
I think my instructor has great knowledge of grammar and abilities.
I think my instructor respects his students.
I think my instructor is enthusiastic about the courses he teaches.
I think my instructor encourages me to think rather than memorize.
I think my instructor cares about my learning.
I always receive my instructor’s encouragement and support.
Class
I think this course helps me to improve grammar well.
I think the structure/ organization of this course helps me to learn well.
I think this course can improve my English proficiency.
159
Statements Strongly
agree Agree
No comment
Disagree Strongly disagree
I think this class is appropriate for my English level.
I think this course uses appropriate equipment and learning tools.
Methods &Materials
I think the activities are interesting and useful.
I think the textbook is helpful.
I think the handouts and homework help me to practice grammar well.
Reflection
I never missed the class.
I think that I worked hard in class
I think I did well on my quizzes
I think that I came to class on time.
I think that I did homework every time.
I asked questions in the class.
I tried to work with some people who are from different countries.
Related Documents
