Focus on Grammar form - explicit or implicit

System 30 (2002) 433–458 www.elsevier.com/locate/system Focus on grammatical form: explicit or implicit? John Burgess, Siaˆn Etherington University of Salford, UK Received 12 December 2001; received in revised form 15 April 2002; accepted May 2002 Abstract Grammar teaching has been and continues to be an area of some controversy and debate have led to the emergence of a new classroom option for language teachers: that of Focus on Form (as opposed to Focus on Meaning or Focus on FormS) Against this background of ‘interesting times’ for grammar teaching, this paper reports research into teachers’ attitudes to grammar and its teaching and learning within an EAP context Responses from 48 EAP teachers in British university language centres produced both quantitative and qualitative data Results indicate that the majority of teachers in this study appreciate the value of grammar for their students and possess a sophisticated understanding of the problems and issues involved There is evidence to support a favourable attitude to Focus on Form approaches among this group A further finding concerns the importance of student characteristics, needs and wishes in influencing teachers’ classroom actions in relation to grammar # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd All rights reserved Keywords: Explicit; Form; Grammar; Implicit Introduction Grammar is being rehabilitated (e.g Doughty and Williams 1998a) and recognised for what it has always been (Thornbury, 1997, 1998): an essential, inescapable component of language use and language learning Few would dispute nowadays that teaching and learning with a focus on form is valuable, if not indispensable What perhaps are still the subject of debate are two points: the degree of explicitness such teaching and learning should display, and the relationship of grammar-focused learning to learning activities with other foci E-mail address: j.burgess1@salford.ac.uk (J Burgess) 0346-251X/02/$ - see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd All rights reserved PII: S0346-251X(02)00048-9 434 J Burgess, S Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458 This paper reports research into EAP (English for Academic Purposes) teachers’ attitudes towards grammar relating to these points among others Part of the paper briefly discusses aspects of grammar teaching and previous work on teacher attitudes to grammar Part outlines the research and its findings Grammar teaching and teacher attitudes 2.1 Approaches to grammar in the classroom The place and type of grammatical instruction within language learning has been the subject of language acquisition research and discussion for at least 40 years (Ellis, 2001) During this time, this research has developed in both its focus and methodologies The organisation of the discussion about the treatment of grammar has been centred on comparison of teaching methodologies (e.g Grammar-Translation vs Audio-Lingual) and on different classifications of approach (e.g Product or Process teaching as described by Batstone, 1994a,b; the Analytical or Experiential distinction proposed by Stern 1992) However, work over recent years has led to the adoption of new (or at least re-ordered) taxonomies for grammar instruction, based around the distinction, originally made by Long (1991), between Focus on FormS, Focus on Form and Focus on Meaning approaches Like many terms used within academic discussion there is a degree of differentiation in the use and definitions of these terms However, it appears to be generally accepted that Focus on FormS is characterised by a structuralist, synthetic approach to language, where the primary focus of classroom activity is on language forms rather than the meanings they convey Focus on Form, in contrast, ‘consists of an occasional shift of attention to linguistic code features—by the teacher or one or more students’ (Long and Robinson, 1998, p 23) Doughty and Williams (1998a, p 3) indicate that the Focus on Form approach provides learners an advantage over Focus on FormS teaching through the ‘cognitive processing support provided by the overriding focus on meaning or communication’ They continue, ‘to state this advantage rather simply, the learners’ attention is drawn precisely to a linguistic feature as necessitated by a communicative demand’ A third option is Focus on Meaning, an approach where classroom work is wholly concerned with communication of meaning but with no attention given to the forms used to convey this (The Natural Approach of Krashen and Terrell, 1983, and other ‘non-interventionist’ approaches are examples of this position.) It is possible to conflate Focus on FormS and Focus on Meaning approaches with the analytical and experiential options proposed by Stern (1992) However, Focus on Meaning does not now feature as strongly in discussion concerning grammar teaching as it once did: cumulated evidence from research in grammar learning and SLA suggests that some conscious attention to form is necessary for language learning to take place (see Ellis, 2001 for summary of research to date) It is questions around the nature of that attention which currently occupy researchers and commentators in the field (e.g Swain, 1998; Doughty and Varela, 1998) with a great J Burgess, S Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458 435 deal of work concerned with the production of taxonomies of options for formfocused teaching For example, Ellis’ (2001, 14f) taxonomy of approaches within what he terms Form Focused Instruction covers Focus on FormS, Planned Focus on Form, and Incidental Focus on Form This distinction between the planned or incidental nature of the focus on form is crucial for Ellis in terms of the type of learner interaction with the forms (intensive interaction with one form in the case of planned focus and extensive interaction covering several forms for incidental focus) Similarly, Doughty and Williams (1998b) have produced an extensive, detailed discussion of options within a Focus on Form approach along with an analysis of classroom tasks in terms of those options They too see choice between planned or incidental approach as significant (framed around a choice between proactive or reactive approaches) but also discuss the options concerning the choice of linguistic form for focus, the extent of explicitness of focus on form, how focus on form should be incorporated into a lesson (sequential or integrated) and its place within the curriculum as a whole Developments of this kind have produced a varied set of options for teachers to follow in relation to pedagogical grammar The research described in this paper attempts to establish some of the choices favoured by one group of teachers within a particular sector of the profession 2.2 Teacher attitudes to pedagogical grammar Previous work on attitudes and perceptions within language learning suggests that there is often a disparity between students and teachers (e.g Kumaravadivelu, 1991; Spratt, 1999) Such mismatches are often found around the area of grammar teaching For example, Brindley’s (1984) research within Adult Migrant Education in Australia found teachers more in favour of communicative activities, while students preferred more formal, explicit grammar teaching More recently, Schultz’s (1996, 2001) papers both delineate differences between teachers and students in two different language teaching contexts (the USA and Colombia, with students more favourable than teachers towards formal teaching of grammar and explicit correction However, despite this lack of correspondence between teacher and student views, research evidence also suggests that teachers may take learner wishes and preferences into account in their decision making around grammar teaching (Borg, 1998, 1999c; Macrory, 2000) One of the reasons for this appears to be that the inclusion of explicit grammar teaching fulfils several classroom management needs These include appeasing student concerns about lack of grammar, contributing to the pace of lessons, and making fluency work more relevant to students (Borg, 1998) These sorts of issues weigh heavily enough with teachers to influence their decisions, despite personal reservations about the pedagogical effectiveness of such grammatical treatment Indeed, Borg (1998, pp 25–26) indicates the complexity of the decision-making process for pedagogical grammar: he shows how conflicts occur between teacher cognitions in different areas (language, language learning, L2 436 J Burgess, S Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458 learning, grammar teaching, students and teacher’s self) and how principles become blurred in the course of practice Within the EAP sector, surveys have indicated that language problems and grammatical considerations are ranked fairly highly by students (e.g Blue, 1993; Grundy, 1993; Jordan, 1997, pp 46–47) Research also shows that academic tutors within universities feel that linguistic proficiency (with grammar playing a large part in this) is of importance (Tonkyn et al., 1993, p 42; Grundy, 1993; Jordan, 1997) However, comparisons of students and teachers in EAP suggest that, as in other areas of ELT, there is likely to be a mismatch between their attitudes and expectations (Jordan, 1997, p 53) and there is some evidence that grammar is again an area of contention For example, in a study of perceptions about writing, Leki (1995) reports that students cite grammar as an important component of good writing, whereas for teachers, more emphasis is placed upon rhetorical considerations There has, however, been comparatively little exploration of the beliefs of EAP teachers specifically concerning grammar and grammar teaching, despite indications that some focus on grammar is important at this level (e.g Leki and Carson, 1994; Robinson, 1991) Thus, the research detailed in Part aims to look more closely at what teachers in the EAP sector feel about grammar teaching and their students’ problems with grammar It could be argued that this group of teachers represent some of the most sophisticated within the TESOL profession; certainly they tend to be well-qualified and teachers of long-standing Thus, their views may provide something of a benchmark for the profession Additionally, the learners within this sector tend to be more advanced than those in other sectors, and, as decisions about grammar teaching may depend on proficiency level, it is of interest to see what choices these teachers make for these learners The research The earlier discussion indicates something of the ‘interesting times’ in which grammar teaching currently finds itself The wealth of research findings and accompanying protracted discussion about grammar and its teaching (Thornbury, 1997, 1998; Celce-Murcia et al., 1997; among others) mean that teachers are faced with a potentially bewildering range of options for use in their classrooms In such a climate, it is important that the opinions and experience of teachers themselves are not overlooked As Ellis (1998, p 58) points out, very little is known about how teachers transform their technical knowledge about the teaching of grammar through their actions As the profession moves into a ‘Post-method condition’ (Kumaravadivelu, 1994), it is becoming clearer that it is the choices made by teachers in their individual contexts which play a large part in determining the kind of teaching which takes place Thus, the beliefs and attitudes which influence teacher classroom decisions are important areas of study The research reported here aimed to fill some of the gaps in this area by providing a picture of one group of teachers’ beliefs concerning grammar and its teaching J Burgess, S Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458 437 3.1 Research questions The questions which this research sought to answer were as follows:
Which beliefs about grammar and grammar teaching are most widely held by EAP teachers?
Is there a bias towards decontextualised presentation of grammar and away from discourse-based, unified approaches? 3.2 Methods and materials The research was mainly quantitative in design, using a questionnaire to survey attitudes across a large group of teachers The questionnaire took the form of a fivepoint, Likert-type attitude scale, which was completed by EAP teachers in British universities Lengthier comments made by some of the teachers formed a body of qualitative data Finally, background information provided by the respondents allowed for the creation of a teacher profile 3.3 Subjects The importance of definition of context in the study of beliefs and attitudes has been well documented (Johnson, 1992, p 102; Pajares, 1992, p 327; Fortune, 1992, p 167) Questions should be as context-specific as possible in order to avoid ‘‘it depends’’ replies (Pajares ibid.) Thus, here only one teaching context was considered in order to make as close a connection as possible between teachers and their practical experience The context chosen was that of pre-sessional English for Academic Purposes classes in British universities These are typically summer classes of between and 12 weeks attended by overseas students who are about to begin studies in the university It was hoped that teachers in this context would prove to be a readily identifiable group Moreover, the specific nature of EAP classes would allow for as little variation as possible between class types Additionally, the presumed sophistication and experience of teachers within this area permitted the inclusion of specialised vocabulary within certain questions The choice of such a population also increased the possibility that subjects had some understanding/experience of the different approaches mentioned The BALEAP (British Association of Lecturers in English for Academic Purposes) members’ list was used as a source of addresses for EAP units and two questionnaires were mailed to each unit for completion This meant that a total of 128 questionnaires were dispatched It is believed that the targeted population provided a fair representation of EAP teachers on British university pre-sessional English courses It is important to acknowledge that a problem of ‘volunteer bias’ exists in the sample It represents only teachers who were sufficiently interested in the teaching of grammar to complete and return the questionnaires This bias could possibly have been lessened through interviews with non-respondents to allow comparison of 438 J Burgess, S Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458 answers Interviews with respondents could have also established reasons for the return of the questionnaire However, practicalities of time and funding prevented this option being effected Thus, the survey is unable to comment on the beliefs of university-based EAP teachers in general Nevertheless, the data collected are valuable, indicating the opinions of a substantial proportion of the population 48 replies were returned, representing a 37.5% response rate This sample size exceeds the number (30) which Cohen and Manion (1994, p 77) describe as the minimum for useful statistical analysis 3.4 The research instrument The questionnaire used for the collection of data is included in the Appendix Development of the questionnaire took place in several stages First, background reading led to the identification of certain dichotomies and continua within the teaching of language and of grammar in particular These were incorporated into a framework for a consideration of grammar teaching Key characteristics of each were identified as shown in Fig These characteristics were used as the basis for a set of open-ended questions concerning the teaching of grammar and these were subsequently completed by 12 MEd TESOL students (all experienced ESOL teachers) at Manchester University’s Centre for English Language Studies in Education Their responses were analysed for significant themes This element of qualitative research before embarkation on quantitative, and necessarily broader, work allowed for the generation of feelings, beliefs and ideas about grammar which the lone researcher may not have thought to include As a result of this stage statements Fig Dichotomies and continua in language teaching (adapted from Ellis, 1994; Stern, 1992) J Burgess, S Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458 439 Fig The typical respondent to the questionnaire about classroom implementation of grammar teaching principles were included in the final questionnaire This process also enabled the researcher to discover problematic terms which were then altered or omitted in the final questionnaire Both help to strengthen the validity of the research The final questionnaire took the form of a Likert-type attitude scale (cf KaravasDoukas, 1996) with responses to statements made on a 1–5 scale of agreement There was also some provision made for qualitative responses: teachers were encouraged to provide additional comments about their grammar teaching in a final open-ended question The questionnaire was piloted with teachers from The English Language Teaching Unit of Manchester University and further alterations made accordingly 3.5 Results and discussion From the data collected, it is possible to establish a picture of a typical respondent (Fig 2) In the data concerning teacher attitudes, areas where some conclusions can be drawn are:
the role of grammar in language
explicit grammar teaching, including
the importance of instruction
the role of declarative knowledge
consciousness in the learning of grammar
comparison and contrast of structures
the use of grammatical terminology
problem-solving activities
correction
presentation of grammar through authentic texts
the role of practice (Other statements either failed to provoke sufficient responses to be significant or produced no clear trend.) 440 J Burgess, S Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458 A table showing responses to statements concerning these themes is provided in the Appendix The data provide insight into attitudes relating to both theoretical principles and classroom implementation of these principles As might be expected, responding teachers showed a great deal of concern about classroom application of grammar teaching approaches Implications of the results for both areas are discussed together with findings Qualitative comments often gave further information about individual teachers’ beliefs and these are presented with the quantitative data where appropriate Other significant findings which emerged from the qualitative data are reported later (For a fuller report of the research project, see Etherington, 1997.) 3.5.1 The role of grammar in language Four of the statements in the survey were designed to probe teachers’ beliefs about the role of grammar in language These asked for reaction to different views about grammar’s role: as a framework for the rest of the language system; as the building blocks of language; as something which is added later to language proficiency; as an equal pillar supporting language proficiency Of these statements, two provoked a clear reaction Over 60% of respondents agreed that grammar could be viewed as a framework or a basic system for the rest of the language (statement 1.1a) However, the idea that grammar acts as something which is added on to language proficiency, a refinement of more basic language knowledge, was clearly rejected by the teachers in the survey (over 85% disagreed with this statement, 1.1c) It seems that this group of teachers view grammatical accuracy as integral to language and communication, not an optional add-on after basic communication has been achieved It can be inferred from these responses that this group of teachers would not feel comfortable with a syllabus which delayed teaching grammar until later in the learning process They may also be more likely to favour an integrated approach to grammar teaching 3.5.2 Explicit grammar teaching The explicit/implicit divide is seen by many as an important differentiation in teaching styles, and one which is distinct from analytical/experiential approaches (Ellis, 1994, pp 362–363; Stern, 1992, 327ff.) The dichotomies of unconscious/conscious learning and inductive/deductive teaching methods are both sometimes equated with the explicit/implicit teaching division The statements used here were based on the unconscious/conscious divide and use Stern’s (1992, 327f) characteristics for explicit and implicit teaching as a guide for individual items Attitudes to inductive and deductive methods were also investigated through statements concerning explicit presentation by teachers and students finding form-function matches for themselves There is a danger in seeing explicit and implicit teaching as opposing methods, rather than points on a continuum of options However, it was felt to be useful to ask teachers where they might place their EAP teaching on such a continuum The questions used touched both on how explicit teaching related to the principles of grammar teaching and on constraints which made teachers more or less likely to use such methods in the classroom The strongest indication of agreement in the survey came on Question 2.3, (My students expect teachers to present grammar points explicitly) This produced a mean score J Burgess, S Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458 441 of 4.17 and over 90% of responses were of agreement or strong agreement This is not a particularly surprising result Student expectations of traditional, explicit grammar teaching are familiar to many teachers (cf Borg, 1999a,b), and the popularity of grammar practice books for self-study purposes seems to confirm this view The responses here indicate that even with advanced, relatively sophisticated learners of the kind EAP teachers in universities tend to deal with, teachers believe that this expectation remains Responses to Question 2.13 (A lack of explicit grammar teaching leaves my students feeling insecure) support the view that students prefer explicit grammar teaching Here just under 70% of responses were in categories or 5, indicating agreement or strong agreement A useful comparison can also be made with the responses to Question 1.20, which also deals with the explicit treatment of grammar (Explicit discussion of grammar rules is helpful for students) Here responses were in a similar pattern, with the number of replies in category 4, agreement, (43.8%) and category 5, strong agreement, (25%) indicating a favourable reaction to the statement From these results it may be reasonable to conclude that while these teachers may feel that explicit teaching of grammar is favoured by their students because of expectations and feelings of security, the teachers also seem to support this approach for pedagogical reasons of their own Further light is shed on this issue by the written additions made to the questionnaires by several teachers Analysis of this qualitative data seems to show that teachers’ belief in the need for an explicit focus on grammar stems from something more than the wish to please students or from teachers’ own learning experiences Teachers wrote of ‘explicit’, ‘separate’, ‘analytical’ methods and ‘specific focus on form’ having a place in the teaching of grammar However, it is important to note that these views were also qualified in some way in added comments to the questionnaire: teachers stated that a separate focus was only appropriate at certain stages of learning, either moving on from communicative tasks; at intervals; or when students were already familiar with the form For example, one teacher indicated different treatment for students on different types of course: For most of our pre-sessional students (especially on a four-week course) we focus more on structuring essays, presentations etc for longer courses, and especially for weaker students, we focus more on grammar and language at sentence level’ (T36) A follow-up interview with teachers may have produced more specific information about what teachers mean by explicit methods and teaching of grammar However, teachers’ responses to other questionnaire items which are concerned with aspects of the implicit–explicit continuum provide some further detail about their understanding of, and orientation towards, this issue These are explored later 3.5.3 Instruction vs Exposure The question of specific instruction is an important one in the implicit–explicit debate Teachers’ feelings on this issue (is formal instruction necessary or is exposure to 442 J Burgess, S Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458 input sufficient?) provide a good indication of their orientation Findings indicate that most of the respondents agree that it is possible to learn grammar through natural exposure to language (over 50% of teachers responded positively to the statement: Students can learn grammar through exposure to language in natural use) However, there appears to be greater agreement with the view that instruction helps learners to produce grammatically correct language (over 70% of respondents agreed with the statement Formal instruction helps learners to produce grammatically correct language.) These two results not necessarily indicate a contradiction of opinion One possible interpretation is that these teachers believe in the possibility of learning grammar through input alone, but feel that learning is helped by instruction One comment expressing this view was: Most students at our university increase their oral communication competence but not their linguistic competence during 1, or even years at the university Their writing is as bad when they finish as when they started, unless they have had formal language instruction I.e they not ‘pick up’ grammar from meaningful exposure to the language during their sojourn in Britain (I stress most Some pick it up.) (T27) Replies here are linked to those concerning the relationship between declarative and procedural knowledge and the role of consciousness in learning 3.5.4 Declarative and procedural knowledge Statement 2.1 (My students find it difficult to transfer their grammatical knowledge into communicative language use) was designed to identify teachers’ beliefs concerning the possible transference of knowledge about grammar (declarative knowledge) into actual use of that knowledge in communication (procedural knowledge) Replies here indicate teachers’ recognition of this process as a problem for many of their students: there is no evidence of strong disagreement and over 52% of replies are of agreement or strong agreement (responses 4–5) A teacher comment which supports this view is: There is some disparity between knowledge of grammar and use of grammar—i.e because a student does not use grammatically correct English in a specific context does not mean that he or she lacks formal knowledge of that structure If you point out that there is an error, students can often self-correct (T10) Teachers’ understanding of this gap in students’ grammatical ability is perhaps not surprising for anyone who has taught at this level Most teachers are able to relate many examples of students who can recite grammatical rules perfectly, but have difficulty putting them into practice It would be interesting to discover if teachers who recognise these shortcomings in their students are more likely to use an integrated approach to grammar as a way of combating such problems; this is a possible direction for future research 444 J Burgess, S Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458 students talk about grammar they need terminology Indeed, metalinguistic discussion is seen by Stern (1992, p 327) as one of the characteristics of explicit language teaching Questions here sought to explore teachers’ perceptions of their students’ feelings about the use of grammatical terms For both questions 2.14, My students find grammatical terminology useful and 2.19, My students find it difficult to use grammatical terminology, there was a clear trend in responses The findings indicate that these teachers believe their students see grammatical terminology as useful (57% of replies showed agreement with statement 2.14) Similarly, there is some feeling that its use does not present a particular difficulty for students (47% showed their disagreement with statement 2.19, with only 21% indicating agreement of any kind) This seems to link to students’ preferences for explicit grammar teaching It may also be related to students’ previous language learning experiences: if these are based in the grammar-translation method, students will feel at home with this use of terminology 3.5.8 Problem solving Problem-solving approaches to grammar are often used at this level These frequently take the form of inductive techniques which challenge learners to find formfunction matches for themselves (e.g Hall and Shepheard, 1991) Many other consciousness-raising techniques use similar problem-solving approaches (e.g Fotos, 1994) The use of problem-solving techniques in consciousness raising tasks is seen as one of the characteristics of explicit grammar teaching (Stern, 1992, p 327; Ellis, 1997, p 84) There is clear agreement among these teachers that EAP students find a problemsolving approach motivating: positive responses to statement 2.2 (My students are motivated by problem-solving techniques for learning grammar) totalled more than 60% of replies Negative responses to Question 2.20 (My students are frustrated by problem-solving techniques for learning grammar) confirm this (57.8% of responses ranked this or 2), showing that teachers generally feel that problem-solving approaches at this level not produce frustration in the learners These answers can be seen to link to responses concerning real-life tasks as practice of language One possible interpretation is that teachers feel that students have a preference for the use of language to perform a well-defined task, rather than work without a practical outcome Indeed, EAP learners appear to be particularly suited to a problem-solving approach, since they tend to be relatively sophisticated, intelligent and experienced learners Moreover, comments from two of the teachers in the survey suggested that some language teaching techniques are particularly inappropriate for this sort of learner: Students at this level are often de-motivated by the ‘‘silly games’’ which are often used in the ESOL classroom These students need more serious approaches to language learning (T48) Many games and activities are too silly for the serious pre-sessional student (T34) J Burgess, S Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458 445 It would be interesting to compare answers here with those of a group of teachers in another ESOL sector, for example, ESL teaching in secondary schools, where typical learner characteristics may be different 3.5.9 Correction of errors Questions 1.16, 1.18, 2.15 and 2.16 produced significant results Teachers tended to disagree with statement 1.16 (Teachers should only correct student errors of form which interfere with communication), with only 19% of respondents showing positive replies This finding is supported by result for Statement 1.18 (Form-focused correction helps students to improve their grammatical performance) Here 56% of the teachers indicated their agreement with the statement From the earlier results, it might be inferred that teachers believe that errors of form should be corrected, even where communicative goals are attained This need for correction of form may indicate an awareness of the particular need of EAP students for accuracy and clarity It may also show a concern about fossilisation of errors in learners’ interlanguage A concentration on errors of form within an overall communicative setting can help to avoid such fossilisation Questions in the second part of the questionnaire tackled the difference between correction of written and spoken communication Replies to question 2.15 (Teachers find it difficult to correct student errors of grammar within a written communicative context) showed that the majority of teachers not seem to have difficulty in correcting errors within written communication Seventy-eight per cent of respondents disagreed with the statement It is interesting to compare responses to Question 2.15 with those to Question 2.16 (Teachers find it difficult to correct student errors of grammar within a spoken communicative context) Here, although the mean response (2.7) suggests that teachers felt that correction of spoken errors presented little difficulty, a fairly large number felt that this was a problem (almost 30% of respondents) It is interesting to note that this number is significantly higher than those who felt that correction represented a problem in the written mode (just over 6%) It could be concluded that teachers experience more difficulty in correction during students’ spoken rather than written communication Other questions in the survey focused on aspects of classroom practice more closely associated with implicit grammar teaching and learning Of these, responses to items concerning the role of practice and the use of authentic texts were of interest 3.5.10 Presentation in authentic, complete texts The choice of vehicle for presentation of grammar was focused on in statements connected with the use of authentic text for grammar work Authentic texts are understood as texts which are not produced for the purpose of language teaching, but arise for some other purpose in the ‘real world’ Connected to the idea of authentic text is the implication that these texts are complete and fully contextualised The antithesis of such vehicles for grammar presentation are the one sentence, context-free illustrations of grammar used in many text and practice books These decontextualised examples of language have been 446 J Burgess, S Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458 associated with a more analytical and explicit approach to language teaching Fuller, context-rich texts are typically present in an experiential approach, concentrating on doing things with language (authentic communication) rather than focusing on the language itself (Stern, 1990, p 106 1992, p 307 and 313) Recognition of these tensions led to the development of questions concerning the use of complete and authentic texts by teachers and student problems with them The teachers surveyed appear to feel that complete texts are a successful way of presenting grammar (56% of responses agreed or strongly agreed with Statement 1.15 Students learn grammar more successfully if it is presented within a complete text) Other questions concerning authentic texts asked about student problems with their use, focusing on possible difficulties of vocabulary, variety of structures, culture and the finding of form-function matches Teacher problems with authentic texts were also touched on: the difficulty of producing suitable tasks from such texts and the amount of time taken in using them were surveyed Responses clearly showed that these teachers not believe that the grammar in authentic texts is too difficult for students (53% of responses disagreed with Statement 2.6) In fact, it is the existence of specialised vocabulary within authentic texts which is more likely to be a problem for students and teachers: 52% of respondents agreed that vocabulary in authentic texts caused problems for their students (Statement 2.9) Responses to a statement about the amount of time needed for authentic texts (Question 2.11) seem to indicate no general feeling that authentic texts take too much time in the classroom or in preparation Such results can be interpreted in two ways: teachers not find the use of such texts particularly time-consuming, or they consider any extra time needed to be well-spent In conclusion, it is apparent that teachers are enthusiastic about the use of authentic texts in the classroom, with only difficult vocabulary appearing to present any real problems for learners 3.5.11 The role of practice Teachers were asked to comment on statements concerning both the role of practice and the types of practice which might prove more beneficial for learners Responses to Questions 1.5 (Students can improve their grammatical accuracy through frequent practice of structures) and 1.12 (Productive practice of structures is a necessary part of the learning process) provide some evidence for teachers’ belief that practice of structures is important for learning grammar and improving grammatical accuracy Seventy-five per cent of replies indicated agreement with the first of these statements, and 74% showed agreement with the second The important issue here concerns the type of practice used The recognised problems with the P-P-P model mean that these teachers’ perception of the phrase ‘Productive practice’ is crucial to understanding results here Do they mean production of the P-P-P kind or productive practice within a true communicative context? The phrase ‘practice of structures’ within both statements could suggest an ‘analytical’ approach to the learning of grammar, building up information about individual grammatical structures into an eventual knowledge of language as a whole Further light may be shed on this area by responses to Question 1.14 (Participating in real-life tasks with language is the best way for students to develop their grammatical J Burgess, S Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458 447 knowledge) Although the data here are not as clear-cut as in Questions 1.5 and 1.12, it seems that these teachers have some preference for real-life tasks for the development of grammatical structures: just over 50% of replies agree with the statement It could be argued that there is possible confusion here about the meaning of ‘real-life’ tasks (again follow-up interviews with respondents may have reduced this uncertainty) Nevertheless, the data seem to indicate that teachers understand the value of practising language as real communication The smaller numbers of positive responses to this statement may reflect some concern within this group of teachers about the lack of sufficient focus on form for development of grammatical knowledge, something which may be associated with purely communicative tasks (Batstone, 1994b, p 229; Johnson, 1992) 3.5.12 Further qualitative comments The qualitative data collected in the final part of the survey generally support the conclusions drawn earlier and have, for the most part, been discussed along with the quantitative data However, two powerful impressions made by teachers’ comments are better considered separately One supports the general conclusions drawn earlier; the other adds to the ideas presented there 3.5.12.1 Grammar work arises most naturally from skills work Four teachers wrote at length about their beliefs in this area, arguing that the best place for treatment of grammar was in the course of skills work, particularly writing For example, one teacher wrote: For me .‘‘grammar’’ comes out of and feeds back into academic writing It is academic writing and discourse functions which form the core of a pre-sessional EAP course Not the other way around (T48) Comments from other teachers also indicated favour for an integrated approach to grammar teaching: Generally I see grammar as a tool for communication and prefer to approach it in the context of a communicative task (usually reading/writing) (T25) I teach a great deal of academic writing but my classes are not grammar based but process and skills based I deal with grammar as the need arises from analysing my students’ work (T1) We tend to treat grammar as something which arises naturally from communicative language activities (T47) These comments suggest a reactive approach to grammar, responding to errors in student work in the course of a writing or reading task and as such appear to represent the ‘occasional shift of attention to linguistic code features’ which constitutes a Focus on Form approach for Long and Robinson (1998, p 23) 448 J Burgess, S Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458 3.5.12.2 Student characteristics play a large part in determining student wishes and what kind of grammar teaching is most appropriate for students Almost a quarter of the teachers mentioned that students’ backgrounds and previous learning experiences had a large impact on their present learning preferences For example, What students want by way of grammar also depends on personal background and experiences of English learning context (T5) Students often ask for more grammar They are usually over 35 or from a country whose own education system relies heavily on grammar-translation method (T47) (in response to item 2.5 ‘My students prefer to find matches between meaning and structure for themselves’) ‘This is cultural- Asian students tend to resist this type of learning activity’ (T19) Additionally, for some teachers it appears that student expectations and preferences may be a factor in their choice of grammar teaching approach For example, Within the language centre our courses cater for a large number of Asian students particularly from Japan and Korea and student expectations regarding grammar teaching obviously affect teaching More traditional methods tend to be more readily accepted: although we can but try! (T17) Many students still want explicit grammar teaching isolated from other work and I run a 10 week course which is largely input due to class size (T 29) This interpretation accords with Borg’s findings (1998) concerning the influence of student preferences on teachers’ pedagogic decisions Several teachers identified other individual differences as important when deciding on their approach to grammar: these included student level, subject area, age, culture and mother tongue For example, comments included: Students are all different—so techniques depend on their levels, nationalities etc It also depends on whether they’re EFL, EAP, Business students etc (T32) Students from different language learning backgrounds and L10 s have different problems (T2) The approach is determined by different needs/interests/level of ability of English in the students My own approach varies enormously (T7) Such comments reflect Celce-Murcia and Hilles’ (1988) discussion of the learner variables which may influence choices of teaching approaches They also serve to J Burgess, S Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458 449 emphasise the importance of placing any study of teaching beliefs and practice within as specific a context as possible Although the research design attempted to restrict the context as much as possible, any future research may well to take note of the factors mentioned here in addition to that of classroom context However, it should also be noted that too great a consideration of student differences may lead to a study of individuals only, with no power to generalise 3.6 Limitations of this research The survey was not limited to questions about only one approach to grammar teaching It covered a wide range of options within different methodologies Therefore, it was impossible to construct a questionnaire conforming to strict Likert-scale methodology, allowing no opportunity to use the ‘split half’ method in order to check reliability (Karavas-Doukas, 1996; Cohen and Manion, 1994) However, certain statements were paired to provide some possibility of checking the consistency of teachers’ replies in some areas Where paired statements existed replies were seen to be consistent The inclusion of different approaches to grammar teaching within one questionnaire does, however, provide a reasonably realistic view of teacher beliefs These are complex and dynamic entities, with many factors influencing them—not static, one-dimensional objects which can be judged through one viewpoint alone The study does not include any observation of teachers’ actual classroom behaviour This could have provided valuable triangulation for the attitudes expressed within responses (Pajares, 1992, p 316) However, it was hoped that questions about practice included in the second section of the questionnaire would cover this area The lack of follow-up interviews is a major limitation to the study This would have given greater reliability to results In addition, interviews with some of the teachers who chose not to return questionnaires would have shown how typical the respondents were among EAP teachers as a whole There is a strong possibility of a response effect here, with teachers giving replies which are not accurate representations of their actual attitudes, but are calculated to present a favourable impression to the researcher However, it has been argued that such data are nevertheless useful, since they reflect feelings and beliefs about an ideal professional, in this case teaching, situation (Davies, 1997, p 154) Similarly, Block (1998, pp 151–152) argues that such replies may indicate the type of discourse which is permitted within one discourse community and as such are representative of the community as a whole The context used for the research may not have been specific enough: many teachers intimated that they made judgements concerning teaching approaches based on each particular class which they teach Moreover, classes which can be described as ‘pre-sessional EAP’ vary a great deal across and within different institutions Further research within a tighter context may be desirable Despite these limitations, it is felt that this work represents a step towards a better understanding of teachers’ thoughts and feelings about grammar teaching in the EAP context 450 J Burgess, S Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458 3.7 Discussion of results From the results it seems possible to make some claims about the beliefs of this group of EAP teachers concerning grammar and grammar teaching The majority of teachers represented here appear to see grammatical knowledge as important for their students and to have a sophisticated understanding of the problems and issues involved in its teaching The importance placed on grammatical issues may be surprising in light of research reported earlier which suggests that grammar may not hold so much weight for teachers Indeed, there does not appear to be a bias towards decontextualised presentation of grammar for these teachers, but instead they seem to favour more discoursebased approaches Their concern for grammar in connection with an apparent inclination towards the use of authentic, full texts and real-life tasks for practice may indicate that these teachers are well-disposed to a Focus-on-Form approach Qualitative comments appear to reinforce this view, particularly those suggesting that teachers prefer explicit teaching of grammar within communicative or skills-based work It can be argued that Focus on Form teaching has only emerged fairly recently within the research and methodological literature (see Ellis, 2001; Doughty and Williams, 1998a) and thus it is interesting to speculate about the origins of this group of teachers’ preferences Are they the result of an influence of research on practice, or they stem from teachers’ personal intuitions about what works best in their classrooms? Without a much more in-depth study, it is difficult to determine the factors which influence teachers’ thinking in this area However, reference to student characteristics, needs and wishes in several answers indicate that teachers’ classroom actions are not determined by theoretical beliefs alone, but that student reaction to different approaches is taken into account 3.8 Conclusion The research reported here has attempted to discover something about the state of grammar teaching in EAP courses in British universities, both in relation to theoretical issues and concerning problems of implementation of principles The results paint a picture of the approaches to grammar teaching taken in EAP courses across the UK which may be encouraging to those who advocate a Focus on Form approach The EAP context demands high levels of grammatical accuracy and communicative effectiveness from learners and thus is an area in which a Focus on Form approach would appear to be particularly appropriate Student preferences for grammar work may not accord with a Focus on Form approach (they may stem from more traditional grammar treatments) but teachers may be able to utilise these feelings to include more integrated, skills-based grammar work in their courses Teachers may however, also need to be explicit in indicating to students the grammar-orientation of these sorts of activities in order that they are appreciated as fulfilling student wishes 451 J Burgess, S Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458 Appendix A Questionnaire for course tutors SECTION ONE: APPROACHES TO THE TEACHING OF GRAMMAR Please indicate how far you agree with the following statements about the role and teaching of grammar on a typical pre-sessional EAP course If you agree strongly mark a5 on the scale, if you strongly disagree mark a on the scale Please feel free to add any comments you wish to make Disagree a) b) c) d) The role of grammar in language is as: (please a framework for the rest of the language— a basic system to build everything else on the building blocks of language which are combined to form a whole something which is added on to language proficiency: a refinement of more basic language knowledge an equal pillar in supporting language proficiency (Other pillars could be knowledge about pronunciation, appropriacy or culture etc.) Agree answer for each option) 5 5 Students can learn grammar through exposure to language in natural use Formal instruction helps learners to produce grammatically correct language Student use of language does not involve conscious knowledge of the grammatical system and how it works 5 Students can improve their grammatical accuracy through frequent practice of structures Students need a conscious knowledge of grammar in order to improve their language Practice of structures must always be within a full, communicative context 452 J Burgess, S Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458 Separate treatment of grammar fails to produce language knowledge which students can use in natural communication Students need to be consciously aware of a structure’s form and its function before they can use it proficiently 10 The separation of work with a grammar focus from the rest of the language syllabus is useful for students 11 Decontextualised practice of structures has a place in language learning 12 Productive practice of structures is a necessary part of the learning process 13 Grammar is best taught through work which focuses on message 14 Participating in real-life tasks with language is the best way for students to develop their grammatical knowledge 15 Students learn grammar more successfully if it is presented within a complete text 16 Teachers should only correct student errors of form which interfere with communication 17 Comparison and contrast of individual structures is helpful for students learning grammar 18 Form-focused correction helps students to improve their grammatical performance 19 Grammar is best taught through a focus on individual structures 20 Explicit discussion of grammar rules is helpful for students 453 J Burgess, S Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458 SECTION TWO: STUDENT AND TEACHER DIFFICULTIES WITH GRAMMAR These are questions about how students and teachers deal with grammar in the classroom Again please indicate your agreement or disagreement with these statements as above Disagree Agree My students find it difficult to transfer their grammatical knowledge into communicative language use My students are motivated by problem-solving techniques for learning grammar My students expect teachers to present grammar points explicitly My students prefer to learn grammar from onesentence examples 5 My students prefer to find matches between meaning and structure for themselves My students find it difficult to handle grammar presented within authentic texts My students find authentic texts difficult because of the wide variety of structures which appear My students find authentic texts difficult because they are too culture bound My students find authentic texts difficult because of the vocabulary used 10 My students cannot find form-function matches in authentic texts without explicit direction from teachers 11 Teachers find the use of authentic material too time-consuming 12 Teachers find it difficult to produce tasks of a suitable level from authentic texts 454 J Burgess, S Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458 13 A lack of explicit grammar teaching leaves my students feeling insecure 14 My students find grammatical terminology useful 15 Teachers find it difficult to correct student errors of grammar within a written communicative context 16 Teachers find it difficult to correct student errors of grammar within a spoken communicative context 17 My students find it difficult to improve the accuracy of their grammatical language within a totally communicative writing activity 18 My students find it difficult to improve the accuracy of their grammatical language within a totally communicative speaking activity 19 My students find it difficult to use grammatical terminology 20 My students are frustrated by problem-solving techniques for learning grammar
Please add any further comments which you have about your approach to the teaching of grammar and any problems with grammar which occur in the classroom SECTION THREE: INFORMATION ABOUT YOU AND YOUR TEACHING SITUATION Name of department: Name of course you are teaching at present: Number of students in class: Do you teach general or subject-specific EAP? If you specialise in one area, please indicate what this is (e.g Science, Economics, Law, Social Science etc.) 455 J Burgess, S Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458 How long have you taught academic English?(please tick one)
less than one year
1–3 years
3–5 years
more than years Are you a full-time EAP teacher? yes/no What other types of teaching you do? (please tick as appropriate)
General English
Business English
English for Science and Technology
ESL support in schools
Other (please specify) Please add any other information about your teaching situation which you feel may be of interest to this survey MANY THANKS FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION TABLE OF RESULTS Item number 1.1a 1.1c 1.12 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.9 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.20 Frequency of responses (1=Strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree) Valid percentages (1=Strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree) missing value 24 12 1 17 13 11 11 6 17 9 11 18 11 14 16 15 16 16 11 12 21 24 15 25 30 17 10 14 19 23 24 21 11 10 12 10 12 1 0 0 1 0 8.7 51.1 4.3 6.3 19.6 2.1 25.0 2.1 10.6 2.1 2.1 10.9 36.2 4.3 18.8 8.3 28.3 2.1 22.9 22.9 12.8 12.5 36.2 4.2 18.8 4.2 19.6 12.8 17.0 22.9 14.6 39.1 22.9 29.2 16.7 34.0 31.3 34.0 33.3 22.9 25.0 45.7 51.1 31.3 52.1 8.7 62.5 35.4 20.8 29.8 39.6 14.9 47.9 50.0 43.8 15.2 23.4 20.8 25.0 4.3 12.5 10.4 14.6 21.3 16.7 4.3 14.6 6.3 25.0 456 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.6 2.9 2.11 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.19 2.20 J Burgess, S Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458 1 10 3 21 18 27 20 16 23 19 12 14 15 11 19 14 17 18 26 28 18 25 23 12 15 1 1 3 2 2.1 2.1 6.7 21.7 2.2 19.6 10.6 13.0 6.7 6.5 6.4 2.1 46.7 14.9 39.1 11.1 2.1 58.7 42.6 34.8 51.1 41.3 25.5 4.3 31.1 31.9 23.9 17.8 40.4 15.2 17.0 30.4 37.8 39.1 55.3 59.6 13.3 38.3 15.2 55.6 48.9 6.5 25.5 19.6 2.2 13.0 10.6 31.9 2.2 14.9 13.3 8.5 4.3 2.2 2.2 References Batstone, R., 1994a Grammar Oxford University Press, Oxford Batstone, R., 1994b Product and process: grammar in the second language classroom In: Bygate, M., Tonkyn, A., Williams, E (Eds.) Grammar and the Language Teacher Prentice Hall, Hemel Hempstead pp 224–236 Block, D., 1998 Tale of a language learner Language Teaching Research 2.2., 148–176 Blue, G.M., 1993 Noting succeeds like linguistic competence: the role of language in academic success In: Blue, G.M (Ed.), Language Learning and Success: Studying through English Review of English Language Teaching 3/1 MET/British Council Borg, S., 1998 Teachers’ pedagogical systems and grammar teaching: a qualitative study TESOL Quarterly 32 (1) Borg, S., 1999a The use of grammatical terminology in the second language classroom: a qualitative study of teachers’ practices and cognitions Applied Linguistics 20 (1), 95–126 Borg, S., 1999b Teachers’ theories in grammar teaching ELT Journal 53 (3), 157–167 Borg, S., 1999c Studying teacher cognition in second language grammar teaching System 27 (1), 19–31 Brindley, G., 1984 Needs Analysis and Objective Setting in the Adult Migrant Education Program NSW Adult Migrant Education Service, Sydney Celce-Murcia, M., Doărnyei, Z., Thurrell, S., 1997 Direct approaches in L2 instruction: a turning point in communicative language teaching? TESOL Quarterly 31 (1), 141–152 Celce-Murcia, M., Hilles, S., 1988 Techniques and Resources in Teaching Grammar Oxford University Press, Oxford Cohen, L., Manion, L.C., 1994 Research Methods in Education Routledge, London Davies, L., 1997 Interviews and the study of management In: Crossley, Vulliamy (Eds.), Qualitative Educational Research in Developing Countries Garland, London Doughty, C., Varela, J., 1998 Communicative focus on form In: Doughty, C., Williams, J (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 114–138 Doughty, C., Williams, J (Eds.), 1998a Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Doughty, C., Williams, J., 1998b Pedagogical choices in focus on form In: Doughty, C., Williams, J (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 197–262 Ellis, R., 1994 The Study of Second Language Acquisition Oxford University Press, Oxford J Burgess, S Etherington / System 30 (2002) 433–458 457 Ellis, R., 1997 SLA Research and Language Teaching Oxford University Press, Oxford Ellis, R., 1998 Teaching and research: options in grammar teaching TESOL Quarterly 32 (1), 39–60 Ellis, R., 2001 Introduction: Investigating Form-Focused Instruction Language Learning Supplement 1: Form-Focused Instruction and Second Language Learning 51, 1–46 Etherington, S., 1997 Teachers’ Attitudes to the Teaching of Grammar within the Context of English for Academic Purposes Unpublished Masters Dissertation, University of Manchester Fortune, A., 1992 Self-study grammar practice: learners’ views and preferences English Language Teaching Journal 46 (2), 160–171 Fotos, S., 1994 Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks TESOL Quarterly 28, 323–351 Grundy, P., 1993 Student and Supervisor Perceptions of the role of English in Academic Success In: Blue, G.M (Ed.), Language Learning and Success: Studying through English Review of English Language Teaching 3/1 MET/British Council Hall, N., Shepheard, J., 1991 The Anti-Grammar Grammar Book Longman, London Imssalem, N., 1997 Communicative Pedagogic Grammar for Learning Another Language Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Manchester Johnson, K., 1992 The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices during literacy instruction for non-native speakers of English Journal of Reading Behaviour 24 (1), 83–108 Jordan, R., 1997 English for Academic Purposes Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Karavas-Doukas, E., 1996 Using attitude scales to investigate teachers’ attitudes to the communicative approach ELT Journal 50 (3), 187–198 Krashen, S., Terrell, T., 1983 The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom Pergamon, Oxford Kumaravadivelu, B., 1991 Language learning tasks: teacher intention and learner interpretation ELT Journal 45 (2), 98–107 Kumaravadivelu, B., 1994 The post-method condition: emerging strategies for second/foreign language teaching TESOL Quarterly 28 (1), 27–48 Leki, I., Carson, J., 1994 Student perceptions of EAP writing instruction and writing needs across the disciplines TESOL Quarterly 28 (1) Leki, I., 1995 Good writing: I know it when I see it In: Belcher, D., Braine, G (Eds.), Academic Writing in a Second Language Ablex Publishing, Norwood, NJ Long, M.H., 1991 Focus on form: a design feature in language teaching methodology In: de Bot, K., Ginsberg, R., Kramsch, C (Eds.), Foreign Language Research in Cross-Cultural Perspective John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 39–52 Long, M.H., Robinson, P., 1998 Focus on form: theory, research and practice In: Doughty, C., Williams, J (Eds.) pp 15–41 Macrory, G., 2000 Learning to Teach Grammar in the MFL classroom and some implications for Initial Teacher Education Research In Education 64, 1–11 Murphy, R., 1985 English Grammar in Use Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Pajares, F (1992) Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct Review of Educational Research 62(3), 307–332 Robinson, P.C., 1991 ESP Today: A Practitioner’s Guide Prentice Hall, Hemel Hempstead Schmidt, R., 1990 The role of consciousness in second language learning Applied Linguistics 10, 209– 231 Schultz, R., 1996 Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: students’ and teachers’ views on error correction and the role of grammar Foreign Language Annals 29 (3), 343–364 Schultz, R., 2001 Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback: USA—Colombia The Modern Lang Journal 85 (ii), 244–258 Soars, J., Soars, L., 1986 Headway Intermediate Oxford University Press, Oxford Spratt, M., 1999 How good are we at knowing what learners like? System 27, 141–155 Stern, H.H., 1990 Analysis and experience as variables in second language pedagogy In: Harley, B., Allen, P., Cummins, J., Swain, M (Eds.), The Development of Second Language Proficiency Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 93–109 ... adoption of new (or at least re-ordered) taxonomies for grammar instruction, based around the distinction, originally made by Long (1991), between Focus on FormS, Focus on Form and Focus on Meaning... taxonomies of options for formfocused teaching For example, Ellis’ (2001, 14f) taxonomy of approaches within what he terms Form Focused Instruction covers Focus on FormS, Planned Focus on Form, and Incidental... proactive or reactive approaches) but also discuss the options concerning the choice of linguistic form for focus, the extent of explicitness of focus on form, how focus on form should be incorporated